A clear disadvantage of a polearm is when you're dumb enough to give up your weapon and walk close enough to an opponent to be grabbed. A tip that blew my mind first time I heard it. Thought I'd share.
I used to participate in Dagorhir a lot back in the 90s. One day a young man came to a practice and asked if he could play. The other youth said he was a jerk and I shouldn't let him participate. Well I'm not one to just leave people out, so I said OK. The only unused weapon at that point was a 7ft spear. He took that spear and went to town; even challenging me, the most experienced player. Turns out he wasn't really a jerk and he became friends with the entire group and he showed the others that they should have respected the spear more than they did.
It may be out of your preferred period, but can you do a video on how Roman Legionaries were trained to deal with spear and pike. Alternatively, a discussion on how medieval were trained to deal with the above would be equally interesting.
@Hans Günther nope. not how it worked. break into the enemy formation and force the enemy to give up their spears. Thats how the Romans beat Greeks using spears. This also brings to point one other disadvantage of pollarms- they can easily get in each others way. since spears when carried one handed have a long half that risked either hiting a friendly or bumping into another spear that risks knocking your weapon in a wrong direction. also turning in different directions can be difficult in a battle where the enemy has broken into the formation can be extremely difficult since spear shafts are more likely to get in each others way when pointing in multiple directions.
2:54 demonstrates a perfect walking staff . XD i understand about operating machinery but other than that very specific and probably unlikely task, the pole-arm doesn't need to be carried as a side arm. i think point 3 can be overcome in different ways like armoured hand and or guard on the pole, i just love pole arms , great video .
There is another disadvantage to long shafted weapons. Due to the fact that the shaft ist mostly regularly round it is hard to keep the blade in line, so if you are fighting in close quarters with your lead hand far up the top, it may happen that if you try to cut your opponent you the blade may slip to the flat side and the cut may not connect.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER! DON'T READ IF YOU HAVN'T WATCHED THE NEW GOT EPISODE! Someone should rant about how Orine got what he deserved for spinning like a madman and not being a solid fighter. That being said, it was really fancy but he was stupid. Sad really because he is an awesome charakter. Reading the books I knew what was going to happen but it was still cool to look at.
BIIGtony SPOILER! Oberyn's entire motive was to get a confession from the mountain and prove the Tywin was responsible for the rape and murder of his sister and her children. Killing him instantly would've meant losing that evidence, the one good thing i can get out of losing one of my favorite characters is that he proved he could beat one of the most feared knights in westeros, flawlessly and that it was his motive of revenge that killed him not the mountains skill.
BIIGtony MORE SPOILERS His name is Oberyn, not Orine. He died because he let it get personal, and forgot that he was fighting for Tyrion, and not himself and his sister. He obviously would've won the fight if he'd just stabbed his spear into The Mountain's neck while he was down. But no, he let his pride get in the way. He was obviously the better fighter, but he was stupid and prideful and let his guard down. That is why he lost. That is why Tyrion is going to be executed, barring some kind of deus ex machina.
FlamswordMage Yeah... you are right I kinda guessed at how to write him. But the whole fight was quite cliché. The mountain as the pure brute. Handling the sword with one hand, running directly into the enemy, the slow brute while Oberyn was the quick and nimble dude. Really roll play like and not realistic in any way. But... really fun to watch.
I like how you touched upon tactics about getting past the initial point being similar to tactics against a rapier... the reach of both weapons I imagine would cause considerable problems for a shorter weapon (excluding the exception of the guy with the shorter weapon having a buckler or shield perhaps?) and I know reach is reach and a considerable advantage but I was STILL surprised at how highly you rated pole weapons in your example about the intermediate to advanced swordsman... Again all very interesting, great videos I'm glad I found this channel. (and I will practice some form of HEMA when my long term shoulder injury's repair...)
Are there any historically documented European techniques for breaking an opponent's grip on the polearm? I do Jujutsu and I know it's possible to rotate the polearm around to apply a wrist lock, especially if the enemy has only one hand on the weapon. Might be a good technique to know when using a spear against a shorter weapon.
As a lumberjack, I can tell that having your shaft broken in a battle/duel by a sword/axe is extremely unlikely unless it has already been very badly damaged beforehand (in which case you would have probably replaced it anyway).
Lots of close quarters fighting using historically verified hand weapons in the lumberjacking business? Im not surpised... Im a woodworker, and can also attest to that. Apparently that’s an issue in the forestry and lumber milling industry as a whole. I heard rumors that the engineered wood materials business is also getting quite bloody. All that mdf and plywood can make a man mad. Should have listened to my dad and kept my GP office. But you cant practice community/family medicine after all the fighting I went through in woodworking. Your eyes fix in your opponent’s, looking only for a queue to strike, to hopefully down your foe and live another day. You can’t heal someone with eyes like these. Not anymore. Its been 5 years since your testimony. I hope you are faring well and strong, mate! May our shafts never break!
great video! just an observation ..when you spoke of the front hand being vulnerable to attacks i think is interesting to note that in chinese spearmanship the front hand never move with the spear as a whole..but the spear always slide forward inside the hand keeping the hand a lot safer and distant from opponent reach
Pabler Arav Because it makes them too heavy - the main advantage of a spear, other than reach, is speed. If you make the spear heavy then it's easier for a person with a short weapon to bind against it and close distance.
***** That question has already sort of been answered. You can hold the spear at the very end, therefore having much more reach. It's also way lighter, so you'd haver much more leverage and maneuverability. So yes. A halberd's advantage over a spear would be its superiority in an armoured fight.
667Gullin You have read into it a little heavily my friend. 3 would best suit my question, as the original poster of this video refers to metal strips running along the length of a polearm as "langets." He then explained how the extra metal would significantly affect the weight of the spear, rendering the advantage of rapidly being able to strike the foot and then right up the face less effective.
+Pabler Arav Just wanted to add that with a mace or hammer, you're trying to crush someone. Speed and precision are pretty useless in crushing but weight will help out immensely. With a spear on the other hand (lances being a notable exception) the whole point is fast movement and slipping the spear tip in to a soft spot that's unprotected (in one on one combat, phalanxes etc... are a whole different story.) Weight won't help you with that and will make the weapon slower and harder to control.
Would love to see this. Obviously something like tower shields just fail in a duel scenario, but I don't know too much about medium sized shields (above bucklers).
***** As far as I'm aware the only advantage of a shield that large and unwieldy is the ability to walk in formation to form a strong defense. What I mean by "duel scenario" is an open non-specific area where 2 combatants will fight for any length of time until one is defeated. In this scenario I see no advantage in having a large, heavy, and immobile piece of equipment. This is really nothing like an actual battle, and I assume the legionnaires were revered for their close quarters abilities in war situations, not in pointless street duels. I'm not really that educated on this stuff, so I could be wrong though.
I would sort of agree, but I'd counter by saying that the ability to have an almost literal wall between you and your opponent is a serious advantage. I'd also add that very large shields seem to have had a place in the judicial duel scene during later times, as illustrated by Talhoffer, although judicial duels during those times seem to have had a lot of very bizarre customs.
Actually a tower shield is very formidable in a one on one duel scenario. It does not just fail. The main disadvantage in combat of a large shield that I can think of might be that you will have a harder time wielding your weapon without accidentally hitting your own shield, so it might reduce how nimble you are with your primary offensive weapon. But, that is also basically the same disadvantage you are placing on your opponent. They are going to have a harder time finding strike paths that don't intercept your shield. In just about any scenario I would consider that trade off to be worthwhile and go for the larger shield. The real disadvantage of a large shield is that it is more encumbering to carry around all day if you don't know you will even need it. This brings up the advantage of bucklers (and the primary reason they became so popular) which is that you can wear them on you belt, just over your sword. If you aren't expecting to fight, but want a shield with you for a potential self-defense scenario, then a buckler is the shield for you. In general you wouldn't use a small shield on a battlefield. Unless you are an archer/gunner who needs to dedicate both hands to operating your missile weapon (no spare hands for carrying around shields) in which case you would probably want a buckler.
Ive been training spear for a quite a number of years and have always found them to be incredibly effective. I like it with a forearm mounted buckler so i can use both hands as well as parry with the buckler. You are correct that an opponent CAN grab the shaft, however, there are numerous techniques for countering or even allowing them to do so. This usually involves a dagger attack or body check.
Are there any historical examples of carrying around a polearm on a long march with a leather strap such as with a rifle? Or even manuals on proper storage and maintenance in any of the treatises given the perishability of polearms?
On a long march, I'd expect the spears and heavy items to be on the baggage train (wagons, mules, pack horses etc.). You only do a long march on a campaign, and you only do a campaign if you have logistics and a supply line.
I should like to add some other considerations to the mix. 1. All the weight is generally at one end. The most clumsy sword is a thing of balanced beauty compared to any pole arm. 2. Check your vertical space! I have successfully fouled pole arms on signs, tree limbs, wires and roof beams just by carrying them! Wielding one calls for some attention. 3. Check your six too, for the same reason as #2. 4. You always need at least one hand dedicated to carrying/holding one. A sheathed sword usually requires 0 hands.
I disagree with your first point. A long wooden shaft is actually fairly heavy so the weight is more distributed in a spear. Something like a halberd is a bit more front-weighted for sure but in no way would I call it clumsy. A sword might superficially seem more elegant or graceful but in battle it's about effectiveness and there is no denying that spears are effective.
Steel gauntlets would mitigate some of the problems, you would not need to worry so much about protecting your lead hand and if your opponent would ever disarm you can still use your fists as a decent weapon until you can gain enough distance to pull out your sidearm.
Yoriko Arran Every-time he hinted at being grappled, I could imagine daggers on his chest ; you keep a hand on the pole-arm on the case he let go and the other quickly stabs the grappler.
We should also take into account that attacking the lead hand, even when it is armoured, the impact will hurt the right hand, and pain is also very effective at making people wary.
+Cameron Nedland Yes, some polearms in the 15th-16th century had a disc on the shaft to protect the top hand and sometimes another one lower down for the other hand. They are most often seen on pollaxes and glaives.
+Cameron Nedland some spears also had rings or little decorations that would halt a sword giving you time to maneuver the spear... But a spear for duels is very different from a battle spear.. Spears are usually made specifically to be cheap.. The spear on the video was specifically designed to be used by groups.. The idea is to the first to parry or lock an opponent weapon, and his friend to poke the same unhappy one... Javelins for an example, had their heads (blade) intentionally brittle (a hard metal that breaks easily), so you wont be giving 1000 good knifes as a gift to your foes.. There were also specialized protected gloves specific for spear using... But to really domain The Spear is stuff of Kings.. the peasant spear user just needs to know how to poke and this is simple...
Are there any examples of sliding hand guards, though? I see from your video that it would be advantageous to be able to slide your front hand across the shaft (ehm... you know what I mean).
You can also use the pole and follow it whith a blade rather easily to reach the hands or the whole body or head if you pass the two branches which are meant to prevent it by the way.
I’m not sure I agree with the first point. Sword blades can be damaged as surely as poles-you can nick the edge, chip the steel, etc. if you use the blade against armoured targets (which we know would have been the case in warfare). An improperly made sword might even shatter or snap. Also, your point about grappling goes two ways: you can grab a pole, yes-although I’ve seen some manuals showing how to grab blades, so it’s not out of the question for swords either-but you can use the pole to grapple your enemy, by tripping them up or using the leverage to disarm them. I agree with most of your other points though-polearms can’t be carried around easily, for sure!
Thirsty Weevils reminds of the tournaments. All the dismounted knights stabbing each other with long sticks without making damage because they stand to close....
bear in mind that a bajonetted firearm is really heavy (in comparison) and disallows sliding through the lead hand, largely. also the musket with bajonet is fairly long, yet still shorter than most polearms(so the hand is much more vulnerable). of course there are 15thc. polearms with hand guards (rondels) yet i always find those a nuicance. Even with a (rather short) 2 meter pollaxe against long longswords, my hand(/lower arm) rarely gets 'sniped'... I think I have hardly had it sniped at all. A lot of polearms have langets which give tensile strength and help against cutting, in fact some pollaxes have their top 1/3 encased in metal. One great advantage of the sword is in the persuit. butchery is what a sword is great at. a lance is very much a one shot weapon, even in a persuit you would be likely to lose the lance in the first target if not break it. yu wuld want a weapon that is easily drawn (a war hammer is really fiddly to draw on horseback and quite a lot shorter than a sword) and have something that will not tire you out too mcuh and give you some reach and decisive damage. the account of the distribution of dead at Pinkie Cleugh in1547 describes a zone of carnage that the persuiing cavalry did with their swords. but i do agree in principle with most of what you said. but most of those disadvantages are greatly mitigated by group tactics... hence they were so commonly the primary weapon on the battlefield. (whereas in the 'rider war'/chevauchée and other skirmishes the sword is much more prominent.)
I understand that the cutting/breaking of hafts by swords/axes/impact was a big reason why the US tam took rattan to the Battle Of The Nations and to the IMCF '14 competitions as it was cheaper, less likely to break, and wasn't as easy to cut.
After what I've learned about Medieval warfare, I know that swords were not commonly the main weapon of soldiers or knights on a battlefield. And it seems that only using a sword is a good way to get yourself killed. In European wars, were there ever dedicated swordsmen and if so what kind of role would they fill?
Swords were secondary or tertiary weapons but their mains use (if not mistaken) was everyday wear. A knight or man-at-arms wouldn't be walking around the city with a spear or halberd. Think of it this way...The Pole-arms were like rifles and swords like pistols.
Some cultures i.e.(Iceland) would resolve village debates by dedicating a champion and having them duel other village champions when the occasion arose. The sword is more of a dueling weapon. Axes and machete type weapons are more common for spear back up. You will also see swords in use by Calvary (for reach) and officers specifically naval officers( and even these are shorter and more machete like) and in the case of officers it would be more for drill.
LaughingOwlKiller That was my logic regarding swords vs. polearms exactly. Bayonet fighting is based off of spear fighting forms. As far as a man -at-arms or a knight was concerned they would rather use their pole weapons first, if that fails switch to a hammer or a mace, then if you're desperate bring out your sword. Carrying a pistol in public is restricted to those with licenses or authorities is much like medieval restrictions on swords in public. My real question is more rhetorical than anything. It was to challenge a common misconception about swords and their place in history. The sword is so often romanticized and a lot more focus is given to it. It's funny how people associate a time period with a side arm rather than a main battle implement. Heck it happens today as well, when someone says "gun" the first thing people will think of is a pistol.
LogicBeforeFaIth True but the main goal of someone climbing the siege ladder was to open the gates and let the rest of the army in. Shorter weapons like a sword or axe would be more common then. Sieges of a walled city or fortress were methods of last resort, it was too costly to do so. Though I seriously doubt it was known then, Sun Tzu made that point clear. It mostly came down to a waiting game, you basically starve them out.
If you use the spear with two hands than you have no shield and rely on whatever armor you have (if any) against arrows. If you have a shield than it is much harder to control the spear one-handed and easier for the opponent to close the distance.
The part about getting within the reach of a spear might be significantly multiplied with pikes since they’re often too long to really choke up on without being significantly slowed by the weight sticking out behind you.
As for grappling a spear. If you were to be grabbed by the spear a good thing would be to quickly release the spear and if not knocking them off balance you'll jump back to gain ground and then draw a sidearm. You could always wear a buckler on you leading hand too though it may inhibit movement a bit but in the end your main attack with a spear is to thrust in the first place.
As soon as you mentioned the first hand exposed I thought about "ring like" guard - you'd just attach it through the back side so it could also move with your hand. Simple way to increase your hand protection.
I have found polearms to be extremely effective in unarmored combat, and prefer them myself in most situations. Knowing that they have disadvantages doesn't mean that those disadvantages are easily leveraged. People I have faced spear vs longsword always come with the idea of passing the point and charging. Probably 80% find a spear in their chest or abdomen within the first 2 thrusts.
I fought my 6'4 brother with a polymer dagger, he had a polymer longsword, (I'm 5'10) and that difference of length (about 2 ft) caused him to beat me 3/4 times. I usually win 3/4 if we have equal length swords, I had some fencing training and he didnt, so makes sense
Wouldn't a spear with a hollow metal shaft be resistant to damage by bladed weapons and just as light, if not lighter than a wooden shafted spear. I can't think of a disadvantage to using a hollow metal shaft (other than cost and potential vibration upon impact).
You mention in this video and others that you can retract the spear if someone gets very close. One of your friends who has a TH-cam channel (sorry, I forget his name) had a sword versus spear video. Perhaps the people in it aren't experienced with Spears, but it seems when the sword wielder closed to melee the fellow with the spear was quickly defeated.
Timothy Heimbach depending on the weight of the striking weapon and how much force you put behind it it takes at least three swings to weaken a shaft enough to get through it.
MadMargaretGaming on a table sure, but as he brings up in the video your arms are going to have give, and the parry will absorb much more of the shock than the haft being affixed to a solid table. Having give in your arms will absorb impact, and your parries will more often be used to turn aside an attacking blade than to outright block it. It will last. Spears can break in battle but they arent made of glass either.
Regarding the grappling, I've heard and noticed some people would hold a dagger in their rear hand in addition to gripping the spear in order to combat this to some extent. Would you say this is a viable tactic?
I disagree with the point about taking down a swordsman if they have a shield. This comes from experince in battle re-enment, I found when taking on a man-at-arms if I wasn't careful I could easily be rushed. However if the man-at-arms was shieldless I could probably take them down. Also I'm probably at a disadvantage because I can't aim at the head. Thoughts anyone wanna prove me wrong.
Is the wooden shaft always necessarily a weakness the polearm must have? Why didn't anyone ever make metal shafted polearms? Would it be too heavy? You couldn't make a shaft thin/light enough to be viable? I considered just the cost effectiveness, in that it would be using a lot of metal, but wouldn't there be some who would have done so, considering it worth it to have a non-perishable polearm, since they were such effective main weapons?
I learned staff first. Found I was a natural with the staff. The I went to the pole-arms. Never had a problem with grappling my pole-arm, but I tend to fight with it like a staff. Try to grab the shaft and the back end swings to hit you. I fight with a pole-arm almost exactly like I fight with a staff. Just like fighting with knives is almost exactly like fighting with fists. Don't rely on the edge or point at the end of the stick. Just be aware that that side can cause more damage and (in my style) should be put in your off hand.
Couldn't find any information on google about polearm+shield usage in history. But I have seen some historical images where soldiers have halberd and shield together. Can you give some information about how real and practical such stance would be?
Dude you can wear a spear easy, just have some sort of Assassins Creed spring loaded device on your arm! Then you can just retract your spear when you need it! SPEAR ARMS omfg I am such a genius and best ninja ever.
two spears would a stupid idea if you have a one handed spear you'd have a shield. if you have a one handed spear but don't have a shield you'd still use both hands
urbanmyths95 Two spears means twice the stabbing! One spear means you can stab one person, but with two you could stab two at once! Or just spin around and no one could get near you!
I've been thinking about the shape of the blade on most common halberds. Clearly it's primarily a thrust/piercing weapon. But, with the blade angled closer to the shaft at the bottom can you conceive of a pull/cutting maneuver as you bring the weapon back home? Wasn't some armor of the period more bolstered in the front? It would seem that a side/rear contact could be intended to damage the connecting bits of such armor.
I'm really interested in how other polearms were used. Especially the glaive, because there's not much information on the internet. And I'd also like to know how good of a choice they are in a duel situation, and how effective they are against other weapons. Can they be used like a spear with the additional ability to cut? Do they have any significant advantages over spears, other polearms or swords etc? I really love the look of glaives, faulcharts and halberds - but there's not much information on these weapons (esp. Glaive) I suppose a glaive would be used almost like the very similar naginata... but that's just speculation - I don't have any experience with weapons.
Longer pole arms such as glaives were not really for a one on one situation. They were used in formation, and often by infantry against cavalry. However, the pole axe, which was shorter, was a very effective weapon in a one one one duel on foot.
Personally made my own version of a polearm, not historically accurate whatsoever but my own take. I'm unsure of the correct name but I used peice of metal that had 3 flanges of flat bar protruding from the center, cut it down to 14 inches, sharpened all 3 so now it was a 3 bladed spear, drilled holed in a zig zag formation a couple inches apart halfway down the metal, bolted it to a shaft, sharpened the ends of the now protruding side of the bolts on the back of the shaft, to now have 1 inch long spikes acting as an anti grappling defence, and with the blade purposely mounted on one side of the shaft it naturally corrected the way the polearm was facing due to weight, sanded down the rest of the shaft to form a slight oval shape for better grip, cut some fine grooves in line with the blade so I would know exactly how to place my hands to ensure blade alignment was correct and bobs your uncle, I was sorted. Now while the 3 bladed idea does somewhat negate the cutting capabilities, due to there being more weight on the end than your usual lightweight blade design it created a more bone breaker situation rather than arm cutter. However the payoff is far better, as the stabbing capabilities were now FAR more devastating. Creating an enormous entry wound, larger than a golf ball, with 3 sided blades further creating an ugler mess for any first aid, surgery or repair. Immediate blood loss would be noticeable. This design is obviously for lightly Armoured targets due to its larger surface area for stabbing it wouldn't do well against plate or heavy chain mail. But I've loved it so far
I think the third reason is also why some stick fighters would try grabbing the butt end of their enemy's stick, should they not hold the stick properly. Even if you don't disarm or harm the opponent, they can't easily regain control of their weapon as you beat them at point blank range.
I'm surprised you didn't mention that they are difficult to use to maximum effect in enclosed spaces, be that inside a building, narrow streets, thick foliage or a swirling melee. Their length makes them far more difficult to manoeuvre than a shorter weapon, like say a short stabbing sword, as an example.
So, I know I'm suuuuper late to this, but can someone explain to me, in light of these points... when you would actually use a polearm/spear vs when you'd use a sidearm? Obviously you want to use a polearm whenever it would be advantageous to have a reach longer than your enemy's, which is *literally all the time*. RPGs often make a point of saying "if you get inside your enemy's guard, they're hosed", which would look like a good time to switch to your side-arm, but Matt clearly demonstrated that that isn't true - just choke up on the handle and shorten your grip, and you'll be fine. Or even just back away until they're no longer inside your guard, possibly after a swift punch in the jaw to give you a moment to do so. I'd guess a polearm would be tricky to use indoors? Unless in a building with very high ceilings and wide halls (like, for example, some of the more major hallways of a castle, or a church, not that most in the medieval period woukd want to fight in a church I guess.) And as Matt said, it's something you'd only bother carrying in hand if you were specifically expecting a fight, otherwise you'd probably leave it in your baggage for the sake of convenience. You might not even get out your polearm if you were just walking between towns, unless you KNEW you were going through an area that was badly affected by banditry
If a sharp blade can damage the shaft of the polearm... then how would someone with a polearm fare against someone with a BIG claymore... I feel like a broad swipe of the claymore would shatter the wooden shaft of the polearm if they needed to parry the claymore
+LiberusAnima I get the feeling that you are changing your grip fairly often when using many pole weapons, placing hand guards would get in the way of that and make what is supposed to be in essence a cheap mass produced weapon more expensive, economics has it's effect on warfare too. It would also make replacing the shaft if it's damaged more work for you after battle. Soldiers tend to avoid making more work for themselves if they can help it. Just wear gauntlets of some kind if you can afford it ;)
How would somebody "easily shorten their pole weapon" if they were not using two hands? Like Greeks with Shields and Spears? Is a Spear only a formidable pole weapon when operated with two hands?
About the first thing- I'm not sure, I never even heared about such a thing, but I think it'd be possible for some blacksmiths to make them at least to test them. You need to remember though, that those chinese full-steel spears were used on horsebck only, and Europe never reached the Chinese level of dedication for horseback spearmanship. As for poisoned weapons, well, they might have existed, but the poison on them would be a bit redundant- if you have stabbed someone succesfully, the poison wouldn't be needed afterall, plus, there's not really a point in killing someone hours or days after the battle, in fact, even during the battle killing is something people generally try to avoid, forceing the enemy to run away is optimal in most cases. For that very reason, they wouldn't be used in battlefields- battles can last several hours, you wouldn't want to carry something you could easily hurt yourself with when you quick-treat your own wounds, and it would be foolish to assume you won't get any wounds in a battle.
I saw a documentary on the San bushman and they use poisoned tipped arrows for hunting. They have to be incredibly careful in the transport of these weapons, just a scratch can cause serious injury. The point of venom or poison is for hunting animals that do not die easy and put up a chase after suffering trauma. Poisoning reduces that ability to run away. The same reason snakes have venom so they do not have to chase their prey. I have never heard of anyone using poison tipped weapons in direct action warfare, it is not impossible, just not very practical.
Yes, fully steel spears existed in Europe, but frankly they are more for display than warfare, as you have to make them hollow so as not to be too heavy, and then they are weaker than the equivalent weight of wooden shaft. Normal Chinese polearms had wooden shafts, just as in every other part of the world.
One of the closest things I've ever seen to a full meltal shaft is an Ahlspiess. Almost half of the weapons conists of a diamond shaped thrusting blade. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlspiess
I would describe a true two-handed sword as a "all-metal polearm". It's unclear to me how practical these weapons actually were. They weren't used for very long at all (~50 years?). It does do away with one of the disadvantages of a hafted weapon in that it should be less perishable. But a halberd, bill, or poleaxe would be more effective and versatile against armored opponents and cost a fraction of a two-handed sword.
Why can't the whole weapon be made out of metal, so that it cannot be cut? Would that have made the weapon too heavy? Regarding if the opponent grabs your pole weapon, you can turn the pole axe in a manner that will force the person to let go (they can also try this on you too).
Depends, if the spears are of similar length, obviously the one with a shield wins most often. If the two-handed spear is a lot longer, he might have an advantage but the one with the shield would still be hard to beat. I'm guessing if the fighters were of similar strength, speed, endurance and skill, they would most likely be winning every other round if they were to spar against each other. Maybe the one with the shield would win a few more rounds, but he would probably not be that much better if the other fighter had a significantly longer spear.
***** That's not obvious at all. The man with both hands on his spear will have much more control over his weapon than the single handed man. And he can make much more use of the length compared to the single handed man even if the spears are of equal length. Certainly you wouldn't say that a man using a spear one-handed would be equal to the man using it two-handed. The question is whether the shield makes up for the difference or not.
mlentzner Well, why do you think shields were used with relatively short spears very often? And if you use the one-handed spear underarm with the back of it under your elbow, you'll get to use all of the spears length, and you can even shorten it quite quickly if an opponent gets near, just by either changing into using it overarm or just moving your hand on the shaft. The control and leverage you get is not as useful as a shield, I believe. I don't think that many people would use shields against other spearmen if they were that bad. I believe the shield makes up for the difference, after all even if the enemy had a lot of control, he is easy to block with the shield and attack him at the same time.
***** I think that the shield was necessary on the battlefield to protect one against missiles. Standing on the field of battle being pelted with rocks and arrows wouldn't go well without a shield assuming you didn't have good body armor (which was the case for most of history) I read somewhere that during a melee when the shield walls had disintegrated the Vikings would sling their shields and use their spears in both hands. That's just hearsay, but is the reason I asked in the first place. It is also instructive to note that footmen pretty much discarded their shields in favor of two handed pole weapons once the body armor itself became protective enough.
mlentzner Of course if they have a protective enough body armor they are going to ditch the shield, because the spear is obviously more useful in two-hands if you don't need a shield. That is no argument against two-handed spears being bad against one-handed spear and a shield, it's like saying a two-handed sword is better than a sword and a shield because *if* you have an armor you don't need a shield. So in this context that is not all that instructive to note. Okay, you probably didn't mean it that way, but just in case. That is true what you say about shields being necessary against missiles, I thought of that before sending my comment, but I still think shields also were great against other spearmen. At least I would take a shield and a spear even if I knew the enemy has no missiles. And I have to say, it is very nice to speak with an intelligent person who is capable of disagreeing with me *without* calling me an asshole or using any other petty insults like that. It is pretty rare on the internet nowadays to find someone to talk to who doesn't get mad as soon as I say something they disagree with.
This brings up an interesting question: I heard the flamberge is a sword specially designed for cutting off polearms. Do you know if that is true? I find it hard to believe.
+Schwarzer Ritter I think it would work if the spearpoint was trapped and the operator of the polearm has an iron grip. Otherwise you're just going to knock the it out of the way.
I would like to offer one more disadvantage to heavier pole weapons excepting a lighter spear 8 and a half feet or less. And that is lacking a shield in your offhand leaves you very vulnerable to any sort of ranged attack. In battle this includes archers, crossbowmen, and slingers, but also against thrown weapons... including improvised thrown weapons... like stones. Indeed, someone using a two handed pole weapon has few options when their opponent opts to throw something at them. I am clearly very pro shield lol. Of course this is less of an issue in heavy armor with full coverage.
In a formal pitched battle in ancient and early mediaeval times, spears were typically used in conjunction with shields. Alternatively, they may be used without shields in a situation where ranged weapons were unlikely to be a threat. 2 handed weapons such as the Dane axe were used without shields, but in a context in which other comrades had formed a wall of shields. In late mediaeval times, 2 handed pole weapons such as poleaxes were used without shields because the user was wearing plate armour. Context!
well... I'd figure the main disadvantage is the fact you'd be walking through 100's of arrows from longbows before you ever got in range to hit someone.
Many of the issues with pole weapons come from the inability to really carry it just anywhere, but what about telescoping weapons? How effective are they?
That would weaken the weapon, which is an absolute no-go for pole weapons. Pole weaps feature top-heavy construction to begin with, and their extended hafts magnify the force/torque of each impact, so pole weapon shafts probably must be even stronger than other weapons. One of the Wallace pollaxes even had embedded metal languettes on each side of the haft, sunken into the wood, for added reinforcement. So there's simply no way you could successfully use sliding pieces in a pole weap. The first time you tried, presuming the haft didn't snap and the heavy head didn't fly right off, the thin hollow sliding segments would bend and collapse inwardly under the impact, further weakening the construction, jamming the pieces together, and terminating the extending feature anyway.
Yeah, that would be a bit hard unless the shield has two straps, you know, your arm goes through the first one and grabs the second one, but even then it would be difficult since your shield would be in the way, possibly blocking you from grabbing the polearm. You would probably just have to drop your shield but that would not be wise at all, obviously. If you were to lose grip on the enemy's polearm, it would be good-bye to you.
***** I guess it would depend on the kind of polearm you are dealing with. In the case of a simple spear, it would be easy to pull it back, but with something bulkier, I'm not so sure.
Hey this is way off topic but i very much respect your opinion ...what do you think of the fight choreogrophy on the movie Dune the original? I noticed in the knife fighting scenes with Sting in the end the hero crosses his hands alot and remembered a bunkai from my sensei that utilized this for trapping hands and transfering this to joint manipulations what do you think of this?
I am interested in the spear you have in the vid.. it looks like a Viking winged spear, but I am not aware of them having a counterweight or spike on the other end.. did they?
Another important function of them was to jam between a horses front legs to topple the horse and rider, or to jam the spike into the ground and holding it for a horse to run into chest first. More so for pikes, but spears were still used. I think the spear is more a peasant troop weapon less so than a gentry/gentle troop weapon, as it would be easy to wield for someone who had grown up using domestic tools with handles and shafts. for use defending property from moving and roaming troops.
OvAppolyon As far as I can tell, effective use of spear was allways the epitome of a western european knight, at least to the extent of a sword. And as mentioned it was his first weapon of choise for quite a while, when fighting on foot. As late as in 16th century are there dismounted gendarmes mentioned to use lances/spears on foot, like Bayard at several occasions during storming of fortified positions. Great points, regarding the clip, especially the one about attacking leading hand. About pole grabbing, two handed spear can be really agile, at least as far as I saw it, I dont think Id be able to grab it at the fast moving end with much precision. If a person is already behind a point for a while, wouldnt it be easier to grab the opponent by leading hand, or by the part of handle behind his hands? This seems relatively slower moving and easier to reach.
It certainly was one of the weapons the knights used, but it's the sort of weapon anyone with a little bit of knowledge could make up in a couple of hours. Especially after the Battle of Pontiers and the Jaquerie peasant revolt.
When I said anyone, I was assuming that you would know that I only meant Gentle/Gentry/Peasantry etc. To post a huge excerpt like that to point out that I didn't explicitly exclude slaves is a bit dickish.
Nothing to break boredom like a video about polearm disadvantages
Idk, that Spear and Shield overarm vs underarm video looks at least equally fascinating
A clear disadvantage of a polearm is when you're dumb enough to give up your weapon and walk close enough to an opponent to be grabbed. A tip that blew my mind first time I heard it. Thought I'd share.
Prince Oberyn never got the memo.
Literally just carry a dagger just in case kek, fast to draw if they get around ya :)
@@etherealhawk try grabbing your dagger while your enemy is mid-swing about to hit you
@@JohnPorkVickers there is a reason a dagger is used secondary, its better than nothing.
I used to participate in Dagorhir a lot back in the 90s. One day a young man came to a practice and asked if he could play. The other youth said he was a jerk and I shouldn't let him participate. Well I'm not one to just leave people out, so I said OK. The only unused weapon at that point was a 7ft spear. He took that spear and went to town; even challenging me, the most experienced player. Turns out he wasn't really a jerk and he became friends with the entire group and he showed the others that they should have respected the spear more than they did.
lol wholesome story
I personally carry a Halberd at all times with the head stuffed in my pants to not draw too much attention
"Is that a halberd in your pants or are you just happy to see me?"
@@epitaph3358 nah it just sticks out the top
Oh Oberyn Martell.
It may be out of your preferred period, but can you do a video on how Roman Legionaries were trained to deal with spear and pike. Alternatively, a discussion on how medieval were trained to deal with the above would be equally interesting.
@Hans Günther nope. not how it worked. break into the enemy formation and force the enemy to give up their spears. Thats how the Romans beat Greeks using spears.
This also brings to point one other disadvantage of pollarms- they can easily get in each others way. since spears when carried one handed have a long half that risked either hiting a friendly or bumping into another spear that risks knocking your weapon in a wrong direction. also turning in different directions can be difficult in a battle where the enemy has broken into the formation can be extremely difficult since spear shafts are more likely to get in each others way when pointing in multiple directions.
2:54 demonstrates a perfect walking staff . XD i understand about operating machinery but other than that very specific and probably unlikely task, the pole-arm doesn't need to be carried as a side arm. i think point 3 can be overcome in different ways like armoured hand and or guard on the pole, i just love pole arms , great video .
There is another disadvantage to long shafted weapons. Due to the fact that the shaft ist mostly regularly round it is hard to keep the blade in line, so if you are fighting in close quarters with your lead hand far up the top, it may happen that if you try to cut your opponent you the blade may slip to the flat side and the cut may not connect.
Is this in response to the latest Game of Thrones episode?
Im not going to fully recover from what i saw...
Hahah! Me neither!
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER! DON'T READ IF YOU HAVN'T WATCHED THE NEW GOT EPISODE!
Someone should rant about how Orine got what he deserved for spinning like a madman and not being a solid fighter. That being said, it was really fancy but he was stupid. Sad really because he is an awesome charakter. Reading the books I knew what was going to happen but it was still cool to look at.
BIIGtony SPOILER!
