▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible: www.patreon.com/scholagladiatoria ▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun: facebook.com/historicalfencing/ twitter.com/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_easton/_saved/ ▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
The reason why you would have curved blade on a axe is so that whole blade doesnt bite in at once ,it will penetrate into armor better and it wont glance as much as straight edge on axe since its not trying to go trough whole portion of armor with full blade length at once.Curved axes are also better for chopping hard wood and knots(they dig in better and dont bounce as much) so it would work the same on armor i guess. Why cresent shape? i think its more of a hey it looks cool factor than functionality.
The crescent axe blades are rare because they are harder to make. The curved shape on most axes comes from the forging proces. I think poleaxes were made from bar steel. Therefore straight blades are simply from the grinding proces. I dont think people actually tought much about it when they made curved or straight blades. To my knowledge they perform basically identicaly.
Hi Matt, have you ever come across a Norwegian peasant axe (Bondeøkse)? They have a very distinctive look to them due to the asymmetrical curvature of the shaft. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_battle_axe DigitaltMuseum
This could also just be a case of "it looks good and it still works." Sometimes we forget people are people wether then or now and looking good is still important to many.
We may have invented the term "mall ninja" in modern times but the mentality has been around for a long time. Sometimes it's about being different for difference's sake.
I mean that's kinda how I play videogames, if one piece of gear looks cooler but has like 6% less power I'm gonna use it and probably do better because I'm pumped to be looking cool lol
@@devin5201 It all depends on your definition of cool. For my part, no matter how good the stats, I can't bring myself to wear shoulder armor with spikes while someone else might want to be able to roast marshmallows on any passing fire ball;).
On the flip side, concave curves gather material. If you hit something like a limb, you will deffinitely hit that limb with the full force of your blow, it will not deflect off, because the curve will deflect it in. You are sacrificing potential penetration for guaranteed force transference.
I always thought the polearms with a convex shaped blade was intended to reduce deflection as they seem to be anti armor and hard armor tries to deflect blows.
Except the cuting insn't really a matter of force transference on impact and more a the blade sliding along what it aims to cut, hence why curved blades tend to cut better, there is a longer edge to slide along. Also, even if we only consider the impact, a convex blade would have a smaller point of contact and thus, more penetrative power than a concave shape where the force would be spread across a larger area.
@@lhumanoideerrantdesinterne8598I think they mean that if it does *enough* damage it is now doing that damage over a bigger area and getting enough of that damage into whatever it hits. Force transference isn't just about cutting. It is also about cracking bones and warping metal and jostling the guy who is trying to land a clean strike. In a big formation with long poles, not every strike is going to land perfectly, and you can't just miss, withdraw, and try again until you hit exactly where you want and how you want. Instead of making your good slices slice good, you are making sure that your one big thunk thunks when it thunks.
Against tree branches or small diameter tree, it's more effective to use crescent, because tree branches & tree trunk are somewhat round. So does human body & limbs. I guess if someone strong enough + long pole(force multiplier), it can be use against armored person.
Yeah a forward curved blade will bite if you will. Matt needs to cut things with Kukri, Yataghans, and other forward curved blades. They are devastating in the cut if you ask me. I prefer them. Also if you go to cut, and overshoot on some of them. You can pull back the weapon, and still get someone.
With "Halberd" potentially meaning "Helmet cleaver" there's another factor: The helmet is so curved that the head and the axe have a tendency to bounce off of each other. Giving your weapon a crescent curve means that the head can't be pushed away backwards or forwards. So with a decently centered hit, you get maximum transfer of force. And with a strike that's slightly too short/long, you get a single spike hitting the helmet and having maximum likelihood of penetrating.
@@jurtheorc8117 In Bulgarian it is brada for beard and bradva for axe but it seems to be the same word and it meant beard originally. We also have other old words for axe - sekira, topor.
More than most cultures they have a massive range of weapon types for all sorts of uses. Some of it gets crazy specialized for martial arts or a very specific use. I do tai chi and the tassels on the hilts of our swords or the ends of spear shafts served purposes too.
I can’t speak in the European halberd (there are some really crescent ones in Italy with event too spikes being this shape). But with the tabar, this shape is from the manner of use. It is taught that such an axe is used in two cutting plains, and that the edge is rotated to cut and hook at limbs after taking the center. The actual hacking with the tabar only really occurs if you know there is opening and your opponent fails to act or after already disrupting the center (which sometimes is not done with the axe itself).
To clarify the shape, as it might not be clear. Dropping any edge on to the limbs will cut. The crescent however when dropped down will ride a defense to its opening where another edge will not. For example: from the center you turn your tabar and drop it on to your opponents forearm, it hits a bazuband, you push while maintaining contact with the bazuband. If your opponent doesn’t not leave, the crescent will find his hand.
I apologize for my spelling errors but I’m glad at least it made some sense. If you go through Mughal art works for these they are used by very specific people with this shape and the mustache shape as well. Sometimes with shield similar to the European dueling shields but smaller (similar in that it is square and has blades attached)
@Vampiracho of course. The carvings in the Khandgiri caves, you can find photos of the carvings but also the sketches by Nadalal. Battle of Thanesar miniature Basawan · Akbar Watches a Battle Between Two Rival Groups c.1590 - Miniature on paper - Victoria & Albert Museum. Left hand side against the border at the middle you can see one being used with a khanda. And unfortunately two other I don’t know how to show you? As they are manuscript fragments and no one really knows what works they came from, only that the art style implies late 16th century
A lesson from evolutionary biology: a feature will often vary in proportion to the wiggle room provided by natural selection. If the performance advantage of shape A isn't appreciable to shape B, then both may exist in a population as a point of neutral variation. Ie. if a curved ax is slightly better against certain substrates, but a straight edge does well enough at the job that the user can't really tell the difference, then ax makers will make both types with aesthetic preference or manufacture method deciding between them (ditto straight vs. tilted). There doesn't have to be a reason for one or the other (see. Stephen J. Gould's work on adaptive story telling). It's just that one doesn't perform badly enough to force the use of the other form. As far as curved halberds, Lindybeige put out an idea a while back that halberd axes were adapted for trying to break other polearms (with a chopping and scraping motion IIRC). So maybe the curved blade helped keep another weapon in contact for a hit & scrape rather than glancing off. But just as well it could be rule of cool, with function in polearm combat not impacted enough for someone to have seen the choice as deciding life/death (but if so then battle ax variation would likely have included crescents more often. The rarity and specificity suggests an adaptive function in halberds.)
I thought it was interesting that he noted the concave blade shape often appears on halberds/polearms that also have exceptionally long central spearheads or spikes. As you say, it might not have to be especially effective at trapping or binding other polearms for that to have been the design goal, as long as it wasn't particularly ineffective.
در مورد اینکه احتمالن خاستگاه این سلاح در خاورمیانه و ایران بوده تا حدودی موافقم ، من خودم ایرانی یا پرشین هستم😂 اما این سلاح بیشتر برای دفاع از قلعه و دژ استفاده میشده احتمالن. این نیزه مشخص است که بسیار سبک تر از نیزه های اروپایی است ، این نیزه را برای سبک تر کردن از تیغه C شکل استفاده کرده اند. تا سرعت عمل سرباز نیزه دار بالا تر باشد مخصوصن در حالتی که سوار بر اسب است و یا بالای دیوار قلعه ایستاده و دشمنانی که از دیوار بالا می آیند را باید به شدت زخمی کند ، اگر نیزه سنگین باشد و شکل تیغه مناسب نباشد باعث کاهش سرعت عمل نیزه دار می شود. در حالتی که دشمن قلعه شما را محاصره کرده و سربازانش با استفاده از نردبان سعی می کنند از دیوارها بالا بیاییند و شما مجبور هستید بالای دیوار بایستید و مانع ورود دشمن به بالای برج قلعه شوید ، در چنین شرایطی سربازان شما احتیاج به سلاحی سبک و کمی کوتاه تر و با تیغه ای خطرناک تر هستند. تیغه های معمولی برای نبرد تن به تن مناسب هستند ولی زمانی که شما بالای دیوار ایستاده اید و یا سوار بر اسب هستید نمیتوانید از تیغه آن استفاده کنید بلکه از نیزه آن استفاده می کنید ولی از این تیغه می توانید در حالتی که دشمن در ارتفاع پایین تر از شما قرار گرفته ، یعنی شما یا سوار بر اسب هستید و یا روی دیوار مستقر هستید بسیار مناسب است ، کافی است که شما بالای یک دیوار باایستید و از دوستتان بخواهید که به شما حمله کند و شما از بالای دیوار در حالی که ایستاده اید باید دفاع کنید ، حالا یک بار از تیغه معمول و یک بار از تیغه فارسی استفاده کنید و ببینید که در این حالت کدام مناسب تر است. البته این سلاح مزایای دیگری ام دارد ولی کاربرد این سلاح اختصاصی است و برای بادیگارد های محافظ و محافظان قلعه مناسب تر از سربازان هجومی است..
Hi, Matt! With regard to the halberd to headsman's axe comparison, the target of the headsman's axe is not only stationary, it is also backed by (typically) a solid block of wood. The tips of a concavely curved blade would hit the chopping block *before* the blade had completely severed the victim's neck. The use case for a halberd is clearly quite different -- as is the length of the weapon itself -- so even if it were striking at someone's neck, a halberd (especially in formation) isn't going to be *swung* like a headsman's axe. My guess is that a better analogy might be to the concave curvature of a pole saw, used for cutting branches. Whether you're cutting a neck, a limb, or the shaft of an opposing polearm, the crescent shape will not slip off as easily as a convex or straight blade, and a cut can be initiated -- or continued -- via a reciprocating thrusting motion along the axis of the weapon. No, you're not going to sever a head (or limb, or wooden shaft) with one mighty stroke this way, but neither are you going to be afforded the opportunity to make one mighty stroke in the first place while fighting in a tight formation with a polearm probably several yards in length. Also, as another commenter below pointed out, such a "sawing" thrust/cut might be quite effective against cavalry, as well, as even a barded horse is unlikely to have armored legs, and a quick slice to a mount's tendon could turn a cavalryman into an infantryman right quick. Those are my speculations on possible practical reasons for concave halberd blades. What do you guys think?
you then have to consider that most halberds did not have that shape so its utility must either be very special or not about utility at all or every halberd would have it.
@@mangalores-x_x If there is a trade-off (for example, if crescent blades are better when hitting limbs, necks or weapon shafts, while strait blades are better when hitting armor and convex blades are better against unarmored bodies), then both local context and personal preference will play a role and all three types will be present.
Exactly this. For the time period most often you were fighting medium to heavily armoured opponents. The more heavily armoured one is the more likely the only weak points in the armour becomes the cracks in the joints. Thin points, convex blades, and small hooks make the best use of these thin weakpoints. When attacking a crack the best way to lead the blade into it is drawing into it rather than swinging at it. If you can cut under the armpit or inside the crotch you can wound and disable your opponent enough to either remove them from the fight or finish him off. Combined with the reach and leverage a polearm provides you have a very sucessful weapon for armoured opponents. As for blunted flat blades. A blunt flat blade is less likely to shatter and dent when used for hitting metal armour. They were used for making bend/fold points in metal armour that become weak spots for arrows and lances. Its not about killing your opponent its about cracking that can.
Something that strikes me about the straight, dull, axe blade is possible armor deformation. While the spike or hammerhead provides a good puncturing point, the axe head may cause riveted joints on plate armor to jam, pop, or deform without directly hitting them. It may effectively crease the armor either pinching the limb within or impairing its movement. I’m imagining that on a limb or similar, the gambeson underneath might take the impact but the crease made in the armor may continue to pinch the arm and the deformation of the piece to cause any associated hinges to seize. Following hits to the same area causing the armor to bend further, possibly breaking bones within. So it may be there to impair and injure an opponent before following up with a puncture or stab to a vital area. As gruesome as it may be, you can imagine a knight struggling to keep his shield up in defense of his head before a strike to his forearm causes the vambrace to fold as the ulna or radius snaps under the pressure. All of this is a guess of course, but when I see that flat dull blade I’m distinctly reminded of a shear press which bends sheet metal.
The crescent (or concave) axe blade could just be aesthetic, being the fashion at that time. It’s usually the case that crescent blades are on decorated heads. Munitions grade axe blades - even of the same period - are far less often concave.
"It’s usually the case that crescent blades are on decorated heads." But this video did show at least some undecorated halberds with concave axe blades.
My late friend had a theory about crescent, and U shaped arrowheads, and it applies here too. The "can opener" effect of these shapes. If they hit armor, and one of the point sticks, the leverage, the arrow provide works as a can opener on the metal. With this type of axe, it may also be the case. If you hit a target with some kind of rigid armor, and a pont of the crescent penetrates, it may open up the metal better, than a single spike. It may not go as deep, but creates a slash wound. Of course, it is just my friend's theory about this shape on weapons, but i see the logic in it, so i tought i share it.
