Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Penetration of armor with pollaxe Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 
Author Message
Brian Robson





Joined: 19 Feb 2007

Posts: 185

PostPosted: Thu 13 Dec, 2012 6:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mentioning protection from Lance strikes made me think about the forces employed in a strike. I'm not sure if I can explain very well, but it seems to me that in every 'strike', something has to give - whether it's armour, or the weapon itself. We know that lances were expected to break on the charge - so thinking about it in terms of a 'system of forces', this makes the lance itself the weak-point in that system rather than the armour.
So given that armour was a compromise between protection/mobility, I wonder if armour was generally made 'just' strong enough to make the lance the weak-point in that system.

Now if we look at a pollaxe - there is a much shorter shaft, and probably re-inforced so that stops being the weak-point. So what are we left with? Either the armour was penetrated or the attacker wasn't strong enough, or perhaps the target's balance was what gave and he was knocked back, or the attacker struck a glancing surface and he went off-balance instead? If you can down your target before striking, you're probably on left with the strength of the attacker vs the strength of the armour.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm not sure we can assume that because armour was proof vs a lance that it was also proof against a weapon less likely to break.

btw. this 'weak-point' idea makes sense to me when looking at how the early lance develped - introduce a high saddle back so the rider isn't pushed off - then add couching, so the lance isn't knocked out of the hand, then add a disk to the lance (always forget what they're called) so the lance doesn't slide back in your grip when you strike - you're left with either the lance or your targets armour breaking.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Thu 13 Dec, 2012 8:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I do not think armour was always proof against lances either for what it is worth. We likely have more evidence for this happening than any other weapon in text. Bertrand's Chronicle actually has several times he does this and a few where he is near killed when it penetrates his armour, luckily slowed down by the breastplate, hauberk and aketon so it does not.

I'd love to give this a go, I suspect there would be failures but that much of the time the armour will work... just like with the pole axe.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Thu 13 Dec, 2012 3:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:

What 17th-century sources have I cited?


I was thinking Smythe - my mistake.

Quote:

Cleaving a cuirass with a partisan (di Grassi) isn't the same as passing through it with a pollaxe point (Fiore). The former indicates a blow, the latter a thrust. If you think di Grassi meant thrusting through plate with the wide blade of a partisan, then I'll really be skeptical.


It's definitely a thrust, IMO, as he advises the partizan should rely on the thrust. Again, I think all he is explaining is the power of the weapon and that a breastplate is no sure defense. I would also add a thrust, not a cut, would be the more likely to penetrate. Penetrate and pass clean through being different things.

Quote:
Out of curiosity, did Vadi include anything about piercing torso defenses? I assume you would know.


No - his spear and pollaxe passages are rudimentary at best, and although he has the specialized swords, he just tells us how they are to be formed, not used.

Quote:

Shallow penetration in plate would be potentially awkward in a duel, as the point might get stuck without inflicting serious injury. I know of at least one account of this happening with a lance. On foot with pollaxes, it would effectively disarm the attacker but grant an interesting lever.


Yes, and that idea of a lever, or using a point stuck in the armour or its stop ribs (which also comes up in Fiore) to bear someone also is also a recurring theme.

Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com

www.freelanceacademypress.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 13 Dec, 2012 4:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Mele wrote:
It's definitely a thrust, IMO, as he advises the partizan should rely on the thrust.


In the 1594 English translation, di Grassi wrote about cutting through pikes with a partisan. Is this an English addition? (The English did love their cuts.) He advised the thrust for single combat. If it is referring to a thrust, "cleave" isn't a very good English translation. Though as wide as some partisan blades are, maybe. Wink

Quote:
Again, I think all he is explaining is the power of the weapon and that a breastplate is no sure defense. I would also add a thrust, not a cut, would be the more likely to penetrate. Penetrate and pass clean through being different things.


I'm not familiar with how "scindere" is used, but none of the English translations ("separate/divide/cleave") suggest a partisan stuck in a breastplate without seriously injuring the wearer. I'll again ask for entire relevant Italian sentence/passage if you have it handy. I haven't been able to find the Italian for di Grassi's polearm section online anywhere.
View user's profile Send private message
Jon Pellett




Location: Kamloops, BC, Canada
Joined: 01 May 2007

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu 13 Dec, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

DiGrassi in Italian can be found here: http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/lord/pdfs/DiGrassi_1570.pdf

I think the relevant bits are:

…peró li fecero grandi et di gran peso et di buono acciaro perche potessero smagliare et dividere il ferro, et che cio sia vero si vede che le arme antiche di questa sorte sono grandi et cosi ben temprate che hanno forza di tagliar l’altro ferro.

…si puó il pertesanone allabarda o roncha ferendo di taglio a traverso le piche, il qual colpo é talmente forte, sendo tratto come si deve percio che viene da alto a basso et l’arma e gravissima di modo che si taglierebbe non piche ma piu forte impedimento.