Oberyn's entire motive was to get a confession from the mountain and prove the Tywin was responsible for the rape and murder of his sister and her children. Killing him instantly would've meant losing that evidence, the one good thing i can get out of losing one of my favorite characters is that he proved he could beat one of the most feared knights in westeros, flawlessly and that it was his motive of revenge that killed him not the mountains skill.
BIIGtony MORE SPOILERS
His name is Oberyn, not Orine. He died because he let it get personal, and forgot that he was fighting for Tyrion, and not himself and his sister. He obviously would've won the fight if he'd just stabbed his spear into The Mountain's neck while he was down. But no, he let his pride get in the way. He was obviously the better fighter, but he was stupid and prideful and let his guard down. That is why he lost. That is why Tyrion is going to be executed, barring some kind of deus ex machina.
FlamswordMage
Yeah... you are right I kinda guessed at how to write him. But the whole fight was quite cliché. The mountain as the pure brute. Handling the sword with one hand, running directly into the enemy, the slow brute while Oberyn was the quick and nimble dude. Really roll play like and not realistic in any way. But... really fun to watch.
I like how you touched upon tactics about getting past the initial point being similar to tactics against a rapier... the reach of both weapons I imagine would cause considerable problems for a shorter weapon (excluding the exception of the guy with the shorter weapon having a buckler or shield perhaps?) and I know reach is reach and a considerable advantage but I was STILL surprised at how highly you rated pole weapons in your example about the intermediate to advanced swordsman... Again all very interesting, great videos I'm glad I found this channel. (and I will practice some form of HEMA when my long term shoulder injury's repair...)
Are there any historically documented European techniques for breaking an opponent's grip on the polearm? I do Jujutsu and I know it's possible to rotate the polearm around to apply a wrist lock, especially if the enemy has only one hand on the weapon. Might be a good technique to know when using a spear against a shorter weapon.
As a lumberjack, I can tell that having your shaft broken in a battle/duel by a sword/axe is extremely unlikely unless it has already been very badly damaged beforehand (in which case you would have probably replaced it anyway).
Lots of close quarters fighting using historically verified hand weapons in the lumberjacking business? Im not surpised... Im a woodworker, and can also attest to that. Apparently that’s an issue in the forestry and lumber milling industry as a whole. I heard rumors that the engineered wood materials business is also getting quite bloody. All that mdf and plywood can make a man mad. Should have listened to my dad and kept my GP office. But you cant practice community/family medicine after all the fighting I went through in woodworking. Your eyes fix in your opponent’s, looking only for a queue to strike, to hopefully down your foe and live another day. You can’t heal someone with eyes like these. Not anymore. Its been 5 years since your testimony. I hope you are faring well and strong, mate! May our shafts never break!
great video! just an observation ..when you spoke of the front hand being vulnerable to attacks i think is interesting to note that in chinese spearmanship the front hand never move with the spear as a whole..but the spear always slide forward inside the hand keeping the hand a lot safer and distant from opponent reach
One question- why is it that war-hammers and maces etc. will frequently have langets, but spears never seem to?
Pabler Arav Because it makes them too heavy - the main advantage of a spear, other than reach, is speed. If you make the spear heavy then it's easier for a person with a short weapon to bind against it and close distance.
***** That question has already sort of been answered. You can hold the spear at the very end, therefore having much more reach. It's also way lighter, so you'd haver much more leverage and maneuverability. So yes. A halberd's advantage over a spear would be its superiority in an armoured fight.
667Gullin You have read into it a little heavily my friend. 3 would best suit my question, as the original poster of this video refers to metal strips running along the length of a polearm as "langets." He then explained how the extra metal would significantly affect the weight of the spear, rendering the advantage of rapidly being able to strike the foot and then right up the face less effective.
+Pabler Arav Just wanted to add that with a mace or hammer, you're trying to crush someone. Speed and precision are pretty useless in crushing but weight will help out immensely. With a spear on the other hand (lances being a notable exception) the whole point is fast movement and slipping the spear tip in to a soft spot that's unprotected (in one on one combat, phalanxes etc... are a whole different story.) Weight won't help you with that and will make the weapon slower and harder to control.
Stephen Church It seems the fundamental issue is that I've underestimated how much weight langets will add to a spear.
How about disadvantages of larger shields like heaters and kites?
Would love to see this. Obviously something like tower shields just fail in a duel scenario, but I don't know too much about medium sized shields (above bucklers).
***** As far as I'm aware the only advantage of a shield that large and unwieldy is the ability to walk in formation to form a strong defense.
What I mean by "duel scenario" is an open non-specific area where 2 combatants will fight for any length of time until one is defeated. In this scenario I see no advantage in having a large, heavy, and immobile piece of equipment. This is really nothing like an actual battle, and I assume the legionnaires were revered for their close quarters abilities in war situations, not in pointless street duels.
I'm not really that educated on this stuff, so I could be wrong though.
I would sort of agree, but I'd counter by saying that the ability to have an almost literal wall between you and your opponent is a serious advantage. I'd also add that very large shields seem to have had a place in the judicial duel scene during later times, as illustrated by Talhoffer, although judicial duels during those times seem to have had a lot of very bizarre customs.
Actually a tower shield is very formidable in a one on one duel scenario. It does not just fail.
The main disadvantage in combat of a large shield that I can think of might be that you will have a harder time wielding your weapon without accidentally hitting your own shield, so it might reduce how nimble you are with your primary offensive weapon. But, that is also basically the same disadvantage you are placing on your opponent. They are going to have a harder time finding strike paths that don't intercept your shield. In just about any scenario I would consider that trade off to be worthwhile and go for the larger shield.
The real disadvantage of a large shield is that it is more encumbering to carry around all day if you don't know you will even need it. This brings up the advantage of bucklers (and the primary reason they became so popular) which is that you can wear them on you belt, just over your sword. If you aren't expecting to fight, but want a shield with you for a potential self-defense scenario, then a buckler is the shield for you. In general you wouldn't use a small shield on a battlefield. Unless you are an archer/gunner who needs to dedicate both hands to operating your missile weapon (no spare hands for carrying around shields) in which case you would probably want a buckler.
Ive been training spear for a quite a number of years and have always found them to be incredibly effective. I like it with a forearm mounted buckler so i can use both hands as well as parry with the buckler. You are correct that an opponent CAN grab the shaft, however, there are numerous techniques for countering or even allowing them to do so. This usually involves a dagger attack or body check.
Are there any historical examples of carrying around a polearm on a long march with a leather strap such as with a rifle? Or even manuals on proper storage and maintenance in any of the treatises given the perishability of polearms?
On a long march, I'd expect the spears and heavy items to be on the baggage train (wagons, mules, pack horses etc.). You only do a long march on a campaign, and you only do a campaign if you have logistics and a supply line.
Your videos are quite nice and well made, even if it's not a topic that of much interest to me, I have watched several.
I should like to add some other considerations to the mix.
1. All the weight is generally at one end. The most clumsy sword is a thing of balanced beauty compared to any pole arm.
2. Check your vertical space! I have successfully fouled pole arms on signs, tree limbs, wires and roof beams just by carrying them! Wielding one calls for some attention.
3. Check your six too, for the same reason as #2.
4. You always need at least one hand dedicated to carrying/holding one. A sheathed sword usually requires 0 hands.
I disagree with your first point. A long wooden shaft is actually fairly heavy so the weight is more distributed in a spear. Something like a halberd is a bit more front-weighted for sure but in no way would I call it clumsy. A sword might superficially seem more elegant or graceful but in battle it's about effectiveness and there is no denying that spears are effective.
Steel gauntlets would mitigate some of the problems, you would not need to worry so much about protecting your lead hand and if your opponent would ever disarm you can still use your fists as a decent weapon until you can gain enough distance to pull out your sidearm.
Yoriko Arran Every-time he hinted at being grappled, I could imagine daggers on his chest ; you keep a hand on the pole-arm on the case he let go and the other quickly stabs the grappler.
The reach advantage beats any disadvantage....
We should also take into account that attacking the lead hand, even when it is armoured, the impact will hurt the right hand, and pain is also very effective at making people wary.
Do we ever see polearms with "hilts" to protect the user's hands?
+Cameron Nedland Yes, some polearms in the 15th-16th century had a disc on the shaft to protect the top hand and sometimes another one lower down for the other hand. They are most often seen on pollaxes and glaives.
+Cameron Nedland some spears also had rings or little decorations that would halt a sword giving you time to maneuver the spear... But a spear for duels is very different from a battle spear.. Spears are usually made specifically to be cheap.. The spear on the video was specifically designed to be used by groups.. The idea is to the first to parry or lock an opponent weapon, and his friend to poke the same unhappy one... Javelins for an example, had their heads (blade) intentionally brittle (a hard metal that breaks easily), so you wont be giving 1000 good knifes as a gift to your foes.. There were also specialized protected gloves specific for spear using... But to really domain The Spear is stuff of Kings.. the peasant spear user just needs to know how to poke and this is simple...
Yes. Glaives and poleaxes did have hand guards in the later years of their use.
yes, awl pikes commonly had discs
Are there any examples of sliding hand guards, though? I see from your video that it would be advantageous to be able to slide your front hand across the shaft (ehm... you know what I mean).