I think you hit the nail on the head - the crescent shape lends a degree of control to opposing weapon shafts, whilst retaining a cutting edge big enough for human limbs - and the ends (tines?) of the crescent are effectively daggers. A well conceived weapon, it's rarity is probably because of difficulties in manufacture......that it is found across different cultures and continents demonstrates similar brains coming up with similar solutions. Cool. Great vid Matt, very eye opening and interesting.
I use a sickle frequently for agricultural work. I am unable to explain the physics of it, but I know that I can cut really well with little effort. I think pushing and pulling with what is essentially two sickles would be very advantageous on a pole arm. And consider that whatever you are slicing is trapped between the horns of the crescent.
The first thing it reminded me of was a number 12 scalpel blade. A curved blade with a sharp point and a sharpened concave edge. I use it on leather and it can be very effective. Certainly I could see the crescent blade acting the same, pierce and the rip. Not sure the Halberd would work as well they haven’t got the penetrating point from what I can see, but just because the are both concave blades doesn’t mean they have to be used the same way.
In my collection of original halberds, only one is actually traditionally curved. Three are in fact crescent-based. My own theories reflect Matt’s thoughts, with the additional notion that the cutting edge simply wasn’t as valuable as we gave it credit for, particularly while in formation. The more jagged axe blade may lend itself far more to snagging mail, clothing, or opposing weapons rather than inflicting damage.
And (speculation), could the crescent shape help hold the cutting edge close to the shaft as the attacker slide this down the pole to the defenders fingers? Scenario might be catching the opponents weapon on its down stroke, with the crescent pushing the shaft out (so a block), but you have your crescent at 45° to that shaft, not 90, so your blade can then be cutting slicing down the shaft towards the hands while still keeping the block. This could be done with a straight edge but needs a lot of control. The crescent would help maintain the position and that weight behind a modest edge against gloved fingers could be decisive.
I think this brings up an interesting point; it’s entirely possible that this was a specialist’s weapon in the midst of other halberdiers or other polearm soldiers. We often think of fighting as one-on-one, even in formation you just go after the guy(s) facing you as you line up, but having a few armed differently would give them a unique advantage, which create gaps and snags for allies on either side of you to exploit. I’m not entirely convinced, but it’s interesting to think about.
I like the "extra hooking options" idea a lot, and my guess is that it's not just hooking pikes or limbs - it's both at the same time (or rather, in the same "attack" before disengaging and resetting). Think of it this way. Long spikes for stabbing, and when you're drawing back the lower part of the crescent hooks the opponent's weapon. If it's a straight/convex blade, that's your only position of control until you disengage. With these you have an extra hook on top, you have the option to do a quick lunge forward and stab or snag the opponent's arm. Possibly maiming damage and better control over the target.
I think it's mostly ornamental, especially if you look at the examples you provided. It could also make your strikes bite more and reduce the chances of glancing blows.
I suspect its mostly a design compromise between a hook and an axeblade. This may just be a sample size issue, but I think it's telling that the convex edged axes have no tip spike and the crescent axe has a small one. Following from that the larger spearhead ones have only the top curve and not the bottom one. We see a similar design in the Chinese Ji where the basic combo was to hook over a shield then follow with a spearthrust.
I think you are correct on all points, I would use a curve like this to target wrists, backs/sides of knees, ankles etc, where the inner curve would be advantageous, could also be good for taking the legs of horses, you can see in a engagement with other poleaxes, where the inner curve would dig in and not just deflect, if you had a unit of infantry with mixed polearms, a couple of these would be helpful, I reckon, just a like a modern infantry squad, you have a mix of weapons, this being one.
For polearms It also has a better chance of stopping a charging horse as if the blade goes in its gonna cause a lot more damage and if it doesent the horse would be stopped sudenly, where with a pike the skewered horse could still run over the shaft lenght and trample the formation if you miss any vital organs with a pike too it might survive long enough for the knight to dismount safely, where with a crescent blade its pretty hard to miss any vitals.
Possibly something to do with Carrying the halberd “upside down”. With the outside of the crescent resting in your hand and the shaft resting on the shoulder.
The Sickle is a tool used to "gather" and cut, and that is its purpose as a weapon against pole armed enemies. The problem with using an blade against a pole arm is that the pole will just be pushed aside rather than be trapped and forced to resist the full cutting force of the strike.
I can’t help but think of a can opener. The crescent axe striking with the point and maybe penetrating armour and then using it to “can opener” your way a bigger hole.
I think it is also a kind of a can opener situation, but with a bit of chopping power added, with the wider blade shape it would hit with less piercing power then a hook but also has a bigger marging of error. For exemple, you aim at a forearm with a strike, if you overshoot with the hook you'll hit the oponent arm with just the shaft, you'd still be able to control his arm with the hook, with this cressent blade you will be more likely to conect the hit, and even if the arm is protected by plate it may get traped by the blade with points at both sides, it's a different hind of way to bind I guess.
I think your theory about them being good vs polearms is the most probable one. This kind of shape seem to come around in the 1550s in germany/italy and stays around for a long time. Later manuals show such weapons used against pikemen by catching/binding their pike with the space between blade and the long point. There is one german source talking about the ottomans and them having short axes he says like halberds with crescent shaped blades, the same as shoe makers knives which serve to cut leather. Other sources seem to talk about opening wooden fences during assaults, catching/getting hold of anything(weapons) that the enemy puts in the way and basically it being an universal tool. One source from 1680s praises it as great weapon for officers for clearing paths etc. The curved blade in those cases seem to serve for better binding and clearing. Also used for keeping soldiers in place in formation and measuring their paces or punishing them if they disobey. Some muster rolls seem to differentiate between officers halberds and common halberds. But some soldiers do not seem fond the long pointed halberds. John smyth says that they are bad in formation because in tight battle they are useless and shorter halberds and battle axes are much more useful. They are called italian halbards by some but cant think of any german sources doing it.
Seems like you got it right with the comment about being able to counter other polearm-wielders. There's tremendous utility in having a weapon (typically used by groups of soldiers together) that can contain an opponent's weapon long enough for a comrade to strike them.
Love the videos but I think this time you are forgetting to take into account the i'll say backstop when talking about the blade shape, Like when you say about a meat cleaver having a flat blade id say that may be because you are cutting on a butchers block so a flat blade would cut all the way through with a chop vs a round blade the apex will hid the chop block and leave the edges not fully cut. then later you say about the executioner's axe is rounded and not flat could this be based on there chop block's? I have never seen one in person so I don't know but I'm guessing there is a grove where the neck is placed so a rounded blade may go the full depth where a flat blade would stop on the wood not going all the way through. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
It occurs to me that having the crescent shaped blade, on the halberd in particular, gives a longer almost quillon--like projection to the base of the blade on the tip. This would seem to be ideal for engaging and disengaging opposing pike-shafts, in order to push their tips up so your mates can stab them. You could let gravity align the head vertically, bring the head down among a press of pike shafts, twist the shaft of your halberd to bring the blade out to the side, and push, hoping to have caught the shaft of a pike or two between the top of the axe-blade and the tip.
I'd offer that the crescent shape provides two points to concentrate the force of a strike while still having a cutting edge. That way you could strike and pierce an opponent's armour with one of two spikes (the tips of the crescent), but still be able to cut flesh in between them. It would also (as mentioned in the video) be able to hook and manipulate other weapons/limbs.
Somewhere on Lindybeige's channel is an old vid where he theorizes that halberds, specifically the ones with long, thin spear-points, were used in groups not as hacking weapons, but thrust into other groups. (his reasoning being that if you swing and miss with a hack, that spear is gonna get bent really quick) If your spear thrust hit someone in the face, great! If you missed, the axe and beak had potential to hook an opponent both on the thrust, and the pull back, and if you knocked someone to the ground, other halberdiers would start poking him. If he is correct, the exaggerated top and bottom of a crescent blade could provide more hooky bits, while still retaining an edge. For a little more context - Lindybeige envisioned groups of relatively untrained halberdiers 'sawing' into each other. This also explains the langets - all the halberds scraping against each other would quickly wear through the shaft, otherwise. Edit - found the vid - th-cam.com/video/GsckeyktMS0/w-d-xo.html
How much of a disadvantage is it having a small blade like on an axe vs a long blade as on a sword? I know you don’t really cut with all of the sword blade but it must be nice to have the option, right?
The option is nice, I guess. But I don't know... at least, from most of what I've heard, the rule of thumb is "If you're not hitting the opponent with the furthest 10-15 cm of your blade, you've let your opponent get to close". I don't know how accurate that is, though. Maybe having the long edges makes it easier for running someone all the way through with the sword?
Easier to hit a target with a longer sword blade for sure, but when swinging a sword you still want to hit with the perfect part of the blade not too far up close to the tip and not too low down on the blade were there's less 'power' in the swing so you still have to aim well/Judge distance properly to have the most effective hit, its just you are forced to do that with an axe because there's less length of blade and so less room for error when judging distance. That being said when you have a sharp enough blade and an opponent with no armor or lower levels of armor then you can still deliver deadly/incapacitating cuts/chops with just the tip or bottom half of the sword if you are swinging to kill with good technique, hitting someone's forearm with the bottom half of your sword because they moved closer to you then expected whilst you was throwing the strike will definitely disarm/render that arm hand grip useless if your blade is an actual blade. Also pair the fact that axes are slower to swing(and so easier to react too) with the fact they often have a lot less blade to work with and now it's like exponentially harder to land clean strikes with the middle of your axe head when compared to even heavier swords like extra top heavy Broad falcion type of blades, they are still easier to do damage with even when you don't hit with the perfect part of the blade, but the tradeoff is that they do less damage generally speaking compared to most axes that are actually designed for war and fighting flesh not wood, might be easier to get someone cut open with a sword blade but it's 'easier' to cut through flesh AND BONE with axes, particularly important when chainmail becomes a factor.
If you are striking the most effective part of a sword is a relatively small area around the center of percussion; But, if you miss that area the sword is still sharp it will do damage, also a longer blade allows more effective draw cuts. From doing medieval reenactment fighting I would say you don't usually have to worry about missing with the head of the axe and hitting with the haft unless you are grappling. You usually have enough controll that the smaller striking area isn't too much of an issue I do see people hit with the haft accidently but it's pretty rare unless they are being pushed around.
Funny enough there's half swording for close quarters to hit with the end third of the blade. Honestly I believe it's been proven time and again the spear is the superior weapon anyway. For hitting unarmored points and individuals.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was told that halberds (I don't know the correct spelling). Were meant for crowd control. So maybe it's not about making it lethal.
I was one of the people asking about the concave axe/halberd blades on the previous video. Nice to hear at least some possible reasons why they were used.
In halberds, being so long (compared with poleaxes), the crescent blade was angled inwards it to catch a bodypart and slide through it, cutting like a curved blade like a saber.
The axe part is for hitting the body, the hammer part is for hitting the head and the chest. Axe is more likely to glance from curvature of the helmet however and chest piece however the rest of the body will more likely to absorb the full force + you can hook with it better than with the hammer part. You don't really want to cleave the flesh with the axe (it can even when dull btw) but to break bones, bend the armor to reduce mobility and possibly get your opponent off balance. Lets not forget that every defeated knight was a potential ransom so killing was often not desirable. Nice smack or two with the hammer part into helmet would turn of the light in every head and nice home-run into chest was very likely to knock the wind even from large dudes. That long pointy bit on top of the pole-axe was for killing and seriously hurting people.
I think it is in part control options, but I think it is mainly for targets of opportunity during windings and binds. It gives you a strong thrust in almost any angle forward or backward.
So, the traditional shaped axe blades for utility use that were mentioned are intented for use on objects that just accept the force; they don't typically substantially move away from the force when struck. However, modern brush axes do have a crescent blade, and the objects typically struck by them will tend to move away from them. Or the tools called pruning hooks. Maybe the concave axe blades were developed from pruning hooks. Or applied the theory of using a concave blade upon objects expected to give way to the blow.
Yet another fascinating video, we love to see it! One thing I did think of on your Headsman's axe point that i thought of was that Headsman weren't necessarily dealing with moving targets as much, so they wouldn't need to worry as much about getting their aim right - and their axes were normally rather heftier than fighting axes to make their job easier. With that in mind, would it not be possible that the crescent shape on some halberds could be to assist with isolating targeted bodyparts? The hook-like shape should help guide the target into the main mass of the blade so long as the inside of either the top or bottom half of the blade connects, so maybe thats why? Idk, obviously this is just a theory - but either way it's bloody fascinating.
Halberds in Germany were used right into the 19th century as equipment for the nightwatch in cities and villages. In Leipzig they were used until 1823. Task of the nightwatch was firefighting too and may be the crescent blades have some advantages in this use.
