To bring it into a modern context... One thousand years from now, historians researching the late 20th and early 21st century may find a great deal of literature on the defensive use of the pistol. But they would be mistaken if they inferred from this that pistols were in any sense important weapons of war...
I had the same thought! I don't know if late ME and early modern Fechtbücher are "military manuals" for war. Did those teachers (Lichtenauer, Thalhoffer, Marozzo etc) write their books more for knights/men-at-arms, or for Burghers in cities.
Exactly, useful for civilian self defense, but in a military context, only really carried as a side arm by officers and other troops with other primary roles, and usually only used if things have gone badly. An archer or halberdier forced to use their sword are as reduced in combat effectiveness as a driver or machine gunner forced to use their pistol.
@@davidlink3787 Pretty much, except that the pistol is used less often than the sword was and very few people in the military actually carry pistols. In some countries pistols are, or were, exclusive to officers and were badge of rank more than anything.
Original artifact glock will be worth times more than an artifact AK, and the latter will have reconstructed wooden parts of incorrect size and assumed to be a stationary defensive weapon :D
I still disagree. If it was true, halberdiers and pikemen would not carry swords as secondary weapon - why, your polearm is everything you will ever need? Observe the paintings of landsknechts, best soldiers of their time - their halberdiers, or their doppelsoldners with those threatening flamberges, all of them are carrying katzbalgers - short, cutting swords that did not even have a thrusting point. Why? Because there are situations, especially in tight battles where you have no space for elaborate technical kung fu, and you need a short weapon, not long. Or Romans - if polearms were so superior, why did not they fight with spears, and instead prefered the gladius? Sword had the highest skill ceiling, was the most technical and versatile of weapons, so that's why the treatises and manuals focused on them. I disagree that it was "a gentry's leisure time pleasure", soldiers risking their lives were always very practical, and preferred simple stuff that worked. If the focus was on sword, that means sword was important. On the other hand, there is a saying in Czech "začínat od píky - 'to start with the pike'" that means starting at the very bottom, lowest rung of some hierarchy. That's because pikemen (in 30 years war or later, presumably) were the most basic troops that received very little training. The common sense was to arm village militia and levies with pikes - expensive swords would be wasted on them. As a pikeman, you just need to know 1) how to stand straight in a line 2) how to hold the pike properly, or how to rest the other end against ground 3) how to not sht in your pants and run away. That was all. You fought in a formation, you advanced on command, you retreated on command. If things went south, you just died to any other type of troop in the field. That's why there is no "Treatise on the noble art of pike - how to stick while avoiding being stuck in return" - or if there is, it was not a common topic. Halberd is a different beast, there is some kungfu to be done with halberds or similar type of shorter, cutting polearms, but pikes and spears are simple weapons. All of them bow to the sword, however - the king of the cold steel weapons.
10,000 years into the future: "It is common misconception that people used handguns as often as the ancient John Wick files would suggest... According to the Marvel manuscripts, many people didn't need these types of weapons as they had super powers. We are unsure how they did this...."
The wars of the roses. Where people in rose shaped armor would yell violent love poems at each other to creep the enemy away. If that didn’t work. Less effective things were used. Like sword tossing.
I'm glad that you mentioned the "up-armouring" of other battlefield units. Whenever I see the tired "English longbowman versus knight" debates pop up people seriously underestimate how heavily armoured the archers were (especially around the Agincourt period). It's almost as if a well-paid professional soldier bought equipment that would keep him alive.
Almost? Most certainly they were. Not all of them of course and I'm sure the ratio of conscripts to pros changed with fortunes and the ebb and flow of power. Think how long it took for a Longbowman to train; they were specialists. Study of skeletons shows the affect of pulling very heavy bows in the attachment points of the tendons affecting the growth of the bones. Pole arms could be taught to the farmer who could then just go back to being a farmer until war season again.
You can certainly have some heavy defences if you don't need to move around that much. Like those steel hats sine crossbowmen had,quite heavy and a classic ranged infantry helmets
Armour was quite likely sourced from defeated enemies as well I would say. After a long and successful campaign a soldier would have had a lot more and better kit than he started with.
