double axe indopersian for somment

[ariel]

Whatever it is, it is not a fighting implement. Real fighting axes have heavy, triangle-configured, blades. Otherwise, they are totally useless as practical weapons. This one has a thin blade through and through.
My take: Qajar or even later, tourist item.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by ariel

Whatever it is, it is not a fighting implement. Real fighting axes have heavy, triangle-configured, blades. Otherwise, they are totally useless as practical weapons.

Except for all the fighting axes that aren't made that way, which still managed to be practical weapons, like the Dane axe, bardiche, bullova, Bronze age Vietnamese axes, etc. Large 2-handed axes, especially, tend to be thin-bladed.

Tirri has a whole page of thin-bladed axes described as "war axes" (pg 333), followed by a few more pages with more thin-bladed battle-axes.

Originally Posted by ariel

My take: Qajar or even later, tourist item.

Likely enough.

[weapons 27]

Iron axe is similar to that which is pictured on the book islamic weapons page 231
Thank you all for your comments has

weapons 27

[Timo Nieminen]

Pg 221? Yes, very much the same style. Except for the lack of the spike. Late 18th century, so early Qajar?

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by ariel

Whatever it is, it is not a fighting implement. Real fighting axes have heavy, triangle-configured, blades. Otherwise, they are totally useless as practical weapons. This one has a thin blade through and through.
My take: Qajar or even later, tourist item.

I'd suggest there are likely tourist ones out there but you can't dismiss the effectiveness of these items, they all have distal taper even in not very thick near the haft. In armour or not the purcussion is going to hurt or kill.

Orez Perski also shows numerous example of both thick and thin on pages 348-356 of Persian Arms and Armour.

Gav

[weapons 27]

all is in three party, iron axe is well a hatchet page 221 of islamic weapons!!!