The moon shaped crescent is almost certainly ceremonial/religious in nature. It's of course still a decent weapon, but the practical use may come second to esthetics. With the straight edge however, especially if the edge itself was often dull in comparison to other cutting weapons, the idea was likely to stab and hook, pull and push at your opponent, either in hopes to do some damage where the main pike at the top of the poleaxe/halberd may have failed to get to the target, or simply put them off balance. This seems especially likely in the case of longer weapons in formations, as you couldn't possibly swing the weapon as a normal axe, save perhaps for the very first attack. The crescent shape may then have proved even better for this purpose in certain situations, or against opponents with certain types of arms/armor. I'd imagine them being used almost like a saw to try and cut through opposing ranks of pike-/spearmen or other halberdiers.
I would say that due to the shape tips of the crescent would likely make injuries more similar a thrust based weapon. Cuts and slashes can be a lot more survivable than thrusts, so maybe it would pierce deeper into the tissue causing a more grieves wound than with other axes. You'd have check with ballistic gelatin to see with hits deeper. Looking at that particuler axe though it could also have influence on weight, nimbleness and combat style (it has a thrusting tip too) since it could be lighter than some other weapons.
For me there is a move in the fight with the sword against pike or also a sword: down in the direction of the hands, but keeping pike/sword locked away from you. This shape would perfectly slice in the fingers and hand on a pike, but also the hand on a sword like the turkish yatagan, that does not have much hand for protection. Even the classic straight sword with straight bar as hand guard, will protect the hand from a sword, but not from the sharp edges, that can curb around such bar. When it’s moving, it moving around the thing it holds. Many sword fights work with this sword against sword and when they push against each other, many time it lands near this hand guard. With such a weapon against you, you will try to avoid it and having contact with only with the upper part, this weapon will have even better control over the sword, since you have less power there. -> I didn’t see the grip in the video, but I am pretty sure, that if it’s not a symbolic weapon for a “temple guard”, than this weapon is used in pair with a sword. (It has probably a one hand grip) It’s like the dacian? sword with curbed tip outwards or the normal oriental curbed sword: they try to cut something behind a protection. What is for sure not realistic: cutting a head. There are too many tales from the history, where a beginner thinks he can do it too with a straight sword or axe and it gets ugly, because he needs 2 to 4 strikes…that small thing could cut maybe a 5y old child neck…if he manages to align it perfectly in the middle.
Matt, have you seen one of the most recent episodes of the series Medieval Dead about the famous "Castillon Hoard Swords"? It's pretty flippin awesome! I believe it's the first and only documentary about this particular group of swords. Btw, I see that you still have your majestic Dane Axe by Thor! Do you still have your Late Medieval axe by him (the one with the spike on the back end)? I think that's got to be my favorite reproduction battle axe in existence.
I have! And it was nice to see a few friends of mine in there. Unfortunately though, the episode was a few years 'behind' current research and basically presented the story as we knew it in about 2015. It's somewhat more complicated now, and maybe I'll have to get a couple of key guests onto Zoom to make a video about it!
Regarding the straight edges many poleaxes had: think of how many plates in a suit of armor depend on articulation or their ability to slide over each other, as the wearer moves, in order to be effective. The long straight edge of a poleaxe probably makes long strait dents in plates which would often have some combination of a cylindrical or domed shape. If such dents were deep enough and numerous enough that the plates no longer moved freely against one another, at some point the armor itself would effectively leave the combatant so hindered that they could be forced to surrender. After all, most duels were not to the death. And even on the battlefield, taking an enemy knight hostage was preferable (and often profitable).
In the case of the halberd being primarily used to strike at heads from above, I could see a lot of utility in a design that sacrifices penetrative power for more blunt energy transference. Most front rank soldiers at least had helmets, so a design that could more easily get a solid hit on a helmeted head instead of glancing off would be able to deal a knockout blow and get that soldier out of the fight. An inward curve that makes more contact with the outward curve of a helmet might do the trick there. Might be at least worth testing at some point at least.
With the curved blade then the space between the spike and the axe blade becomes much more effective for catching other polearms or weapons. Just like the bill hook is used, the 'top' of the hook and the spike can be used to catch and control an opponent's weapon, then slide down and offend them with the spike or a 'slash' of the axe hook. So you have the cresent itself which has the ability to catch limbs or other polearms and control them by moving in a 'slashing' parry against them but you've also got the space between the blade and the haft which is now optimized for catching and controlling a pole arm or other arms in a thrusting motion.
My thoughts are mostly along the lines of what you pointed out at the very end, that this creates a point on your ax head. When you're fighting against armour, it may be beneficial to be able to be able to use the point to get into gaps or for additional penetration power and once you're in there it also doubles as a great hook without keep your weapon locked up like you run the risk with a spike. Because of the crescent shape, you can still pull back on the weapon to destabilize your opponent while 'cutting' free at the time. I think this is reinforced by many of the European examples not being a full crescent like the one you have here but instead being slanted. In addition, by having the lower part of the ax head curved, you create more space for hooking but note that unlike with the spike, if you hook for example a shield or a weapon with the lower part, you now have the very threatening point of the upper part behind the enemy defence and in a perfect position to stab forward. One last thought is that this makes the weapon lighter because you're using less material but that's more of an idle thought than a belief.
Oh yeah and if your weapon deflected from the helmet and maybe slid lower down towards the neck or the shoulder, you have the perfect shape to yank on it.
It was also used for draw cuts. A halberd could be thrusted and then you can cut while pulling the weapon back. You can also hook limbs, especially legs.
I just realised that crescent blades were used extensively in reaping, so would be available ready-made pretty widely; their manufacture care and handling would also be familiar in an agrarian economy, which was pretty much the standard before 1700.
I often work with a bill in the forest my family owns. The shape is very useful in multiple ways. If the hook is pronounced enough you can pull things with it. You also have a point to the side with which you can impale something (wood in my case). Theoretically it can also turn a chop into a proper cut. But I have to admit that I usually rather chop than cut with the bill, probably because of its form. I use a Swiss bill which has a rather long blade point which makes a proper swing cut (?) a bit difficult. But I guess the rule of cool applies to axeblades as well. The moon shaped blade looks good.
That moment in Star Trek where Bones tells Spock that Kirk trusts Spock's best guess over the computer? That's us and Matt. His best guess is better than most Wiki entries.
Just like what I said in the earlier axe video, I think the practical function of the shape is partly because it's more durable. The structure itself doesn't make it more durable, it's probably more because it's less likely to slip and miss its target, hitting something else that could bend the axe out of shape like a rock on the ground. If you're swinging a halberd overhead on someone's armored head or shoulder, you might swing it with enough momentum to however not be able to prevent it from hitting the ground. The shape of the blade does hook and lock into its target, but it's more so that it just doesn't slip on impact. Ultimately, I think it's the smiths that determine the shapes of the weapons. They may not know the specifics of their usage, like whether some part can be used to control the enemy's weapon or hook a mounted man-at-arms off of their mount, but they should have been very familiar with how the weapons looked like after a battle. They probably don't know how exactly a certain shape is more or less durable (except making them thicker, which they actually did for some of the axe blade tips I saw), but they can simply observe any correlation between the angle and the durability. I've seen some simple-looking halberds in a corner of a ducal-manor-turned-museum, with the spike, the hook, and the blade being a single piece. They're not exactly display material with some of them even showing some wear from use. I think that those halberds might have served as munitions, so there is no customization whatsoever. The considerations of the design would have had minimum input from their intended users, and it would have been mostly what the smiths had in mind of what an effective (and easy-to-make) halberd was.
Doesn't fit in with how trades at the time (at least in Germany/the HRE) were organised in guilds which carried out strict quality and price controls. E.g. bakers were charged if their baked goods did not match the required size or weight. So if something as simple as a bretzel was regulated at the time you can bet that a blade or weapon was regulated even more. I rather think these weapons had a specific use and were produced with it in mind.
@@f.h.4044 I don't think that contradicts my suggestion. Like, wouldn't it be ultimately smiths who would determine the standards in the guilds? I meant that instead of the nobles or warriors, it would be the smiths who decide on the finer details. Like, the angle of the axe blade was determined that way not because of how it could be used, but because it's more likely to come back with less damage. The smith probably wouldn't have to bother with its specific way of usage, but they could make an observation when it comes back to them as a repair order.
@@Kensuke0987 You forget that some of those smith were travelling with the baggage train of an army. So wrong design ideas would have been weeded out after a field testing. Also different regions in Europe were competing about who made the finest armour/weapon, so there was no real benefit of producing something which you thought might look good but, did not produce the expected results. A guild was mainly a verry local centric organisation which wanted to increase revenue by increasing trade. Trade could only be increased via the local city being renown for a certain type of quality and reliability of the goods produced (e.g. Nuremberg). So coming up with random designs which didn't match specific requirements wasn't something guilds would encourage. The people back then weren't less smart than people nowadays nor were they less connected albeit the time of knowledge travelling was larger. Form follows function is definitely not an invention of modern engineering. So if items with a certain shape were produced by European weapon smiths in larger quantities I am more than certain they had a specific use.
@@f.h.4044i'm not forgetting some of those smiths were or had been camp followers. but i don't think they would be carrying enough material nor the proper equipment to create new blades but instead would be repairing or repurposing existing weapons/tools besides repairing armor. i never said that the axe blade angle only looked good. It was made for purpose but i think it's more for "durability" than for some martial arts consideration. Durability would be more easily observable for a smith, who is usually in charge of maintaining the weapons in a campaign. Forward-angled axeheads existed since the Viking era with the Dane axes. I'm not so sure about how guilds and trades worked with the Vikings, but I'm assuming that this innovation is something that could be independently developed all over the world that used two-handed axes and pole-arms with axe blades. The Vikings and Dane axes predated the HRE, so that meant that the innovation didn't have had to come from the smiths from HRE.
I always figured it was used for different purposes, depending on the convex curve, such as stopping blade sliding down the spike and to maximize using the points of the axe to hook opponents to push or pull them. Using the points of an axe to hook an opponent may explain straight blades a bit as well.
I think the straight blade that goes parallel to the pole is for catching when you pull back towards you. The halberd may have the inverse curve to combine that pull back attack with the forward leaning top of the blade.
I have an additional theory on the straight edge of the pollaxe. One other commenter said something about it deforming plates to create more comcave spots the spike can dig into, but what if the actual edge isnt the primary striking point? The top and bottom of the edge are quite pointy and could be used to hook straps or even plates and dig a little into the body with the top point, and to catch the back of the neck or the less armored areas in the arms and legs when pulling back after a "missed" thrust.
I think that the halberd seems like its really good in a bind. I think its two purposes. 1. Sweeping down and pinning pikes in pike formations so that your own pikemen can gain an advantage. There are even historical depictions of this sort of swinging. 2. When ranks break, the weapon is excellent for controlling other weapons and it is also already sufficient as a flexible space controlling polearm being a big halberd. I think its possible too that it might have broken pike heads if it was swung in a strong clean arc, catches the end of the pike and smashes the pike head into the ground, creating a lever and snapping the head. It might take a couple swings even to do this, but if you're in a pike stalemate, this would be a potential tiebreaker.
I remember lindybeige once making a point concerning the cresent shape on european halberds. IIRC he said that it helped catch materiel, like mentioned in other commetns, and specifically to catch shafts of opposing pikes to "shave" bits of wood from the shaft to weaken and/or cut off the head of the pike/halberd
One possibility could be that if you are able to pull the weapon back after chopping into an arm or leg that it may cause additional damage, particularly if the angle of the pull isn't exactly the same as that of the cut.
I remember reading in an old book about reinessance battles, that halberds were specifically used against pikes to destroy them and also attack pikemens' hands. they were also used often to disarm, harass without casualties and counter an armed with farming tools mob, the usual enemy of armored guardsmen. trilogy by Sienkiewicz? guards had a special method of hacking away at enemy polearms, threatening with swings and thrusts to maintain range. you don't want to kill and maim your peasants, even if they rebel.
I could see this as an anti-pike tool in a polearm. You'd get the crescent shape around the opponent's haft, apply bit of an angle to it and due to the sharpness it gets stuck. And since you would have better leverage due to the pike user having his arms so much further away from the tip, you could yank the opponent's weapon off or in the most ideal scenario break the haft.
Two possible reasons: 1. Fashion/status/unit identity and 2. The answer might be defeating armour/weapons , as well as a certain falx like quality, a narrow thin section of blade could be worked into a gap in armour not just smashing it (although if you already have a spear point...)
