[Jean Thibodeau]

The lack of varieties available means that I might have to have a Polearm custom made.

I'm mulling over what I might like: Any opinions / wish lists out there? Since the original topic is why you like polearms, it might be interesting to discuss the different types from all points of comparison from use to looks.

One I am currently thinking of is the Langue de Boeuf: The type that is like a wide and tall rectangular shape giving an axe head on each side and narrowing abruptly into a short and narrow point or spike.

Another would be some form of Bill or early Halberd.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Patrick Kelly]

By The Sword seems to offer a wide variety of polearms don't they!

I like polearms because they make us sword toting guys seem that much cooler.

[Sean Flynt]

Yes...right up until we cleave your head down to your collarbone.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Thanks for the link Nathan, I have bookmarked the site for future reference.

At least a couple there that ring my bell.

Still, there is always the " wanting most " the ones you can't find

Might still go to A & A for a custom design eventually, but the price / quality of some on the site you posted a link to means getting a few more maybe sooner without going broke.

Oh well: Swords, armour and now polearms ! Is there no end to the insanity ? HOPE NOT

[Sean Flynt]

My new glaive:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=4033

(See, Jean? You don't have to go broke!)

[Jean Thibodeau]

Sean, nice work and yes I guess you don't have to go broke: It depends on what you have available to start with as a blade and how much effort and time you invest in it. ( Tools and skill is also useful. ) ( Making your own is also fun: I'm just too lazy these days ! )

Getting or making a good sound blade is the main thing.

I did make a Bardiche or very early type Halberd that I still have that looks pretty good: If I was making it today I would put it together in a more authentic way. although I would probably still use modern epoxy cement were it wouldn't show if it made things stronger or easier to put together. ( Sorry still don't have a digital camera, will have to get one eventually. )

Since I didn't have a good source of wood at the time, or didn't take the trouble to find a source. ( Hey I was 30 years younger and not patient enough to wait: just charged ahead with what I could find. ) I used a hardware store 1" dowel glued into a galvanised steel tube. I coverred the whole thing with wood glue saturated jutes cord and sanded away some of the roughness of the resulting surface . Anyway I described this before I think in a previous topic.

There is another very interesting Fauchard on the site Nathan posted that looks a lot like some Chinese type Halberds: I wonder if this is a case of parralel evolution or some sort of cultural transfer of a design ? Did European copy a Chinese design or was it the reverse ?

http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/cd-1022.jpg

[Sean Flynt]

I've often thought it would not be too difficult to make an authentic-looking weapon such as a bardiche or lochaber axe, given a few basic skill and tools. Some of these weapons were mighty crude, and that favors the modern tinker

Maybe this thread will inspire folks to go down to Lowes and pick up some sheet steel, heavy-duty snips and a bench grinder! Heck...that somebody might be me, after my impending move to a bigger house.

[Stefan Toivonen]

Why do you love polearms?

They are big and nasty and look very menacing in dense formations. Been a fan of polearms for a long time, my favourite is this this: http://www.lutel.cz/20005.htm, another that is like is this: http://www.lutel.cz/20016.htm

[Jean Thibodeau]

Anybody have any hands on experience with the A & A Italian Bill or good pictures of it ?

The picture on the A & A site doesn't show much of the staff part and it doesn't look like there are languettes on the sides.

Also the site mentions that the head is faceted but the contrast and resolution on the site picture is not high enough to do much more than guess at what facets there might be.

I might ask Craig if he has other pictures of it or I might ask him just to describe in more detail what the subtleties are in an E-mail eventually.

As somebody said on another topic thread a lot of the pictures on this Forum show the swords and armour to better advantage than a lot of the pictures on the industry sites: The pictures on the sites should be as good as possible because that is where people do most of their drooling over them and make there decisions to purchase or NOT

A little money saved on picture quality can mean a lot of sales lost

Maybe its just that this site has raised the bar on quality photography to such a high standard, that merely O.K. product photos now look mediocre to me

[Folkert van Wijk]

Here you have a couple of polearm lovers.

I couldn't resist posting this picture here.
It's a picture from a (Dutch) newspaper of a South Korean demonstration that happend lately.
In all, it looked pretty ancient to me, like a Creek fallanx (the demonstrants at the right) versus the romans (the police at the left) or something.

[Patrik Erik Lars Lindblom]

It's really look Medieval that picture, nice one Folkert!
still in use those polearms

[George Hill]

[Folkert van Wijk]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Matthew, Silver doesn't always think longer is better. He has "perfect" lengths for weapons and anything over or under that length is inferior. He does rate overly long weapons more highly than too short weapons, though (Paradox 28).

