Why were MEDIEVAL Pollaxes & Halberds BLUNT?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 มี.ค. 2024
- Why were MEDIEVAL Pollaxes & Halberds BLUNT? Certainly lots of original examples in museums and private collections are quite blunt, sometimes with a very definite blunt edge that has not been sharpened.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
www.pinterest.co.uk/matt_east...
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/
#medieval #knight #fighting
![Fc ครับ ขอแนะนำให้รู้จักกับ "น้องเปียโน" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQU6Q_IYTLo/mqdefault.jpg)
Can I just say that the existence of copyright restrictions on photos of antiques is outrageous? That kind of knowledge should be in the public domain.
Welcome to democracy and capitalism. Free market, am I right?
Any publicly funded entity that has copyrighted photos that they won't show should lose its public funding.
Would you prefer tyranny and poverty?@@PROVOCATEURSK
@@PROVOCATEURSK_democracy_ caused this?
@@PROVOCATEURSK That's it, you changed my mind. Lets dismantle the bartering and trade and have such activities be banned by the harshest forms of punishment.
Not sure though should we go for feudalism, anarchy or dictatorship?
"This is genuinely going to be a brief video"
>checks runtime
Well I'll be
Amazing isn't it
It should be a 3 to 4 hours video.
I was shocked that this one was actually short.
He was blunt and to the point in this video.
🤣@@johnracine4589
This brings to mind US military sabers from the 1800s. So many of them are blunt that people actually started to insist that they were "meant to be blunt" and never sharpened. Of course, the majority of military sabers that survived were the weapons held in armories that were never issued, and therefore, had never been service sharpened. I wonder if something like that is going on with halberds? Pollaxes were more knightly weapons, though and probably weren't amassed in armories, so maybe the tournament guess is good.
There's a difference between "hasn't been service sharpened" and "has an edge clearly not meant to be sharpened" - the latter being what I think Matt was saying, at least for many of them. For sharp blades, smiths will form the edge bevel in a way that makes sharpening a reasonable task. For a blade that's never supposed to be sharpened, you could just have a rounded or flat edge
Speaking of service sharpening, I remember a short by robinswords some time ago extolling the virtues of halberds (citing The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany: Civic Duty and the Right of Arms by B. Ann Tlusty) as a multi-tool that town guards and fire fighters would use, as they could have been and supposedly were used as a form of fire axe while being a rather visible badge of office. I wonder how many of the blunt halberds we find were meant to be issued to such institutions and sharpened upon activation?
@@tommeakin1732He literally gave this as one of his three suggestions for why a lot of poleaxes may be blunt.
As I recall, (cavalry) sabres specifically in the US civil war are a bit of a special case, as they were not even service sharpened by the people actually carrying them into battle. The reason for that was mostly expediency, as revolvers and carbines ruled the day and sabres rarely ever came out. And in a pinch, even an unsharpened sabre can have a substantial effect if swung from horseback.
There's an anecdote (I've yet to find the source again though) that leaving them unsharpened became such common practice that when a cavalry unit *did* sharpen them for obvious reasons, they were then decried for being barbarous and ungentlemanly.
@@DerTypDaI also know exactly such a case from the Napoleonic Wars. But I wonder how long even sharp sabers stayed sharp when carried in a metal scabbard? It seems to me that the rubbing of one metal against another destroys the edge.
Weapons were kept blunt so Matt would have an opportunity to make this video.
They were very thoughtful back in the day.
I'm happy for it. We need Matt to keep making videos. :)
I have to imagine that a sharpened poleaxe would get blunt pretty fast in actual combat against armored opponents. As others have stated, I think the hammer was for creating dents in armor, the axe for creating creases in armor, and the spear/spike for exploiting gaps in armor. With all three you could compromise the enemy's armor and then exploit that damage.
They make firefighter's axes for chopping through steel car bodies. They do have an edge, it's just a blunt one designed to concentrate force without snapping the blade. I've also seen ones with removable carbide tips that cut a lot cleaner but have to be replaced as they wear down.
I think most large edged weapons were kept fairly blunt, as they weren't intended to lacerat, but to break bones, disabling the opponent.
Depending on the context in which they're found (on the battlefield vs stored in an armory), I wonder if the reasoning is similar to that of 19th century military sabers, where they were left blunt until they were expected to be used, and then sharpened.
As per usual, I'm sure the reality is that there are a few different reasons for it.
I have the same thoughts. Especially when we talk about polearms like halberds it seems pretty dangerous to have inexperienced militia drilling and swinging around long sticks with with sharp edges on the end. But if that was the reason, I guess fewer pollaxes would be blunt compared to the longer polearms.