You can also use the pole and follow it whith a blade rather easily to reach the hands or the whole body or head if you pass the two branches which are meant to prevent it by the way.
I’m not sure I agree with the first point. Sword blades can be damaged as surely as poles-you can nick the edge, chip the steel, etc. if you use the blade against armoured targets (which we know would have been the case in warfare). An improperly made sword might even shatter or snap. Also, your point about grappling goes two ways: you can grab a pole, yes-although I’ve seen some manuals showing how to grab blades, so it’s not out of the question for swords either-but you can use the pole to grapple your enemy, by tripping them up or using the leverage to disarm them.
I agree with most of your other points though-polearms can’t be carried around easily, for sure!
Why do I suddenly have this urge to play mount & blade while/after watching this video?
Because spears really suck in M&B combat mechanics?
Thirsty Weevils and you can block a Army of Spearmen all at the same Time with ohne move....
Meister Proper if you stay not the exact amount of inches away froma spearman, he just can't do shit
Thirsty Weevils reminds of the tournaments. All the dismounted knights stabbing each other with long sticks without making damage because they stand to close....
Meister Proper well in 1257 mod spears are realistically OP
This is your 4th video in the past few weeks I’ve loved I think you’ve earned my subscription
Thank you for this video. I actually love polearms so it's nice to have this knowledge
I really enjoy these videos! Just thought I'd let you know :p
bear in mind that a bajonetted firearm is really heavy (in comparison) and disallows sliding through the lead hand, largely. also the musket with bajonet is fairly long, yet still shorter than most polearms(so the hand is much more vulnerable).
of course there are 15thc. polearms with hand guards (rondels) yet i always find those a nuicance. Even with a (rather short) 2 meter pollaxe against long longswords, my hand(/lower arm) rarely gets 'sniped'... I think I have hardly had it sniped at all.
A lot of polearms have langets which give tensile strength and help against cutting, in fact some pollaxes have their top 1/3 encased in metal.
One great advantage of the sword is in the persuit. butchery is what a sword is great at.
a lance is very much a one shot weapon, even in a persuit you would be likely to lose the lance in the first target if not break it. yu wuld want a weapon that is easily drawn (a war hammer is really fiddly to draw on horseback and quite a lot shorter than a sword) and have something that will not tire you out too mcuh and give you some reach and decisive damage.
the account of the distribution of dead at Pinkie Cleugh in1547 describes a zone of carnage that the persuiing cavalry did with their swords.
but i do agree in principle with most of what you said.
but most of those disadvantages are greatly mitigated by group tactics... hence they were so commonly the primary weapon on the battlefield.
(whereas in the 'rider war'/chevauchée and other skirmishes the sword is much more prominent.)
I understand that the cutting/breaking of hafts by swords/axes/impact was a big reason why the US tam took rattan to the Battle Of The Nations and to the IMCF '14 competitions as it was cheaper, less likely to break, and wasn't as easy to cut.
After what I've learned about Medieval warfare, I know that swords were not commonly the main weapon of soldiers or knights on a battlefield. And it seems that only using a sword is a good way to get yourself killed. In European wars, were there ever dedicated swordsmen and if so what kind of role would they fill?
You can't climb a siege latter with a pole arm very well.
Swords were secondary or tertiary weapons but their mains use (if not mistaken) was everyday wear. A knight or man-at-arms wouldn't be walking around the city with a spear or halberd. Think of it this way...The Pole-arms were like rifles and swords like pistols.
Some cultures i.e.(Iceland) would resolve village debates by dedicating a champion and having them duel other village champions when the occasion arose. The sword is more of a dueling weapon. Axes and machete type weapons are more common for spear back up. You will also see swords in use by Calvary (for reach) and officers specifically naval officers( and even these are shorter and more machete like) and in the case of officers it would be more for drill.
LaughingOwlKiller That was my logic regarding swords vs. polearms exactly. Bayonet fighting is based off of spear fighting forms. As far as a man -at-arms or a knight was concerned they would rather use their pole weapons first, if that fails switch to a hammer or a mace, then if you're desperate bring out your sword. Carrying a pistol in public is restricted to those with licenses or authorities is much like medieval restrictions on swords in public.
My real question is more rhetorical than anything. It was to challenge a common misconception about swords and their place in history. The sword is so often romanticized and a lot more focus is given to it. It's funny how people associate a time period with a side arm rather than a main battle implement. Heck it happens today as well, when someone says "gun" the first thing people will think of is a pistol.
LogicBeforeFaIth True but the main goal of someone climbing the siege ladder was to open the gates and let the rest of the army in. Shorter weapons like a sword or axe would be more common then. Sieges of a walled city or fortress were methods of last resort, it was too costly to do so. Though I seriously doubt it was known then, Sun Tzu made that point clear. It mostly came down to a waiting game, you basically starve them out.
What type of polearm is used in the video? :)
Leonid Yurkovskiy A winged spear
And my obsession with the spear continues.
If you use the spear with two hands than you have no shield and rely on whatever armor you have (if any) against arrows. If you have a shield than it is much harder to control the spear one-handed and easier for the opponent to close the distance.
That is why you are in a formation with many spears.
The part about getting within the reach of a spear might be significantly multiplied with pikes since they’re often too long to really choke up on without being significantly slowed by the weight sticking out behind you.
As for grappling a spear. If you were to be grabbed by the spear a good thing would be to quickly release the spear and if not knocking them off balance you'll jump back to gain ground and then draw a sidearm. You could always wear a buckler on you leading hand too though it may inhibit movement a bit but in the end your main attack with a spear is to thrust in the first place.
*****
i was talking about being the spearholder. Please read.
As soon as you mentioned the first hand exposed I thought about "ring like" guard - you'd just attach it through the back side so it could also move with your hand. Simple way to increase your hand protection.
Sometimes you need to release the spear to move hand back or something. It's hard to move the guard with hand.
How much does the fighting style differ between say a winged spear and a glaive?
Another disadvantage I can see is that they're difficult to maneuver (manoeuvre) in complex environments like inside houses or in wooded terrain.
I have found polearms to be extremely effective in unarmored combat, and prefer them myself in most situations. Knowing that they have disadvantages doesn't mean that those disadvantages are easily leveraged. People I have faced spear vs longsword always come with the idea of passing the point and charging. Probably 80% find a spear in their chest or abdomen within the first 2 thrusts.
I fought my 6'4 brother with a polymer dagger, he had a polymer longsword, (I'm 5'10) and that difference of length (about 2 ft) caused him to beat me 3/4 times. I usually win 3/4 if we have equal length swords, I had some fencing training and he didnt, so makes sense
Wouldn't a spear with a hollow metal shaft be resistant to damage by bladed weapons and just as light, if not lighter than a wooden shafted spear.
I can't think of a disadvantage to using a hollow metal shaft (other than cost and potential vibration upon impact).
You mention in this video and others that you can retract the spear if someone gets very close. One of your friends who has a TH-cam channel (sorry, I forget his name) had a sword versus spear video. Perhaps the people in it aren't experienced with Spears, but it seems when the sword wielder closed to melee the fellow with the spear was quickly defeated.
Skallagrim did a video on cutting through a wooden pole. It took about ten blows to snap it.
Timothy Heimbach depending on the weight of the striking weapon and how much force you put behind it it takes at least three swings to weaken a shaft enough to get through it.
MadMargaretGaming on a table sure, but as he brings up in the video your arms are going to have give, and the parry will absorb much more of the shock than the haft being affixed to a solid table. Having give in your arms will absorb impact, and your parries will more often be used to turn aside an attacking blade than to outright block it. It will last. Spears can break in battle but they arent made of glass either.
While fixed. Most duels aren't going past 10 blows, and you aren't gonna cut it nearly as well if it's being wielded.
Regarding the grappling, I've heard and noticed some people would hold a dagger in their rear hand in addition to gripping the spear in order to combat this to some extent. Would you say this is a viable tactic?
When you post your vids could you perhaps put a link in the description to where you got the item from? love all the videos you upload.
I disagree with the point about taking down a swordsman if they have a shield. This comes from experince in battle re-enment, I found when taking on a man-at-arms if I wasn't careful I could easily be rushed. However if the man-at-arms was shieldless I could probably take them down. Also I'm probably at a disadvantage because I can't aim at the head. Thoughts anyone wanna prove me wrong.
Spears are super cheap. It sucks if it breaks in battle, but if after a fight you notice it's getting chewed up, it's really easy to replace
Is the wooden shaft always necessarily a weakness the polearm must have? Why didn't anyone ever make metal shafted polearms? Would it be too heavy? You couldn't make a shaft thin/light enough to be viable? I considered just the cost effectiveness, in that it would be using a lot of metal, but wouldn't there be some who would have done so, considering it worth it to have a non-perishable polearm, since they were such effective main weapons?