[Matthew Kelty]

>Silver would agree - an 8-9 ft polearm beats any longer weapon in his system. But the longer weapon beats anything >under his perfect length.

Hmmm, that's not how I interpreted Silver's take on the matter:

"...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."

Okay, so heavy, chopping Polearms beats all Swords...

"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..."

...light, thrusting Polearms (yes, noted, they are of Perfect length) beat all heavy, chopping Poleams *and* all manner of single swords...

"...and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike."

...*BUT* are inadeqaute for two opponents with swords/daggers and the long (and yes, imperfect length) polearms.


Additionally, he notes:

"The long staff, morris pike, or javelin, or such like weapons above the perfect length, have advantage against all manner of weapons, the short staff, the Welch hook, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of vantage excepted..."

Okay, so the Pike and the long Polearms beat *all* Single weapons...

"...yet are too weak for two swords and daggers or two sword and bucklers, or two rapiers and poniards with gauntlets, because they are too long to thrust, strike, and turn speedily. And by reason of the large distance, one of the sword and daggers-men will get behind him."

...but fall short again when dealing with multiple opponents with two swords/daggers.


There is also a curiosity inserted:

"The Welch hook or forest bill, have advantage against all manner of weapons whatsoever."

This refutes his earlier claim that the Pike and long arms (explictly) defeat the Welsh Hook, but I'm thinking his intent is to declare the Forest Bill to "hath the advantage" over all *other* weapons, or at the least all weapons similarly categorized as being of a perfect length. This would fit in with every preceeding "rule".

It is also reiterated later, in the context of warfare:

"The morris pike defends the battle from both horse and man, much better than can the short staff, long staff, or forest bill."

As far as his preference for the shorter wepons in the melee, yes, he states the obvious (never take a knife to a gunfight, and never take a staff to a battle.. , and states the sensible. I'd much rather have a Halberd to fend off swordsmen and other polearms, and if I was mobile enough to go up against a nest of pikes and maneuver, the halberd can clean house, but I think his context for this application is in the general melee, not a phalanx to phalanx press. At that point, 200 pikemen pushing into a wall of short weaponry are going to roll through like a Juggernaut, and I think Silver gives the Pike credit for being "the best weapon" for defending the shot, which are reaching about 40-50% of the formation of battle at this time, as well as keeping those pesky Reiters and Cuirassers at bay.


As far as the accounts of pikes breaking, there are actually very few period references to it, literary or otherwise. I've poured through my own share of period documents (http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/bibliography.htm has my list of goodies, although my site seems to be dead due to GoDaddy.com issues, bugger)

At any rate, I've not read Paul Wagner's book, and since I've heard mixed reviews, I'll probably not waste my money. I've got my manuscript of Silver, am quite comfortable with the goofy script and Elizabethan speak, and am fairly comfortable that he's an easy read...

I am, however, interested in the account you mention, and if you could peruse the footnotes to find where it came from, I'd be interested in chasing it further. Also, bear in mind that the reason so many period texts are so specific about using Ash is because many poles were *not* made of it. Everything would get used when it was convenient, expedient, or cost effective, and I still offer up my Ash poles for anyone to knock at to their hearts delight. Poles can certainly break, but the myth that the Zwiehander, Claymore, or any other sword could categorically cut the head off a pike is sheer hogwash, and is a personal pet-peeve myth I stumble across all the time, right up there with Katana's being able to slice through entire planets...

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

You're reading Silver wrong. Look carefully at the bits you quoted. When he writes that the short staff and like weapons of perfect length are "too hard" for two swords and daggers, he means that the short staff can take two of them (this is clear because in Paradox 26 he describes how to beat two swordsmen with a short staff). It also means the short staff is "too hard" for (i.e. beats) long staves and pikes (he says this again in Paradox 27 and elsewhere).

Paul Wagner took the account from p. 179 of British Battles by Ken and Denise Guest. Byzantine and Islamic sources both talk about breaking spear shafts with a *mace* (for the Byzantine source, see Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century by Eric McGeer; for the Islamic source, see this thread over on swordforum.com: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=40839). And, as I said, Swetnam said a one handed sword could do it (but he also thought a smart staff guy could easily kill the swordsman if he tried)...

