5 ms·

Sadistic? Ancient armies regularly hacked at each other with these battle axes, along with swords, spears, and other sharp weapons. It was as normal as guns ar

Sadistic? Ancient armies regularly hacked at each other with these battle axes, along with swords, spears, and other sharp weapons. It was as normal as guns are today.

geoffpado 8y ago
I think he meant sadistic purely in the context of woodworking, not in the context of military.
- evilduck 8y ago
  I'm not even sure it's about battle, I think it's just being aware of where misplaced a axe blow will end up (missing your target when chopping wood and hitting yourself in the shin or foot is a common injury).
  - parsthis 8y ago
    Oh and boy has that happened to me. Not an axe specifically but a machete!
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  I thought he or she was calling severing a leg with a battle axe sadistic (which I disagree with, depending on the context).
  - metaphor 8y ago
    Given what I believed to be strict woodworking context and before GP shined light on the combat training mission of the host organization, that's exactly what I was thinking. I hadn't realized that the intent of the photojournal was to demonstrate manual riving as a means of fabricating a weapon handle.
- metaphor 8y ago
  Correct. I own a table saw and have been working with wood as a matter of practical necessity for the past several months while renovating a home; this article wouldn't be the first time I've stumbled upon the term riving in the context of woodworking. So when a 17-image photojournal describing a manual woodworking procedure concludes with a battle axe pose remarking on its ability to chop through a leg bone, the prose struck me as aggressively misplaced. I mean table saw and chain saw accidents are relatively commonplace and surely claim a fair number of limbs every year, but the efficiency of a woodworking tool in its misuse case isn't typically paraded as a metric of merit...unless you're an organization dedicated to combat training...then the prose makes complete sense.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    Thanks for explaining. I appreciate the reply and respect your position, though I still don’t quite agree.

Sadistic? Ancient armies regularly hacked at each other with these battle axes, along with swords, spears, and other sharp weapons. It was as normal as guns are today.

geoffpado 8y ago

I think he meant sadistic purely in the context of woodworking, not in the context of military.

evilduck 8y ago
I'm not even sure it's about battle, I think it's just being aware of where misplaced a axe blow will end up (missing your target when chopping wood and hitting yourself in the shin or foot is a common injury).
- parsthis 8y ago
  Oh and boy has that happened to me. Not an axe specifically but a machete!
TimTheTinker 8y ago
I thought he or she was calling severing a leg with a battle axe sadistic (which I disagree with, depending on the context).
- metaphor 8y ago
  Given what I believed to be strict woodworking context and before GP shined light on the combat training mission of the host organization, that's exactly what I was thinking. I hadn't realized that the intent of the photojournal was to demonstrate manual riving as a means of fabricating a weapon handle.
metaphor 8y ago
Correct. I own a table saw and have been working with wood as a matter of practical necessity for the past several months while renovating a home; this article wouldn't be the first time I've stumbled upon the term riving in the context of woodworking. So when a 17-image photojournal describing a manual woodworking procedure concludes with a battle axe pose remarking on its ability to chop through a leg bone, the prose struck me as aggressively misplaced. I mean table saw and chain saw accidents are relatively commonplace and surely claim a fair number of limbs every year, but the efficiency of a woodworking tool in its misuse case isn't typically paraded as a metric of merit...unless you're an organization dedicated to combat training...then the prose makes complete sense.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  Thanks for explaining. I appreciate the reply and respect your position, though I still don’t quite agree.