Regarding the halberd in general, the hammer face is small, the axe blade is longer, so the broader blade increases the area available to strike with. If your opponent is moving around it's easier to strike a limb such as a leg or arm, or land a hit on the torso, helmet, or shoulder with at least some part of the axe blade than with the hammer face. If the opponent is down or not very mobile, say, bound up with another opponent, then the hammer strike can be used a lot more effectively since you can hit more precisely for effect. Also, the axe blade would be much more useful against the legs of a horse since there's a longer surface available to hit with, and the narrow edge would easily break bone. Regarding forward-curved blades on a halberd, there are several advantages. A missed spear thrust still has a chance of striking with the point of the axe blade since it's a bit farther out from the spear point. A swing has the same advantage of an angled axe blade, but the angle and concave curvature can act to inflict a draw cut action as well as just a strike - think guillotine blade vs meat cleaver. In addition, a point is more likely to pierce a gambeson, leather, or chain rings than a flat or standard curved axe blade, so a point-first impact, even if somewhat slight, will drive the rest of the blade into the opening initially created by the point. The same goes for a crescent. It differs from a traditional beak in that it's flat, so it's more like a sword thrust rotated 90 degrees and doubled up as opposed to the fatter spike style of the standard beak which is more useful for piercing plate. Again, practically speaking, this is going to be better at piercing soft or lighter armor while still inflicting serious cutting trauma to whatever is under it, as well as hooking into the opponent. There's also a bit of intimidation factor. Pointing things are scary. Even the most dedicated hippie hesitates where a cactus is concerned.
I believe in the Persian axes design was a simple purpose of piercing, secondary points for the purpose of multiple wound infliction if cleaving is not possible, without the need for thrusting as most pikes or other polearms would need. You can do the same damage with that one by simple swings at the right places. Other use i can think of, is armor breaking, using contact points, sharp ones that can sever leather securements and straps, tear off armor, etc with hook and pull movements would make sense especially when armor is a mostly western ideal (I'm aware of major fallacy, but I'm going for a basic idea here) and you have foreigners always doing a majority of the invading. So to tie it together: - Multiple puncture or "entry points" to increase total damage, as if stabbing a person twice with a single swing if chopping isn't viable. - Armor Breaking/Bind Severing. - Armor breaking is increased on cheaply and thinly armored opponents (By mass production) that would just need a good sturdy sharp point to break armor like a pocket knife to an aluminum can. - Smaller is better, Less metal or sometimes more metal can be increased in volume and make a blade stronger the less you use, which probably makes sense considering the design itself would ensure you likely wouldn't have to worry about sharpening it as its pretty much like having a couple of daggers onto a long stick. I personally don't think ot was used for combat at all and merely served as something symbolic, a decorative piece that maybe had use as display near holy places if at all by people of the time having to be near. Its only an assumption, I have no way of knowing what exactly they did, but they did do so much more than history books can claim as with everyone throughout history unrecorded.
The pole axe shape could also be that the straight edge are a natural result for making points that are great for pushing and tugging things like digging into mail or tugging behind the knee. Arms and armor did a video about this. They posit that the axe blade was rarely used for striking, it is basically a wrestling aid when used against an armored opponent. Then you clobber him with the hammer side or jab the top spike after getting the opponent to the ground. It was a reply to skallagrim’s old durability test against helmets
The crescent is super useful because it has more applications such as blocking, a piercing option, the ability to maneuver an opponent, easier to pull out and just two chances to hit a person trying to dodge out of the way.
On the "trapping" hypothesis, take a look at the Japanese sasumata. Its actually a police weapon and not particularly sharp, but they still use them today to detain unruly subjects.
I could be wrong but most of the people in the indo-persian sphere had armors with a lot of maille and less plate than the West. Maybe the crescent axe helped piercing that (islamic symbol notwithstanding, albeit it's even older than that - persia? babylon? - and even used by Byzantines IIRC).
I don't know for sure but maybe part of the reason for the crescent is that it made it so that you wouldn't have to over commit with the swing and that you can just do damage more by means of getting the crescent around a limb the neck or a certain body part and then using more of a pull or push cut which doesn't really requires as much raw concussive power as a swing does and plus the other thing is that in the event that the blade glances off and doesn't really land a direct hit with the edge it's easy to just simply align the edge and to transition into a push cut or a pull cut.
I think you are on the right path with the use against spears and other polearms. If you hit a wooden shaft with a straight or convex blade it has a fair chance of rolling off the shaft and allowing a counter strike by your enemy. However, with a crescent or concave design, it will "catch" the shaft and follow through with the strike, hopefully chopping off or at least significantly damaging the weapon. This may apply to armor as well. Where most metal armor is designed to deflect incoming attacks, the crescent blades could be meant to resist being deflected.
I can visualize striking an arm, for example, and a convex blade on armor would tend to deflect away whereas a concave blade would maybe tend to trap the arm and in the "groove" and deliver more of the kinetic energy.
Fashion, status and also to showcase the capabilities of the smith are potential factors. Another factor is that you are less likely to get glancing blows, as like a sickle, the onwards curve "gathers" towards the centre rather than displacing towards the ends, and it gives two extra points. Their rarity would suggest that they weren't that effective in battle, but they might have shock value, much as a serrated blade is possibly less effective in both cut and thrust, but if someone is coming at you with a serrated sword, it's going to look more intimidating.
I'd be interested in the swing physics of these tilted blades, as I suspect the forward tilt evolved from shield breaking. Having more of the blade forward gives more mass for an effective chop and yank motion to bite the shield / pallicade and the pull it forward. It also could transfer the impact force away from the users hands so they don't lockup due the vibrations in the staff wood. As for the 🌙 crescent it looks like a party tool for curved swords cause it catches the blade and prevents a glancing draw cut. Wonder if there are any Persian artworks that show warriors arms with the crescent axe in a offhand. I suspect the forward tilt helps with
The poleax looks like when pulling back from a thrust the lower point of the ax blade would be perfect for stabbing on the pull or reset to thrust again and the top point seems almost perpendicular to the shaft like a pick.
Related to both hooking and penetrating: A crescent blade should be less likely to glance of a hard target, and therefore deliver more force. With soft targets, once the tip enters, it should hold the target in place, or even pull the target toward the center of the blade, again delivering more force.
It seems like it would be a primarily ceremonial weapon, like a badge of office for guards or soldiers, but it could certainly be used for piercing and hooking, to incapacitate an opponent.
In Simmons & Turley's Southwestern Colonial Ironwork, they talked about Crescent bladed spears that were used to hamstring prey. I wonder if, like the flail, it was a familiar tool that made a horrific weapon. According to the text, the crescent bladed spears were banned because of the catastrophic effects when used in brawls.
Fantastic video, Matt! I’m so glad you finally covered this topic. Check out the Di Grassi treatise if you’re not already familiar with it. Apparently, he took issue with the new style halberd.
It may be similar to why some warhammers have heads that have spikes facing forwards, in that it makes the weapon less likely to fully glance off of armor. Say you hit plate armor with the tip of a conventional shape axe, it'll glance off in many cases. A straight blade will glance less, but even more so a crescent shape will have the best chance of transferring energy even if it doesn't penetrate.
A couple of things: 1) The Igorot tribal axes from the Philippines, while not necessarily "crescent-shaped", often do have an inward curve. 2) I can envision a point of a crescent-shaped axe blade slipping between two pieces of plate armor and being capable of a lethal cut (like, say, at the carotid artery) while wedged between the armor pieces. This is supposedly one reason the Bill was developed.
From the examples shown I'm seeing that they aren't paired with a hammer side but mostly a spike/hook on the opposite side, so I'm thinking that these concave "blades" were also used to be able to strike helmets, as they would be less likely to glance off on the curves of the helmet.
11:12 counterpoint: a headsman's axe is focused on a stationary target, and is more designed to make one big clean show-offy cut. The concavity of a halberd would help guide a narrower target, like a head, neck, or shoulder, into the center of crescent- the neck and head especially being mobile targets that you'd want to kid of trap before the hardest-contact part of the cut happens
At a guess a strait edge could possibly offer a better range of contact with distance as opposed to a curved, which could end up being a glancing blow, when striking at a downward angle where the head and body armour meet, I would imagine it tough to protect that area from such a slim blade. The angled blade may even prove more effective with damaging that area as the natural instinct would be to back away whilst being struck, kind of like backing into the strike a little more.
10:55 I have no idea what I'm talking about so this is mostly just complete speculation, but I don't think a crescent shape would be necessary for a headsmans axe. They're used for execution on unarmored, unarmed, stationary targets. For an execution, I think it makes more sense to design that kind of axe to be easy to make, easy to cut with, and easy to maintain. A wide, flat blade makes the most sense for this, since the extra width makes the chop easier and the mostly flat blade is less likely to be damaged in the event that it hits something hard (chopping block, primarily). Any relative deficiency in cutting can be made up for with a harder swing or a heavier blade.
We are in the process of making some prototype norwegian peasant axes (also called church axes) mainly to see why they are curved backward and also why the langets are aligned with the blade and along the curvature
I've always assumed that crescent axes were intended to be limb-killers, since the curve funnels whatever gets between those points to the main point of force at the back end. Lindybeige made a video a number of years ago discussing the generally weird shape of halberd, and came to the possibility of halberds being used in formation to sort of hamstring and otherwise wreck legs of opposing formations. If that was the (a) case, the crescent halberd blades seem like they would more reliably hook the back of an opponent's leg or heel and really bite in.
If I am fighting against people with armor, the curved blade (I think) could also be used for puncturing armor in addition to all the other reasons you mentioned. If were going to use one of the examples from the video, if you're aiming at someone's head, having multiple point contacts would be helpful, and if a head gets caught in the crescent blade portion, great. That's just my thoughts, great video!
I am not a specialist in the least, but I would conjecture: - Most modern axes and blades have their form for clearly utilitarian purposes. The mentioned cleaver has a flat blade, because you usually chop down on a board and want to neither penerate the board, so you want to spread out the energy along the whole edge, nor do you only want to cut part of the meat on the board, as you would with a rounded edge. So form stricly follows function here. Likewise, if I imagine a woodcutting axe, I expect it to be outward curved, mainly because it is supposed to be swung into the wood and then pulled out again. A slim parallel edge or, worse, a moonshaped blade, would go in, but then be very difficult to pull out, as the corners of the blade could get stuck in the wood. An outward curve makes sure that the corners (the ends of the cutting edge) remain free of the wood at least on one side, so I can pull it out more easily. - Starting from that point of view, I could imagine that to be the reason why most axes and pollaxes are straight or outward curved: Sure, a spike or moon-shape might better penetrate armor, but it will probably not kill instantly, seeing that even bullets often do not. But having your axe or pollaxe being stuck in the opponents armor sounds like a very bad thing for you to happen in combat, as you no longer can parry your opponents counterstrike. Thus, an edge that does not penetrate armor deeply. - The shown crescent-shaped axe looks one-handed to me, which would mean it could be used with a shield, which negates the problem above and in contrast makes a deeply penetrating weapon better, probably, as a one-handed weapon also has less mass and arm power to damage through armor. So it has to worry less about getting stuck and gains more from points penetration as opposed to edge chopping. - Most of the shown halberds looked ornamented and with blades full of beautiful holes, which probably is not what you do for a battlefield weapon. Those were probably (I have no idea) town guard or palace guard arms. And if you are a town/palace guard, you are the one with the longer weapon, as others cannot just carry polearms around. Hitting and penetrating in that context possibly does mean being defenseless against their counterstrike, it means being able to keep the hit opponent at bay with your longer staff, like a dogcatcher pole, but by sticking a point into the opponent's body as opposed to a leash around the neck. All just idle conjecture, of course.
Before you said what the name Halberd could mean my thought about inward curved halberd blades would be to use against helmets. With a traditional ax head only a small portion of the surface will be hitting the target while with the inwards curved blade more of the blade will be making contact and less likely to glance off, imparting more force to the blow. I don't think that the extra force was meant to penetrate the helmet but taking multiple blows to the head with more concussive force will likely put someone out of action faster than many glancing blows. In large scale combat you don't have to kill the enemy to defeat them.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
www.patreon.com/scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
facebook.com/historicalfencing/
twitter.com/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_easton/_saved/
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/
always wanted to axe this question about asks
The reason why you would have curved blade on a axe is so that whole blade doesnt bite in at once ,it will penetrate into armor better and it wont glance as much as straight edge on axe since its not trying to go trough whole portion of armor with full blade length at once.Curved axes are also better for chopping hard wood and knots(they dig in better and dont bounce as much) so it would work the same on armor i guess.
Why cresent shape? i think its more of a hey it looks cool factor than functionality.
check your audio
The crescent axe blades are rare because they are harder to make. The curved shape on most axes comes from the forging proces. I think poleaxes were made from bar steel. Therefore straight blades are simply from the grinding proces. I dont think people actually tought much about it when they made curved or straight blades. To my knowledge they perform basically identicaly.
Hi Matt, have you ever come across a Norwegian peasant axe (Bondeøkse)? They have a very distinctive look to them due to the asymmetrical curvature of the shaft.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_battle_axe
DigitaltMuseum
This could also just be a case of "it looks good and it still works." Sometimes we forget people are people wether then or now and looking good is still important to many.
I think when you hit your opponent's weapon with it, it's easier to deflect it because it can't slide like on a round blade.
We may have invented the term "mall ninja" in modern times but the mentality has been around for a long time. Sometimes it's about being different for difference's sake.
@@silverjohn6037that’s not quite what mall ninja is. Mall ninja is when the thing just no longer functions for the sake of looks.
