Yesterday me and my friend had an argument about viking axes. So there are couple of points that we made and couldn't find a final answer. 1 - He said the axe was a common weapon is it correct? 2 - That the axes were used as throwing weapons. Why wouldn't go with a javelin for that? Isnt it a lot easier than calculating the spin of the axe? 3 - Axe is equal or advantageous than spears mainly because you can hook the spear and get close or just break the spear with the axe.
To quote myself from an earlier thread on archery:
Prevalence (or perhaps: ubiquity) is difficult to measure, since we don't have descriptions of combat that are detailed and reliable enough to give us any sort of idea at all. Our next best bet is grave data, although there's no reason to assume people were buried the way they lived. I have a data set of 723 Viking-Age graves from Gotland, and perhaps it's best to jump straight into the numbers:
20 of 723 graves on Gotland have arrowheads. 25 have swords or parts of swords; 19 have a seax (a single-edged sword, like a machete); 24 have spears; 34 have axes; 7 have shields. Two initial caveats: (1) These figures reflect the numbers of graves that include these items, i.e., I counted the number of Gotland graves with swords, not the number of swords buried on Gotland. (2) Some graves include more than one type of weapon, such as an axe and a spear, and so these graves are counted twice in the list above. I created my dataset for a different purpose, so I'm limiting myself to the quick analysis I can do (i.e. counting) without combing through or recreating data columns.
Those are the problems with the data itself. There's also the problem of representativeness. Do the artifacts in grave represent the things people would have had in life? Probably not. For example, Gotland picture stones from the same time seem to represent almost everyone wielding a sword. It's easy to assume that the stone carvers were just looking for simple symbols of warrior identity as they carved their figures (although they might have other reasons for doing so). At any rate, it makes the diversity of weapons buried in graves stand out, as well as the apparent absence of shields.
Some of this is likely due to the ways archaeologists work. Especially during the early years of excavations in the 1800s and early 1900s, archaeologists sometimes picked up only the big fancy items and might easily miss a fragmented spearhead or the smaller remains of arrowheads. In England, we know that some early antiquarians sold the metal from a boat grave at Sutton Hoo to be turned into horseshoes. In Sweden, at least one excavator used dynamite so he could clear three or more rock-covered burial mounds each day. These aren't great conditions for counting individual artifacts, although almost all of the graves in this data set come from the 1930s–1970s.
But the bigger source of difference is probably that people made all sorts of decisions—some of which we might never understand—when they buried their dead. Perhaps you want to keep a sword in the family, so you bury your dad with an axe instead. Or perhaps you've got certain beliefs about Odin and spears, and so you bury your sword-heaving dad with a spear instead. Maybe your dad once hunted a boar, so you bury him with his hunting spear, even though he'd never harm another person and certainly never fought in any battles.
Where does this leave us? Well, it seems that arrows were just about as common as other weapons, including swords, seaxes, spears, and axes. Since multiple kinds of weapons appear in some graves, we can estimate that about 25% of people buried with weapons on Gotland were buried with arrows [or about 40% of people buried with weapons on Gotland were buried with axes, about 5% of all the graves in my inventory]. That figure might reflect how prevalent archery was in combat, it might reflect the practice of bowhunting in Viking-Age Scandinavia, and/or it might reflect beliefs about the what meanings or symbolism were behind different kinds of weapons.
In sum: (1) Axes were probably fairly common as a weapon, or at least commonly available to be used as a weapon. They certainly would have been carried on raids at least for boat repairs. (2) I can't imagine they were used as throwing weapons. People in the early Middle Ages didn't often throw iron away. (3) We lack the sources to know whether axes were really used in battle, much less how they were used. Any answers here would be highly speculative, although there might be some anecdotal stories in later saga literature that could inform a few hypotheses. At any rate, I don't think early medieval spear and axe forms were compatible with the kind of "hooking" technique you describe. Perhaps that's a later medieval development?
1 - He said the axe was a common weapon is it correct?
u/textandtrowel has already discussed archaeological evidence about how common axes were. We also have literary evidence, in the form of the sagas. The axe is the 3rd most common weapon mentioned, making up about 15% of mentions of weapons (with swords at about 35% and spears at about 24%). It is probable that the sagas over-mention swords compared to other weapons, since they often focus on the exploits of famous warriors who were more likely than average to own swords.
2 - That the axes were used as throwing weapons. Why wouldn't go with a javelin for that? Isnt it a lot easier than calculating the spin of the axe?
Spears appear to have been thrown much more often than axes. There are some mentions of throwing axes in the sagas, including in battle. From St Olaf's Saga,
They who stood in front hewed down with their swords; they who stood next thrust with their spears; and they who stood hindmost shot arrows, cast spears, or threw stones, hand-axes, or sharp stakes.
The throwing of axes in smaller-scale fights is also described. In Harðar saga og Hólmverja,
Sigurd is still finely well. He kills many men, and endures wounds upon him. Thorvald snatches at Sigurd and thrusts through him with a spear. Sigurd kept balanced with his axe. He then casts his axe towards Thorvald and it arrives at his head and they fall down dead together.
In this case, the axe-throwing was to kill his killer - run through by Thorvald's spear, the only way Sigurd could reach to strike back was to throw his axe.
In Laxdaela Saga, we have a wood-axe, a tool used as an improved weapon, being thrown:
Next Helgi leapt so boldly out of the door so that those nearest shrunk aback. Thorgils was standing near, and struck after him with a sword, and caught him on the shoulder and made a great wound. Helgi turned to meet him, and had a wood-axe in his hand, and said, "Still the old one will dare to look at and face weapons," and therewith he flung the axe at Thorgils, and the axe struck his foot, and a great wound that was.
3 - Axe is equal or advantageous than spears mainly because you can hook the spear and get close or just break the spear with the axe.
If this was the case, it is unlikely that the spear would have been the king of the battlefield. An axe is light and easy to carry - why bother carrying a spear if an axe is equal or better?
Axes can be used for hooking weapons and shields, and opponents by the neck or limbs. It is possible to hook a spear but assuming it can be done easily is similar to assuming that "a spear is no problem, because I can just grab the haft, or dodge their thrust and close in". Similarly, trying to cut through a spear haft is no anti-spear panacaea. Attempting to either hook or cut a spear haft brings one dangerously close to the spearman, while being too far away to directly harm him.