Look how the halberds of ,Swiss heroic Age' Look, and compare them to the better known later halberds. Those more known later halberds appeared, when really older halberds disappeared from battlefield in early 16th century. This Not so robust later halberds Had been mostly used by officers, palace troops/ guards or policeforces. Militias, in german Landsturm, Landfahnen, Landmiliz, Landesdefension or in towns Stadtgarde, Stadtwache, Stadtmiliz, Stadtmilitär ( Stadt- town) / Bürgergarde, Bürgermiliz, Bürgerwache, Bürgermilitär ( Bürger - citizen) Had been even in 18th century often eqipped with a Mix of pikes and muskets, but rarely with halberds. When in 1848/49 for the Last Time oldstyle militias Had been mobilized, warscytes Had been the Common polearm. And don't forget , Historismus ' - after napoleonic era in Germany the for centuries unliked medieval era became in romantic 1820s/ 1830s popular among educated germans. The craftsmen still knew, how to produce swords, polearms and armour in good quality ( but lack of historical knowledge), do many assumingly old pieces are in Germany in reallity Not older than 200 Years.
@mr_mayhem2297. Agreed. That's survivorship bias in a nutshell
Right. Why risk cutting yourself during storage
@@brittakriep2938very nice. Thank you.
My guess is as they are for fighting armoured opponents, it could be possible the damage caused by the axe is more to crease. They may have found this was more likely to cause problems with articulation of the armour or something similar.
I was going to make this very point but you beat me to it!
Exactly this. Break the armor and create gaps.
From firsthand experience of mitten gauntlets locking up after being struck by a blunt (sparring) sword, I favour this hypothesis. In a battle, a couple of good hits on a joint could stop it from functioning which would be hugely debilitating to an armoured combatant.
Exactly what I was thinking. Creasing in the elbow or knee or shoulder joint sections of the armor. Disrupting the articulation.
This makes brilliant sense
When smithing, we use a cross peen specifically for tight bends and because you get deeper penetration thanks to only moving material in 1 axis rather than 2 when trying to draw out
A scholagladiatoria video under 6 minutes? Miracles do happen!
I learned what I needed, that Polacks are not very sharp.
And then people are weirded out when you tell them that you usually don't spar with pole weapons.
a hammer is blunt yet you probably wouldnt want to be hit by one
@@lefunnyN1”I spar with blunted bullets”
@@tricksterjoy9740 well simuntions exist
@@lefunnyN1I mean yeah but the joke is that most bullets are already blunt.
Why is that? Is it because even a blunt pole weapon hits with enough force to break your arm? I've only sparred with feders and through a fencing jacket it feels like nothing usually.
I applaud you for achieving what few TH-camrs can: promising a brief video and then delivering.
Absolutely no filler or fluff. Straight to the (blunt) point 😊
Wish more of his videos was like this, he's the master of talking about fluff for 30minutes to just to increase view time. The main reason I stopped watching the channel.
You covered all the possible explanations I could think of.
Personally, I favor the single flanged mace explanation. It's consistent with a concept of a pole axe as being a two handed war hammer, really. It explains why hammer, fluke, and "axe", heads were treated as more or less interchangeable by the contemporary users.
As far as tournament use goes, my recollection of that sharpness complaint was about the spike being too sharp and also too long. The spike got into someone's gauntlet and severed all their tendons resulting in permanent loss of use of use of their hand.
I dont really think the flange theory is all that convincing. The pollaxe is designed to be a versatile weapon, putting 2 slightly different blunt weapons on it seems kind of odd. A smaller hammer head would do the same thing as a flange, which is why we see them on a lot of pollaxes, famously so on the lucerne hammer. On pollaxes like that they added a spike to make it more versatile.
Matt mentioned they have a rounded "edge". If you wanted full blunt force why make it round? They didn't bother do do that with maces as fas as im aware. I think its because of storage. The round edge wont get wrecked while in storage, when it's time to go to war you can add a sharp edge really quickly because you don't need to remove a lot of material due to the roundness. Similar to what they later did with military sabres.
Another thing is that edge allignment with the blunt axe would kinda be a nightmare. Since the edge isnt biting into the material you now have to keep it alligned with only your hands, which will likely not work so you end up hitting them with the flat as well. With a hammer you have a wider surface contacting the target meaning you weapon is a lot less likely to turn in your hands. From a functional standpoint a large axe blade as a blunt weapon is just a pretty bad idea. There is a reason why flanged maces have flanges in all directions after all.
@@OneAngryVelociraptor It could be intended for sniping the hands. A blunt blade like that would be perfect for breaking fingers. It would be able to drag down the half of the opponent's poleaxe and get some very nasty hits in. It might also have to do with the longer striking surface making it easier to aim. It can be difficult to actually connect a solid strike with a hammer, and having that extra surface area against a slippery opponent might be beneficial. It might also be able to slip between plates more easily, catching the gaps in the elbows and the neck. It could also be a weight thing. Maybe it is supposed to be like the flanges on a flanged mace, But adding more of those might add too much weight and make the weapon unwieldy.