[R. Laine]

Hi,

I agree with Benjamin (I wonder if this is when one his supposed to check the meds - his own or someone else's... No, seriously, I've sorta changed my mind since we last discussed this at Netsword). I used to consider the idea of cutting polearms rubbish as well, but to be honest, it's mentioned in so many historical documents, many of which were written by fencers, that at least I'm now quite hesitant to discount it entirely.

Swetnam's quite clear about it, and even tells you what to do if someone attempts cutting your staff and tells of a man who had his staff cut, Marozzo has a picture of a fellow with a two-hander with lots of splintered polearms around him, and Silver also mentions the rapier's inability to cut polearms, which he apparently considered his sword capable of. And then there are the numerous non- fencing treatise accounts of polearms being cut to top it off...

Best wishes
Rabbe

[Matthew Kelty]

Well, I'm obviously running against the grain here...

Benjamin, I reread the Paradoxes, and see what you're referring to, and agree with your points on Silver.

To *my* credit, I'm not completely daft, and Silver does summarize it nicely in section 28. Essentially, "if your weapons are too short, the longest one wins, and if your weapons are too long, the shortest one wins, and if you've got a light bill (Forest Bill/Welsh Hook), you win". So, I was half right, just applying to the wrong weapons group

Now, as far as the rest of it goes, I'm going to roll up my sleeves and dive in...

First off, Swetnam is nothing more than a self-taught fighter. He admits this repeatedly, endlessly, and invites everyone to disagree with his theories. He doesn't appear to be a Master of Defence (I know William Wilson disagrees with me on this point, but it's conjecture from both sides). I base my opinion in the manner in which he consistently belittles his own opinion, refers to himself as "learning alone", refers to playing upon the scaffold *only* in regards to others who have done it, and the manner in which he advises the scholar to use his principles to evaluate a Master.

BTW, opinions aside, William Wilson gets a doffed cap just for the amount of breadth he has added to Western Swordplay studies. Mucho Kudos to him and his work over the last 20 years.

Back to my rant, Swetnam's perspective is that it's everyone's duty to understand weapons, and "in 20 daies" of studying his book, one could walk away knowing more than when he started. Yeah, I'll give him that, he does have some good advice, and some good methods, but he also has some humdingers that leave much to be desired when applied, to wit:

"and the thombe of thy rapier hand, not upon thy rapier, according unto the usual fashion of the vulgar sort, but upon the naile of thy fore-finger, which will locke thine hand the stronger about the handle"

He later mentions that the thumb upon the quillon *IS* just as effective, and one of the better grips to use, but that he would even suggest the above to be the best grip is nonsense for point and edge control. It's only purpose is to hang on for a strong thrust.

"the heele of thy right foote should joyne close to the middle joynt of the great toe of thy left foote"

also:

"thou must keepe thy thighes close together"

The above is his ideal stance for Rapier (although not the sword), in conjunction with all of the weight upon the back foot. Again, great for a fast lunge, but that's about it. Not mobile, not stable, and he actually doesn't train the fighter to move. His training methods actually begins with your back to a wall. I think darn near every other 16th century treatise involves moving alongside your opponent when you strike, I think this stance is completely naive.

"Let thy Rapier or Sword be foure foote at the least and thy Dagger two foote, for it is better have the Dagger too long then too short, and rather hard than soft, for a short dagger may deceive a skilfull man his defence, either of blow or thrust: I have often knowen a soft dagger cut in twaine with a Rapier."

Umm, most 16th and 17th century Rapiers I've seen in the Museums hit 48" at the longest, 44" overall being more the average. Certainly, there are longer examples, but they are few and far between (perhaps Swetnam's students? As for a 2 foot dagger, I'm just walking away...

All in all, I think Swetnam is good, but naive, and I think he goes outside his realm of experience quite often (he cites that the Rapier is just as effective in the press of battle as a Sword, silly man...

Hell, he even cites in the listing of what a Master of Defense should demonstrate upon the Scaffold, the unlikeliest offensive strategy I've *EVER* seen, Rapier and Pike. No, not against one another, but as a viable fighting form, such as Rapier and Dagger. I gotta see someone pull that off... :

At any rate:

"I have known a man with a Sword and Dagger hath cut off the end of a Pike-Staffe, but I hold him an ignorant and unskillful man, that hath held the Staffe"

You're right. Reference #1 accepted. Now, note that it wasn't Swetnam himself (getting close to hearsay), and given that there were two weapons involved with the "cutter", and one judged to be not adept at the Pike (the "cuttee"), it's possible that the pike head was trapped by the dagger and broken with the sword, it's possible the pike head was on the ground and braced by the dagger, and smashed with the sword. A lot of unanswered questions abound, and as I said earlier, pikes can certainly break, but it's not easy, and broken pike is different than a cut pike. Sure, same results, but one is closer to sheer dumb luck where the other is claiming to be decidedly more common.
Yup, it's a source, but to quote Mr. Swetnam himself, "one Swallow does not a Summer make".