…peró volendo che questo moto ancora non fosse inutile vi aggiundsero un rampino con la punta volta verso il manico, con il quale si puo facilimente stracciar l’armi et tirar gli houmini da cavallo.

…et é da sapere che questo colpo di taglio in questo modo tratto, é talmente forte che é atto a tagliar l’arma dell inimico quando la opponesse per sua diffesa…
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Thu 13 Dec, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jon,

Some great examples! DiGrassi has some very nice language skills, almost like an art. Something that I guess helped these gents sell their systems.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Jaroslav Kravcak




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 22 Apr 2006

Posts: 123

PostPosted: Fri 14 Dec, 2012 4:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Brian Robson wrote:
Mentioning protection from Lance strikes made me think about the forces employed in a strike. I'm not sure if I can explain very well, but it seems to me that in every 'strike', something has to give - whether it's armour, or the weapon itself. We know that lances were expected to break on the charge - so thinking about it in terms of a 'system of forces', this makes the lance itself the weak-point in that system rather than the armour.
So given that armour was a compromise between protection/mobility, I wonder if armour was generally made 'just' strong enough to make the lance the weak-point in that system.

Now if we look at a pollaxe - there is a much shorter shaft, and probably re-inforced so that stops being the weak-point. So what are we left with? Either the armour was penetrated or the attacker wasn't strong enough, or perhaps the target's balance was what gave and he was knocked back, or the attacker struck a glancing surface and he went off-balance instead? If you can down your target before striking, you're probably on left with the strength of the attacker vs the strength of the armour.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm not sure we can assume that because armour was proof vs a lance that it was also proof against a weapon less likely to break.

btw. this 'weak-point' idea makes sense to me when looking at how the early lance develped - introduce a high saddle back so the rider isn't pushed off - then add couching, so the lance isn't knocked out of the hand, then add a disk to the lance (always forget what they're called) so the lance doesn't slide back in your grip when you strike - you're left with either the lance or your targets armour breaking.


Would this imply, that couched lance propelled by galloping horse would put armour under less stress than stab with poleaxe-spike? Or in other words if something was lance proof, doesnt that mean authomatically, that nothing wielded on foot could compromise it easier?

What about examples of someone on charging horse being impaled on poleaxe, or tests of it of some sort? Wouldnt this give it more penetrative power, than any man can generate?

My assumption would be, that in these settings attackers grip of the weapon would be most likely to fail, rather than armour or weapon itself, or is it wrong?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Fri 14 Dec, 2012 6:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks, Jon. I can't read Italian very well, but with a bit of help from dictionaries I can tell those passages are close to the 1594 English translation. This actually increases my faith in sixteenth-century translators.
View user's profile Send private message
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,307

PostPosted: Fri 14 Dec, 2012 7:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think this issue of lance strike vs poleaxe strike is hard to resolve when we don't know what speed did the horse usually had in charge... I noticed that lately many discussions tend to reach the conclusion that discipline and close order was more desirable in a knightly charge on the battlefield than high speed. And than there is the question if standard battlefield speed was also used in duels or in duels higher speed was used...
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Fri 14 Dec, 2012 8:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Thanks, Jon. I can't read Italian very well, but with a bit of help from dictionaries I can tell those passages are close to the 1594 English translation. This actually increases my faith in sixteenth-century translators.

Unfortunately, I.G. Gentleman was not as good as that: Jherek Swanger has commented that there were some bits of Italian fencing jargon that he seriously confused, such as a word which can mean both "pace" and "distance between the feet". Possibly he knew Italian but had not learned fencing jargon from a native Italian speaker? Back in 2010 Jherek was considering publishing a new translation.
View user's profile Send private message
Jaroslav Kravcak




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 22 Apr 2006

Posts: 123

PostPosted: Fri 14 Dec, 2012 9:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Luka Borscak wrote:
I think this issue of lance strike vs poleaxe strike is hard to resolve when we don't know what speed did the horse usually had in charge... I noticed that lately many discussions tend to reach the conclusion that discipline and close order was more desirable in a knightly charge on the battlefield than high speed. And than there is the question if standard battlefield speed was also used in duels or in duels higher speed was used...


Is this the speed at contact, if there was any, or the speed while approaching though? Most of the discussion at this topic Ive seen also mention charge at slower speed to maintain cohesion, but isnt the term charge itself describing the process of closing in with the enemy, rather than the collision with him?

It sounds only logical to preserve a horse for few metre high speed run, this also spares him more for potential flight afterwards.

Anyway wouldnt even lance couched on trotting horse be able to generate enough momentum to rival the energy output of any solid poleaxe strike?

Also wouldnt really powerfull attack from poleaxe need to be quite obvious to the receiver if he was aware of it and ready to defend or counterattack as was mentioned earlier? It sounds reasonable to me, though I have no experience to judge.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Johan Gemvik




Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 10 Nov 2009

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Fri 14 Dec, 2012 10:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

So, to sum things up some of the old masters actually taught that armour could be penetrated by some types of hand weapons?
"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Fri 14 Dec, 2012 10:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Manning wrote:
Unfortunately, I.G. Gentleman was not as good as that: Jherek Swanger has commented that there were some bits of Italian fencing jargon that he seriously confused, such as a word which can mean both "pace" and "distance between the feet". Possibly he knew Italian but had not learned fencing jargon from a native Italian speaker? Back in 2010 Jherek was considering publishing a new translation.