@saeseetiin5585 Think about striking a solid metal plate with an axe for a srcond. Unless you hit a joint the thing will turn and you will deliver most the impact with the side of the axe. Even for armored fighting it would be better if it hat at keast a 90° bevel sou it could bite into the surface of whatever plate your hitting instead of just sliding off. Serations would do the same thing. This is the reason why pollaxes typically dont have smooth hammers, they're either spiked or pronged or are covered in knobs. I doubt its specifically for sniping the hands because every part of the pollaxe will break the fingers it it hits them.
I also dont think its for hitting the elbows because it really just cant. In combat the opponents arms are typically pointed towards you. If you pretend your holding a pollaxe for a second and then look at your elbows you'll see w wide axe blade coming from the front wont be able to feach the elbows. If you want to get to them with the axe you need like a 45° offset to either side as to not bet caught on the upper and forearms.
The accuracy thing could be true, however the effective stiking surface doesnt get much larger. Impacgs with the tips of the blade will probably just glance off the armor.
I think the most useful thing about the axe blade is that you can push and hook with it, but you can do both those things with a beak so i dont really see why you would choose a blunt axe blade over that.
some Halberds were probably only designed for thrusting where the axe part was meant for hooking and parrying instead of cutting
Your report was very blunt about that!
Fascinating! I think the theories bantered about in the comments are right on... But I have something new to add...read on...
Blunt edges are still very effective because they concentrate the tremendous force of the blow to a narrow line, they can break bones, mangle armour and disable the enemy. Particular shape of halberd head can help with hooking...etc.
Cuts that cause an enemy to bleed out and die may seem desirable to inflict, but sometimes an enemy is worth more as a prisoner. Hold him for ransom, negotiations, etc.
...Capturing a wealthy, high ranking individual pays off nicely!
That makes a good type of sense.
I'd only point out that the wrong type of head wound, neck, broken rib is just as lethal as a sword cut into flesh, a thrust to the heart.
Despite all of the protection available, Phillip Hughes died from a neck wound from a round but high speed hit. A cricket ball lead to terminal bruising.
I can see wounds from even a blunt pollhammer doing the exact same. The wrong hit will kill you just as easily as the right one.
While blunt force can absolutely be as lethal as cuts are, I always keep coming back to how blunt force has so much more stopping power than a lethal cut. Being lightly winded by an impact is going to disrupt an attack already underway more than even having an artery sliced (assuming it's not directly in your activated muscles, anyway; obviously cutting an artery in the arm you're swinging a weapon with is a big deal, but I mean cutting an artery on the other arm or something). Even before you consider prisoner ransom, "reduce the chances the other guy kills me" goes above "make sure the other guy dies after he hits me".
You get some minor benefit in avoiding accidental injury from not having sharp edges, too, but there's enough workarounds (tie a rag over it, even) I figure that was a much less important factor (except maybe for security guards, who need live weapons on display but also spend long periods of time out of combat).
Understanding what each type head was for seems pretty difficult. It could be that the 'Axe' blade wasn't used for striking at all. It could have been solely for push/pull catching surfaces. You could hook legs/shoulders with it or catch an control an opponents weapon while never being intended to actually damage armor. Basically, the hammer would be used for heavy swings and the axe is more for wrestling to get a spikes point in.
Those straight poleaxe blades have always seemed inefficient to me. Correct me if I'm wrong but most axe blades have a curved or angled cutting edge for all the reasons related to cutting efficency that Matt has explained many times.
Since the Poleaxe is an 'anti-armour' weapon then every part it is likely specialised for that purpose. The spikes are for penetrating gaps in armour. The hammer or 'mallet' is for deforming armour and helmets, crushing joints and delivering blunt trauma. The 'beak' is for hooking and punching holes in armour plates or performing deep point deformations of armour components.
Likewise I'm going to assume that the blades, especially the straight uncurved ones are actually 'creasers' rather than 'cutters. Because a straight blade applying focused force is going to be excellent for creating a crease in a metal plate. It's also going to stand a good chance of delivering blunt force at very focused point. It would produce very deep traumatic bruising, pinch blood vessels and break or fracture limb bones.
So these axe 'blades' are another anti-armour device designed to survive multiple strikes on an armoured opponent.
Now the lack of a sharp edge may seem a handicap against an unarmoured enemies, but would you want someone to hit you with a blunt axe using a two handed swing? It may not 'cut' but it's like to cause horrendous pain and bruising like having your fingers slammed in car doors and will crush or fracture your bones or skull under the impact.
I've wielded a halberd as part of a spear line in LARP events (okay not historical context but bear with me) and found myself using it to hook enemy weapons to give my friends openings more often than striking. And I was hooking from both points of the axe blade (pushing into the enemy with the upper hook if you can picture it). Dunno if it's any valid input but might be a clue so I figured I'd mention it.
I was thinking about the potential hooking aspect of the weapon in the video - both pushing and pulling.