May I add:

"any of these dangers may happen at the very first blow that thou strikest, and if it be a staffe it may likewise be broken"

So, a man with a staff hitting another man may likely break his staffe on the first blow. I once again stand by the maxim that not all poles are created equal, and that the Ash pikes and handles of most quality Polearms are not the common stuff used elsewhere, and are not as easily broken.

Let's move on

As far as the Paul Wagner quote, two things stand out in my mind. The first is the era you're talking about. By the 1680's Pikes had become slimmer and slimmer, and there are many accounts of it being no larger in diameter than a broomstick. There is one particular mid-17th century Pike Drill that comes to mind where the Pike is weilded one handed entirely, and has the pikeman practically dancing through the drill. Again, without the context of the account, I can't make a good judgement, but if the year is right, and we're talking about the average weapons, that's not a very big feat. It's a far cry from the average battlefield pikes of the 16th century, which is what I've been referring to.

The second point is that it is a secondary resource. It sounds like the Guest's book is about re-enactors comparing their activities to the period, and I'd want to crack their book open and chase the reference down further before I would even begin to guess as to it's origins or accuracy. Reference #2 sketchy, and slightly out of period.

As far as the Islamic references, you're again talking about a completely different era than I (9th-10th century vs. 16th).

I'm assuming the quotes you're referring to are:

Question: What does the mace-bearer do when he
meets the bearer of any other weapons?

Answer: He can break lances, swords, bows, or
shields. He can smash helmets, forearms, thighs,
and trunks, and he can shatter bones. He can
also throw his mace at the horseman or his horse,
or at the footsoldiers. Or he can do whatever occurs
to him.

Question: How heavy should a mace be?
Answer: Its weight should not be beyond the strength of
the man carrying it so that he can weild it effectively. I have
heard it said by friends who fought in campaigns against
against the Unbelievers that a mace should weigh 150
dirhams (Note 3).

Note 3:
In modern Egypt a dirham is about 3.12 grams. For twelfth
century Syria it was apparently about 3.14 grams... ...150 dirhams
would thus equate to about 470 grams, or 1.031-1.036 pounds

So, I find it hard to beleive a one pound mace can break a sword. Even a 16th century mace, weighing in at 2-3 pounds would still have a hell of a time, but I'll let it pass.

As for the context in the period, a 10th century lance is closer to what we think of as a Javelin. It's not the 19' heavy lances we picture when we think heavy cavalry, but a light spear. Additionally, lances are designed to break, they are purposely thin at the neck. You hit, the head breaks, you leave the scene with the broken haft showing your success. Pikes *AREN'T* supposed to break, Pikes are designed to stop a horse, rider, and other footman dead in their tracks, all day long. They are thicker, they are springier.


I'll grant you Silver's opinion on the matter as Reference #3 as valid, he's certainly got opinions, and as for Achille Marozzo, I haven't read a full translation yet, but I do know that the caption for the plate you're referring to only describes that guard being the way "that being (a) worth(y) mind you defend yourself sure(ly)" against polearms, provided "you have heart" and nothing else works, literally: "when it was a case that you could not make other thing(s) go (so) sure(ly)"


So, I recognize I'm in the minority here, and I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind, but I do stand by my experience that it's rare and not easy, and that of all the references you've offered, one is from someone who appears to not have much practical experience, one is out of period by a significant enough era to be relevant, and not yet determined to be a primary source, one is out of context by 500+ years, and regarding very different technologies, if not slightly fantastic results, one by a widely recognized, blindly opinionated verbal brute, and the last slightly inconclusive.

Sure, I'm dismissing an awful lot there, but I do encourage you to find more, and please share them. I'm happy to accept I'm wrong if I get an overwhelming preponderance of good references, as I am constantly trying to learn more and understand more. I'm merely being a stick in the mud in that for 13 years I've studied this stuff, I've got some 300 period manuscripts on warfare in the period, and aside from the references you've given, there *isn't* a whole lot out there.

So, take this as a challenge for the truth, not a personal attack, and I pursue this with academic zeal, not personal animosity...

Respectfully,
Matthew

[Chad Sonderberg]