Some liveried or mercenary longbowmen were indeed well armored. But the majority were not. The Sire de St Remy, a participant on the English side at the Battle of Agincourt, describes the English archers on that occasion as: "for the most part without armour except their pourpoints; their stockings rolled down to the knees, and having hatchets (probably mauls) and battle-axes hanging at their waists, or long swords, some barefooted and bareheaded, others with huvettes or capelinas (helmets) of cuir-bouilli, and others of osier, strengthened with a cross-band of iron" Dominic Mancini, an Italian cleric who visited England in 1482, wrote this: “Their bows and arrows are thicker and longer than those used by other nations just as their arms are stronger than other peoples’, for they seem to have hands and arms of iron. As a result their bows have a long range as our crossbows. Almost every man has a helmet and carries an iron shield and a sword which is as long as our sword; but heavy and thick as well. Only the wealthy wear metal armour; ordinary soldiers prefer comfortable tunics (stuffed with tow) which reach down to their thigh. They say that the softer they are the better they withstand blows; besides which in summer they are lighter and in winter more useful than iron.”
In German language there is the word "Spießbürger" what is translated into "polearm citizen". In the 10th century, the Emperor of the "holy roman reich of german nation" Heinrich I. built a lot of castles, in german a castle is a "Burg", from what the word "Bürger", citizen, is comming from. Not to be confused with the word "Burgmannen", what describes the fighting soldiers and knights of the Burg. Those Bürger, beeing privileged as well (Stadtluft macht frei, "city air makes you a free man") had to be able to fight with the "Spieß" (the pike), a up to 6m (20 feet) stick with or without an iron point. Everybody who was not allowed to carry a two bladed sword had to fight with the Spieß as primary weapon. You often see pictures of medieval battle scenes, where you see a massive number of soldiers carrying long polearms. The expression "Spießbürger" was changed to a negative term, meaning somebody who is denying everything new, even better inventions, thinking backwards, as Spießbürger demanded to keep to their pole weapons, when firearms have been in use for some time, outperforming sticks, making them obsolete. Linguists see this change in the 17th century. Today the short form of the word, Spießer, is still in use, naming someone who is backwards thinking, small minded.
This obsession with swords i believe was covered by shadiversity on his videos a time ago, we tend to always associate heroes and medieval things with swords so often that sometimes it can change drastically the way we imagine history to be. Its the same thing of the "old west pistols", it became an icon, or ideed rifles in the modern day, they are important, but great part of war is done by other weapons, such as cannons, tanks, aircraft, ships, machine guns, missiles, etc.
I think swords and pistols are just more relatable, so the stories and discourse and writing comes up in abundance for them. The common man is much more likely to have some experience with/need of a small weapon or sidearm than an ACTUAL big ol' weapon of war. It also just looks better on movie posters etc, in a visual-presentation sort of way. A pistol makes a cool accessory for the actor, but a big gun will instead dominate the scene and the presentation.
The sword was fetishized because other tools were available to the commoners and had other non-war usage. Also keep in mind armor diminished the importance of swords.. Oh for personal defense a sword is great, if a brigand happens upon you on a lonely road etc. BUt in war, there are entirely different logistics and mechanisms at work. A battle is not a bunch of one on one duels to the death. IT's about momentum.
I think the hero image is more associated with the "hard to use weapons" or the ones that offers more risk or even things as close as possible to unarmed fights. Thats why the fight between the protagonist vs vilain its fought pretty much in melee range even in movies about modern times. People don't usually like fights where one does shot others at distance while taking cover (its only acceptable for killing the vilain unworthly "minions"). Fighting at distance may make you look weak or coward. Its human primitive nature that matters more in the end.
@@RyuFireheart sure thing, everything to be more appealing to the public. I for one would like a movie where they fight with guns the way its supposed to be, with covers and tatics, but i dont see it happening in the near future, at the moment what i like to watch are the real footage of soldiers with helmet cams.
I would love a video focusing on cut-and-thrust polearms. How they were used, either by themselves or in formation, the different types and their pros and cons to one another, etc. Thanks!
I completely agree that polearms dont get the love they deserve. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Hope you guys are getting enough sleep with the new baby, I know I didn't until mine turned 2. Love this channel ,Cheers!