In my opinion, not for cutting but for breaking bones
I accidentally gave my knuckles a whack with the back of a steel folding saw blade when it was closed recently and I think you're onto something
I have two thoughts, firstly a sharpened edge has more of a chance of getting stuck if you hit it into armour and secondly if the purpose is for use against armour then sharpening would be largely pointless as you're just going to blunt it anyway after the first few strikes.
Only time I could imagine you would want it sharpened is in combat where you only are going against unarmored opponents with no shields, in either a self defense or duel scenario.
But of course then the question of why are you chosing a poleaxe over more suitable weapons like a sword or spear in that scenario arises.
@@tricksterjoy9740 It's a spear and axe in one.........still better than a sword.
The problem with the "getting stuck" issue is that there's a great big spike on the end which is ideal for poking into armour (or at least between plates), and has a high chance of getting stuck. I favour your second thought.
...So you intentionally make it blunt so it won't pierceyour enemy's armour and thus can' get stuck! BRILLIANT! What do you do when the enemy gets their sharp axe stuck in you, though?
Many bayonets were never sharpened due to them supposedly causing more damage on entry.
In this case it is probably a mix of several reasons including possibly damaging a sharp edge. There is also the issue of armour penetrating arrows not being that sharp but shaped to split armour.
I think this calls for at the very least a couple of rounds of poleaxe vs armor testing with both blunt and sharp edges.
the can opener on my pocket knife is rather blunt as well - I guess the reason is that the sharpness doesn't help penetrating armor, but makes it more prone to chip and break - on the other hand if it's not mainly for armor penetration, it still would be ideal for breaking bones
That was my hypothesis the last time Matt talked about this. This blunt wedge could possibly be great for busting bones beneath "soft" armour like gambeson or mail.
@@iDEATH That, or possibly knocking some serious dents in articulation points, disrupting movement.
Anecdotally, I can add that the “blunt” can opener is plenty sharp to accidentally cut yourself with, so I can imagine the damage even a blunt edge at the end of a pollaxe can do. A lot of wood cutting axes also have fairly convex/blunt edges, and I’ve also cut myself on blunt axes with little effort.
For Pollaxes couldn't the possibility be that because they are focused against armour they went with an optimal blade geometry for dealing with said armour while still being "good enough" against its secondary target of less well armoured opponents who may be just wearing fabric armour or some combination of mail, fabric and some plated likena jack or some such. A blunted axe blade on the end of a pole is still going to do significant damage to the non-plate wearing folks since it's still focusing all that percussion in a small space. While still being sturdy enough for dealing with hitting plate at speed. A sharpened blade will obviously do wonders against soft targets but will immidiadely take significant damage if it hits anything hard. I think it's a case of best for its primary role while being good enough for it's secondary role
You aren't gonna graze an unarmored opponent. If you hit someone with that thing it doesn't matter if the blade is sharp or not, they are gonna feel it regardless.
Interesting topic. Looking forward to your completed vid. Thank you for all your efforts.
I love how open minded these conversations about history and weapons are, coming from scholagladiatoria. love these posts
I like that the right questions are getting asked, the really interesting ones.
Great brief video. I love your stuff Matt.
The primary function of the axeblade, in my experience from halberds, is to controll the opponents weapon and limbs (including neck). The thrust is the primary injuring element, asside from the fact that they are 2meter pieces of heavy wood, which would hurt a lot regardless of what is on the end if used percussively (is that even a word?). Anyway as most modern and many historical weapons used for police duty are made to subdue and not kill, might this be a reason for blunt halberdblades?
For halberds that were used in patrolling/city guard duty might
Those are fascinating observations. I look forward to hearing more about blunt-bladed halberds in a future video.
Appricient the length of the video, was blunt and straight to the point
hahaha pun intended?
As a counterpoint - remains of over 1500 victims of Gotland Massacre ( Battle of Visby 1361 ad ) display multiple traces of limbs being cut and in number of cases cut off by pole-arms of various types - that was confirmed by forensic study of skeletal remains. The victims in this case mostly had only partial protection - brigantines, partial chainmail, helmets and shields. So this practice of 'blunting' you refer to can only been developed much later - when full body protection become available to wider range of people - when iron&steel became mass-produced and thus cheaper
I would imagine just putting a big dent into the armour would immobilise a Knight - I would also imagine this geometry is very efficient at making dents since it makes a bend line in the otherwise double curved sheets
Look at Videos of Armored fighting. I think the idea of immobilizing people with heavy hits by denting their armor is not a very realistic scenario at least not in a reliable way. Also most medieval armor is not designed in a way that if parts are dented that would usually hinders your movement a lot.
@@queeryI think armor is a lot tougher than we give it credit for. By the time it gets beat up enough to immobilize the wearer he is probably already incapacitated from blunt force trauma.
I think it wasn't sharpened because it will just get blunted anyway, and hitting an unarmed person with any part of this monstrosity will ruin them regardless
Thanks for being Matt Easton. I have tried being Matt Easton several times but I just can't seem to get the hang of it.
We would need more context to understand your issue properly.
