Ok I have set this up so as not to de-rail the thread about the falcata as it would seem Micman and myself have more to talk about in regards to sword Vs armour and developments in the arms race.
feel free to join in we are discussing historical weapons and armour not gaming rules.
If this is not the place I appologise in advance.
I agree Micman weapons and fighting styles did goto trying to find the openings in armour and using peircing weapons such as the german longsword and half-sword style. But for me the poleax was still the best weapon, having fought against armoured men at arms for many years it is hard to try and find an opening when that is all you really have as an option. With my poleax which is a ax/hammer config leaves me much more options I have piercing for the openings in the joints but can also just batter the hell out of them which works for me.
I have been opart of a duel of a "knight" in full armor with a Longsword (aka hand-and-a-half-sword) against a "peasant" armed with a pole-axe (I was the "knight").
For you out there who might wonder what exactly a pole-axe (or poll-ax) is, it is a long (about 180cm) shafted axe with a small spike on both sides, an axe-blade and a small hammerhead counterfacing the axe blade on the same end of the shaft. Designs varied, most often the axe-blade was replaced by a bladed hook.
While the fullplate is really limiting your speed and especially your view, it also offers superior protection. The pole-axe is a nice weapon, but not much longer than a Longsword and with much less ability to rake than the true "horror of armed men" - the Halberd.
Also you are not gonna best a good plate in a thrust from a Pole-Axe unless your are willing to get quite close ("mittlere Mensur") and thus inside striking range of the Longsword.
So your best bet is to make a large sweeping strike, which can be devastating, but also is quite slow.
I was able to step into the blow (and thus mostly take it with the shaft against my plate instead with the hammerhead) and deliver a vicious thrust against the unarmed man most of the time. Had I had a pole-axe myself, this would have been much harder as the longsword is much more versatile being able to function at close and middle range ("enge und mittlere Mensur" - middle range is that you can hit the opponent after taking only one step, close range is being able to hit that opponent without a step at all).
Then why was the "poll-ax" so renowed?
Well, this stems from the popularity it received in the hands of english longbowman in the battles of Crecy and especially Agincourt.
In Agincourt, as the lines of the french chivalry finally reached the english longbowmen, they expected an easy slaughter, despite most horses being shot dead and thus most chevaliers being on foot (or wounded/dead). The chevaliers were almost exclusively armed with maces or morning stars and rondell daggers, because they were armed for a vicious lance charge (which obviously never happened) and the for a clobbering upon the plates of the opposing knights (after making a quick job of any peasants/bowmen).
As we all know, that never happened. An armored man with a mace has a hard time against an unarmored one with a pole-axe because both weapons are slow and not very versatile.
The british would have fared even better with halberds, but these beasts are hard to carry on your back along with bow/arrows and whatnot, so the much shorter "poll-ax" had to be sufficient.
If all this sounds as if armor is actually as much a boon than a handicap, then yes, it actually is... in a duel. In a battle however the extra protection offered against blows from unexpected directions or stray arrows/bolts is simply invaluable.
So, in short, the pole-axe is actually not that amazing a weapon (much less so than Longsword and Halberd) - but it will always life in history as the weapon that brought home the victory that Longbows made possible in the first place.
good post micamn but I do have one point the pole-ax was superior to the halberd. To start the size for a pole-ax should be your height about the same as a halberd (although some used in other countries were longer about the same length as most other pole arms). The pole-ax should have a modular head so that the ax/hammer/hook/spike can be changed.
I have faced unarmoured and armoured men with hand/half and sword and buckler and the pole-ax wins hands down. Why? I can lead with the butt spike and held at head thus giving me much greater range than a sword but also allows for a sweep with the head. I can also use as you would a quarterstaff (more like rowiong LOL) which closers the range some but makes all the weapon aggresive. In all my years of fighting Armoured/Un-armoured men with sword I have yet to lose and we dont play nicely :) As my plate clearly shows. Billman are adiffrent story but then you face many at once that was why the man at arms was used to hit the flanks or through your own bill-line.
After the pole-ax I do far prefer my hand and half its very funny facing someone that things hes a jedi swinging big and to get inside and use the pommel or quillons.
