What Is Your Favorite Polearm?

>Lucerne hammer is clearly the superior choice.

The glaive-guisarme-glaive-fauchard-spetum would like a word with you.

Are you telling me you don't regularly practice with medieval weapons?

There has got to be some SCAdian lurkers on Slashdot somewhere ... doesn't there?

That s pretty much why the lads wielding claymores had one or two flanking guards wielding shorter swords and targes.

I was thinking that because of the weight of the metal, a halberd swung in a great enough arc might hit a shield with enough force to do some very serious damage to the shield and/or possibly the person's arm. I imagine anybody trained in using them would also be able to switch to a method closer to a quarterstaff to block/bludgeon as needed.

Last time I check, polearms were primarily used by footmen against mounted knights...

That is why many battles were fought with a line or two of polearms behind a line of sword and board. The polearms could thrust over, through and under the shields wall and be very effective in pinning an oncoming formation that could be hit in the rear of flank by cavalry. They were also very effective in stopping cavalry charges. Horses don't like charging into pointy things.

Polearms are great in massed formations but are vulnerable to archery. In one on one engagements the polearm is almost useless. I have seen someone with a sabre start 15 feet away from a target, take two steps and a lung and strike the target. A polearm would have a problem stopping that. Once one gets past the head the polearm is useless.

You're close. The answer is simply that every melee weapon has a best range. If you're too far away, you can't reach, obviously. But if you're too close, the weapon is too unwieldly and can't be used effectively. Imagine trying to hit someone with a six foot spear when they're only six inches away. That is the superiority of the sword; if you can close in, the polearm user is helpless while you are effective. Have a shield to help avoid the polearm's attacks so you can close the distance can certainly be useful, but it is not essential--if you're quick, it can be possible to simply dodge the polearm's attacks. It all comes down to who can control the range of the engagement.

Having trained with spears, staves, and short swords, I would take a pole arm over the short swords, or any sword for that matter. Most pole arms wielders always had a knife or long dagger for close combat, and attacking someone with half a pole arm and a knife is just fine for getting in close over someone with a sword. Having a shield just gives someone with a hooked polearm more leverage for knocking an enemy off balance, and a shield doesn't really give much closing capability against a group of experienced spearmen. Swords are better for duels and standing off someone with a knife, which is why so many stories have swords in them- those stories were more about royalty and their uses of weapons, rather than that of some common fighter for whom a polearm could be easily converted from a set of farming implements over to a deadly weapon quite easily.

Economically, if I were a ruler or warlord trying to outfit a large army with hand to hand weapons, the spear or halberd would win over almost anything else, because metal is very expensive to mine and craft into reliable components. That crafting cost on a per unit basis goes way up with hardened metals, and the larger the piece, the greater chance that serious imperfections will be introduced. Most rulers during periods where they were dependent upon hand forged weapons always picked pole-arms over swords for these reasons. Also, a lot of these weapons would be dropped or lost during close combat, so you want to limit your losses, while allowing your people to be able to pick up a weapon they can all reliably understand. Most peasants at the time understood already how to use a long staff or spear to keep wildlife at bay, for hunting, or for use as levers or farming tools in general. Drilling them on how to learn a few more moves and keep their feet steady is a lot less time intensive than trying to come up with a completely new regimen for something like a sword.

Polearms are great in groups, where soldiers can support each other. But they aren't much good in a 1vs1 fight or when fighting without a formation. And any army of the period would also likely have archers/crossbowmen, which could easily kill you if you didn't have a shield.

Well, it really is [wikia.com] the best.

To count wouldn't it have to be mounted on a pole?

Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all source of human knowledge. Anyone who thinks it is should be fired.

From a cannon.

Into the sun.
 
/discussion