That makes sense. I was looking only at the passages in question and the polearm section. I had assumed it might be dramatically different, but those parts aren't.
View user's profile Send private message
Jon Pellett




Location: Kamloops, BC, Canada
Joined: 01 May 2007

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat 15 Dec, 2012 2:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Manning wrote:
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Thanks, Jon. I can't read Italian very well, but with a bit of help from dictionaries I can tell those passages are close to the 1594 English translation. This actually increases my faith in sixteenth-century translators.

Unfortunately, I.G. Gentleman was not as good as that: Jherek Swanger has commented that there were some bits of Italian fencing jargon that he seriously confused, such as a word which can mean both "pace" and "distance between the feet". Possibly he knew Italian but had not learned fencing jargon from a native Italian speaker? Back in 2010 Jherek was considering publishing a new translation.

Well, he was translating into 16th century English fencing jargon, so I wouldn't be too quick to tell him he was wrong. I.G. consistently translates passo as "pace", in the sense of both "stance" and "step", but Silver also uses the word "pace" with both of these meanings. (I may be misunderstanding the Jherek Swanger's criticism, though.)

Which is not to say there aren't any errors, of course, and a translation into modern English would be welcome.
View user's profile Send private message
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,307

PostPosted: Sun 16 Dec, 2012 7:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jaroslav Kravcak wrote:
Luka Borscak wrote:
I think this issue of lance strike vs poleaxe strike is hard to resolve when we don't know what speed did the horse usually had in charge... I noticed that lately many discussions tend to reach the conclusion that discipline and close order was more desirable in a knightly charge on the battlefield than high speed. And than there is the question if standard battlefield speed was also used in duels or in duels higher speed was used...


Is this the speed at contact, if there was any, or the speed while approaching though? Most of the discussion at this topic Ive seen also mention charge at slower speed to maintain cohesion, but isnt the term charge itself describing the process of closing in with the enemy, rather than the collision with him?

It sounds only logical to preserve a horse for few metre high speed run, this also spares him more for potential flight afterwards.

Anyway wouldnt even lance couched on trotting horse be able to generate enough momentum to rival the energy output of any solid poleaxe strike?

Also wouldnt really powerfull attack from poleaxe need to be quite obvious to the receiver if he was aware of it and ready to defend or counterattack as was mentioned earlier? It sounds reasonable to me, though I have no experience to judge.


I really don't know. I just think it's dangerous to assume anything without testing. One other thing that comes to my mind is flexibility of a lance. Lance is long and sure flexes when it hits a solid target such as plate armour...
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Mon 17 Dec, 2012 1:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jon Pellett wrote:

Well, he was translating into 16th century English fencing jargon, so I wouldn't be too quick to tell him he was wrong. I.G. consistently translates passo as "pace", in the sense of both "stance" and "step", but Silver also uses the word "pace" with both of these meanings. (I may be misunderstanding the Jherek Swanger's criticism, though.)

Which is not to say there aren't any errors, of course, and a translation into modern English would be welcome.


No, honestly, he's not that good. He really does lose nuance in the translation, periodically skips a troublesome phrase, parses weapons into sword and rapier when there is no distinction....it is not that the translations is bad, precisely, but honestly, being 400 years old does not make it particularly "good" either. It's OK.

Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com

www.freelanceacademypress.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jon Pellett




Location: Kamloops, BC, Canada
Joined: 01 May 2007

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Tue 18 Dec, 2012 6:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Greg Mele"]
Jon Pellett wrote:

No, honestly, he's not that good. He really does lose nuance in the translation, periodically skips a troublesome phrase, parses weapons into sword and rapier when there is no distinction....it is not that the translations is bad, precisely, but honestly, being 400 years old does not make it particularly "good" either. It's OK.


I believe you.

I'm not sure why people are bothered by the sword/rapier thing, though. Spada translates to both "sword" and "rapier", so he uses whichever is appropriate to the context, considering what people were using both England and Italy. It seems like a perfectly reasonable choice to me.
View user's profile Send private message
Raman A




Location: United States
Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Thu 20 Dec, 2012 6:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Really interesting discussion. It would be really helpful if someone would do tests with crash test dummies with historical armor and padding. Does anyone know where I can find data or papers on the subject? I know Mike Loades shows tests done by the Royal Military College of Science in his [Weapons That Made Britain documentary but I can't find any other data from their tests.

http://youtu.be/dasPQW1fjPM?t=1m2s

I wish I knew the thickness of the plates, exactly how much energy went into the strike, etc. No one seems to do scientific tests in this field. Every time someone cites a figure its always from The Knight and The Blast Furnace.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Penetration of armor with pollaxe
Page 3 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum