| Author |
Message |
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
 Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: Questions on pole arms? |
 |
|
So I was reading the thread on pole axes and halberds and bills and glaves etc.
What are these weapons? I know what a glave is, I know what a bill is, but I always thought a pole axe and a halberd shared a "toe-mate-o toe-mot-o" relationship.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
   |
 |
Sean Belair
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a halberd is a longer weapon often with a wider cutting face than a pollaxe, and intended for line infantrymen.
a pollaxe does not necessarily have an axe head (hammers are very popular) and intended for armored knights and officers for use on the battle field as well as in duels
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: Re: Questions on pole arms? |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: | So I was reading the thread on pole axes and halberds and bills and glaves etc.
What are these weapons? I know what a glave is, I know what a bill is, but I always thought a pole axe and a halberd shared a "toe-mate-o toe-mot-o" relationship. |
Perhaps this will clear up some confusion about poleaxes: http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html
A halberd more typically has a straight-edged axe head, where a poleaxe can be straight or curved (assuming an axe head is even present on the poleaxe). Also, a halberd usually doesn't feature a fully formed beak/spike on the back, often just a fluke/hook.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
Eric Hejdström
Location: Visby, Sweden Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 184
|
|
|
|
|
Corey D. Sullivan
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See, this is the problem with polearm study. They lack a proper catagorization system, which makes it particularly difficult to converse on the topic without pictures, since not everyone knows what a ``guisarme`` looks like, versus a voulge, or a glaive. George Snook takes a good look at them in that link below.
Anyhow, as per your question. The difference is both one of context and use, as well as pure appearnce.
The halberd predates the poleaxe, and was a much simpler weapon, at least in the beginning. It was almost exclusively used by non-noble infantry. It was simple to produce. It usually consists of a squarish axe on a pole, sometimes with a top spike and a rear fluke. These projections are usually the same thickness of the blade, (ie. not four sided). As time wore on, the axe got smaller, and the whole implement became more decorated.
A poleaxe was almost exclusively a knightly weapon. It was usually more thickly built for armoured combat. It had a smallish axe head, with a hammer (sometimes a spike) at the rear, and a reinforced topspike. Unlike the earlier halberds, it was often ornamented, as fitting a noble weapon.
Another difference would be the length of the shaft. Poleaxes were usually somewhat shorter, while a halberd was often longer for use in formations.
"He had scantly finyshed his saienge but the one armye espyed the other lord how hastely the souldioures buckled their healmes how quikly the archers bent ther bowes and frushed their feathers how redely the byllmen shoke their bylles and proved their staves redy to appioche and loyne when the terrible trotnpet should sound the blast to victorie or deathe."
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a very comprehensive set of illustrations of various types of polearms here:
http://historykr.com/bbs/zboard.php?id=blog&a...a23ce7c844
As to whether the illustrations are entirely reliable, I leave that question to those with greater expertise than I.
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
|
|
|
|
Corey D. Sullivan
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Apr, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's right. Many originals in museum collections have been re-hafted in modern times.
"He had scantly finyshed his saienge but the one armye espyed the other lord how hastely the souldioures buckled their healmes how quikly the archers bent ther bowes and frushed their feathers how redely the byllmen shoke their bylles and proved their staves redy to appioche and loyne when the terrible trotnpet should sound the blast to victorie or deathe."
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Apr, 2008 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Sean and Corey,
My uncertainty as to accuracy had more to do with the illustrations of the heads themselves (guisarme vs. glaive, for example) than the length of the shafts... but it is good to know that we shouldn't take the attributed lengths for granted.
With regard to the heads/points/blades, then, are these fairly representative of the "real thing"-- granted that there will be variation within each category?
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Apr, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David McElrea wrote: | | With regard to the heads/points/blades, then, are these fairly representative of the "real thing"? |
Some are better than others but there appear to be scale problems. The names are incorrect in some cases, even allowing for the notorious typological confusion of this field. As for the lengths--some of these are pretty far off the mark, I think. There are ample contemporary illustrations of all these types, and while historical lengths varied significantly even for a given type, some of the lengths indicated here just don't fit anything I've seen.
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Apr, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't want my responses to be interpreted as dismissive of the resource in question. It's better than some I've seen, but has some misleading information and seems to turn up pretty frequently. Snook's monograph (see the link above) is better but still lacking in many ways. Waldman's book--discussed at length elsewhere in this forum--is the best current source of information, although even it has some problems (including a prohibitive price).
I'm working on a primer intended to bring together in one spot the consensus polearm information. Don't know when that might appear, though.
Again, I can't stress enough that contemporary art is the best source of information about these weapons--length, dimensions, how they were used, who used them, etc. Obviously, the more realistic the artwork the more reliable the arms information might be. I say "might" because we still have to allow for the artist's firsthand knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the arms in question. It seems to me, though, that what we see tends to match well with surviving arms and other contemporary depictions.
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Apr, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks very much Sean. This is an area which is beginning to interest me more and more-- I've been following your own projects and previous discussions with interest for a while now, and I appreciate the knowledge you bring to these discussions. I look forward to seeing your primer.
David
|
|
|
|
|
D. Austin
Industry Professional
Location: Melbourne, Australia Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Tue 15 Apr, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: | | Obviously, the more realistic the artwork the more reliable the arms information might be. I say "might" because we still have to allow for the artist's firsthand knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the arms in question. It seems to me, though, that what we see tends to match well with surviving arms and other contemporary depictions. |
Great point Sean. I often find it's well worth looking at the "less interesting" parts of a painting to get a sense of the artist's feel for proportion and perspective.
Certainly we can tell the size and shapes of surviving heads, and if this seems to match up fairly closely with contemporary illustrations, by illustrators who appear to put effort into accuracy, I would feel confident in accepting that the haft lengths shown were accurate, at least for the person pictured. Obviously individual preferences and different fighting styles would play a part too. I have made a spear and a glaive, both of them based on sizes that seem right from illustrations, and feel right when wielding them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic