[Jean Thibodeau]

The oval or polygonal handles would help with edge alignement for sure, but those big Danish axes really want to rotate in your hands in a horizontal swing.

I just appreciated the fact that my Poleaxe permits a much more relaxed grip under the same conditions.

My Albion type M viking axe head is mounted on a Waxwood staff from Cold Steel that I wrapped with jute cord that I saturated with white wood glue and is VERY grippy: So the hold is not even a bit slippery, I still have to make the effort to keep the blade from rotating in my hands. ( Easy enough to do when it becomes a habit but is does take a strong grip, and is surprising the first time one handles such a large and heavy axe. )

Anyway, just an observation that I hope stimulates debate or brings forth other opinions about the handling caracteristics of various pole arms.

Oh, anyone own or seen the A & A Italian Bill or the English Bill: A polearms review would be interesting

( Hint, hint to the powers that be )

[Elling Polden]

My impression is that polearms come in two basic kinds; Dueling weapons, and weapons of war.
The dueling weapons, like the Poleaxe, is about the length of a man, and is the kind covered and evaluated in fighting manuals. These weapons often have lots of features; Stabbing point, slashing blade, pick, buttspike...
The weapons of war are notably longer, and while they might also have multifunction heads, they seldom feature butspikes or similar arangements.

I use a glaive as my main weapon for group fighting; curently, it is hafted on a 2.3 meter pole. This is allready to long for close combat; If someone closes in on me, my best option is to drop the thing, run like hell, and hope to get my sword out before he catches me; War length poles don't need buttspikes, because you will never get to use it in a efficient way anyhow; The pole is just to long...

[R. Laine]

Elling,

I don't know, to be honest - Silver, for example, actually recommeds a longer (eight to nine foot) polearm for the duel, and a shorter one (around six feet) for the battlefield. Of course, there are exceptions like the pike, but at least I'd be a bit hesitant to say that duelling weapons were as a general rule shorter.

Rabbe

[Matthew Kelty]

I think are are a few misunderstandings going on here.

First off, there really aren't many weapons that serve a single purpose of duelling *or* warfare. The duelling shields in Talhoffer are definitely a single application weapon, but the poleaxe was very much a tool of war. Where some confusion may come about is in the eras of the different weapons. It's more like Apples and Oranges.

The Poleaxe was a late Medieval, early Renaissance era weapon. It is eventually replaced in the late 14th and 15th centuries with the development of the Glaive, Bill, Halberd, Ausspike (or Awl Pike), Bec de Corbin, and Footman's Hammer, all of which took an aspect of the poleaxe and more or less focused and expanded on a trait, whether it be the point, the axe, the hook, or the hammer.

As far as the lengths of weapons, I don't think Silver is describing duelling vs. battlefield, he's describing different weapon types, and the weight and use of the weapon the primary factors related to length. He puts the Javelin, Glaive, Partisan and "Forest Bill" into one group, and the Battel Axe, Halberd and "Black Bill" into another.

The lighter and primarily thrusting weapons get the longer shafts:

"...To know the perfect length of your short staffe, or half Pike, Forrest bil, Partisan, or Gleve, or such like weapons of vantage and perfect lengths, you shall stand upright, holding the staffe upright, close by your body, with your left had, reaching with your right hand your staffe, as high as you can, and then allow to that length a space to set both your hands, when you come to fight, wherein you may conveniently strike, thrust, and ward, & that is the just length to be made according to your stature. Anddus note, that these lengths will commonly fall out to be eight or nine foot long..."

The heavier and primarily chopping weapons get the shorter shafts:

"Of the lengths of the Battel axe, Halbard, or blacke Bill, or such like weapons of weight, appertaining unto gard or battell.

In anie of these weapons there needeth no just length, but commonly they are, or ought to be, five or sixe foot long, & may not well be used much longer, because of their weights; and being weapons for the warres or battell, when men are joyned close together, may thrust, & strike sound blowes, with great force both strong and quicke:..."

I can see where that closing sentence would lead to the conclusion that this is a "battle" length weapon, and could imply that the others to be "duelling" lengths, but I think he's referring to the specific application of the weapon, not the length. You need to swing an axe, and need to be able to maneuver in a tight space with it, whereas you are primarily thrusting with the first weapons, and they require less manuevering room. While Halberds and Bills definitely have a thrusting capability, remember that Silver's ward for these weapons is for the heel low and in front, with the head cocked back ready for a strike.

