Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Question: Which of these is the best design?


For example, was the single-piece design implemented because it's cheaper or because it's superior, and are !MORE LANGETS! always better or would one need to worry about weakening the haft with the excessive fasteners?

Also, best hammer/pick end, and size of the blade/spike? For example, could the spike could get caught & bent during a swing if it's too long? What about overall weight?

[Funk]

Spikes tend to be stiff and solid so there unlikely to get bent.

Langets are mostly about armoring the shaft, other wise repeated blows can chip away at the shaft and eventual sever it.
You will note that often in the four langet models the holes are offset to keep the haft strong.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Shape

Note the common spear design. That's because spears are simply awesome. They pierce armor well (especially with the weight of the halberd) and stabs are faster than chops, they stop movement, they take advantage of enemy movement toward you and your movement toward enemy, and they're harder to predict and block by the enemy, more accurate for the attacker, and less fatiguing.

Because polearm fighters fought in groups who all have exactly the same design, a sideways swinging motion isn't that useful. It also loses the gravity-assist on a downward stroke and you need to recover from a missed swing instead of just pulling it back up. In general, imagine your polearm butt planted to receive a charge, or in hand to stab, or occasionally brought down to chop with the axe.

I would say that the hammer back is probably not that useful. You would need a downward-chop motion and you already have an axe side for that. The ones with a heavy bulb and a spike on the back are good, because you can use the back end for snagging and pulling.

The spikes farther down the pole in the first picture are purely ornamental: nobody would get impaled past the rest of the halberd parts anyway and a guard to catch enemy weapons would be much closer to the wielder's hands.

Durability

The spear tip is going to be stabbing, so while it's weaker than the back spike or axe it's also handling forces differently. I'd say all three are pretty solid. Some of those examples look flimsy though! Maybe they're decayed.

Ideally for durability you'd have a solid metal rod. But that is expensive and heavy, so it's generally a wooden pole. The ones that look very solid are actually just metal sheaths that fit over the pole and are bolted on. Heavier reinforcement of the pole will help prevent enemy infantry from cutting it, which combined with moving in too close for the halberd to be effective, is probably how enemy infantry attacked a unit of polearm-fighters.

At that point the fighters may back up, but the unit probably isn't given that order and unless the guys in back break morale and retreat the guys in front are stuck. So they drop the halberd and switch to a backup weapon such as a sword. Whoever stands fast during the engagement will pick up halberds and regroup.

It's also possible that the wielder moves his hands up the pole ahead of the center. This leaves a lot of pole behind him which he has trouble controlling, but allows him to fight someone right in front of him. At this point he's almost certainly just stabbing and blocking because the rear pole is a hindrance. I can't imagine this being possible unless he had nobody behind him because otherwise he'd just whack his friends constantly - although they might train as a unit for this eventuality. It would probably be more effective to just have the first rank switch weapons and defend while the rear rank(s) continue to stab over and between their heads using their halberds.

[Mephansteras]

The hammer is actually quite useful if you're fighting a heavily armored opponent, it has a much better chance of damaging your target and/or his armor than an axe would. The Axe is better on a less armored opponent. Hence, having both. After all, in late period fighting you're quite likely to have to deal with both poorly armored levies and heavily armored knights and other professional soldiers.

Spikes are in some ways even better than hammers, but have the disadvantage of getting stuck sometimes, which can be fatal for you if his friends aren't all otherwise occupied by your friends. Which one is actually better all around probably depends on personal preference.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

How about the hammers with spike tips? The very first example is relevant. Grabbing might be lost?

How about solid construction vs the langet-pinching method detailed in the third paragraph of "form & construction"? My guess would be that solid is better, but maybe not.

[Loud Whispers]

For example, was the single-piece design implemented because it's cheaper or because it's superior, and are !MORE LANGETS! always better or would one need to worry about weakening the haft with the excessive fasteners?

I'm impartial to this one:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The less pieces involved, the more likely your weapon will survive.

Spikes tend to be stiff and solid so there unlikely to get bent.

Eh... Stiff and solid steel tends to be more brittle and prone to shattering. Softer steel that is flexible enough to bend is preferable, as long as it bends back into shape.

The hammer is actually quite useful if you're fighting a heavily armored opponent, it has a much better chance of damaging your target and/or his armor than an axe would. The Axe is better on a less armored opponent. Hence, having both. After all, in late period fighting you're quite likely to have to deal with both poorly armored levies and heavily armored knights and other professional soldiers.

If by 'late fighting period' you mean late medieval, that was post hundred years war where people started viewing soldiery as a profession and were decked in the best armour they could find. Typically halberdiers would have been professional heavy infantry themselves, but started getting replaced by professional pikemen towards the start of the renaissance. The axehead would have been against anyone who didn't own a hauberk, as well as any other pikemen [should the halberdier manage to get close, such as in a scenario where he would be supporting friendly pikemen]. The spike would have been great against other heavy infantry [so still just other pikemen and halberdiers], the hammer? It's all right I guess, but unless you're hitting them on their head, you'll only be able to do so much to someone padded out beneath good plate. It's all about the spike.
European armies and mercenaries could often equip their regular foot soldiers in this kinda gear:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So pikes and the odd tapered bastard sword became all the jazz to deal with pesky armour.

Spikes are in some ways even better than hammers, but have the disadvantage of getting stuck sometimes, which can be fatal for you if his friends aren't all otherwise occupied by your friends. Which one is actually better all around probably depends on personal preference.

Getting stuck? These spikes would have been used for hooking sure, but it'd be quite difficult to get it stuck.

Because polearm fighters fought in groups who all have exactly the same design, a sideways swinging motion isn't that useful.

Whether they be Spaniard, Kraut or Swiss, pike blocks would have included a range of weapons actually within the pike block - from zweihanders to halberds and arquebuses. Knocking aside pikes would have been conducive to not getting stabbed by pikes.

It also loses the gravity-assist on a downward stroke and you need to recover from a missed swing instead of just pulling it back up. In general, imagine your polearm butt planted to receive a charge, or in hand to stab, or occasionally brought down to chop with the axe.

1. Gravity did not do the killing for these weapons.
2. That would be a recover, as is the same for any other weapon.
3. Imagine your polearm thrust into bodies of heavy infantry, swinging at enemy cavalry and occasionally hooking someone in the back of the head.

It's also possible that the wielder moves his hands up the pole ahead of the center. This leaves a lot of pole behind him which he has trouble controlling, but allows him to fight someone right in front of him. At this point he's almost certainly just stabbing and blocking because the rear pole is a hindrance. I can't imagine this being possible unless he had nobody behind him because otherwise he'd just whack his friends constantly - although they might train as a unit for this eventuality. It would probably be more effective to just have the first rank switch weapons and defend while the rear rank(s) continue to stab over and between their heads using their halberds.

...Or just have overlapping ranks of polearms, as they did.

The spikes farther down the pole in the first picture are purely ornamental: nobody would get impaled past the rest of the halberd parts anyway and a guard to catch enemy weapons would be much closer to the wielder's hands.

Except this is not a sword where having a guard near the tip of the blade would be impractical; keep it up there and you have greater mechanical force to parry and throw caught weapons. If you hold a lever in your hands, use it to move mountains. The rondel also protects the langet.

Ideally for durability you'd have a solid metal rod. But that is expensive and heavy, so it's generally a wooden pole. The ones that look very solid are actually just metal sheaths that fit over the pole and are bolted on.

Said wooden pole would be fire hardened and usually quite durable, the aforementioned solid looking halberds would have been more durable I reckon for the same reason a single-tang knife is more durable than a locking knife.

Heavier reinforcement of the pole will help prevent enemy infantry from cutting it, which combined with moving in too close for the halberd to be effective, is probably how enemy infantry attacked a unit of polearm-fighters.

Enemy infantry fought halberdiers by keeping them the hell away from their unit with pikes, it was the other way around from what you suggest.


tl;dr:
Katanas a shit

[Mephansteras]

The hammer is actually quite useful if you're fighting a heavily armored opponent, it has a much better chance of damaging your target and/or his armor than an axe would. The Axe is better on a less armored opponent. Hence, having both. After all, in late period fighting you're quite likely to have to deal with both poorly armored levies and heavily armored knights and other professional soldiers.

If by 'late fighting period' you mean late medieval, that was post hundred years war where people started viewing soldiery as a profession and were decked in the best armour they could find. Typically halberdiers would have been professional heavy infantry themselves, but started getting replaced by professional pikemen towards the start of the renaissance. The axehead would have been against anyone who didn't own a hauberk, as well as any other pikemen [should the halberdier manage to get close, such as in a scenario where he would be supporting friendly pikemen]. The spike would have been great against other heavy infantry [so still just other pikemen and halberdiers], the hammer? It's all right I guess, but unless you're hitting them on their head, you'll only be able to do so much to someone padded out beneath good plate. It's all about the spike.
European armies and mercenaries could often equip their regular foot soldiers in this kinda gear:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So pikes and the odd tapered bastard sword became all the jazz to deal with pesky armour.