I learned staff first. Found I was a natural with the staff. The I went to the pole-arms. Never had a problem with grappling my pole-arm, but I tend to fight with it like a staff. Try to grab the shaft and the back end swings to hit you. I fight with a pole-arm almost exactly like I fight with a staff. Just like fighting with knives is almost exactly like fighting with fists.
Don't rely on the edge or point at the end of the stick. Just be aware that that side can cause more damage and (in my style) should be put in your off hand.
How would the advantages and disadvantages of a spear change if the user has a shield or if the opponent has a shield?
Couldn't find any information on google about polearm+shield usage in history. But I have seen some historical images where soldiers have halberd and shield together. Can you give some information about how real and practical such stance would be?
Maybe the chinese spear techniques that thrust with one hand at the base of the spear are a way to sidestep the vulnerable hand disavantage?
Perhaps you have a video of yourself using a spear in simulated combat where you show it’s practical use against an opponent?
Dude you can wear a spear easy, just have some sort of Assassins Creed spring loaded device on your arm! Then you can just retract your spear when you need it! SPEAR ARMS omfg I am such a genius and best ninja ever.
BeepingMetal *Pimpslaps*
urbanmyths95 That sounds perfect! if you had two of them then no swordsman could touch you and you would be invincible!
two spears would a stupid idea if you have a one handed spear you'd have a shield. if you have a one handed spear but don't have a shield you'd still use both hands
urbanmyths95 Two spears means twice the stabbing! One spear means you can stab one person, but with two you could stab two at once! Or just spin around and no one could get near you!
Have you even used a spear?
I've been thinking about the shape of the blade on most common halberds. Clearly it's primarily a thrust/piercing weapon. But, with the blade angled closer to the shaft at the bottom can you conceive of a pull/cutting maneuver as you bring the weapon back home? Wasn't some armor of the period more bolstered in the front? It would seem that a side/rear contact could be intended to damage the connecting bits of such armor.
I'm really interested in how other polearms were used.
Especially the glaive, because there's not much information on the internet.
And I'd also like to know how good of a choice they are in a duel situation, and how effective they are against other weapons.
Can they be used like a spear with the additional ability to cut?
Do they have any significant advantages over spears, other polearms or swords etc?
I really love the look of glaives, faulcharts and halberds - but there's not much information on these weapons (esp. Glaive)
I suppose a glaive would be used almost like the very similar naginata... but that's just speculation - I don't have any experience with weapons.
Longer pole arms such as glaives were not really for a one on one situation. They were used in formation, and often by infantry against cavalry. However, the pole axe, which was shorter, was a very effective weapon in a one one one duel on foot.
Were spears ever sheathed in some form of metal, perhaps iron or steel? Would that solve the issue of the wooden shaft being chopped?
Personally made my own version of a polearm, not historically accurate whatsoever but my own take. I'm unsure of the correct name but I used peice of metal that had 3 flanges of flat bar protruding from the center, cut it down to 14 inches, sharpened all 3 so now it was a 3 bladed spear, drilled holed in a zig zag formation a couple inches apart halfway down the metal, bolted it to a shaft, sharpened the ends of the now protruding side of the bolts on the back of the shaft, to now have 1 inch long spikes acting as an anti grappling defence, and with the blade purposely mounted on one side of the shaft it naturally corrected the way the polearm was facing due to weight, sanded down the rest of the shaft to form a slight oval shape for better grip, cut some fine grooves in line with the blade so I would know exactly how to place my hands to ensure blade alignment was correct and bobs your uncle, I was sorted. Now while the 3 bladed idea does somewhat negate the cutting capabilities, due to there being more weight on the end than your usual lightweight blade design it created a more bone breaker situation rather than arm cutter. However the payoff is far better, as the stabbing capabilities were now FAR more devastating. Creating an enormous entry wound, larger than a golf ball, with 3 sided blades further creating an ugler mess for any first aid, surgery or repair. Immediate blood loss would be noticeable. This design is obviously for lightly Armoured targets due to its larger surface area for stabbing it wouldn't do well against plate or heavy chain mail. But I've loved it so far
I think the third reason is also why some stick fighters would try grabbing the butt end of their enemy's stick, should they not hold the stick properly. Even if you don't disarm or harm the opponent, they can't easily regain control of their weapon as you beat them at point blank range.
Mm...Ok. I love Matt! Super informative and interesting.
I never thought about it before, but are the wings on that spear used both as a guard and a hooking implement?
I'm surprised you didn't mention that they are difficult to use to maximum effect in enclosed spaces, be that inside a building, narrow streets, thick foliage or a swirling melee. Their length makes them far more difficult to manoeuvre than a shorter weapon, like say a short stabbing sword, as an example.
Thank you for this. Great information.
So, I know I'm suuuuper late to this, but can someone explain to me, in light of these points... when you would actually use a polearm/spear vs when you'd use a sidearm? Obviously you want to use a polearm whenever it would be advantageous to have a reach longer than your enemy's, which is *literally all the time*. RPGs often make a point of saying "if you get inside your enemy's guard, they're hosed", which would look like a good time to switch to your side-arm, but Matt clearly demonstrated that that isn't true - just choke up on the handle and shorten your grip, and you'll be fine. Or even just back away until they're no longer inside your guard, possibly after a swift punch in the jaw to give you a moment to do so. I'd guess a polearm would be tricky to use indoors? Unless in a building with very high ceilings and wide halls (like, for example, some of the more major hallways of a castle, or a church, not that most in the medieval period woukd want to fight in a church I guess.) And as Matt said, it's something you'd only bother carrying in hand if you were specifically expecting a fight, otherwise you'd probably leave it in your baggage for the sake of convenience. You might not even get out your polearm if you were just walking between towns, unless you KNEW you were going through an area that was badly affected by banditry
If a sharp blade can damage the shaft of the polearm... then how would someone with a polearm fare against someone with a BIG claymore... I feel like a broad swipe of the claymore would shatter the wooden shaft of the polearm if they needed to parry the claymore
Regarding the third disadvantage, is there a reason spears or polearms don't have hand guards?
+LiberusAnima I get the feeling that you are changing your grip fairly often when using many pole weapons, placing hand guards would get in the way of that and make what is supposed to be in essence a cheap mass produced weapon more expensive, economics has it's effect on warfare too. It would also make replacing the shaft if it's damaged more work for you after battle. Soldiers tend to avoid making more work for themselves if they can help it.
Just wear gauntlets of some kind if you can afford it ;)
How would somebody "easily shorten their pole weapon" if they were not using two hands? Like Greeks with Shields and Spears? Is a Spear only a formidable pole weapon when operated with two hands?
I've heard of solid steel staves for spears in China are there European equivalents?
Are poisoned weapons had real battlefield use besides arrows?
About the first thing- I'm not sure, I never even heared about such a thing, but I think it'd be possible for some blacksmiths to make them at least to test them. You need to remember though, that those chinese full-steel spears were used on horsebck only, and Europe never reached the Chinese level of dedication for horseback spearmanship.
As for poisoned weapons, well, they might have existed, but the poison on them would be a bit redundant- if you have stabbed someone succesfully, the poison wouldn't be needed afterall, plus, there's not really a point in killing someone hours or days after the battle, in fact, even during the battle killing is something people generally try to avoid, forceing the enemy to run away is optimal in most cases. For that very reason, they wouldn't be used in battlefields- battles can last several hours, you wouldn't want to carry something you could easily hurt yourself with when you quick-treat your own wounds, and it would be foolish to assume you won't get any wounds in a battle.
I saw a documentary on the San bushman and they use poisoned tipped arrows for hunting. They have to be incredibly careful in the transport of these weapons, just a scratch can cause serious injury. The point of venom or poison is for hunting animals that do not die easy and put up a chase after suffering trauma. Poisoning reduces that ability to run away. The same reason snakes have venom so they do not have to chase their prey. I have never heard of anyone using poison tipped weapons in direct action warfare, it is not impossible, just not very practical.
Yes, fully steel spears existed in Europe, but frankly they are more for display than warfare, as you have to make them hollow so as not to be too heavy, and then they are weaker than the equivalent weight of wooden shaft. Normal Chinese polearms had wooden shafts, just as in every other part of the world.
One of the closest things I've ever seen to a full meltal shaft is an Ahlspiess. Almost half of the weapons conists of a diamond shaped thrusting blade.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlspiess
I would describe a true two-handed sword as a "all-metal polearm". It's unclear to me how practical these weapons actually were. They weren't used for very long at all (~50 years?). It does do away with one of the disadvantages of a hafted weapon in that it should be less perishable. But a halberd, bill, or poleaxe would be more effective and versatile against armored opponents and cost a fraction of a two-handed sword.
Talk about different types of polearms! Glave, bill, corseque etc. :D
so if swords and maces ect. were side arms what was the most common primary weapon in the middle ages, was it a spear?
What model is that spear? Love the long blade.
How much do they normally go for and how long have you been doing your channel 4
Where can I buy that nice spear?
Exactly what sort of polearm are you using in this video?
Methinks it's just a winged spear recreation.