By the sounds of things we could have one hell of a fight :D
Next in line: the true king of melee and "horror of armoured men" - the Halberd!
The Halberd is the most undervalued weapon in D&D. It is all that the hype around the pole-axe is not - the ultimate weapon in melee against almost every foe. Halberds are about 210cm long, which means they are 30-40 cm longer than pole axes!
The reasons are manifold, but I will list the usual outcome of duels against a variety of contemporary foes:
Halberd against "Shortsword" (ie one handed sword) and Shield:
The most even matchup among the ones I will list (except of course mirrors). The Swordman can use his shield to deflect the incoming thrusts, lock the Halberd down by inserting the rim of the shield behind the axehead, make a quick lunge while preventing the Halberdier from raking backwards and thus making it unable for him to withdraw fast, then the Swordman tries to strike the hands or arms of the Halberdier first and the body afterwards. However this is actually hard as hell and requires the Swordman to be very fast and accurate.
What usually happens is that while the Swordman deflects or evades the thrust he is catched by the backward rake of the Halberd, either at the Shields rim or at loose parts of his shirt or belt. The nature of this rake is such that the point of the Halberd will automatically placed into the "center" of the opponent, about 20cm before him so that a sudden thrust will hit him squarly in the chest or belly. This is quite easy a move compared to what the Sowrduser has to do.
Haldberd against Longsword (aka Hand-and-a-half-Sowrd):
This is a bad matchup for the Swordman. While the Longsowrd does little to even out the superior range of the Halberd, missing the defending and locking shield is usually crippling.
What you can do is as following: Evade the thrust, grip your sword with your left hand at the middle of the blade (lengthwise) - this is known as "half-swording". Use this frim grip to place the sword forcingly against the Haldberds shaft (one of your hands below the point where the blade crosses the shaft and one is above while the point of the Sword will be facing downward if on your right side and upward if the thrust is deflected to your left side). Just as the thrust passes you, press forward very quickly with your whole body and stiff arms. You must be moving faster than your opponent can rake back with his Halberd, which is not easy. Now your Sword is holding the "Übermacht", eg has the favorable kinetic position which allows you to push the Halberd outwards and there is not much the Halberdier can do against this if he isn't faster than you. The blade of your Sword scrapes along the shaft of the Halberd until it hits the forward hand of the Halberdier, hopefully prompting him to let go. Then grip the Sword with both hands on the hilt again and strike him down...
Haldberd against Mace/Morning Star/Axe/Poll-Ax/...:
Halberdier wins unless the opponent is clearly of higher skill. The greater range, the better versatility and the ease of handling make the Halberd simpy superior to striking weapons. The pole-axe, being mcuh shorter, can do little to counter this.
Haldberd against Halberd:
Many many options here - you can view a few here (scroll down a bit, the movie is the leftmost titled "5 unterschiedliche Waffen") if you can access youtube.
...To start the size for a pole-ax should be your height about the same as a halberd...
No, the distinct difference of these otherwise very similar weapons was length (and the butt spike).
I can lead with the butt spike and held at head thus giving me much greater range than a sword but also allows for a sweep with the head.
If I understand this correctly you are holding the ax at head level, with the butt spike in front, so one arm would be before your head and the other behind.
How does this give you superior range? If I see someone in taking this position I immediately try to jump in and hit the foremost arm (which stays foremost "a long time" even if you opt to swing. As you use the sword to strike from above but a little to one side, you can try and deflect his high or sidewards swing "indes" (old german word for "meanwhile", eg while in the same time hitting him).
I can also use as you would a quarterstaff (more like rowiong LOL) which closers the range some but makes all the weapon aggresive.
Yes, that is very versatile but also gives up the greatest advantage - range. If you face an opponent with a Sword who strikes high but uses a strike that is drawn short just before you raise up the shaft to deflect and then thrusts, that is hard to parry and allows him to go inside for more thrusts - theorycraft, I know, but it has worked for me.
After the pole-ax I do far prefer my hand and half its very funny facing someone that things hes a jedi swinging big and to get inside and use the pommel or quillons.