As far as the buttcaps and spike, this is actually a very common feature across the families of polearms. I know I've seen this mirrored elsewhere, perhaps by Sir John Smythe, but all I could find right now was from Giacomo DiGrassi. He, too, has grouped together the Halberd, Bill, Glaive, Partisan and Javelin into a single Category, so although he uses the word "Halberd" below, he is talking about all of the Polearms collectively:

'His True Art Of Defence'
Giacomo DiGrassi
1594

"...and then with the heele, or the blunt end of the Holberd shall strike the enemie in the brest, (for which consideration it should not dislike me, if for that purpose, there be fastened in the said blunt end, a strong and sharpe pike of iron)..."

Here is an illustration from DiGrassi, and you will note that all of the weapons have a buttspike:

[/img]

Lastly, while an 8 or 9 foot weapon may seem unweildy, in the press of war, you're right. You're not going to be spinning a nine foot weapon about the same way you might for single combat, so a butt spike might not seem too useful, but many times your weapons get locked up, and the best action is to pull down and swing out with the butt end, and here a spike is most useful. It's also good for grounding your pole against a charge of horse.

All in all, these are very flexible weapons, and they certainly all saw a great deal of use in war from the 15th-17th centuries. And that's why I love them so....

[R. Laine]

My point was, actually, that the polearm *types* he recommends for the field are shorter than those he recommends for the duel, not that he speaks of some inherent length difference between duelling weapons and ones intended for battle. Unclear wording on my part, sorry.

Rabbe

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Great thread! I guess I became a polearm fan when I started reading Silver. I may have been one before then; I'm not sure. It's probably silly, but reading that polearms had the vantage over swords made me interested. Many people still seem to think a guy with a longsword or one handed sword has good or even odds against a polearm. From that point of view it's no wonder so few people care about polearms. Why bother lugging around a long weapon if a short one you can carry in your belt will serve you just as well?

There are also far too few heroes who wield polearms. They don't get their due in most fantasy novels (the Wheel of Time books being a notable exception).

I like more or less any type of polearm meant for combat, but I only have an A&A English Bill and a number of eight to nine foot staves. The A&A English Bill confuses me because it doesn't quite fit into Silver's system. At seven and half feet it's a foot or two short of perfect length, but only hair heavier than a stout short staff (5.5 lbs instead of 5 lbs). I guess I'd place it somewhere in between the shorter weapons of weight and the weapons of perfect length.

[Elling Polden]

It is posible to fight duels with long polearms, but most of the polearms in Talhofer or Liberi are short hafted.
From experience I can tell that fighting a duel with a 9 foot polearm is not something you want to do. This for several reasons; The swing of a long polearm takes a lot more time, wich makes it easier for the enemy to block or evade.
Once he does so, he will slip past you point, binding your weapon with his. Your weapon is now quite uneffective, while he can still use his.

[Matthew Kelty]

>Huh? Where does he say that? From what I've read, he was never very specific on polearm wards...

My bad, you are right, it was DiGrassi who described that Ward, not George Silver. Good catch!


Granted this is all speculative, as we can't peek into the mind of a 500 year old writer, but I'll still stand by my interpretation that he is only referring to the length of the weapon in regards to it's heft and use, not the field where it is applied:

As per George Silver:

"Of the vantages of weapons in their kinds, places, & times, both in private and public fight"

I interpret 'private' to mean single combat, and 'public' to mean the battlefield.


"...The battle axe, the halberd, the black-bill, or such like weapons of weight, appertaining unto guard or battle, are all one in fight, and have advantage against the two handed sword, the sword and buckler, the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard.

The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike."

With the above, he holds the Glaive, Partisan and "Forest Bill" as superior to the Halberd, Axe, and "Black Bill". Here you find the trend that Silver uses pretty much throughout his book that "longer = better". I think in conjuction with the header to those two paragraphs, it's pretty apparent that he treats Single Combat in the same manner as Battlefield Combat, and given the huge numbers of Glaives in use in the Italian campaigns of the 15th and 16th centuries, they are both quite well proven as effective tools of war, and even more useful in Single Combat. As per his methods, Siver himself would meet a Halberd weilder with a Glaive...

As far as the "longer = better" opinion of Mr. Silver, I'll have to disagree with him when it comes to the Pike. I'd much rather have a Billhook in my hand when dealing with a Pike. Pikes are my stock and trade, and I have a lot of respect for them, but give me a polearm any day...


BTW, I can deduce through the rest of the Text that the "Forest Bill" is also called a "Welsh Hook", whereas the "Black Bill" is always a "Black Bill" (and probably the same as the "Brown Bill" other contemporary authors admonished as too heavy and poorly made).