This is the first video by you that I encountered. Subscribed of course. I love your classy pronunciation! No subtitles needed here! (looking at you, lindybeige... 😜)
For fairness reasons. Too OP otherwise.
Makes me wonder if the "bit" side of the poleaxe was meant as a prying tool. The spike or shaft rests against the opponent and either the top or bottom of the bit is used to apply force using the leverage of the pole instead of concussively. Maybe the curvature of the bit is for leverage, i.e. the bit would roll when braced against something when prying with one of the pointy ends. Like opening a tin can, or an oyster.
absolutely fascinating detail
Thanks for the content
More videos of this length please
As far as the tournament context theory you mentioned as a possible option, it does occur to me that an alternative interpretation of the source (just based on your paraphrase, obviously the source might be less ambiguous) that would need to be evaluated alongside it would be that pollaxes were occasionally-either purposely or mistakenly out of ignorance or other factors-sharpened, but that source disagrees with doing so, at least in a tournament context, due to the inevitable edge damage which would result. I can imagine an armorer, quartermaster, treasurer, etc. who was going to be responsible for the associated logistics might quickly get rather grouchy about such wasteful practices, especially with expensive weapons which require costly materials and expertise to repair and maintain.
Either way, this is super interesting, and I'll look forward to further work on the subject. :D
If I remember the source correctly the French Knight was complaining that his opponents weapon was too sharp. The weapon then pierced the back of his gauntlet. The knight was so enraged he threw away his poleaxe, grappled the opposing knight, and bodily threw him so that his helmet got buried in the dirt.
Interesting I would've never known they wasn't sharp back then thank you for the information 🤔 it really makes you think
When a halberd gets launched at your head, in a HEMA open sparing session, you sometimes ask yourself "What am I doing here."
This is a very interesting topic about one of my favorite weapons from history. I never knew that and now I'm SUPER curious. I think those are a lot of valid theories. Are there any manuals the depict how best to use them?
I do think there is a good chance the flat wedge shape is meant to cave in steel and disable armored limbs, where it might actually be a disadvantage if the blade binds. The wedge shape would do a lot better at impeding, say, an arm, potentially breaking the bone. The hammer side would need a far cleaner hit to do the same job, and I suspect it'd be more for the head and torso
About 30 years ago as an active participant in SCA amored combat (Sir Alan at your service) I was requested to assist at cutting brush to create a path for emergency vehicles to enter the area to be used by the Pennsic Woods Battle. I had no such tools at camp, but took my steel bastard sword (made by a Geerman cutler) which had no edge. It turned out to be very effective for trimming bushes and small spalings, not much slower than power tools. I then used it at home to trim our yew hedge probably no impressing our neighbors (I and my squire some years later sparred on my driveway with SCA great swords both in 3/4 plate harnesses, mine being the black-and-white made by Robert Macpherson. We discovered that Robert's excellent tailoring did not really slow me down, but 65 pounds did reduce endurance quite a bit.
Maybe having a blunt edge was deliberately done. As fighting armoured opponents a cutting edge will get blunted. But an already hardened blunt edge of a poleaxe, would help deform and dent the armour. Thus causing the armour in the area stuck with sufficient force, to crumple inwards on the person wearing the armour. So hindering their movements within the armour. This is my guess.
Blunt, that's interesting. So if that is the case, the big rear flange would impart the work of a stabilizer to keep the hammer and shaft from twisting on impact, increasing the force of the strike. Make an L-shaped stick and it will want to twist at impact and maybe spin out of slippery gauntlets where a T shaped device would hit true and stay in control. Then the spear tip is just a spear tip except for slashing like a long sword at the unarmored rabble.
The tournament vs flange points seems most reasonable to me, my question is:
Are the spike points blunt also?
If also blunt: implies tournament
If points sharp: implies flange theory
Great video, so important to go to genuine sources and artefacts
Interesting! I had no idea!!! I need to know more!!!!
It’s great that they designed in a small cross shaped bottle opener in the side! Really handy at a BBQ!😉👍
If I wished to provide blunted weapons four tourney combat I might be inclined to do something about the fairly vicious looking spike.
That's actually really interesting. I'd thought the same as you (the axe is for striking unarmoured fighters). That still makes a lot of sense to me, and I find the idea that these historical weapons are tournament weapons tempting. However if we entertain the idea that real battlefield pollaxes and halberds were often blunt, it might make some sense considering that, at least for pollaxes, they are often going to be weapons used against men in armour. It may well just be another form of blunt head on the same weapon, which I believe is basically the same for many forms of warhammer. A thinner blunt head just means you're concentrating that crushing force on a smaller area, whereas the broader head will be better at consistently "sticking" when striking at a smooth, angled surface like most armour. The big problem with all of this is that I don't seem such of a reason to not sharpen the edge. Yes, you might damage a sharp edge, but even then it's still going to do the job of applying concentrated "blunt" force. The only reasons I can think of for why you wouldn't want a sharpened edge would be: 1) so it doesn't get stuck in a soft target 2) you don't want to kill 3) you can get away with a harder edge on a blunt blade as it's less likely to chip. So I'd ask; are these pollaxe and halberd "blades" known to have higher than average hardness? Also, what about bills? Any data on those?
