[Greyson Brown]

[William M]

Here is anohter photo of mine, Enjoy!

[J. Padgett]

What is that thing on the far left in the picture? Some kind of two handed flail?

[M. Taylor]

Nice collection, William. I would love to own a nice bec de corbin someday. Like others have said, polearms have such a great multifunctional meanness going for them. My son has been studying Okinawan karate for six years and has been learning weapons for a couple of years now. When I watch him do kata with his bo (quarterstaff), I can just imagine how nasty some of those techniques would be if there was a good halberd or bec head attached. These weapons don't get the press they deserve.

[Mark Mattimore]

[Sean Flynt]

It's interesting to note, too, that Silver and others favored polearms with the most functions. And if you look at 16th c. illustrations of combat I think you'll see that halberds--axe, spear, hook and staff--are ubiquitious while glaives and awl-pikes, while represented, are less common. Interestingly, it seems that most masters of arms in the period felt that the thrust was the best offense as far as polearms were concerned.

[Aaron Schnatterly]

[Sean Flynt]

Let's talk a bit about tassles. I made one for my glaive because they were very common in the 16th century. One source tells us these were intended to prevent blood from running down the haft and spoiling one's grip. If I can be forgiven a Simpsons quote here, that sounds to me like "coo-coo yip-yap". I don't see many (or any?) tassles on polearms until the 16th century, and if the buckets of blood that must surely have run down the hafts of medieval polearms did not bother medieval soldiers, I doubt it bothered renaissance soldiers. So, what's the tassle for?

If what I am observing is correct--that the tassle appears in the 16th century--it may have developed parallel to the professionalization of armies, specifically the development of the sergeant class. Renaissance sergeants often were armed with a halberd or other short-ish polearm. But many common soldiers were armed with similar weapons. Adding a bright tassle the the sergeant's weapon would serve as a highly-visible badge of rank and help sergeants command attention in the press of the fight (ditto for red cloth coverings on some polearms). Take a look at contemporary artwork depicting 16th. c. battles. Lots of polearms, but relatively few with tassles, and those pretty easily picked out from the crowd. These treatments also look nice on parade, so it would make sense that they were retained for ceremonial arms.

This is speculation on my part, of course. Any other ideas?

[Matthew Kelty]

I'm not sure about the blood comment (I saw that once, was that a thread here?), but here is a 16th century take on the matter:

'Art Of Warre'
Thomas Garrard,
1591
page 8

"...I will onelie say thus much more concerning the pikeman, that he
ought to have his Pyke at the point and middest trimmed with handsome
tassets, and a handle, not so much for ornament as to defend the
Souldiers bodie from water, which in raine doth runne downe alongst
the wood."

[Kel Rekuta]

[Sean Flynt]

[Matthew Kelty]

>It's not clear to me what use these would be as umbrellas for the "Souldiers bodie," but if Garrard is referring to the >soldier's hands and arms, then I can see that the tassles and cloth could make some difference.

Not as umbrellas per se. Polarms and pikes are carried on the shoulder for marches, and having a tassle that sits about a foot above and behind your shoulder will prevent rainwater from rolling down to your clothing. It collects on the tassles and drips off of them.

As far as why not earlier, remember that the Polearm really only becomes a standard weapon to a large degree in the 1400's. Sure, they existed earlier, but not in the 10,000+ strong deployments that you see in the Renaissance. It's also that these were more standing armies than the feudal levies who fought close to home for a limited time. The Soldier on constant march has very different needs than the peasant mounting his brushhook to a stick and fighting for a month.

I'm sure someone, somewhere figured this trick out, and it became a practice in practicality among the Soldiers long before it became an edict from the CO.

[Sean Flynt]

[Matthew Kelty]

>The rain falling on the head of the polearm also is falling on the head (shoulders, legs, etc.) of the man carrying the >polearm.

If you think of the difference of ~38 square inches of Head, and maybe ~24 square inches of Shoulder exposed to the rain, vs. ~48 square inches of shaft plus ~1-144 square inches of weapon exposed to the rain, I think I'd rather not be collectling that extra ~200 square inches of rainwater onto a 6 inch long, 1 inch wide place on my cloak....

Don't forget the fact that you're walking around with a lightning rod....

[Marcos Cantu]

I've always been curious as to the strength of the shaft. Is there any flex in a 6-8 foot polearm? Would landing a strong blow against an armored opponent cause the shaft to break?

[Matthew Kelty]

Most polearms tend to use Ash, a very strong but flexible wood (kind of like Hickory). If you're asking whether hitting the actual blade or what not will snap the pole, the answer is a pretty solid "no". These were weapons of war. Sure, they break on occasion, but when used in the manner they are intended, they have a very long life.

One other detail that is occasionally misunderstood is the Langets, or straps down the sides. Many people describe these as used to prevent swords from cutting the heads off. While they certainly do assist in that regard, I will happily volunteer one of my 1 1/2" ash poles to a cutting test, and reserve the right to giggle when all you do is mangle your blade. You're not going to "cut off " even an inch of seasoned, oiled Ash. You might find a flaw, and break it along a crack or knot, or maybe lodge it between two other weapons and force it to break, but for the most part, it ain't gonna get lopped off.

The Langets *do* however act as a brace that tranfers the energy of a blow away from the socket, and down the pole. That 3/32" thick piece of iron or steel isn't much agaist lateral blows, but when it's an inch tall, it will handle some serious load when performing a chop or a thrust. You will occasionally find a historic piece that has a langet along the face and back instead of the side, but these are extremely rare, and are usually only found on thrusting weapons, or a one-off from a lousy weaponsmith/physicist...

[Jean Thibodeau]

One thing I have noticed is that the head of my A & A Poleaxe feels balanced when doing a horizontal strike while a heavy Danish axe will have the head trying to point downwards: Gravity making a horizontal stroke impossible without holding the shaft tightly, otherwise the head will rotate in the hands.
The axe side of the Poleaxe is counterbalanced by the hammer side making the head neutrally balanced when on it's side as well as at any other angle.

A lot of the more versatile polearms seem to be balances this way.

Now a double headed Danish axe would have this same quality: I find it strange that double headed axes tend to exist more in " Fantasy " barbarian weapons and seem to have been rarely used historically.

A lot of early double headed axes seem to have been ceremonial or religious objects: Just seems strange that most Danish axes are one bladed.

Considering the above balance and handling issue any advantages to the single edged axe that I am not getting

[Risto Rautiainen]

I have wondered for some time now about the handles of axes, viking axes in particular. Many reproduction axes seem to have a round handle cross-section. This I gather from pics in the net, if I'm wrong please correct me. As having used quite a variety of the wood felling and splitting and pruning axes of early previous century used in forestry, I know that the key to a proper blade alignment with an axe, is an oval cross-section in the handle. And that is not roundish, but very flat oval. Is there any evidence of round axe handles, or am I barking at the wrong tree in the wrong town?

BTW, the amount of shape in those old axe handles is amazing! No way you can get anything like that from a supermarket these days.

[Jeff Johnson]

[Matthew Kelty]

>I've seen lots of war-axes in museums, and not one had a round shaft opening in it.

Ditto. Most Halberds, Hammers, Glaives, essentially anything with a very definite edge alignment in the 6-8' categories tend to have square handles. Bardiches tended to see a lot of oval and ovoid handles, and pikes are fairly well round.