You don't need to pierce armor for the blow to be effective, although in actuality a small hammerhead can pierce plate. You can also get away with simply denting the armor to the point where it can't move properly or your opponent can't breath. Add to that the possibility of breaking bones on knocking out an opponent with a blow to the head and the hammer is quite handy. Especially if they're a high-value noble you'd rather incapacitate and random than someone you want to kill. As for padding, while you have that on the torso it can only do so much and the padding on arms and legs is usually quite a bit less in order to preserve mobility. The hammer is also most effective as a downward attack, so you're generally be going for a hit to the helm, shoulders, or arms. The padding on the torso isn't going to be as much of a factor and the high chance of broken bones to any of those areas makes it an effective attack.

And while I agree that pikemen were often the replacement for other types of polearms, Halbards were very common weapons up until the point where the Pike/Musket combination became the dominant force on the battlefield. Swiss Halbardeers were (and still are) the body guards of the Pope for a reason.

The diversity in opponents is why halbards with three different weapon types on them were so effective. Spear for thrusting (great in many situations), Axe for chopping (good for other situations), and Spike/Hammer for dealing with heavily armored foes (and probably hooking, although the axe head can do that too).

Spikes are in some ways even better than hammers, but have the disadvantage of getting stuck sometimes, which can be fatal for you if his friends aren't all otherwise occupied by your friends. Which one is actually better all around probably depends on personal preference.

Getting stuck? These spikes would have been used for hooking sure, but it'd be quite difficult to get it stuck.

Have you ever jabbed a spike of metal through a metal plate before? Yes, they can get stuck. Especially if you also have to deal with leather, flesh, and bone underneath which can all bind the weapon. Or if you opponent falls down and drags the weapon with it while it's still jammed inside them. They can also get bent, which makes them a lot less effective. A hammer may not be overall better at killing, but it can be a better weapon for the duration of a fight. Spike is almost certainly better for killing a single person, but it's not necessarily better overall.

General rule of thumb with medieval weapons: If you see something cropping up a lot it was done for a good reason. They were very good at fighting and either killing or not killing their opponent as they needed. Hammerheads are one of those things that shows up a lot. Their are numerous weapons, including dedicated war hammers, that all use that design and with good reason. It's a very effective weapon for dealing with an opponent in heavy armor.

Hmm...also, it's much easier to repair heavily dented armor you loot off a defeated opponent than it is to patch up a hole. I wonder if that ever factored into the decision? I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Looking at the stuff they're describing, it seems these polearms are more like two-handed outgrowths of hammers and axes rather than heavier and more complex spears. My notes above have more to do with spearlike pole arms, which is how I've always envisioned halberds. The scale of the two men fighting, for example, suggests a weapon about 5' long: more maneuverable and less stab-or-downward-chop focused.

I still suspect the blunt part is cleated like that not for any kind of piercing effect but to dimple and better grab a surface (such as a smooth armor plate or a person's clothed shoulder) and the general hookish shape seems specialized for snagging and grabbing. It seems like a tradeoff: if you have a blunt grabber you don't grip as well but it's far less likely to get stuck in the target. If you have a spike grabber it pierces in and grips very well but may become entangled in the equipment and/or flesh of the target.

Still not seeing the benefit of a flat striking surface over a cleaving surface, given that the weight and speed is identical for both but the cleaver strikes a smaller area and thus has a greater ability to split armor and fracture a bone.

One could argue that maybe they didn't know what the hell either and these represent offshoots in the development of polearms. But I'd like to think that men who fight with the gear, talking with men who make the gear, and together all of their lives and their families' lives are at stake in case of invasion, would end up producing a good design. There's probably a lot we're missing.

@loudwhispers: I agree on a lot of your points.

Sideways motions with pole weapons make a lot of sense for blocking purposes - but I just don't see a mass of men all swinging sideways to strike. They would be constantly getting in each others' way. In tight formation (that is, bringing as many men to bear on a segment of facing as possible) it's gotta be all about stabbing and downward chopping.

I've heard of mixed units (the "pike and shot" which evolved into rifles with bayonets for example) but I was talking more about seeing a unit with the polearm equivalent of one guy having an axe, another a sword, another a mace ... to fight side by side most effectively you would need to have weapons that perform the same motions. A great sword would be totally sensible among halberds - again, not making great sweeping arcs unless he's out there in front alone, but stabbing and engaging anyone who gets in too close by holding the sword with hands together or apart.

See here for a drawing of great-sword wielders stepping out from the unit and attacking pikemen. We have, from left to right, an axeman about to chop the head off the second man because there's not much else for his axe to do from that position, the wielder of some kind of stabbing pole arm advancing, and a swordsman making a chopping-down motion to cut pikes.