Surely the people to ask are the Swiss Guard of the Vatican?
Hadn't thought of it before, but thinking of it as a single flange of a mace makes a lot of sense. And considering the mass and leverage in can't imagine an unarmored opponent being unimpressed with its effect
I can't say for sure. But in my youth in was in a medical reenactment group and out focus changed from swords to long weapons.
And we very soon noticed, that it doesn't matter how blunt the weapon or how well armored your opponent is. These things are always very dangerous. The length, the weight and good old gravity will crush nearly any armor.
Something that big and heavy wouldn't matter much if its sharp I suppose.
Yeah, it'll still do a number on an unarmoured opponent.
Anybody that's ever been hit by a quarterstaff or baseball bat can surely attest to that. A blunt halberd/poleaxe probably still breaks bones with ease.
@@doyouwanttogivemelekiss3097someone else mentioned that this is essentially why we don't spar full force with pole weapons. Even with with a big puff ball on the end you're still getting hit with a quarterstaff, which is an extremely effective weapon in its own right.
The blade of a splitting maul is blunt. No desire to get hit with it.
Having used some breaching tools that are rather blunt themselves but are still able to cut/bash through a metal door or car roof ,it makes sense that it only has to be as sharp as need be.Less chance to get broken and less maintenance with not having to keep an edge on it.
I imagine they'd only sharpen them before war. Most of the time a pole-axe would be in storage, or being used for ceremonial purposes, where having it blunt would be more convenient.
Shallower angle on a semi-dedicated anti-armor weapon stands up better to being violently struck against a hard surface over and over again.
If they aren’t tournament axes, then my assumption would be either that hitting an unarmored target with a two handed axe, sharp or not, is going to cut well enough regardless since it’s still a relatively thin surface with a lot of momentum, or that they simply got blunt with use.
Yeah. And if it's got that hammer literally behind it, I feel like that would add just a bit more mass behind the axe blade, allowing for a deep cut when coupled with a fast, powerful swing.
Seems like a good reason to TEST what damage blunt versions could inflict on armor! Time to visit Todd again?
On the topic of tournaments you have to take into account the only nobles were allowed to compete and therefore they were not expendable like the commoner. The axe side was left unsharpened to prevent the blade from being damaged in actual combat however if used properly it could make a hole in plate armor big enough for a sword or arrow to reach the vitals and also when delivering and over head blow you could break the collarbone effectively taking the enemy out of the fight. The basic use for the poleaxe was to deliver blunt force trauma in combat. Once a knight was off his horse then the spike would have been used to finish him off.
Aside from all of the excellent suggestions concerning design and usage, I’d suggest considering these weapons’ usage throughout their history, which I suspect would include a lengthy period in which their use may have been entirely ceremonial. It’s not hard for me to imagine to decision process that might lead a ceremonial guard corps to remove any sharp edges purely for the sake of safety and convenience.
Fascinating! I think--from a practical perspective--pole axes used by armored troops against armored troops were not sharpened because not only is it impossible to cleave iron or steel, a sharp edge would be dulled after just a few hits. I think the edge's purpose was to concentrate impact force on a very narrow area to break bones in an arm or leg. The blunt edge magnifies the impact force many times over a broader club swung at the same speed. Do a test and you'll see the result.
I recall reading somewhere years ago that many surviving late peroid battle axes also had blunt rounded edges; essentially a 1 flanged mace.
This raises the question of which types of armor the "blade" would be more suitable for than the hammer or beak.
Ive heard that officers, nco's, and cavalry during the American Civil War didn't service sharpen their sabers, and that some preferred them blunt. Was wondering if you had any input on this because in Europe it seems lots of officers sharpend their blades.
I own a halberd from the 1500s. It has a 2' spike and blunt chopping edge as described here. After handling it and thinking about how it would be used. I think the axe head was more of a parry and grabbing tool than for cutting. the long spike on mine at least would handle rapiers pretty well. I think it was more of a policing/bodyguard weapon than battlefield. Thats my take on my particular weapon and its era...
I wonder if the long edge is more useful for striking targets that are more elusive to hit such as limbs. Arms and legs are moving around and a long edge means you have a greater chance of striking somewhere along the edge to really concentrate the force, as opposed to missing and striking on the shaft. The way the axe edge is shaped also allows for hooking and such. The hammer face seems like it would be more useful against larger targets such as the chest / back / head that the opponent would have a harder time moving out of the way and doesn't require as much precision from the person wielding the pole arm.
Hey look it's Matt Easton of Schola Gladiatoria.
Sherriff of Nottingham talking about Robin Hood ---- " blah blah I'll cut his heart out with a SPOON!"
Villain - "A spoon?"
