[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Sean Smith]

[Ken Speed]

Vassilis,

I watched your videos and you were successful in your rushing attacks. Were you and your opponents guided by rules of some sort? I noticed that when you rushed in the polearm users didn't attack your legs and I'm wondering why. It would seem to me that if you did that with live weapons you'd be a very short swordsman! I also noticed that the polearm users let you come to them, did they ever attack you?


Ken Speed

[Bill Tsafa]

[P. Cha]

The SCA has a no attacks below the knee rule (actually 2 inches above the knee and below).

However, this is less an issue then you think. Even in fights where the lower legs are targetable, all you have to do is punch that shield out to negate the attack...and this will put the polearm user in a VERY bad position. Which is why most advanced polearm users don't attack low except in very specific circumstance. In fact the reason why the polearm user aren't being so agressive is that a punch block puts them in a very bad position if the sword user is in the cocked and ready position. So you wanna try to get them out of position before making an attack. But you have to realize that the SCA is not calibrated for plate combat, but maile.

[Bennison N]

[Bill Tsafa]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Note that wooden shields wouldn't always effectively stop blows from polearms. De la Vega records various instances of Amerindian staffs and bows (yes, bows) shattering Spanish shields in Florida. In another case, an Amerindian cut through the shields of two targetiers with a stolen axe, wounding their arms and driving them away. A third targetier approached more carefully and defeated the axe wielder.

[B. Fulton]

Having a combined arms approach is my general view. Having fought armored and unarmored in various styles at various times, as well as having done police baton training, unarmed martial arts etc....

Range definitely is never a bad thing. Having multiple weapons is even better. Someone with a halberd or glaive, backed up with a short sword and a round shield or buckler can handle most situations. Especially in formation, where having 10-20 friends along with similar weapons certainly helps.


My polearm experiences (mostly SCA) against sword and shield typically lead me to be highly aggressive with it, continously attacking or at least feinting to keep the opponent at the distance where I am effective and he is not and basically picking at him till I get an opening and take it.

If the shieldman rushes, tactics I have seen/heard of (not necessarily in the SCA safety-concern wise) that would work in a real fight, especialy if the polearm man has a secondary weapon like a dagger, hatchet or mace, is to either shove the polearm down and foul the shieldman's legs as he rushes in (if he's at a run and can't stop fast enough) thus taking him down and giving you the advantage to get inside his shield with your secondary, or, assuming you're armored, the football move of hunkering down and counter-bashing his attempted shield bash. Haven't really tried these myself but i've discussed them with others and I know they're a possibility.

[Travis Gorrie]

You guys mention carrying a weapon for each range as combat dictates. But do you have time to switch weapons?

For example, if I have spear and sword, and a sword man opponent charges in and makes my spear ineffective – do I really have time to draw my sword before he cuts me to shreads? Especially if I have no armor.

[Joe Fults]

I have three replica pole weapons sitting here now. A&A Halberd, Pole Axe and Hungarian Axe. From watching the vids IMO the simulators being used limit the user's options. The sword simulator appears inherently safer without having to (as) drastically limit its use and design. The pole weapon simulators seem to be very compromised in order to be safe in play.

Advantage sword and shield simulator.

(I suspect Vassilis' gym time is an advantage as well)

A Halberd has weight and reach. I'm fairly confident that it will not be so easily moved aside as a bamboo pole wrapped with tape. Again I suspect is rather difficult to safely replicate because it can generate an amazing amount of force in the blow over a very short distance. Mine hits like a cannon compared with a sword (especially a single hand sword). The multiple edged surfaces give options at thrust, at cut, at range, inside range and beyond range. I can intentionally overreach and do more than just hook on the recovery.

Pole axe is nasty which becomes immediately clear when you play with one (I think every collection should have a good replica). It can generate surprising force and at roughly five feet long its not a spear. To me its like being at the half sword with extra options. It can easily cover multiple lines of defense and threat, sometimes in ways not immediately apparent. Really a beautiful and mean little cuss that is in no way simulated by a pole.

[Bill Tsafa]

[Elling Polden]

I have quite extensive experience using a glaive in reenactment. Even in this quite limited context a small round shield or heater can be high-lowed by a glaive.
The larger shields, however, are much more bothersome.
However, neither round shield nor kites where in use in the age of polearms. (glaives show up in the mid 13th c, towards the end of the age of the shield)
Having a two handed weapon of your own took priority.

When armour became more scarce again, carrying a shield became more of an option. However, this being the Renaissance, one would rather adopt the enarmed round shield of antiquity rather than the large infantry shields that had gone out of use two hundred years earlier.
(And, Silver TELLS us that they are crap.)