Yes, the famous "Durchlauffen" (meaning running through). Hit your opponent with the pommel of the sword in the face to soften him up, let go with your right hand and use the left to dangle the sword, point downwards, over your back and the right to grip him as you run past him and grip him over the chest, extend you leg/hip and lift him off because of the leverage it gives you, then carry him for one or two steps and forcibly throw him down. Grip the sword again with your right hand and then make a big finishing blow over your head or shoulder ("Zornhau" = wrathcut).
Mucha fun :-)
O its is mucho fun :D
And to your first question yes most of the time my rear hand would be behind but high. As you say most of this is very much theorycraft. It all depends on what you want and do, I used a halberd for a couple of years both in the style of a billman and armoured but being longer in most cases it doesnt lend itself to armoured fighting in my experience unless it the same size as a pole-ax (most halberds do tend to be longer). I dont remember where I found the length = height for pole weapons when used in armour, all the refrence just seem to blend into one and you just remember the important bits. But there was a 'best' size just as there was for the longbow. Just as the pole-ax developed from the halberd.
back to the theorycraft it is much a case of what your going to do and antisapating your opponents reactions, for me I use all my weapon and my body as a weapon much as the 'manuals' that are left tend to show and what I have found works. Most people are very focused on what they have been shown or they have read as right, they cant improvise. So most swordsmen are very much surprised when an armoured man suddenly after a redirect rushes forward in close.
I have also noticed a mind set 'I have my weapon and it kills, its what I use' I will explain normally the swordsman and he has his sword and will not change his grip or the fact that he swings and thrusts with the sword. He has no concept of his body other than in relation to his footwork and getting that sword to stike. have you ever come across this?
I think you could be right Kerym after watching the video (which I didnt see the link for at first :S) The biggest diffrence I have found is that the pole-ax is a modular weapon as in the side spikes are actually nuts that hold the head on. If these nuts are removed (pretty hard to do so needs to be done in advance) you can then remove the head spike and then the ax blade/hammer/back spike. Where on a halberd this is all one piece, I think the diffrence is language in the most part. The pole-ax is sometimes used to discribe a long ax which is much the same as a dane ax. Also as you say many of these weapons were altered and modified so they do tend to blend. I think after watching the video we should prety much come to the conclusion we are talking much about the same type/style of weapon, as much of what I see is very much what i do.
I do have questions for you micman, do you normally face single opponents or multiple? are any of them in the video you? (I had to ask :P) I dont have any video of me doing my thing as nearly all my true fighting takes place on the battlefield with many, many combatents. i tend to hide well from the camera and as we dont have video as a whole we only get what others have taken mostly the puplic.
P.S I like what I see in your videos shame its in what? Germam sorry if I'm wrong. i dont think the wife would like it if I was to take a trip over to you. But I do get the feeling we could learn alot from each other :)
O they do trust me, they do if they are infront of me at full charge.
After posting my last post and reading yours kerym i feel i should give my experience so you know where I'm coming from, feel free to do so also I think it would help us understand each other alittle more.
I do medieval reanactment mostly (War of the roses period 15c) for my sins. I have been doing this for many years. I have never trained with any one reconised school of training (as there arent that many (If any)here in england). What I have learnt has been from experience and people how know there stuff in there chosen area, I know its hard to tell how knows and who doesnt but after awhile you get to know from what they do. I have competed in foot tournies but mostly I fight in the set battles which arent scripted other than what will happen.
Any questions about what I do just ask me.
My attempt to get your site translated hasnt gon real well but its understandable enough (if it takes time to read). I think what your doing there is great :) wise we had that here, I think it would have made my experience easier. Maybe a family holiday to germany it is LOL :)
Germany it is, if you ever make the trip, you're welcome :)
I don't know if an ARMA or AENNA "dependance" near you, but these guys seem to do much in the way of historical fighting as well (one of them authored the "Ringeck" Books - just type "Ringeck" in amazon.com - the books are quite good).
The Halberd in the Vid is a "saftey" version of just over 200cm (yes, we are a large bunch in germany ;) with a rather short spike, normally the spike would be about 20cm longer.
Pole-Axe being about the height of a man is right, which ment it was about 160cm back then! There are several sources that state that and even show it in pictures (whatever you can glean from medieval pictures without propotion...).