Sherriff - "It is dull, it will hurt more!"
May compare them to contemporary bardiches and glaives? I had a suspicion that at most axe shape, polearms were blunt. With the hammer bit closer to a partying hook/grabbing hook/plate armor.
While the axe head was used against everything else but was mostly blunt.
With the point of the top spike being the only sharp bit.
Three of the four hitting bits are for armor. While the spike is for less armored opponents.
I personally think it's more a case of weapon survivability than it is any sort of tournament rules.
Matt, no chance you post the source on the too sharp comments? I'd like to try and read them myself.
If we're looking at the full equipment of the fighting man-at-arms, the complete equipment, they had sharp edges, blunt edges, can openers and a short stabby thing. If they needed to fight against the lesser armoured, cloth, they had the tool at hand in the sword they were also carrying, wearing. They had the dagger, rondel as well.
What does that leave them? They don't appear to have a specific, targeted anti-armour capability with range, ergo the pollhammer, pollax. So for that edge to be made for hard impact against steel?
That makes sense to me on a few levels. It even borders on me liking it. It has a good type of sense about this. This is my can opener, this is my sword, this is my back up back up.
Tournament rules also make a kinda sense, display of arms and leaving bruises, not cuts. However.... things there are a bit more confused for me. Unless they had a very different risk management, risk threshold? I'd need to see some tournament rules, I'd need to see some tournament commentary of good hit, bad hit. Bruising in the head, neck, can kill you just as easily as a deep thrust to the heart. Same goes for broken ribs.
Not say it wasn't this, it just feels like more an edge case, a stretch than complementary capability on the battlefield.
this video is amazing. what a revelation
Hundreds of years from now people historians will find that a large number of Garand rifles had the barrels plugged. Did they use them as clubs? Or just charge with bayonets attached? Or MAYBE….hear me out…these particular weapons were for CEREMONIAL use only. Since you found blunt stick axes as is Americans would call em, in museums I’m going to go ahead and figure they were just for ceremonial use as few used in combat survived in a pristine museum condition.
I like the idea of compare them with a flanged mace. But there is no way to prove it.
The small pyramids on the hammer part were used to rivet the pieces of armor when hitting them. It was hit on the shoulders, elbows or knees and thus the attacked knight lost mobility in the area of the armor that was hit. A greeting from Spain
I was hit hard by a manchette, strike on my forearm defending myself, late night in Manchester. I had a pretty tough biker jacket on. The jacket was not cut, you could hardly tell where the strike had landed from the outside, but my arm had a 4 inch gash of broken skin, blood poring out and the ulna bone was broken.
I think it was to reduce friendly fire incidents.
That poleaxe wss mainly a control weapon, to pull someone down from a horse or trip a horse, and the axe part was mainly for hook purposes.
Being blunt, it could bring a knight off his horse and subdue him for prisoner ransom.
Also being blunt, if the thing got wildly knocked about by a horses legs it was less damaging to your own guys, or even to amhorse which are very valuable to capture.
And of course if you need lethal force it has a stabby end.
I don't know if there's anything to this, but: Are display swords allowed to be sharp because they have a scabbard for safety when needed? I don't know if big axes usually came with some sort of hood or covering for transportation and storage.
As some others already mentioned, possibly this is a way for them not to get stuck. The greater mechanical moment of force of a pollaxe, would lead to deeper cuts on impact if sharp, and therefore more likely to get stuck, and conversely would require much greater force to get unstuck than short blades like swords, making them unwieldy.
Seems to me flanged maces are angular so they tend to have points that bite, while poleaxe blades seem to be a flat plane that would bite better having some form of edge. I guess what I was trying to say was that I look forward to seeing @schologladitoria videos, I have probably seen all of them for 6 years.. not I missed one last week😅
Have there been any test cuts done with a view to assessing blunt trauma/ kinetic energy transfer of a poleaxe through armour and or gambeson ?
The reason these weapons are blunt is to prevent them from getting stuck in the target. Which would be very dangerous in battle.
And this is probably only a risk when attacking armor.
Would the percussive idea even work? My immediate concern with this would be that since the blade won't bite on impact, it'll just lead to twisting as more force is applied, and then you end up hitting your opponent ineffectively with the flat. Maybe it's just a big flat hook for dismounting, locking enemy weapons, or bypassing shields.
It would be interesting to know some of your data on this; what is the ratio of sharp to blunt ploleaxes? Is there any correlation with the level of ornamentation and bluntness? X thanks Matt! This is indeed fascinating!
Truth be told I actually favour the tournament hypothesis, just because it's seems to be the less complex explanation. Its a tournament, they don't want to kill each other, therfore it makes sense to have blunt weapons. And because tournaments were a nobleman's game, such weapons tend to survive longer thus survivor bias, than weapons of war.