I mean that's kinda how I play videogames, if one piece of gear looks cooler but has like 6% less power I'm gonna use it and probably do better because I'm pumped to be looking cool lol
@@devin5201 It all depends on your definition of cool. For my part, no matter how good the stats, I can't bring myself to wear shoulder armor with spikes while someone else might want to be able to roast marshmallows on any passing fire ball;).
On the flip side, concave curves gather material. If you hit something like a limb, you will deffinitely hit that limb with the full force of your blow, it will not deflect off, because the curve will deflect it in. You are sacrificing potential penetration for guaranteed force transference.
I always thought the polearms with a convex shaped blade was intended to reduce deflection as they seem to be anti armor and hard armor tries to deflect blows.
Except the cuting insn't really a matter of force transference on impact and more a the blade sliding along what it aims to cut, hence why curved blades tend to cut better, there is a longer edge to slide along. Also, even if we only consider the impact, a convex blade would have a smaller point of contact and thus, more penetrative power than a concave shape where the force would be spread across a larger area.
@@lhumanoideerrantdesinterne8598I think they mean that if it does *enough* damage it is now doing that damage over a bigger area and getting enough of that damage into whatever it hits. Force transference isn't just about cutting. It is also about cracking bones and warping metal and jostling the guy who is trying to land a clean strike. In a big formation with long poles, not every strike is going to land perfectly, and you can't just miss, withdraw, and try again until you hit exactly where you want and how you want. Instead of making your good slices slice good, you are making sure that your one big thunk thunks when it thunks.
Against tree branches or small diameter tree,
it's more effective to use crescent,
because tree branches & tree trunk are somewhat round.
So does human body & limbs.
I guess if someone strong enough + long pole(force multiplier), it can be use against armored person.
Yeah a forward curved blade will bite if you will.
Matt needs to cut things with Kukri, Yataghans, and other forward curved blades. They are devastating in the cut if you ask me. I prefer them.
Also if you go to cut, and overshoot on some of them. You can pull back the weapon, and still get someone.
With "Halberd" potentially meaning "Helmet cleaver" there's another factor: The helmet is so curved that the head and the axe have a tendency to bounce off of each other. Giving your weapon a crescent curve means that the head can't be pushed away backwards or forwards. So with a decently centered hit, you get maximum transfer of force. And with a strike that's slightly too short/long, you get a single spike hitting the helmet and having maximum likelihood of penetrating.
The Dutch word for halberd, that being 'hellebaard', literally translates to hellbeard.
Also for halberds, the crescent shape gives the head a shape convenient for catching downward strikes from other halberds.
Halberd means: poleaxe.
more long poleaxe = halberd?
@@jurtheorc8117 In Bulgarian it is brada for beard and bradva for axe but it seems to be the same word and it meant beard originally. We also have other old words for axe - sekira, topor.
Some chinese polearms have these crescent blades as well, ive seen both single and double sided ones
The Fang Tian Ji comes to mind.
It's... It's Lu Bu! Lu Bu have come to destroy us!
@@zetareticulan321Don't pursue Lu Bu
More than most cultures they have a massive range of weapon types for all sorts of uses. Some of it gets crazy specialized for martial arts or a very specific use. I do tai chi and the tassels on the hilts of our swords or the ends of spear shafts served purposes too.
I can’t speak in the European halberd (there are some really crescent ones in Italy with event too spikes being this shape).
But with the tabar, this shape is from the manner of use. It is taught that such an axe is used in two cutting plains, and that the edge is rotated to cut and hook at limbs after taking the center. The actual hacking with the tabar only really occurs if you know there is opening and your opponent fails to act or after already disrupting the center (which sometimes is not done with the axe itself).
To clarify the shape, as it might not be clear. Dropping any edge on to the limbs will cut. The crescent however when dropped down will ride a defense to its opening where another edge will not. For example: from the center you turn your tabar and drop it on to your opponents forearm, it hits a bazuband, you push while maintaining contact with the bazuband. If your opponent doesn’t not leave, the crescent will find his hand.
@@RiverofGrassFencing That makes a lot of sense.
I apologize for my spelling errors but I’m glad at least it made some sense. If you go through Mughal art works for these they are used by very specific people with this shape and the mustache shape as well. Sometimes with shield similar to the European dueling shields but smaller (similar in that it is square and has blades attached)
@@RiverofGrassFencing Can you direct me to some of these art works?
@Vampiracho of course.
The carvings in the Khandgiri caves, you can find photos of the carvings but also the sketches by Nadalal.
Battle of Thanesar miniature
Basawan · Akbar Watches a Battle Between Two Rival Groups c.1590 - Miniature on paper - Victoria & Albert Museum. Left hand side against the border at the middle you can see one being used with a khanda.
And unfortunately two other I don’t know how to show you? As they are manuscript fragments and no one really knows what works they came from, only that the art style implies late 16th century
A lesson from evolutionary biology: a feature will often vary in proportion to the wiggle room provided by natural selection. If the performance advantage of shape A isn't appreciable to shape B, then both may exist in a population as a point of neutral variation. Ie. if a curved ax is slightly better against certain substrates, but a straight edge does well enough at the job that the user can't really tell the difference, then ax makers will make both types with aesthetic preference or manufacture method deciding between them (ditto straight vs. tilted). There doesn't have to be a reason for one or the other (see. Stephen J. Gould's work on adaptive story telling). It's just that one doesn't perform badly enough to force the use of the other form.
As far as curved halberds, Lindybeige put out an idea a while back that halberd axes were adapted for trying to break other polearms (with a chopping and scraping motion IIRC). So maybe the curved blade helped keep another weapon in contact for a hit & scrape rather than glancing off. But just as well it could be rule of cool, with function in polearm combat not impacted enough for someone to have seen the choice as deciding life/death (but if so then battle ax variation would likely have included crescents more often. The rarity and specificity suggests an adaptive function in halberds.)
I thought it was interesting that he noted the concave blade shape often appears on halberds/polearms that also have exceptionally long central spearheads or spikes. As you say, it might not have to be especially effective at trapping or binding other polearms for that to have been the design goal, as long as it wasn't particularly ineffective.
With a crescent axe you could pin a pole arm into something like the ground or a tree or shield I guess you could do with a limb as well
در مورد اینکه احتمالن خاستگاه این سلاح در خاورمیانه و ایران بوده تا حدودی موافقم ، من خودم ایرانی یا پرشین هستم😂
اما این سلاح بیشتر برای دفاع از قلعه و دژ استفاده میشده احتمالن. این نیزه مشخص است که بسیار سبک تر از نیزه های اروپایی است ، این نیزه را برای سبک تر کردن از تیغه C شکل استفاده کرده اند. تا سرعت عمل سرباز نیزه دار بالا تر باشد مخصوصن در حالتی که سوار بر اسب است و یا بالای دیوار قلعه ایستاده و دشمنانی که از دیوار بالا می آیند را باید به شدت زخمی کند ، اگر نیزه سنگین باشد و شکل تیغه مناسب نباشد باعث کاهش سرعت عمل نیزه دار می شود. در حالتی که دشمن قلعه شما را محاصره کرده و سربازانش با استفاده از نردبان سعی می کنند از دیوارها بالا بیاییند و شما مجبور هستید بالای دیوار بایستید و مانع ورود دشمن به بالای برج قلعه شوید ، در چنین شرایطی سربازان شما احتیاج به سلاحی سبک و کمی کوتاه تر و با تیغه ای خطرناک تر هستند. تیغه های معمولی برای نبرد تن به تن مناسب هستند ولی زمانی که شما بالای دیوار ایستاده اید و یا سوار بر اسب هستید نمیتوانید از تیغه آن استفاده کنید بلکه از نیزه آن استفاده می کنید ولی از این تیغه می توانید در حالتی که دشمن در ارتفاع پایین تر از شما قرار گرفته ، یعنی شما یا سوار بر اسب هستید و یا روی دیوار مستقر هستید بسیار مناسب است ، کافی است که شما بالای یک دیوار باایستید و از دوستتان بخواهید که به شما حمله کند و شما از بالای دیوار در حالی که ایستاده اید باید دفاع کنید ، حالا یک بار از تیغه معمول و یک بار از تیغه فارسی استفاده کنید و ببینید که در این حالت کدام مناسب تر است. البته این سلاح مزایای دیگری ام دارد ولی کاربرد این سلاح اختصاصی است و برای بادیگارد های محافظ و محافظان قلعه مناسب تر از سربازان هجومی است..
I can't rate this comment high enough.
It is frustratingly rare to see someone cite evolutionary biology well online and you did it. Big thanks :)
Hi, Matt! With regard to the halberd to headsman's axe comparison, the target of the headsman's axe is not only stationary, it is also backed by (typically) a solid block of wood. The tips of a concavely curved blade would hit the chopping block *before* the blade had completely severed the victim's neck. The use case for a halberd is clearly quite different -- as is the length of the weapon itself -- so even if it were striking at someone's neck, a halberd (especially in formation) isn't going to be *swung* like a headsman's axe. My guess is that a better analogy might be to the concave curvature of a pole saw, used for cutting branches. Whether you're cutting a neck, a limb, or the shaft of an opposing polearm, the crescent shape will not slip off as easily as a convex or straight blade, and a cut can be initiated -- or continued -- via a reciprocating thrusting motion along the axis of the weapon. No, you're not going to sever a head (or limb, or wooden shaft) with one mighty stroke this way, but neither are you going to be afforded the opportunity to make one mighty stroke in the first place while fighting in a tight formation with a polearm probably several yards in length. Also, as another commenter below pointed out, such a "sawing" thrust/cut might be quite effective against cavalry, as well, as even a barded horse is unlikely to have armored legs, and a quick slice to a mount's tendon could turn a cavalryman into an infantryman right quick.
Those are my speculations on possible practical reasons for concave halberd blades. What do you guys think?
you then have to consider that most halberds did not have that shape so its utility must either be very special or not about utility at all or every halberd would have it.
@@mangalores-x_x It's a very common feature, even on relatively plain ones, at least in the late 16th and into the 17th century,
@@mangalores-x_x If there is a trade-off (for example, if crescent blades are better when hitting limbs, necks or weapon shafts, while strait blades are better when hitting armor and convex blades are better against unarmored bodies), then both local context and personal preference will play a role and all three types will be present.
Exactly this. For the time period most often you were fighting medium to heavily armoured opponents. The more heavily armoured one is the more likely the only weak points in the armour becomes the cracks in the joints. Thin points, convex blades, and small hooks make the best use of these thin weakpoints. When attacking a crack the best way to lead the blade into it is drawing into it rather than swinging at it. If you can cut under the armpit or inside the crotch you can wound and disable your opponent enough to either remove them from the fight or finish him off. Combined with the reach and leverage a polearm provides you have a very sucessful weapon for armoured opponents.
As for blunted flat blades. A blunt flat blade is less likely to shatter and dent when used for hitting metal armour. They were used for making bend/fold points in metal armour that become weak spots for arrows and lances. Its not about killing your opponent its about cracking that can.
Something that strikes me about the straight, dull, axe blade is possible armor deformation. While the spike or hammerhead provides a good puncturing point, the axe head may cause riveted joints on plate armor to jam, pop, or deform without directly hitting them. It may effectively crease the armor either pinching the limb within or impairing its movement.
I’m imagining that on a limb or similar, the gambeson underneath might take the impact but the crease made in the armor may continue to pinch the arm and the deformation of the piece to cause any associated hinges to seize. Following hits to the same area causing the armor to bend further, possibly breaking bones within.
So it may be there to impair and injure an opponent before following up with a puncture or stab to a vital area. As gruesome as it may be, you can imagine a knight struggling to keep his shield up in defense of his head before a strike to his forearm causes the vambrace to fold as the ulna or radius snaps under the pressure.
All of this is a guess of course, but when I see that flat dull blade I’m distinctly reminded of a shear press which bends sheet metal.
The crescent (or concave) axe blade could just be aesthetic, being the fashion at that time. It’s usually the case that crescent blades are on decorated heads. Munitions grade axe blades - even of the same period - are far less often concave.
I would think it was a multi-tool, that just happen to look neat.
I mean, there's a lot you could do with controlling-points front, back, and center.
"It’s usually the case that crescent blades are on decorated heads."
But this video did show at least some undecorated halberds with concave axe blades.
My late friend had a theory about crescent, and U shaped arrowheads, and it applies here too. The "can opener" effect of these shapes. If they hit armor, and one of the point sticks, the leverage, the arrow provide works as a can opener on the metal. With this type of axe, it may also be the case. If you hit a target with some kind of rigid armor, and a pont of the crescent penetrates, it may open up the metal better, than a single spike. It may not go as deep, but creates a slash wound. Of course, it is just my friend's theory about this shape on weapons, but i see the logic in it, so i tought i share it.
I think you hit the nail on the head - the crescent shape lends a degree of control to opposing weapon shafts, whilst retaining a cutting edge big enough for human limbs - and the ends (tines?) of the crescent are effectively daggers.
A well conceived weapon, it's rarity is probably because of difficulties in manufacture......that it is found across different cultures and continents demonstrates similar brains coming up with similar solutions.
Cool.
Great vid Matt, very eye opening and interesting.
I use a sickle frequently for agricultural work. I am unable to explain the physics of it, but I know that I can cut really well with little effort. I think pushing and pulling with what is essentially two sickles would be very advantageous on a pole arm. And consider that whatever you are slicing is trapped between the horns of the crescent.
The first thing it reminded me of was a number 12 scalpel blade. A curved blade with a sharp point and a sharpened concave edge. I use it on leather and it can be very effective. Certainly I could see the crescent blade acting the same, pierce and the rip. Not sure the Halberd would work as well they haven’t got the penetrating point from what I can see, but just because the are both concave blades doesn’t mean they have to be used the same way.
Mathematically the blade surface is actually longer. That's a factor. It's just a real pain to sharpen an inverted blade.
In my collection of original halberds, only one is actually traditionally curved. Three are in fact crescent-based. My own theories reflect Matt’s thoughts, with the additional notion that the cutting edge simply wasn’t as valuable as we gave it credit for, particularly while in formation. The more jagged axe blade may lend itself far more to snagging mail, clothing, or opposing weapons rather than inflicting damage.
And (speculation), could the crescent shape help hold the cutting edge close to the shaft as the attacker slide this down the pole to the defenders fingers?
Scenario might be catching the opponents weapon on its down stroke, with the crescent pushing the shaft out (so a block), but you have your crescent at 45° to that shaft, not 90, so your blade can then be cutting slicing down the shaft towards the hands while still keeping the block. This could be done with a straight edge but needs a lot of control. The crescent would help maintain the position and that weight behind a modest edge against gloved fingers could be decisive.
I think this brings up an interesting point; it’s entirely possible that this was a specialist’s weapon in the midst of other halberdiers or other polearm soldiers. We often think of fighting as one-on-one, even in formation you just go after the guy(s) facing you as you line up, but having a few armed differently would give them a unique advantage, which create gaps and snags for allies on either side of you to exploit.
I’m not entirely convinced, but it’s interesting to think about.
I like the "extra hooking options" idea a lot, and my guess is that it's not just hooking pikes or limbs - it's both at the same time (or rather, in the same "attack" before disengaging and resetting). Think of it this way. Long spikes for stabbing, and when you're drawing back the lower part of the crescent hooks the opponent's weapon. If it's a straight/convex blade, that's your only position of control until you disengage. With these you have an extra hook on top, you have the option to do a quick lunge forward and stab or snag the opponent's arm. Possibly maiming damage and better control over the target.
I think it's mostly ornamental, especially if you look at the examples you provided. It could also make your strikes bite more and reduce the chances of glancing blows.
I suspect its mostly a design compromise between a hook and an axeblade.
This may just be a sample size issue, but I think it's telling that the convex edged axes have no tip spike and the crescent axe has a small one.
Following from that the larger spearhead ones have only the top curve and not the bottom one.
We see a similar design in the Chinese Ji where the basic combo was to hook over a shield then follow with a spearthrust.
I think you are correct on all points, I would use a curve like this to target wrists, backs/sides of knees, ankles etc, where the inner curve would be advantageous, could also be good for taking the legs of horses, you can see in a engagement with other poleaxes, where the inner curve would dig in and not just deflect, if you had a unit of infantry with mixed polearms, a couple of these would be helpful, I reckon, just a like a modern infantry squad, you have a mix of weapons, this being one.
For polearms It also has a better chance of stopping a charging horse as if the blade goes in its gonna cause a lot more damage and if it doesent the horse would be stopped sudenly, where with a pike the skewered horse could still run over the shaft lenght and trample the formation if you miss any vital organs with a pike too it might survive long enough for the knight to dismount safely, where with a crescent blade its pretty hard to miss any vitals.
Maybe an advantage in the bind and in catching an displacing enemy polearms in formation, to open them up for your buddies to stab/hack at?
Possibly something to do with Carrying the halberd “upside down”. With the outside of the crescent resting in your hand and the shaft resting on the shoulder.
The Sickle is a tool used to "gather" and cut, and that is its purpose as a weapon against pole armed enemies. The problem with using an blade against a pole arm is that the pole will just be pushed aside rather than be trapped and forced to resist the full cutting force of the strike.
I notice those halberds seem to be late specimens, when such weapons may have been more decorative than utilitarian... what do you think?
I can’t help but think of a can opener. The crescent axe striking with the point and maybe penetrating armour and then using it to “can opener” your way a bigger hole.
I think it is also a kind of a can opener situation, but with a bit of chopping power added, with the wider blade shape it would hit with less piercing power then a hook but also has a bigger marging of error. For exemple, you aim at a forearm with a strike, if you overshoot with the hook you'll hit the oponent arm with just the shaft, you'd still be able to control his arm with the hook, with this cressent blade you will be more likely to conect the hit, and even if the arm is protected by plate it may get traped by the blade with points at both sides, it's a different hind of way to bind I guess.
I think your theory about them being good vs polearms is the most probable one. This kind of shape seem to come around in the 1550s in germany/italy and stays around for a long time. Later manuals show such weapons used against pikemen by catching/binding their pike with the space between blade and the long point.
There is one german source talking about the ottomans and them having short axes he says like halberds with crescent shaped blades, the same as shoe makers knives which serve to cut leather.
Other sources seem to talk about opening wooden fences during assaults, catching/getting hold of anything(weapons) that the enemy puts in the way and basically it being an universal tool. One source from 1680s praises it as great weapon for officers for clearing paths etc. The curved blade in those cases seem to serve for better binding and clearing. Also used for keeping soldiers in place in formation and measuring their paces or punishing them if they disobey. Some muster rolls seem to differentiate between officers halberds and common halberds.
But some soldiers do not seem fond the long pointed halberds. John smyth says that they are bad in formation because in tight battle they are useless and shorter halberds and battle axes are much more useful. They are called italian halbards by some but cant think of any german sources doing it.
Seems like you got it right with the comment about being able to counter other polearm-wielders. There's tremendous utility in having a weapon (typically used by groups of soldiers together) that can contain an opponent's weapon long enough for a comrade to strike them.
On those halberds it seems to me that the corners of the blade are like mini-spikes and give me more chances to inflict injury on a bad swing
Love the videos but I think this time you are forgetting to take into account the i'll say backstop when talking about the blade shape, Like when you say about a meat cleaver having a flat blade id say that may be because you are cutting on a butchers block so a flat blade would cut all the way through with a chop vs a round blade the apex will hid the chop block and leave the edges not fully cut. then later you say about the executioner's axe is rounded and not flat could this be based on there chop block's? I have never seen one in person so I don't know but I'm guessing there is a grove where the neck is placed so a rounded blade may go the full depth where a flat blade would stop on the wood not going all the way through. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
It occurs to me that having the crescent shaped blade, on the halberd in particular, gives a longer almost quillon--like projection to the base of the blade on the tip. This would seem to be ideal for engaging and disengaging opposing pike-shafts, in order to push their tips up so your mates can stab them. You could let gravity align the head vertically, bring the head down among a press of pike shafts, twist the shaft of your halberd to bring the blade out to the side, and push, hoping to have caught the shaft of a pike or two between the top of the axe-blade and the tip.
I'd offer that the crescent shape provides two points to concentrate the force of a strike while still having a cutting edge. That way you could strike and pierce an opponent's armour with one of two spikes (the tips of the crescent), but still be able to cut flesh in between them. It would also (as mentioned in the video) be able to hook and manipulate other weapons/limbs.
Could the points be more useful against the laminar armor more common in that area? The points could held get in the joined gaps
Somewhere on Lindybeige's channel is an old vid where he theorizes that halberds, specifically the ones with long, thin spear-points, were used in groups not as hacking weapons, but thrust into other groups. (his reasoning being that if you swing and miss with a hack, that spear is gonna get bent really quick) If your spear thrust hit someone in the face, great! If you missed, the axe and beak had potential to hook an opponent both on the thrust, and the pull back, and if you knocked someone to the ground, other halberdiers would start poking him. If he is correct, the exaggerated top and bottom of a crescent blade could provide more hooky bits, while still retaining an edge.
For a little more context - Lindybeige envisioned groups of relatively untrained halberdiers 'sawing' into each other. This also explains the langets - all the halberds scraping against each other would quickly wear through the shaft, otherwise.
Edit - found the vid - th-cam.com/video/GsckeyktMS0/w-d-xo.html
How much of a disadvantage is it having a small blade like on an axe vs a long blade as on a sword? I know you don’t really cut with all of the sword blade but it must be nice to have the option, right?
The option is nice, I guess. But I don't know... at least, from most of what I've heard, the rule of thumb is "If you're not hitting the opponent with the furthest 10-15 cm of your blade, you've let your opponent get to close". I don't know how accurate that is, though. Maybe having the long edges makes it easier for running someone all the way through with the sword?
Easier to hit a target with a longer sword blade for sure, but when swinging a sword you still want to hit with the perfect part of the blade not too far up close to the tip and not too low down on the blade were there's less 'power' in the swing so you still have to aim well/Judge distance properly to have the most effective hit, its just you are forced to do that with an axe because there's less length of blade and so less room for error when judging distance. That being said when you have a sharp enough blade and an opponent with no armor or lower levels of armor then you can still deliver deadly/incapacitating cuts/chops with just the tip or bottom half of the sword if you are swinging to kill with good technique, hitting someone's forearm with the bottom half of your sword because they moved closer to you then expected whilst you was throwing the strike will definitely disarm/render that arm hand grip useless if your blade is an actual blade. Also pair the fact that axes are slower to swing(and so easier to react too) with the fact they often have a lot less blade to work with and now it's like exponentially harder to land clean strikes with the middle of your axe head when compared to even heavier swords like extra top heavy Broad falcion type of blades, they are still easier to do damage with even when you don't hit with the perfect part of the blade, but the tradeoff is that they do less damage generally speaking compared to most axes that are actually designed for war and fighting flesh not wood, might be easier to get someone cut open with a sword blade but it's 'easier' to cut through flesh AND BONE with axes, particularly important when chainmail becomes a factor.
If you are striking the most effective part of a sword is a relatively small area around the center of percussion; But, if you miss that area the sword is still sharp it will do damage, also a longer blade allows more effective draw cuts. From doing medieval reenactment fighting I would say you don't usually have to worry about missing with the head of the axe and hitting with the haft unless you are grappling. You usually have enough controll that the smaller striking area isn't too much of an issue I do see people hit with the haft accidently but it's pretty rare unless they are being pushed around.
Funny enough there's half swording for close quarters to hit with the end third of the blade. Honestly I believe it's been proven time and again the spear is the superior weapon anyway. For hitting unarmored points and individuals.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was told that halberds (I don't know the correct spelling). Were meant for crowd control. So maybe it's not about making it lethal.
I was one of the people asking about the concave axe/halberd blades on the previous video. Nice to hear at least some possible reasons why they were used.
In halberds, being so long (compared with poleaxes), the crescent blade was angled inwards it to catch a bodypart and slide through it, cutting like a curved blade like a saber.
The axe part is for hitting the body, the hammer part is for hitting the head and the chest. Axe is more likely to glance from curvature of the helmet however and chest piece however the rest of the body will more likely to absorb the full force + you can hook with it better than with the hammer part. You don't really want to cleave the flesh with the axe (it can even when dull btw) but to break bones, bend the armor to reduce mobility and possibly get your opponent off balance. Lets not forget that every defeated knight was a potential ransom so killing was often not desirable. Nice smack or two with the hammer part into helmet would turn of the light in every head and nice home-run into chest was very likely to knock the wind even from large dudes. That long pointy bit on top of the pole-axe was for killing and seriously hurting people.
I think the Chinese had a somewhat iconic halberd with two crescent axes and a spear point.
I think it is in part control options, but I think it is mainly for targets of opportunity during windings and binds. It gives you a strong thrust in almost any angle forward or backward.
So, the traditional shaped axe blades for utility use that were mentioned are intented for use on objects that just accept the force; they don't typically substantially move away from the force when struck.
However, modern brush axes do have a crescent blade, and the objects typically struck by them will tend to move away from them. Or the tools called pruning hooks.
Maybe the concave axe blades were developed from pruning hooks. Or applied the theory of using a concave blade upon objects expected to give way to the blow.
Yet another fascinating video, we love to see it! One thing I did think of on your Headsman's axe point that i thought of was that Headsman weren't necessarily dealing with moving targets as much, so they wouldn't need to worry as much about getting their aim right - and their axes were normally rather heftier than fighting axes to make their job easier. With that in mind, would it not be possible that the crescent shape on some halberds could be to assist with isolating targeted bodyparts? The hook-like shape should help guide the target into the main mass of the blade so long as the inside of either the top or bottom half of the blade connects, so maybe thats why? Idk, obviously this is just a theory - but either way it's bloody fascinating.
The crescent blades are harder to sharpen than a straight or regular curved blade.
Interesting question. Look forward to the answer.
Halberds in Germany were used right into the 19th century as equipment for the nightwatch in cities and villages. In Leipzig they were used until 1823. Task of the nightwatch was firefighting too and may be the crescent blades have some advantages in this use.
I practiced the chinese one many years ago, very heavy. It's used to chop/attach the legs and the neck, hence, the shallow curve.
Thanks for addressing this question!
The moon shaped crescent is almost certainly ceremonial/religious in nature. It's of course still a decent weapon, but the practical use may come second to esthetics.
With the straight edge however, especially if the edge itself was often dull in comparison to other cutting weapons, the idea was likely to stab and hook, pull and push at your opponent, either in hopes to do some damage where the main pike at the top of the poleaxe/halberd may have failed to get to the target, or simply put them off balance. This seems especially likely in the case of longer weapons in formations, as you couldn't possibly swing the weapon as a normal axe, save perhaps for the very first attack. The crescent shape may then have proved even better for this purpose in certain situations, or against opponents with certain types of arms/armor. I'd imagine them being used almost like a saw to try and cut through opposing ranks of pike-/spearmen or other halberdiers.
Yes, medievel armies really went for religious symbols (like star and crescent, or crosses)
I would say that due to the shape tips of the crescent would likely make injuries more similar a thrust based weapon. Cuts and slashes can be a lot more survivable than thrusts, so maybe it would pierce deeper into the tissue causing a more grieves wound than with other axes. You'd have check with ballistic gelatin to see with hits deeper.
Looking at that particuler axe though it could also have influence on weight, nimbleness and combat style (it has a thrusting tip too) since it could be lighter than some other weapons.
For me there is a move in the fight with the sword against pike or also a sword: down in the direction of the hands, but keeping pike/sword locked away from you. This shape would perfectly slice in the fingers and hand on a pike, but also the hand on a sword like the turkish yatagan, that does not have much hand for protection. Even the classic straight sword with straight bar as hand guard, will protect the hand from a sword, but not from the sharp edges, that can curb around such bar. When it’s moving, it moving around the thing it holds. Many sword fights work with this sword against sword and when they push against each other, many time it lands near this hand guard. With such a weapon against you, you will try to avoid it and having contact with only with the upper part, this weapon will have even better control over the sword, since you have less power there.
-> I didn’t see the grip in the video, but I am pretty sure, that if it’s not a symbolic weapon for a “temple guard”, than this weapon is used in pair with a sword. (It has probably a one hand grip)
It’s like the dacian? sword with curbed tip outwards or the normal oriental curbed sword: they try to cut something behind a protection.
What is for sure not realistic: cutting a head. There are too many tales from the history, where a beginner thinks he can do it too with a straight sword or axe and it gets ugly, because he needs 2 to 4 strikes…that small thing could cut maybe a 5y old child neck…if he manages to align it perfectly in the middle.
Matt, have you seen one of the most recent episodes of the series Medieval Dead about the famous "Castillon Hoard Swords"? It's pretty flippin awesome! I believe it's the first and only documentary about this particular group of swords. Btw, I see that you still have your majestic Dane Axe by Thor! Do you still have your Late Medieval axe by him (the one with the spike on the back end)? I think that's got to be my favorite reproduction battle axe in existence.
I have! And it was nice to see a few friends of mine in there. Unfortunately though, the episode was a few years 'behind' current research and basically presented the story as we knew it in about 2015. It's somewhat more complicated now, and maybe I'll have to get a couple of key guests onto Zoom to make a video about it!
Thanks for the info, that's important to know. And indeed you should put together a panel of guests to discuss!!
@@scholagladiatoriawould love to see the castillon hoard video
Regarding the straight edges many poleaxes had: think of how many plates in a suit of armor depend on articulation or their ability to slide over each other, as the wearer moves, in order to be effective. The long straight edge of a poleaxe probably makes long strait dents in plates which would often have some combination of a cylindrical or domed shape. If such dents were deep enough and numerous enough that the plates no longer moved freely against one another, at some point the armor itself would effectively leave the combatant so hindered that they could be forced to surrender. After all, most duels were not to the death. And even on the battlefield, taking an enemy knight hostage was preferable (and often profitable).
In the case of the halberd being primarily used to strike at heads from above, I could see a lot of utility in a design that sacrifices penetrative power for more blunt energy transference. Most front rank soldiers at least had helmets, so a design that could more easily get a solid hit on a helmeted head instead of glancing off would be able to deal a knockout blow and get that soldier out of the fight. An inward curve that makes more contact with the outward curve of a helmet might do the trick there. Might be at least worth testing at some point at least.
One of my favorite crescent blades axes is the Igorot Headhunter's axe. The incurved blade was used as a knife along as an axe.
With the curved blade then the space between the spike and the axe blade becomes much more effective for catching other polearms or weapons. Just like the bill hook is used, the 'top' of the hook and the spike can be used to catch and control an opponent's weapon, then slide down and offend them with the spike or a 'slash' of the axe hook. So you have the cresent itself which has the ability to catch limbs or other polearms and control them by moving in a 'slashing' parry against them but you've also got the space between the blade and the haft which is now optimized for catching and controlling a pole arm or other arms in a thrusting motion.
My thoughts are mostly along the lines of what you pointed out at the very end, that this creates a point on your ax head. When you're fighting against armour, it may be beneficial to be able to be able to use the point to get into gaps or for additional penetration power and once you're in there it also doubles as a great hook without keep your weapon locked up like you run the risk with a spike. Because of the crescent shape, you can still pull back on the weapon to destabilize your opponent while 'cutting' free at the time. I think this is reinforced by many of the European examples not being a full crescent like the one you have here but instead being slanted.
In addition, by having the lower part of the ax head curved, you create more space for hooking but note that unlike with the spike, if you hook for example a shield or a weapon with the lower part, you now have the very threatening point of the upper part behind the enemy defence and in a perfect position to stab forward.
One last thought is that this makes the weapon lighter because you're using less material but that's more of an idle thought than a belief.
Oh yeah and if your weapon deflected from the helmet and maybe slid lower down towards the neck or the shoulder, you have the perfect shape to yank on it.
It was also used for draw cuts. A halberd could be thrusted and then you can cut while pulling the weapon back. You can also hook limbs, especially legs.
I just realised that crescent blades were used extensively in reaping, so would be available ready-made pretty widely; their manufacture care and handling would also be familiar in an agrarian economy, which was pretty much the standard before 1700.
I often work with a bill in the forest my family owns. The shape is very useful in multiple ways. If the hook is pronounced enough you can pull things with it. You also have a point to the side with which you can impale something (wood in my case). Theoretically it can also turn a chop into a proper cut. But I have to admit that I usually rather chop than cut with the bill, probably because of its form. I use a Swiss bill which has a rather long blade point which makes a proper swing cut (?) a bit difficult.
But I guess the rule of cool applies to axeblades as well. The moon shaped blade looks good.
That moment in Star Trek where Bones tells Spock that Kirk trusts Spock's best guess over the computer? That's us and Matt. His best guess is better than most Wiki entries.
Just like what I said in the earlier axe video, I think the practical function of the shape is partly because it's more durable.
The structure itself doesn't make it more durable, it's probably more because it's less likely to slip and miss its target, hitting something else that could bend the axe out of shape like a rock on the ground. If you're swinging a halberd overhead on someone's armored head or shoulder, you might swing it with enough momentum to however not be able to prevent it from hitting the ground. The shape of the blade does hook and lock into its target, but it's more so that it just doesn't slip on impact.
Ultimately, I think it's the smiths that determine the shapes of the weapons. They may not know the specifics of their usage, like whether some part can be used to control the enemy's weapon or hook a mounted man-at-arms off of their mount, but they should have been very familiar with how the weapons looked like after a battle. They probably don't know how exactly a certain shape is more or less durable (except making them thicker, which they actually did for some of the axe blade tips I saw), but they can simply observe any correlation between the angle and the durability. I've seen some simple-looking halberds in a corner of a ducal-manor-turned-museum, with the spike, the hook, and the blade being a single piece. They're not exactly display material with some of them even showing some wear from use. I think that those halberds might have served as munitions, so there is no customization whatsoever. The considerations of the design would have had minimum input from their intended users, and it would have been mostly what the smiths had in mind of what an effective (and easy-to-make) halberd was.
Doesn't fit in with how trades at the time (at least in Germany/the HRE) were organised in guilds which carried out strict quality and price controls.
E.g. bakers were charged if their baked goods did not match the required size or weight. So if something as simple as a bretzel was regulated at the time you can bet that a blade or weapon was regulated even more.
I rather think these weapons had a specific use and were produced with it in mind.
@@f.h.4044 I don't think that contradicts my suggestion. Like, wouldn't it be ultimately smiths who would determine the standards in the guilds?
I meant that instead of the nobles or warriors, it would be the smiths who decide on the finer details. Like, the angle of the axe blade was determined that way not because of how it could be used, but because it's more likely to come back with less damage. The smith probably wouldn't have to bother with its specific way of usage, but they could make an observation when it comes back to them as a repair order.
@@Kensuke0987 You forget that some of those smith were travelling with the baggage train of an army. So wrong design ideas would have been weeded out after a field testing. Also different regions in Europe were competing about who made the finest armour/weapon, so there was no real benefit of producing something which you thought might look good but, did not produce the expected results.
A guild was mainly a verry local centric organisation which wanted to increase revenue by increasing trade. Trade could only be increased via the local city being renown for a certain type of quality and reliability of the goods produced (e.g. Nuremberg). So coming up with random designs which didn't match specific requirements wasn't something guilds would encourage. The people back then weren't less smart than people nowadays nor were they less connected albeit the time of knowledge travelling was larger.
Form follows function is definitely not an invention of modern engineering. So if items with a certain shape were produced by European weapon smiths in larger quantities I am more than certain they had a specific use.
@@f.h.4044i'm not forgetting some of those smiths were or had been camp followers. but i don't think they would be carrying enough material nor the proper equipment to create new blades but instead would be repairing or repurposing existing weapons/tools besides repairing armor.
i never said that the axe blade angle only looked good. It was made for purpose but i think it's more for "durability" than for some martial arts consideration. Durability would be more easily observable for a smith, who is usually in charge of maintaining the weapons in a campaign.
Forward-angled axeheads existed since the Viking era with the Dane axes. I'm not so sure about how guilds and trades worked with the Vikings, but I'm assuming that this innovation is something that could be independently developed all over the world that used two-handed axes and pole-arms with axe blades. The Vikings and Dane axes predated the HRE, so that meant that the innovation didn't have had to come from the smiths from HRE.
I always figured it was used for different purposes, depending on the convex curve, such as stopping blade sliding down the spike and to maximize using the points of the axe to hook opponents to push or pull them. Using the points of an axe to hook an opponent may explain straight blades a bit as well.
I think the straight blade that goes parallel to the pole is for catching when you pull back towards you. The halberd may have the inverse curve to combine that pull back attack with the forward leaning top of the blade.
I have an additional theory on the straight edge of the pollaxe. One other commenter said something about it deforming plates to create more comcave spots the spike can dig into, but what if the actual edge isnt the primary striking point?
The top and bottom of the edge are quite pointy and could be used to hook straps or even plates and dig a little into the body with the top point, and to catch the back of the neck or the less armored areas in the arms and legs when pulling back after a "missed" thrust.
I think that the halberd seems like its really good in a bind. I think its two purposes.
1. Sweeping down and pinning pikes in pike formations so that your own pikemen can gain an advantage. There are even historical depictions of this sort of swinging.
2. When ranks break, the weapon is excellent for controlling other weapons and it is also already sufficient as a flexible space controlling polearm being a big halberd.
I think its possible too that it might have broken pike heads if it was swung in a strong clean arc, catches the end of the pike and smashes the pike head into the ground, creating a lever and snapping the head. It might take a couple swings even to do this, but if you're in a pike stalemate, this would be a potential tiebreaker.
I remember lindybeige once making a point concerning the cresent shape on european halberds. IIRC he said that it helped catch materiel, like mentioned in other commetns, and specifically to catch shafts of opposing pikes to "shave" bits of wood from the shaft to weaken and/or cut off the head of the pike/halberd
One possibility could be that if you are able to pull the weapon back after chopping into an arm or leg that it may cause additional damage, particularly if the angle of the pull isn't exactly the same as that of the cut.
"What I'm really here to talk about" halfway through the video 😂
I do in all seriousness appreciate the insights you shared!
I remember reading in an old book about reinessance battles, that halberds were specifically used against pikes to destroy them and also attack pikemens' hands.
they were also used often to disarm, harass without casualties and counter an armed with farming tools mob, the usual enemy of armored guardsmen.
trilogy by Sienkiewicz?
guards had a special method of hacking away at enemy polearms, threatening with swings and thrusts to maintain range.
you don't want to kill and maim your peasants, even if they rebel.