For this reason a Pole-Axe was considered a "knghtly weapon" and used in knightly duels. The Halberd never was, being over 200cm long (some sources state "nearly twice a man" - which would probably in the 230cm range), it was considered a "Waffe dafürs feighaiten" - a cowards weapon.
...The ones who think with their sword alone tend to get into trouble.
I have also noticed a mind set 'I have my weapon and it kills, its what I use' I will explain normally the swordsman and he has his sword and will not change his grip or the fact that he swings and thrusts with the sword. He has no concept of his body other than in relation to his footwork and getting that sword to stike. have you ever come across this?
Quite right, but the original term was coined by famous Miyamoto Mushahi and misinterpreted.
Mushahi states in his Book of Five Rings (read this if you get it at least 5 times!!):
"You must cut the enemy."
This simple sentences says it all.
This howeveer does not mean that you shouldn't do moves that give you the win only because they are not strikes (and thrusts, which were rare in Japanese fighting) - as has been deducted.
He himself, in the book of water, suggests some moves similar to the durchlauffen.
It's just that your intend should be totally focused on finally cutting the enemy.
Finally in the book of void he says that through dilligent and constant practise you should get the feeling for fighting, so that you no longer have to think but rather simply do.
It takes about 30.000 repetitions of a single move to make it instinctual such as Mushashi demanded...
I agree alot of eastern thinking can be apllied to western arts after all the end result is the same coming out of a fight not being left face down.
I will look for the book you suggest (always looking for stuff I dont have). I will also look and see if I can find any thing on the ARMA or AENNA over here as well. If your ever thinking of coming over here your welcome to look me up, I could maybe sort out for you to join our group on the field if the time was right. We have a dutch contingent that come over for 1 perticular battle every year.
LOL yeah we were mostly on the same page but diffrent book. Its hard to really find these things as for one english is mostly germanic and so words get changed, even then you might find diffrent words meaning the same thing. Looking through household logs from the period can be intresting for this.
See already we have both commen ground and our areas and view points. this could be the beginning of something very good :) And on a roleplay forum already it beats most of the historical forums I have posted on LOL.
Yeah the diffrences between medieval and modern can be quite big, I for one quite often (when the mood takes me to use side arms) use a dagger/rondel in a over hand grip in my off hand. I do this as it can be used very easialy for blocks but for attacks also. I think the main differance for me anyway is that most if not all combatants wear some form of body protection even if it is a padded jack, with the over hand grip you are tageting the collar bone neck area which is less well protected against cuts and piercing. If I remember the video shows this as most of his counter attacks are to this area.
I must admit I havent done that much in the field of medieval knife fighting but we do know they did take the movement of the hips and legs into account in other forms so there must be a reason I will look into it further, But micman will probably beat me too it as hes seems to have the knowledge in that area already LOL.
I havent come up with anything as to why, they seem to be quite inter changeable but some styles taught did use the 'sopramano' as the first grip these teach 4 attacks 3 from above using the 'sopramano' and 1 using the more modern grip. But they dont say why.
I did whilst looking for things online that I can post here for you to read find this article that has some plates that show techniques you may find familiar.
Now to get this link working LOL
.
..
...
....
.....
YOU TWO, FIGHT!
...and you, make bring me a beer!
LOL yeah thats why I took it up, if I was to try this anywhere else I would be arrested. On the battlefield I can really go to town and have a great time doing it and if the other guy/guys had agood time too we can end up drinking beer together afterwards.
I have acouple of friends that are in other groups and are normaly on the otherside so if I can I find them out and really go for it, then its off to the beer tent to compare injuries (sometimes) and technique over acouple fo beers. If I fight the main body then its normally beers with my group while we chat about things we did and how badly we trashed the otherside. All without any worries about the police knocking on the tent flap. LOL
There was something bugging me about the video MicMan linked to and it finally dawned on me. So I went back and had to watch again. The Rondel Fighting struck me as odd, because in most modern knife fighting techniques the use of an overhand grip (or rather an ice pick grip) is greatly disfavored. It is generally only used for a stealthy takedown, or rather an ambushing dagger/knife thrust in the collarbone region. For most techniques an underhanded grip serves you better, both in not telegraphing your intent, for use as a blocking/parrying/diverting tool, and for essential concealment as to the presence and location of the weapon. Also when thrusting one is able to get your hip and legs into the movement, adding both speed and power.