Talking off the top of my head here, but what if the purpose of the “axe” shaped side was not for smashing/cutting, but instead shaped like that as more of a multi-purpose tool. That shape allows you to hook a leg, pry up a piece of armor, pull away a shield… etc. Like you hook behind the leg or arms, aiming for joints in the armor for better purchase, and once the opponent has been tripped or pulled down, then you smash/stab him. Also, how do training manuals and contemporary artwork depict the polearms use? You mentioned that one primary source, but surely there are other works describing polearm use. You could look at examples that are known to have been used frequently in history and check the relative wear patterns on the metal to get a better idea of what areas of the polearm were seeing the most action. Cool video and good topic.
"Je mehr Schärfe, je mehr Scharten."
(a German fencers-proverb, taken from the early-modern publication of Sebastian Franck - it loosely translates into 'the more sharpness, the more notches[/dents in the blade]')
People usually hacked like mad into each other and if you read through some of the late tournament-descriptions, you'll see that there was a set number of blows to be made and every broken spear or sword was counted as a noteworthy point. In warfare, on the other hand, you had to use a bundle of weapons and since the early 1300s, formal single-combat on horseback (early battles might be described as a humongous display of simultaneous single-combats) went out of fashion.
Flanged mace? Spot on! And I, for one, was disappointed that the video was actually brief!
So I've actually pondered over this for like two years and my hypothesis is this...
An edged weapon isn't particularly effective against armor and like you said the Poleaxe was a weapon for fighting armored opponents. It's blade it also fairly stout in comparison to Danish axe variants and bardiches which favored broad and thin blades to cut without getting stuck.
It certainly would've made sense to leave it blunt to allow for striking without chipping which would've been a much more favorable characteristic for an anti armor weapon. Another thing I noticed is that poleaxe blades often have very pronounced horns. What these are good for is is catching, hooking, and tangling the weapons of other opponents or the thick limbs of an opponent in armor. The blade of a poleaxe may have been left blunt because rather than cutting because they were just a very suitable design for parrying and hooking limbs.
That's quite an interesting observation. I wonder whether armor can be dented so thoroughly that it hampers the wearer. Cutting through armor is potentially a problem if the blade jams in the cut. A very solid blow that caves in a helmet, or leaves a serious linear crease in a piece of the armor on a leg or could seriously reduce the effectiveness of the fighter, even if he weren't killed outright.
On a different topic, have you ever examined or studied the single-handed medieval Scottish arming swords? They show a clear relation to the later, larger two-handers, with straight, sloping quillons for instance. But curiously the wheel pommels are often described as hollow where you can find information.
I could see the axe blade being blunt ish for armored combat, like you said for focusing the force to crease the armor... doing that on a leg or arm could hinder movement severely.
I would be curious to see what extra level of damage we would see against meat with an edge vs. blunted.
Also, do you have a time range for these blunted axes, or is it across all examples from their whole timeframe of use?
A blunt blade instead of the hammer on the other side may be helpful if you did not just want to dent your opponent´s armor, but kind of fold it over to "peel it off". A straight dent gives a line along which a normally convex sheet of metal can easily be folded.
For some reason, this video reminded me that the Ludwig Holy Blade in Bloodborne mainly did blunt damage.
I just assumed like swords they were supplied blunt and sharpened before battle... The saying 'Sharpen you sword' is literally a reference to this practice.
I heard at a lecture In Southern Illinois that some units of the U.S. Cavalry kept their swords blunt during the Civil War. The reason behind it was that a broken arm, collar bone, etc. kept a man out of action longer than a wound caused by a slice from a saber. The wound could be stitched up while a break took much longer to heal. Just a thought.
So... a sharp saber wouldn't cut into the bone but a blunt one could break it...?
I was taught that the axe-looking bit was actually more for levering so the wielder could shuck bits of the victim's armor, without breaking the point of the spear and, as such, the axey part needed points but not an edge. However, as we all know, just because we were taught something doesn't make it so.
I am more convinced that those blunt pollaxes were for tournaments or training or just unfinished weapons.
I agree that a blunt blade may be effective against hard targets such as armor, and splitting mauls are often quite blunt, for example. But they also generally have quite short edges to concentrate force better. So if pollaxe axe-blades were intended to be used against armor, I'd expected those blades to be significantly shorter.
Education staff of the former Higgins Armory Museum (Now at Worcester Art Museum in Massachusetts) have a theory that the blade is blunt as it's similar to the blade stake (I think it's called) in the armor -making- process, and LH Presenters Co. Wolfe Argent (1470s Burgundian) has also noted that with the hammer heads, that "Hammers make the armor, Hammers can Un-Make the armor". So with the blade being blunt, it seems to suggest that a hard enough strike onto articulation on an armor, or a limb, or anywhere really, would cause the metal to bend or dent so it no longer moves properly, and, of course there's the blunt-force trauma factor.
the reason ive heard before, and i personally agree with, is that it is indeed because they were primarily designed as anti armor weapons, and even if you were fighting and unarmored opponent, due to the sheer force f the weapon, the blunt edge would still do sufficient damage