Given that the latter gets lumped in with the Axe style weapons, and the former gets lumped in with the stabbing weapons, I can only deduce that the "Forest Bill" is more like the Billhook (closer to the Italian Billhook), and the "Black Bill" is the heavier, straightforward bill (closer to it's Agricultural ancestor, like the one DiGrassi illustrates in his hands in the plate I posted). Any other thoughts/opinions/insights on the matter?

Lastly, to the poles themselves. It is certainly possible that a sword can "break" the head off a pike, if there is a weak spot, if the wood is still green, if the wood is too narrow, and if the wood is some other inferior softwood, but by and large, it's not common, it's not easy, and I think Mr. Swetnam was either duped, or biased. If it was a seasoned Ash pole of sufficient diameter (1" - 1 3/4") it was certainly not "cut", broken maybe, but not cut, the wood is just too darn dense.

And here is where I put my money where my mouth is...

Recently Gordon put on a "School of the Low Country Soldier", and he borrowed my pike staves. As per all of the contemporary writings, I went with the most common description among all of the authors, and chose 16' x 1 3/4" Ash for making them. This is described by 3 or 4 Authors from about 1590 - 1630, so was perfect for the era. Now, there are still a few proud Landsknecht re-enactors out there who boldly state their Zwiehanders are made to lop the heads off of pikes. I threw down the gauntlet and let Gordon know that if anyone could lop the head off of the pikes with their Zwiehanders, I'd gladly buy them a new replacement Zwiehander.

Gordon distributed the pikes, and made my challenge known to the 60 or so bodies that attended......
....and not a one took up the challenge...

[Chris Goerner]

Great thread!

Coming in at the end of the pole arm race, here is my mid-18th century halberd. By this time, these weapons were largely ceremonial and carried by sergeants as a badge of rank. This reproduction is typical of Pennsylvania German design, and includes a half-moon blade with bird heads above and below. The beak is decorated with ocean waves above, and a whale's tail below. The heart piercings are also typical of the period.

Why do I love this piece? Have you ever cleaned a flint-lock musket?

-- Chris

[Jean Thibodeau]

Cutting poles: If the pole is rested against a hard surface like a tree stump I would imagine an axe, sword or any stout and sharp pole arm would cut through the pole. The sword might be seriously damaged though.

Now a hand held pole would absord or deflect too much of the energy to be cut easily or at all: Even less if the one holding the pole arm deflected the blow or moved the pole ahead of the blow.

The twohanders might be effective in deflecting the pikes and tangling them up a bit like one rower in a group of rowers getting out of time with the others: Chaos and confusion creating a good opening for sword and rondache men into the pike square.

Question: Would a Knight use a " common " Pole arm like a Bill or a Halberd or would they only use by choice a " knightly " Poleaxe. Any other pole arms favored by the higher classes.

I would think the realy crude peasant weapons would be looked down upon even if very effective. Class warfare in the choice of weapons

[Matthew Kelty]

[Tyler Weaver]

[Matthew Kelty]

Quote:

by the time you get to Capo Ferro (1537)

"Strike that, reverse it..."
-Willy Wonka

Forgive me, my brain got ahead of me, I meant Achille Marozzo and 'Opera Nova', not Capo Ferro.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Matthew;

With the 16th and 17th century musket and pike square tactics, twohanders and some of the more evolved polearms might be encountered like the slimmer types of Italian Bills and crescent bladed Halberds.

The numbers of various pole arms mixed in the pike squares became less and less and their use more for ceremonial reasons and maybe for bodyguard use or town guards. ( Like combination Wheelock / Halberds. )

The Poleaxe probably coexisted with other polearms for some time. The early (Mid 14th century) Swiss formations were mostly armed with Halberds of various types during the same period we would expect a knight to use a Poleaxe.
( I'm partialy asking the question here and not stating the above as certain facts: I could have my chronology of what existed and in use at the same time as sometning else wrong. )

I would imagine that during the Hundred Years war some use of Poleaxes by knights fighting on foot would coincide with common soldiers using other kinds of polearms? But you may be right that we just don't know for sure if a Knight would use a Halberd. ( The phrase " Knightly Poleaxe " seem to leave the impression that this weapon would have been considered a " Noble " weapon in both senses of the word. )

Oh, at least in my previous posts I was not restricting my " guessing " to a specific century or just to the era of pike and musket.

I think in previous threads discussing polearms on this forum it has been mentioned that we know little about the early ones before the 14th century : Like we have NO idea what the Viking halberd looked like, even though it is often mentioned in sagas. ( Read here on the forum: No first hand knowledge from me. )

I have realised though that a lot of polearms I thought were contemporary with the 12th to 14th century period are actually 15th to early 17th century. Odd how one can form these impressions until one takes the time to re-read attentively one's reference books I blame it on " Movies " always mixing stuff that doesn't belong to the same century.