As for infantry vs. pike, from what I've gathered, pike blocks would try to maneuver around to avoid everything but cavalry. When they must fight another pike block, the pikemen pretty much get stabbed all the time until one unit or the other broke and fled - Swiss pikes were renowned for morale which made them terrifying to fight. You could use your pike to knock other pikes aside, but then your pike is also being knocked aside and you're defending instead of stabbing. When attacked by infantry the infantry generally was able to either break ranks and encircle the pikes, or carefully move in and chop the pikes, resulting in pikemen being forced to swap weapons. The infantry would take casualties of course, it's not foolproof, but in general: pike > cavalry > foot > pike. Missile troops are independent of the cycle, generally faring well at range except against very heavily-armored men (who may still suffer life-threatening injuries) but utterly failing in melee against anyone.

As for armor's protectiveness, I've seen experiments using replica weapons of the right weight and metal consistence against armor of the right construction and metal, and in general,

Leather armor sucks and is useful only against relatively light blunt impacts,
Mail is fine except against a good solid hit, which will still go right through but may be slowed somewhat. Swords can split a mail coat, needle-style arrows jam right through it and regularly inflict lethal-depth wounds. Two layers of heavy, close-knit, riveted mail doesn't quite equal a suit of plate. Butted mail sucks hard against anything except blunt impact, against which it fares as well as riveted mail.
Plate is much better than mail but a solid arrow with a needle-style point will still pierce it and can sometimes inflict an organ-depth wound, axes can still cleave it, spears can still pierce it ... but the effect of the impact is much less severe and it can turn what would otherwise be an organ-depth wound into something survivable, or a bone-chipping wound into a flesh wound.

If you took a strong man with an axe or a spear, and set him up to take his time and really hit a guy in the best field-usable armor of the day, the attack will get through that armor and cause injury. During a long battle, how many times will that good solid hit come in? That's why guys in good armor do still die.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Perhaps the hammer existed partially to add weight to the overall weapon without making the spear or axe parts too big. Although you do see depictions of people fighting with hammers. You're right, they must have been used.

[Loud Whispers]

You don't need to pierce armor for the blow to be effective, although in actuality a small hammerhead can pierce plate. You can also get away with simply denting the armor to the point where it can't move properly or your opponent can't breath. Add to that the possibility of breaking bones on knocking out an opponent with a blow to the head and the hammer is quite handy. Especially if they're a high-value noble you'd rather incapacitate and random than someone you want to kill.

Hit someone on the head like that and they'd most likely die if the armour doesn't stop the blow. Still, useful for cracking helmets and armour so you can spike them.

As for padding, while you have that on the torso it can only do so much and the padding on arms and legs is usually quite a bit less in order to preserve mobility.

Unless they wore a gambeson out of fear from swans and broken arms.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The hammer is also most effective as a downward attack, so you're generally be going for a hit to the helm, shoulders, or arms. The padding on the torso isn't going to be as much of a factor and the high chance of broken bones to any of those areas makes it an effective attack.

It's all right. It's still not the bread and butter of the halberd though. You could do the same with the axe of the halberd, and there's a dark anecdote of the Battle of Nancy where a Swiss Halberdier hit Charles the Bold in the head and the axe split the helm and cut his head open in two. Keep the hammer if you don't expect to fight anything else other than heavy infantry.

And while I agree that pikemen were often the replacement for other types of polearms, Halbards were very common weapons up until the point where the Pike/Musket combination became the dominant force on the battlefield. Swiss Halbardeers were (and still are) the body guards of the Pope for a reason.

They're Swiss guards, and they traditionally used halberds because they were 1.6m long whereas pikes - their definitive weapon, 4.5-5.5m long, was only fit for military use in the field. Halberds continued to have their presence on the battlefield for as long as there were pikes, but they ceased to be as effective as they once were and were phased out. They weren't 'very common,' but they weren't gone either.

The diversity in opponents is why halbards with three different weapon types on them were so effective. Spear for thrusting (great in many situations), Axe for chopping (good for other situations), and Spike/Hammer for dealing with heavily armored foes (and probably hooking, although the axe head can do that too).

Spear - deals with heavily armoured opponents, all of the force concentrated to a point to give the best chance of breaking through armour.
Axe - deals with pikemen, forcing aside and in the best case scenario, breaking other polearms to allow friendly pikes through. Also great for stunning heavy infantry and trying to damage their armour, as well as lopping off limbs and breaking bones.
Spike - taking Knights from their horses and throwing them onto the ground/tripping opponents over.
Hammer - Same as axe, minus the hacking.