I can help explain that.
There's a couple main reasons why they favored the 'icepick' grip.
1. Rondel/ballock daggers weren't really sharp, so a grip that favored cutting techniques wouldn't be terribly useful.
2. Medieval coats were often made with a felt-like material that is actually quite difficult to cut without a cutting oriented weapon such as a große messer or falchion.
3. You've probably got a sword, staff, große messer, or other larger weapon for personal defense, so the dagger won't be used except in an emergency, or at extreme close range. Generally, historical techniques teach to control the other fighter with grappling 1st, then stab him.
As a general rule, HEMA is about controlling the fight 1st, and killing the opponent 2nd. As with all martial arts, the goal is to kill the other guy without leaving him a way to do it back.
Yes, I may add that this style of fighting was usually used between lightly (medieval quilted sheepwool was used for the doublets of this time) or heavily armored opponents where you can not cut but rather have to stab through openings.
The "icepick-grip" gives you more control for doing this until you can either disarm the opponent or stab him.
The premier master of Dagger (and Messer, Sword and Poleaxe) fighting in this 1400's time (of which we know) was Hans Talhoffer. What we know of the Dagger, we mostly know from him and some pieces of Paulus Hector Meir.
MEMA shows this quite nicely here
The differences between modern and medieval/renaissance knive/dagger fighting has to be seen in context of the importance of these weapons during their times.
The Dagger was seen as an absolutely secondary weapon to be used in special circumstances against armored or at least specially protected opponents. Note that many of the techniques also work against larger blades (Messers or even one-handed swords). But the main difference is that these techniques work against someone out to kill you!
Modern Knive fighting sees the knive as main weapon against unarmored opponents. Also fighting is usually not to the death (thankfully). So being able to give the opponent a noticeable wound means usually winning outright. This leads to a totally different approach. The fast cut to the hand can be very damaging but also has next to no immediate "stop" result, meaning if I storm towards you with the full intent of killing you and you cut my fingers, I am unlikely to stop the swing immediately.
I think that is the main reason why modern knive-fighting and dagger-fighting do not mix well.
I believe Micman was referring to medieval daggers, when saying that modern knives and daggers don't mix well. A good example would be techniques that grab the blade of your opponent's dagger. They really seemed to consider the dagger almost useless for cutting, since such moves would be a really bad idea with modern blades. I'll post a link later with some images- I can't type brackets on my phone.
What Shadrayl said.
medieval dagger fighting techniques do not lend themselves well to "modern" knive fighting for various reasons I stated.
I too agree that stabbing is much more damaging than cutting, but thats no the point, the point is that today, usually, the fight will end with one bleeding and with that premise it's much more save to opt for a fast cut of opportunity than an all out attack as a "fight-ender".
What we also must grasp is that in medieval tiems the concept of self preserverance was another than today, at least in the western culture).
Back then most people firmly believed in paradise. Many sword fighters were very pious (which didn't stop them from comitting atrocities, as usual) - self protection was not the main concern, which it usually is today.
R Eward Oakeshott mentions this several time in his works about medieval arms and armor.
You can't simply compare going into a most likely lethal fight with that frame of mindset and anything that we do today on a regular basis.
...I just get a little heated when I encounter "in the old days" things were better,...
No need to get heated, I never said this.
What I said was that back then a much larger percentage of people had to life with the constant threat of violence and death than today and thus couldn't be as concerned with personal safety, which in turn is a reason for piety (aka I can't really die).
This difference between then and now holds true for almost all people that have the luxury to visit these boards and occupy themselves with historical combat for the fun of it. The very few people that are an exeption (like you, I guess) still had to choose if they wanted to live such a life or not.
This leads to the fact that you can't reenact the combat back then with 100% accuracy (except you would be willing to fight to the death) and also that you shouldn't simply say what worked then works today as well - which was what started our discussion over dagger techniques baxck then and how they relate to knive techniques now.