*necros* think the spear used may have been a "boar spear"
Why can't the whole weapon be made out of metal, so that it cannot be cut? Would that have made the weapon too heavy?
Regarding if the opponent grabs your pole weapon, you can turn the pole axe in a manner that will force the person to let go (they can also try this on you too).
Did soldiers equipped with polearms commonly carry shields? If not, isn't vulnerability to missile fire also a significant disadvantage?
LukaszVT Yes, spears were used with shield very frequently. Heavier polearms weren't, though, for pretty obvious reasons.
I prefer knives when going against a polearm. (In practice) I often beat polearm users. I often use polearms which does help in facing them.
Quick question. Spear + Shield vs. Spear in both hands: Who has the advantage?
Depends, if the spears are of similar length, obviously the one with a shield wins most often. If the two-handed spear is a lot longer, he might have an advantage but the one with the shield would still be hard to beat. I'm guessing if the fighters were of similar strength, speed, endurance and skill, they would most likely be winning every other round if they were to spar against each other. Maybe the one with the shield would win a few more rounds, but he would probably not be that much better if the other fighter had a significantly longer spear.
***** That's not obvious at all. The man with both hands on his spear will have much more control over his weapon than the single handed man. And he can make much more use of the length compared to the single handed man even if the spears are of equal length.
Certainly you wouldn't say that a man using a spear one-handed would be equal to the man using it two-handed. The question is whether the shield makes up for the difference or not.
mlentzner Well, why do you think shields were used with relatively short spears very often?
And if you use the one-handed spear underarm with the back of it under your elbow, you'll get to use all of the spears length, and you can even shorten it quite quickly if an opponent gets near, just by either changing into using it overarm or just moving your hand on the shaft.
The control and leverage you get is not as useful as a shield, I believe. I don't think that many people would use shields against other spearmen if they were that bad. I believe the shield makes up for the difference, after all even if the enemy had a lot of control, he is easy to block with the shield and attack him at the same time.
***** I think that the shield was necessary on the battlefield to protect one against missiles. Standing on the field of battle being pelted with rocks and arrows wouldn't go well without a shield assuming you didn't have good body armor (which was the case for most of history) I read somewhere that during a melee when the shield walls had disintegrated the Vikings would sling their shields and use their spears in both hands. That's just hearsay, but is the reason I asked in the first place.
It is also instructive to note that footmen pretty much discarded their shields in favor of two handed pole weapons once the body armor itself became protective enough.
mlentzner Of course if they have a protective enough body armor they are going to ditch the shield, because the spear is obviously more useful in two-hands if you don't need a shield. That is no argument against two-handed spears being bad against one-handed spear and a shield, it's like saying a two-handed sword is better than a sword and a shield because *if* you have an armor you don't need a shield. So in this context that is not all that instructive to note.
Okay, you probably didn't mean it that way, but just in case.
That is true what you say about shields being necessary against missiles, I thought of that before sending my comment, but I still think shields also were great against other spearmen. At least I would take a shield and a spear even if I knew the enemy has no missiles.
And I have to say, it is very nice to speak with an intelligent person who is capable of disagreeing with me *without* calling me an asshole or using any other petty insults like that. It is pretty rare on the internet nowadays to find someone to talk to who doesn't get mad as soon as I say something they disagree with.
This brings up an interesting question:
I heard the flamberge is a sword specially designed for cutting off polearms. Do you know if that is true? I find it hard to believe.
+Schwarzer Ritter I think it would work if the spearpoint was trapped and the operator of the polearm has an iron grip. Otherwise you're just going to knock the it out of the way.
Are you referring to a one-on-one fight or a formation fight...i.e. a schiltron, phalans of ECW/Landsknecht pike formation???
I would like to offer one more disadvantage to heavier pole weapons excepting a lighter spear 8 and a half feet or less. And that is lacking a shield in your offhand leaves you very vulnerable to any sort of ranged attack. In battle this includes archers, crossbowmen, and slingers, but also against thrown weapons... including improvised thrown weapons... like stones. Indeed, someone using a two handed pole weapon has few options when their opponent opts to throw something at them. I am clearly very pro shield lol. Of course this is less of an issue in heavy armor with full coverage.
In a formal pitched battle in ancient and early mediaeval times, spears were typically used in conjunction with shields. Alternatively, they may be used without shields in a situation where ranged weapons were unlikely to be a threat. 2 handed weapons such as the Dane axe were used without shields, but in a context in which other comrades had formed a wall of shields. In late mediaeval times, 2 handed pole weapons such as poleaxes were used without shields because the user was wearing plate armour. Context!
well... I'd figure the main disadvantage is the fact you'd be walking through 100's of arrows from longbows before you ever got in range to hit someone.
Many of the issues with pole weapons come from the inability to really carry it just anywhere, but what about telescoping weapons? How effective are they?
That would weaken the weapon, which is an absolute no-go for pole weapons. Pole weaps feature top-heavy construction to begin with, and their extended hafts magnify the force/torque of each impact, so pole weapon shafts probably must be even stronger than other weapons. One of the Wallace pollaxes even had embedded metal languettes on each side of the haft, sunken into the wood, for added reinforcement. So there's simply no way you could successfully use sliding pieces in a pole weap. The first time you tried, presuming the haft didn't snap and the heavy head didn't fly right off, the thin hollow sliding segments would bend and collapse inwardly under the impact, further weakening the construction, jamming the pieces together, and terminating the extending feature anyway.
Cool video, great info
If you're facing an unarmoured oppenent, even if someone did get past the point, it's still basically a quarter-staff, isn't it?
Another quick question. How does a man armed with a sword and shield grab the polearm? I'm having trouble visualizing this.
Yeah, that would be a bit hard unless the shield has two straps, you know, your arm goes through the first one and grabs the second one, but even then it would be difficult since your shield would be in the way, possibly blocking you from grabbing the polearm. You would probably just have to drop your shield but that would not be wise at all, obviously. If you were to lose grip on the enemy's polearm, it would be good-bye to you.
What about catching the polearm between shield and sword, then closing in past the polearm point?
Hetnaset You couldn't probably grip it good enough, it would just be easy for the polearm holder to just simply pull his weapon back.
***** I guess it would depend on the kind of polearm you are dealing with. In the case of a simple spear, it would be easy to pull it back, but with something bulkier, I'm not so sure.
Hey this is way off topic but i very much respect your opinion ...what do you think of the fight choreogrophy on the movie Dune the original? I noticed in the knife fighting scenes with Sting in the end the hero crosses his hands alot and remembered a bunkai from my sensei that utilized this for trapping hands and transfering this to joint manipulations what do you think of this?
wow, an in depth and articulated analysis! are you sure this is youtube?
Historically did people ever just drop their polearm and try switching to daggers if perhaps somebody grabbed the spear?
Please excuse my ignorance, but what's the name of the metal guard below the tip of the spear?
lugs
Thank you very much Andrew, I had already found out, but your response is much appreciated nonetheless. Thank you.
I am interested in the spear you have in the vid.. it looks like a Viking winged spear, but I am not aware of them having a counterweight or spike on the other end.. did they?
Any thoughts on why a cavalryman would choose saber over the lance as his principle weapon?
Why didn't people add a strap/sling to polearms so they could carry them in their back, or did they? Seems like a good idea.
There is a reason your spear has ears on it- so its harder to grab and if someone does you can pull back on it and injure their hands or arm
Great video! Thanks!
What about a polearm that is all metal (I don't know if there are any like this)? Wouldn't that be less prone to breaking?
for longer spears no shield; what where biggest spears used with shields?
Is a spearhead like that intended -at least in part- for slashing? It basically looks like a short sword on a pole.
Yes.
Another important function of them was to jam between a horses front legs to topple the horse and rider, or to jam the spike into the ground and holding it for a horse to run into chest first. More so for pikes, but spears were still used. I think the spear is more a peasant troop weapon less so than a gentry/gentle troop weapon, as it would be easy to wield for someone who had grown up using domestic tools with handles and shafts. for use defending property from moving and roaming troops.
OvAppolyon As far as I can tell, effective use of spear was allways the epitome of a western european knight, at least to the extent of a sword. And as mentioned it was his first weapon of choise for quite a while, when fighting on foot. As late as in 16th century are there dismounted gendarmes mentioned to use lances/spears on foot, like Bayard at several occasions during storming of fortified positions.
Great points, regarding the clip, especially the one about attacking leading hand. About pole grabbing, two handed spear can be really agile, at least as far as I saw it, I dont think Id be able to grab it at the fast moving end with much precision. If a person is already behind a point for a while, wouldnt it be easier to grab the opponent by leading hand, or by the part of handle behind his hands? This seems relatively slower moving and easier to reach.
It certainly was one of the weapons the knights used, but it's the sort of weapon anyone with a little bit of knowledge could make up in a couple of hours. Especially after the Battle of Pontiers and the Jaquerie peasant revolt.
When I said anyone, I was assuming that you would know that I only meant Gentle/Gentry/Peasantry etc. To post a huge excerpt like that to point out that I didn't explicitly exclude slaves is a bit dickish.