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Ken Speed]

Vassilis,

Thank you for your answer and thank you for the videos, there really is no better way to figure something out than to see it in action. I think Joe Fults made some good points too, getting whacked with a halberd would be a lot different than getting hit with a padded bamboo pole. In fact, as I'm writing this, I'm wondering if the most effective guard with a halberd would be vertical. That vertical strike would be enough to dissuade me from getting within yelling distance of a fighter with a halberd much less within his reach ( I might be persuaded to send him a nasty letter!) Please understand I'm NOT suggesting anybody try this but I would imagine just the impact from the first two feet of a halberd swung straight down would be sufficient to stun someone briefly, even with armor and a shield, Imagine the energy of an axe with an 8'0" long handle! Also a lot of polearms have a hooking capacity that would be pretty hard to emulate with relative safety.

Thanks again,



Ken Speed

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Silver did emphasize the power of the staff blows. He wrote that a person with sword and dagger would have have to parry with feet firmly planted or otherwise be thrown to the ground. He thought a blow could beat down any but the highest ward and still injure the head.

[Jesse Eaton]

If my comment are inaccurate of the type used by the SCA in your area I apologize, I'm in southern California. I have yet to find a 5lb.+ poleaxe, 12lb.+ sheild or and not a single byrnie that was 25lb.+. I'm not saying that SCA combat isn't useful, but it isn't medieval combat. If you reread my post, you'll see that part of the point is that in the SCA the hand can be used to block/parry shots, but look at the early fechtbuchs on the ARMA website and you'll see lots of armored combat where the hand is unarmored. Additionally, the posted videos from Vassilis Tsafatinos show him closing with sword and board against a pole arm. But, the pole can't take most of the shots available to him because the lower legs are off target and Vassilis takes several shots on his sword that would have taken his hand, if not for the basket hilt. The lack of a flat blade and and edge is also a problem because binding and winding techniques used in polearm and sword and board combat require a flat blade to bind to. SCA combat is simply not accurate in terms of blade on blade contact.

SCA combat is useful in many ways that other forms cannot replicate. There is no substitute for the velocity and force at which SCA combat is done. The unfortunate backlash of this benefit is the need for safety restrictions. The damage to knees , ankles, shins, hands, heads, and other body parts, if these safety restrictions were not in place, makes the restrictions valid. However, these restriction pose a problem with regards to arguments about realistic combat. But, then again, there are always limitations and difficulties with ANY form of mock combat. It is just that, mock, aka not real. SCA combat has done a lot to dispel many popular myths about armored combat, but it has also created some of its own.

My point is not that the SCA is flawed and useless, my point is that it should be taken in light of its necessary limitations. Just as any form of martial practice should be. I fight with lots of different styles, rules, and equipment, and I have yet to find any perfect form. Just as those that fight with wasters criticize the SCA guys for lacking attention to blade alignment, the SCA fighter can retaliate with the lack of force and velocity necessary for waster combat. In the polearm vs shield case, the tactics used in the SCA (as demonstrated by Vassilis' video) are not realistic. What would be more realistic, in this case, would be padded and weighted weapons. This way the polearm could take lower leg shots and hand shots without endangering the opponent. Of course these implements pose problems in other situations, but would help illustrate the difficulty of fighting against an opponent that out reaches you.

[Sean Smith]

The 5lb+ poleaxe may not exist, but 8-10lb shields certainly do (and I would be suprised to find medieval shields above 15lbs as they become cumbersome to move, even with enarmes), and byrnies were not 25+lbs. In the age of butted 14ga. maille, maybe, but when fully riveted hauberks are coming in at 20lbs, that is unreasonable. IIRC, the Wallace shirt comes in at under 20lbs. My point was that blocking with the hand, vs blocking with the bottom third of the sword is not much different, as many people distain "basket blocking" and instead work on "sword blocking" (or at least that is a growing movement, hopefully taking hold in SoCal). I have yet to see many armours which have the rest of the body armoured, yet do not incorporate hand protection (pre 12th century). By that time, full mufflers were becoming standard, and the evolution to plate gauntlets was well on its way. I would be interested to learn of armoured combat fectbuchs from an age where a shield was primarily used (say pre-1350) that do not incorporate hand protection in any fashion.

Sorry if I came across a bit harsh. I too understand that SCA combat is far from perfect, yet there are several people out there who only seem content to point out its flaws, while not recognizing anything it could teach us, or accepting that flaws may be in their supported system.

[Raymond Arnold]

The answer a lot of people are giving here is "it depends." The response some people are giving is "sure, a sword can beat a pole-arm, but it takes more skill."

So for the people explaining how the sword can beat the pole-arm, here's a question I hope is useful: You get challenged to a life or death duel. You can choose from sword or pole-arm - your opponent gets the other. Which one would you rather have in that situation? (Lets assume the skill of your opponent is unknown. Though if the skill of the opponent would affect your answer, I'd be interested in that too).

[P. Cha]