I could see this as an anti-pike tool in a polearm. You'd get the crescent shape around the opponent's haft, apply bit of an angle to it and due to the sharpness it gets stuck. And since you would have better leverage due to the pike user having his arms so much further away from the tip, you could yank the opponent's weapon off or in the most ideal scenario break the haft.
Two possible reasons: 1. Fashion/status/unit identity and 2. The answer might be defeating armour/weapons , as well as a certain falx like quality, a narrow thin section of blade could be worked into a gap in armour not just smashing it (although if you already have a spear point...)
Regarding the halberd in general, the hammer face is small, the axe blade is longer, so the broader blade increases the area available to strike with. If your opponent is moving around it's easier to strike a limb such as a leg or arm, or land a hit on the torso, helmet, or shoulder with at least some part of the axe blade than with the hammer face. If the opponent is down or not very mobile, say, bound up with another opponent, then the hammer strike can be used a lot more effectively since you can hit more precisely for effect. Also, the axe blade would be much more useful against the legs of a horse since there's a longer surface available to hit with, and the narrow edge would easily break bone.
Regarding forward-curved blades on a halberd, there are several advantages. A missed spear thrust still has a chance of striking with the point of the axe blade since it's a bit farther out from the spear point. A swing has the same advantage of an angled axe blade, but the angle and concave curvature can act to inflict a draw cut action as well as just a strike - think guillotine blade vs meat cleaver. In addition, a point is more likely to pierce a gambeson, leather, or chain rings than a flat or standard curved axe blade, so a point-first impact, even if somewhat slight, will drive the rest of the blade into the opening initially created by the point. The same goes for a crescent. It differs from a traditional beak in that it's flat, so it's more like a sword thrust rotated 90 degrees and doubled up as opposed to the fatter spike style of the standard beak which is more useful for piercing plate. Again, practically speaking, this is going to be better at piercing soft or lighter armor while still inflicting serious cutting trauma to whatever is under it, as well as hooking into the opponent. There's also a bit of intimidation factor. Pointing things are scary. Even the most dedicated hippie hesitates where a cactus is concerned.
I believe in the Persian axes design was a simple purpose of piercing, secondary points for the purpose of multiple wound infliction if cleaving is not possible, without the need for thrusting as most pikes or other polearms would need. You can do the same damage with that one by simple swings at the right places.
Other use i can think of, is armor breaking, using contact points, sharp ones that can sever leather securements and straps, tear off armor, etc with hook and pull movements would make sense especially when armor is a mostly western ideal (I'm aware of major fallacy, but I'm going for a basic idea here) and you have foreigners always doing a majority of the invading.
So to tie it together:
- Multiple puncture or "entry points" to increase total damage, as if stabbing a person twice with a single swing if chopping isn't viable.
- Armor Breaking/Bind Severing.
- Armor breaking is increased on cheaply and thinly armored opponents (By mass production) that would just need a good sturdy sharp point to break armor like a pocket knife to an aluminum can.
- Smaller is better, Less metal or sometimes more metal can be increased in volume and make a blade stronger the less you use, which probably makes sense considering the design itself would ensure you likely wouldn't have to worry about sharpening it as its pretty much like having a couple of daggers onto a long stick.
I personally don't think ot was used for combat at all and merely served as something symbolic, a decorative piece that maybe had use as display near holy places if at all by people of the time having to be near. Its only an assumption, I have no way of knowing what exactly they did, but they did do so much more than history books can claim as with everyone throughout history unrecorded.
The Man of Arms is Here🗿🗡🔥💯
The pole axe shape could also be that the straight edge are a natural result for making points that are great for pushing and tugging things like digging into mail or tugging behind the knee. Arms and armor did a video about this. They posit that the axe blade was rarely used for striking, it is basically a wrestling aid when used against an armored opponent. Then you clobber him with the hammer side or jab the top spike after getting the opponent to the ground. It was a reply to skallagrim’s old durability test against helmets
The crescent is super useful because it has more applications such as blocking, a piercing option, the ability to maneuver an opponent, easier to pull out and just two chances to hit a person trying to dodge out of the way.
On the "trapping" hypothesis, take a look at the Japanese sasumata. Its actually a police weapon and not particularly sharp, but they still use them today to detain unruly subjects.
I could be wrong but most of the people in the indo-persian sphere had armors with a lot of maille and less plate than the West. Maybe the crescent axe helped piercing that (islamic symbol notwithstanding, albeit it's even older than that - persia? babylon? - and even used by Byzantines IIRC).
I don't know for sure but maybe part of the reason for the crescent is that it made it so that you wouldn't have to over commit with the swing and that you can just do damage more by means of getting the crescent around a limb the neck or a certain body part and then using more of a pull or push cut which doesn't really requires as much raw concussive power as a swing does and plus the other thing is that in the event that the blade glances off and doesn't really land a direct hit with the edge it's easy to just simply align the edge and to transition into a push cut or a pull cut.
I think you are on the right path with the use against spears and other polearms. If you hit a wooden shaft with a straight or convex blade it has a fair chance of rolling off the shaft and allowing a counter strike by your enemy. However, with a crescent or concave design, it will "catch" the shaft and follow through with the strike, hopefully chopping off or at least significantly damaging the weapon.
This may apply to armor as well. Where most metal armor is designed to deflect incoming attacks, the crescent blades could be meant to resist being deflected.
I can visualize striking an arm, for example, and a convex blade on armor would tend to deflect away whereas a concave blade would maybe tend to trap the arm and in the "groove" and deliver more of the kinetic energy.
Fashion, status and also to showcase the capabilities of the smith are potential factors.
Another factor is that you are less likely to get glancing blows, as like a sickle, the onwards curve "gathers" towards the centre rather than displacing towards the ends, and it gives two extra points. Their rarity would suggest that they weren't that effective in battle, but they might have shock value, much as a serrated blade is possibly less effective in both cut and thrust, but if someone is coming at you with a serrated sword, it's going to look more intimidating.
I'd be interested in the swing physics of these tilted blades, as I suspect the forward tilt evolved from shield breaking.
Having more of the blade forward gives more mass for an effective chop and yank motion to bite the shield / pallicade and the pull it forward.
It also could transfer the impact force away from the users hands so they don't lockup due the vibrations in the staff wood.
As for the 🌙 crescent it looks like a party tool for curved swords cause it catches the blade and prevents a glancing draw cut.
Wonder if there are any Persian artworks that show warriors arms with the crescent axe in a offhand.
I suspect the forward tilt helps with
The poleax looks like when pulling back from a thrust the lower point of the ax blade would be perfect for stabbing on the pull or reset to thrust again and the top point seems almost perpendicular to the shaft like a pick.
Related to both hooking and penetrating: A crescent blade should be less likely to glance of a hard target, and therefore deliver more force. With soft targets, once the tip enters, it should hold the target in place, or even pull the target toward the center of the blade, again delivering more force.
A down looking crescent blade on a halberd can be used in a draw cut, like after a thrust or a downward motion rotating on the shoulders
It seems like it would be a primarily ceremonial weapon, like a badge of office for guards or soldiers, but it could certainly be used for piercing and hooking, to incapacitate an opponent.
In Simmons & Turley's Southwestern Colonial Ironwork, they talked about Crescent bladed spears that were used to hamstring prey. I wonder if, like the flail, it was a familiar tool that made a horrific weapon. According to the text, the crescent bladed spears were banned because of the catastrophic effects when used in brawls.
Fantastic video, Matt! I’m so glad you finally covered this topic. Check out the Di Grassi treatise if you’re not already familiar with it. Apparently, he took issue with the new style halberd.
It may be similar to why some warhammers have heads that have spikes facing forwards, in that it makes the weapon less likely to fully glance off of armor. Say you hit plate armor with the tip of a conventional shape axe, it'll glance off in many cases. A straight blade will glance less, but even more so a crescent shape will have the best chance of transferring energy even if it doesn't penetrate.
A couple of things:
1) The Igorot tribal axes from the Philippines, while not necessarily "crescent-shaped", often do have an inward curve.
2) I can envision a point of a crescent-shaped axe blade slipping between two pieces of plate armor and being capable of a lethal cut (like, say, at the carotid artery) while wedged between the armor pieces. This is supposedly one reason the Bill was developed.
From the examples shown I'm seeing that they aren't paired with a hammer side but mostly a spike/hook on the opposite side, so I'm thinking that these concave "blades" were also used to be able to strike helmets, as they would be less likely to glance off on the curves of the helmet.
11:12 counterpoint: a headsman's axe is focused on a stationary target, and is more designed to make one big clean show-offy cut. The concavity of a halberd would help guide a narrower target, like a head, neck, or shoulder, into the center of crescent- the neck and head especially being mobile targets that you'd want to kid of trap before the hardest-contact part of the cut happens
Headsman's axe is used on a chopping block. The concavity would prevent you from clearing the cut so of course these are a nono for such a purpose.
At a guess a strait edge could possibly offer a better range of contact with distance as opposed to a curved, which could end up being a glancing blow, when striking at a downward angle where the head and body armour meet, I would imagine it tough to protect that area from such a slim blade. The angled blade may even prove more effective with damaging that area as the natural instinct would be to back away whilst being struck, kind of like backing into the strike a little more.
10:55
I have no idea what I'm talking about so this is mostly just complete speculation, but I don't think a crescent shape would be necessary for a headsmans axe. They're used for execution on unarmored, unarmed, stationary targets. For an execution, I think it makes more sense to design that kind of axe to be easy to make, easy to cut with, and easy to maintain. A wide, flat blade makes the most sense for this, since the extra width makes the chop easier and the mostly flat blade is less likely to be damaged in the event that it hits something hard (chopping block, primarily). Any relative deficiency in cutting can be made up for with a harder swing or a heavier blade.
We are in the process of making some prototype norwegian peasant axes (also called church axes) mainly to see why they are curved backward and also why the langets are aligned with the blade and along the curvature
I've always assumed that crescent axes were intended to be limb-killers, since the curve funnels whatever gets between those points to the main point of force at the back end.
Lindybeige made a video a number of years ago discussing the generally weird shape of halberd, and came to the possibility of halberds being used in formation to sort of hamstring and otherwise wreck legs of opposing formations. If that was the (a) case, the crescent halberd blades seem like they would more reliably hook the back of an opponent's leg or heel and really bite in.
Crescent-bladed ji polearms were used in Song dynasty China.
If I am fighting against people with armor, the curved blade (I think) could also be used for puncturing armor in addition to all the other reasons you mentioned.
If were going to use one of the examples from the video, if you're aiming at someone's head, having multiple point contacts would be helpful, and if a head gets caught in the crescent blade portion, great.
That's just my thoughts, great video!
I am not a specialist in the least, but I would conjecture:
- Most modern axes and blades have their form for clearly utilitarian purposes. The mentioned cleaver has a flat blade, because you usually chop down on a board and want to neither penerate the board, so you want to spread out the energy along the whole edge, nor do you only want to cut part of the meat on the board, as you would with a rounded edge. So form stricly follows function here.
Likewise, if I imagine a woodcutting axe, I expect it to be outward curved, mainly because it is supposed to be swung into the wood and then pulled out again. A slim parallel edge or, worse, a moonshaped blade, would go in, but then be very difficult to pull out, as the corners of the blade could get stuck in the wood. An outward curve makes sure that the corners (the ends of the cutting edge) remain free of the wood at least on one side, so I can pull it out more easily.
- Starting from that point of view, I could imagine that to be the reason why most axes and pollaxes are straight or outward curved: Sure, a spike or moon-shape might better penetrate armor, but it will probably not kill instantly, seeing that even bullets often do not. But having your axe or pollaxe being stuck in the opponents armor sounds like a very bad thing for you to happen in combat, as you no longer can parry your opponents counterstrike. Thus, an edge that does not penetrate armor deeply.
- The shown crescent-shaped axe looks one-handed to me, which would mean it could be used with a shield, which negates the problem above and in contrast makes a deeply penetrating weapon better, probably, as a one-handed weapon also has less mass and arm power to damage through armor. So it has to worry less about getting stuck and gains more from points penetration as opposed to edge chopping.
- Most of the shown halberds looked ornamented and with blades full of beautiful holes, which probably is not what you do for a battlefield weapon. Those were probably (I have no idea) town guard or palace guard arms. And if you are a town/palace guard, you are the one with the longer weapon, as others cannot just carry polearms around. Hitting and penetrating in that context possibly does mean being defenseless against their counterstrike, it means being able to keep the hit opponent at bay with your longer staff, like a dogcatcher pole, but by sticking a point into the opponent's body as opposed to a leash around the neck.
All just idle conjecture, of course.
Before you said what the name Halberd could mean my thought about inward curved halberd blades would be to use against helmets. With a traditional ax head only a small portion of the surface will be hitting the target while with the inwards curved blade more of the blade will be making contact and less likely to glance off, imparting more force to the blow. I don't think that the extra force was meant to penetrate the helmet but taking multiple blows to the head with more concussive force will likely put someone out of action faster than many glancing blows. In large scale combat you don't have to kill the enemy to defeat them.