Have you ever jabbed a spike of metal through a metal plate before? Yes, they can get stuck. Especially if you also have to deal with leather, flesh, and bone underneath which can all bind the weapon.

The back spike was not used to that end. It would get stuck.

Or if you opponent falls down and drags the weapon with it while it's still jammed inside them.

Pull and twist.

They can also get bent, which makes them a lot less effective. A hammer may not be overall better at killing, but it can be a better weapon for the duration of a fight. Spike is almost certainly better for killing a single person, but it's not necessarily better overall.

The one great drawback of a weapon like the halberd or pike is that you would get fatigued using them after a prolonged amount of time.
Aside from that, your greatest worry is if your spearhead or pole broke.

General rule of thumb with medieval weapons: If you see something cropping up a lot it was done for a good reason. They were very good at fighting and either killing or not killing their opponent as they needed. Hammerheads are one of those things that shows up a lot. Their are numerous weapons, including dedicated war hammers, that all use that design and with good reason. It's a very effective weapon for dealing with an opponent in heavy armor.

European nation states all had various weapon designs, and even amongst their own borders the weapon designs would have varied greatly. And that's not even taking into account just how many weapons didn't survive history.

Hmm...also, it's much easier to repair heavily dented armor you loot off a defeated opponent than it is to patch up a hole. I wonder if that ever factored into the decision? I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Plate was fitted to the wearer, so not really. You wanted to kill them dead first, loot later. And generally most armies were well equipped anyways, and hauberks could just be repaired with a few rings and given to your soldiers so the damage done wasn't really an issue.

Katanas still a shit

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Wasn't there some duke's kid who was slain by a swan he was kicking around?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

I'm not convinced anything with a fine edge or stabbing motion would be good for piercing armor- the stuff would have been made specifically to deflect said attacks. Coming down on weak points where the blade would catch, (neckline), or stabbing at joints would work, but forget stabbing right at a breastplate.

I'd also expect more hafts to be broken by their users making solid contact with a great swing than their opponent trying to hit the haft with their own weapon.

[Mephansteras]

@Loud Whispers: I think we might be getting a bit far afield in that conversation, so I'll just end with this: Which design was considered better seems to have depended on the exact time period and area you're talking about. Add to that individual preferences and it gets muddy very quickly. Regardless, halbards were quite common weapons for a good bit of the later middle ages and proved to be quite effective because they were good in many different situations. While we can debate for a while on the usefulness of Hammer vs Spike, the fact is both heads were used extensively throughout Europe on many different pole arms (some like the Bec De Corbin often having Hammer and Spike as the combination) so clearly they both had uses and proponents. Also, I've WORN full plate with a gambeson before so I know quite well the limitations and benefits of it.

@GrizzlyAdamz: Armor was designed to deflect shots, yes. However, a solid blow of a thrusting weapon can still pierce it. It usually requires two hands, but since we're talking about pole arms...

I'm not sure how common hacking at the hafts of shorter pole arms was. It was very common with pikes, since they are both really long and not likely to break due to being thrust with rather than swung around. Also, if you cut off the head of a pike the pikeman is suddenly much less effective than he was before, and it gives people in the second rank something to do.

[Loud Whispers]

Wasn't there some duke's kid who was slain by a swan he was kicking around?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

U WOT M8 I'LL DEK U

U SHIT

Yeah, don't mess with them.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

This video is the first thing I came across. The visuals look appropriate but I don't have ears right now so I can't vet the armor thickness or material, or arrowhead material, or draw strength. Also it looks awfully close, archers would fire from farther back and probably lose energy with distance.

This is a shot against very heavy mail at point blank with only a 35lb bow.

However, a spear delivers far more energy on the same surface area, both because of a heavier weapon and greater energy input from the wielder.

I'm pretty confident a sturdy spear in the hands of a strong man would pierce a cuirass but probably not inflict an organ-depth wound.

This guy stabs a pig through riveted mail and gambeson. Please note also that the pig is swinging, which will absorb some force from the impact, and the guy does not look at all buff. Everyone knows when you make a Youtube video of you stabbing a pig you have to do it shirtless and with a beard. Also barbecue pics.

This also shows how the padding behind the mail makes a big difference. I didn't realize how much. It's not just about comfort and making it so the broken rings don't dig into your skin. I suspect there's something very small-scale going on when the point pierces and cleaves apart the rings, and the rings catch in the gambeson and are harder to pull apart.

Anyway I'm sure you guys can find videos of people failing to get through armor. I think a lot of it has to do with the forces involved and because each testing rig and each piece of armor is different, it's hard to make a generalized statement beyond "it's good to have armor unless it's so hot you'll die of heatstroke first".