and also every peasant fighting for their life ever hahaha. I think there is a reason it was more of a tool than weapon. throwing them on the other hand would make everyone give up just to laugh at you so that may have worked hahaha

@@justpettet3506 Dare to be stupid..

@@pike8290 Put down that chainsaw and listen to me.

@@justpettet3506 The sort of axe that Throwing Axemen are holding in the AoE2 sprite isn't actually a throwing axe, but throwing axes are an actual thing that existed and was used. They weren't used exclusively for throwing, true, but they were designed to be throwable if the situation called for it. It's not even something that was unique or special to any one people group or time in history. Native American tomahawks were often thrown as well. Also, it may surprise you, but axes were more commonly used weapons than swords. Not only were they easier to make, they were also more effective in a lot of cases. Much like spears, they didn't get as much coverage in stories more because they weren't as "cool" as swords were, and because the people who could afford swords consistently were the ones the stories were usually written about.

Drljinson thanks for the information man I appreciate it

In retaliation.

''Nothing''

I am not sure how to feel about this comment.

@@T90Official what's your opinion on spaghetti

T90Official do you eat it with no sauce, tomato sauce or what?

Spaghetti Michael i likey

Then I saw T90 and knew I was actually telling good jokes

8 months later....

11 months later...

ty tyler v cool

It is the hook which is usually used to hit the enemy at his collar bone and then just shred it or to take away his shied with the curved beard of the axe

Also, an improvement on the Francisca, or throwing axe, which is the origin of the name "Franks". The more you know...

Also, it can only be wielded by a bearded man.

@@aniketkulkarni6341 It's actually used to have your hand behind the head of the axe to "punch" with it, or have very fine control of the head's alignment. It's still common in some camping wood axes for this reason. Getting your weapon caught on an opponent's shield ("hooking their shield") is *exactly* what the your enemy wants their shield to do. Hooking a shield might make sense if "dual wielding" was a thing in real life so you could still strike while disabling their shield.... but it's not and never has been. As far as I'm aware it only existed in some tourneys as showmanship, like... a clown car. It never worked in combat. As far as collar bone, a beard doesn't offer anything over a regular axe head. You wouldn't be able to "hook" the bone through chain mail or a gambeson. And again, getting your weapon caught up is just going to screw you over.

@@Cinjrak I won't say it never worked in combat. You'd usually want to have a really big shield like a Viking round shield in your other hand when you're looking to hook your opponent's shield. The round shield is huge, and can be considered a weapon itself with how it might have been used historically (watch any videos from Roland Warzecha demonstrating its possible usage - he based his theories off of combat treatises). Hooking your opponent's round shield away, hold the opening with your own shield while keeping your shield between you and your opponent's blade, and then thrusting with your axe seems like a valid tactic (again, Roland demonstrated this in a spar). I don't think it's effective in the battlefield though - the last thing you want is to get tangled with just one other guy while his friends make a pin cushion out of you. But any weapon + shield troop isn't too effective in the battlefield during age of pike and shot anyway (the disbanding of rodeleros is proof of this). Hooking of shields might have worked in combat, but only in a duel, small enough skirmishes, or as you have mentioned, tournaments.

he did say "in most cases", but I like your comment anyway

All they need is a fortified wall

ya boy Eric Columbine RİP Eric Dylan

Wish I had fast internet access when I was in university in 2001 - 2, when I first played AoE2. Would have helped me out so much. I had to take my Windows 2000 laptop to a phone line whenever I wanted to connect lol and it cost so much

Someone who uses an axe = an axeman. Someone who uses a throwing axe = a throwing axeman

Most troops were named based on the weapon they wield. Sword = Swordsman Spear = Spearman Throwing axe = Throwing axeman

@@pekicodex6233 Frakisca (a kind of throwing axe) = Franks

@@pekicodex6233 l know. Throwing Axemen still sounds wrong 😕

maybe throwingaxe men?

I feel inclined to add that 'Yeoman' was actually a class of people in the feudal caste system. It was used to describe free men who were neither nobles nor serfs. Free men were expected to serve in the town militia, a tradition that started as a reaction to viking raids since the vikings would raid a town and be gone before the defender's army showed up. In response, the English and Welsh towns started walling up and having the townsmen learn to fight, just so they could repel a small raiding force at all times. (The Scots and the Irish had a militia tradition too, though in their case it was more them just liking to fight a lot.) After the vikings, service in the militia became the social price men had to pay to keep nobility to a minimum. Strong militia meant the full time military didn't need to be as large. So, one day a week, everybody drilled. The yeoman, not being nobles, couldn't afford the best armor and horses, so they trained with the bow, and they got *really* good with them. I'm pointing this out so people don't mistake Yeoman Archers as some sort of elite military unit. They were not full time soldiers, just men who took their destiny in their own hands and got good with a weapon. The British populace kept themselves well armed. Thus, they were able to negotiate more freedoms ahead of continental Europe. Yeoman archers ended up being one of the building blocks of western civilization.

When I see Yeoman, it reminds of Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth.

It is a man of God, it can do whatever the fuck it wants.

This reminds me that I need more Rubenstock ASAP

Scratch that, they did have a notable beard.

it hurts

God Damnit, why did i read more

that wouldn't work; they would just switch it cooperatively. Maybe if it killed half the players, excluding the one holding it and already dead players.

​@@robertlewis6915Yes, it's "team" effort to keep it from hitting 0. You don't want to hold it too long yourself or else you all die, but you also don't want anyone else holding onto it cause then they have a res advantage. The point is to keep a battle going in mid while simultaneously trying to King snipe. You capture mid for the res, defend it as long as you can, then let the rest fight over it while you plan a snipe. They could make the map have low res so there is more incentive to fight for mid as well.

@@BaldorfBreakdowns 1. I think I misunderstood your statement, and that coudl work, from my limited knowledge of the game. 2. the monument would have to give significant resources to make it worth fighting over with armies of noticeable size, but if it did, it could give a run-away advantage to the guy with the best military, snowballing his lead. Though diplo would negate that at least in part.

@@robertlewis6915 Yeah, I can't be certain how well it'd work, but in my mind it seems interesting. Taking some backup res off the map I think would be a must. T90 and the others would have to figure the right balance of res from mid, so it's worthwhile but not broken.

@@BaldorfBreakdowns Changed my dislike to a like, belatedly. Intriguing idea.