The worse cases are King Arthur films using full 15th century plate armour.

[R. Laine]

Elling,

[Elling Polden]

My theory on the Knightlyness of the poleaxe is the fact that it is a better anti-armour weapon, and more efficient up close, where the knights armour gives him the advantage.

By the way, Glaives pre-date poleaxes and helbards; There are Glaives in Machiejowskie bible, for instance. I would think that the helbard is a development of the Galive, and not the other way around.

[B. Fulton]

I like polearms in the medieval period for the same reason I prefer rifles for work now. The ability to reach out and touch someone.

When I deploy overseas my primary weapon will be either a light machine gun or M-4 carbine, not my 9mm, cause they have the range and power advantage.


When trying to remove somebody from a horse, or fighting over a shieldwall, a large axe, glaive, halberd, etc has a major advantage in reach and power over a single handed arming sword.

At very close range, obviously, the sword comes into play, which is why the Swiss and Germans used short swords to back up the polearms.

Being able to stab, slash, hack, unhorse with a good yank, or brain someone depending on the polearm used, makes you into sort of a Swiss Army Knife of warriors..... you can do just about anything.

I currently fight in the SCA and when possible use a glaive or Dane Axe. In the single duels common at our fighter practices, I usually come to a draw or die depending on the opponent (been doing it six months, some of them have been fighting SCA style for 20 years) and some of my favorite moves (foot removal, ramming an opponent off his feet, etc) are not SCA legal. But I've been told multiple times by some guys who've been fighting for years that if I ever get into a major SCA War (Pennsic, etc) as a polearm/spearman, I will take a lot of the enemy with me before I die, as I know how to maneuver and fight behind shieldmen and pick off the opposing fighters with crossing headshots and vertical slams to the helmet. In the few melees I've done, if I have a shieldman with a sword to support me, I can maneuver a lot, get in and out of range of a enemy shieldman and either close and grapple (more or less, going for a headshot or buttspike hit at close range) or stand off, support my friend and pick off the bad guy when there's an opening.

[Matthew Kelty]

As per my earlier threat, I've been fabricating a dozen+ Pikes for using at the Renaissance Faires, and was finally able to get some images collected as I stumbled through the fabrication learning curve.

So, warts and all, everything you ever wanted to learn about making Pikes, but were afraid to ask...

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/articles/PikePoles.htm

Hope it inspires other acts of divine Steel Madness!

Matthew

[George Hill]

Everyone has been posting about why they love polearms. I will now post why I hate polearms.

1. They are a nightmare to get up the stairs of my apartment complex.
2. They are a real bitch to move in any car that isn't a convertable, (or when raining.)
3. Ceiling damage.
4. It's much harder to find material on how to use them in a historical fashion, (That's with the illustrations I so despretely need mind you...)
5. THERE AREN'T ENOUGH OF THEM ON THE MARKET!
6. Many come without their shafts.
7. It's hard to tell if they are a realistic weight, due to lack of widely avalible information.
8. I didn't buy enough of them when MRL was offering some really nice ones, like the swedish Halberd.



Yep. Those are the reasons I hate polearms. BTW, Anyone have an opinion on the Cold Steel halberd?

[Sean Flynt]

Back to butt caps/spikes for a moment: A c. 1530 tapestry depicting the Battle of Pavia depicts a great many halberds in use. Some have a cap/spike, but most do not. Some of these universally rectangular-section hafts have flat butts, while others appear to have been crudely hacked into pyramidal point. The hafts are not of uniform length, leading me to wonder if they were made to more-or-less uniform length and without caps/spikes in anticipation of soldiers cutting them to fit individual body size, combat role or personal preference.

As for the langet issue, so far we've talked about how effective a sword blow would be against a haft (and I agree that they would not fare particularly well,) but if the Pavia tapestry is any indication, polearm might be just as easily find itself opposing a similar form of polearm. Seasoned ash or not, I suspect that a hard, angled shot against a bare haft could at least make it more vulnerable to splitting and/or breaking in subsequent use. Anyway, the langets certainly give me a little more confidence and bring the balance point back down the haft a bit.

By the way, if you can find a repro polearm head you like, but aren't confident about hafting it yourself, I'd say get it anyway and just figure out how to haft it. It isn't difficult. It just takes time and a few very simple tools. The greatest challenge I encountered while hafting my glaive head was inletting the haft for the langets (more common with later polearms). Still, even that is pretty self-explanatory. It just requires patience and perseverence.