There's a general pattern that holds across much of Europe and Asia throughout antiquity: If a weapon had no practical application outside of a martial context, it tended to have high value as a status symbol. Swords, maces and war hammers fall into this category. They were the sort of weapons noblemen like to hold when having their portraits painted. Lower down the prestige scale were weapons derived from hunting weapons, like spears and bows. These weapons didn't clearly denote high socio-economic status, but they did have some association with wealth surplus lifestyles even if people of lesser means also used them. At the bottom of the prestige pile were weapons that either were, or were derived from, agricultural implements and other tools used by the peasant classes in their day-to-day toils. Many pole arms fall into this category. If you carried one of these into battle, in most cultures, that marked you out as a peasant. Peasants in any age aren't sexy and their accomplishments aren't worth writing about (at least in the opinion of the literate wealthy class).
A very underappreciated pole weapon is the berdiche, it seems it found its way in many armies since it's easy to make and durable. I think they are a weapon that deserve its own video
Might swords be preferable in siege assaults? ...or urban warfare, if you have to go into buildings. I do think swords are grossly over-represented, but I'm sure I heard that the majority of medieval battles were sieges. Also maces and warhammers too, If we are talking about anti-armour, they should get a mention.
most sieges were only camping around a city or a castle waiting for the besiegeds to run out of food, siege assaults weren't much common beacuse the high casualties they demanded
I think the real point is that people didn't learn a preferred fighting style like we do in RPGs. They learned warfare, which included proficiency in a lot of different equipment needed for many different scenarios one might encounter in war. There were specialties, but they would be much broader, such as archer (which would need to know how to use hand weapons), footman and cavalry.
you are right in everthing you said except that sieges werent assaults, as represented in movies.. but just alot of logistics and waiting. But when it came to assaults, yeah short weapons and shields rulled ...
Fascinating video. I have been interesting polearms since I played D&D in the 1970s. Swords dominate in fantasy movies and role playing games, but this video sheds light on the reality of things.
This video has got some BIG context energy!!! Particularly when you were talking about who fencing manuals were actually written for and you didnt even give us that juicy C-word, but was it dripping with context that is so often missed!
A lot of those medieval drawings make me feel a lot more competent about my own drawings :p Also aren't pole weapons rarely used in HEMA because they're quite more dangerous than a sword, even when blunt?
It's literally impossible to make a safe steel polearm because they were that dangerous You'd need to make them out of rubber which eliminates the accuracy of weight
One plus of this is that I get to scoop up all my favorite polearms at quarter price of a sword of the same level of craftsmanship. The downside of course being that so few people are actually making them.
I look at the pole arm like a rifle and the sword like a pistol..Most soldiers hardly ever use a sword(or pistol) in combat, while in the civilian word is basically exclusively pistols(or swords) with hardly any rifle(polearm) use...But in either case it's still important to know how to use both very well to be well rounded. You are also not always in combat so a sword offers ease of carry while still being effective if need be.
I´m a great fan for a long time now, and the quality of the videos is ever increasing. Would like to watch something like "misconceptions about plate armor" like swords penetrating plates as they were made of paper. Things the movies make a lot of people belive. Keep doing a great job!
Absolutely fascinating. I love the fact that even today there is still a huge research opportunity for historians with respect to polearms. Let's hope this might be the start for more of them to do that.
Very enlightening & informative video. Putting names to different pole-arms whilst showing pictures and paintings of them and which countries used or favoured what polearm & how they were used in battle is highly educational. Thank you
The first thing that got me interested in how medieval and ancient weapon and armor systems actually functioned in a practical sense was reading SM stirling ember verse books. Can’t believe it took me so long to find this channel
It’s somewhat informative that you tell us how these pool alarms are used and were used in the battlefield but what would really be useful is to have you in full armor taking a poll warm and thrusting it against us wine cork us or maybe taking a pool alarm and denting the currass breast plate
You touched the major point lightly. Economics of war. Even if the sword was something from Warhammer 40K and goes through armor like a hot knofe through butter, with a fixed amount of money you can produce more polearms than swords. It's the same reason that AR-15 (or M16 in some regions), G3 and AK-47 are main infantry weapons, because they are cheaper than more specialised ones. And don't forget that at the time, a mercenary soldier paid for his own equipment.Although, my favorite weapon remains half a brick in a sock. It kills people, but leaves buildings standing :)
Beautiful. And swords have been pretty expensive as well, at least in the middle ages era. What sprang to my mind as equally popular, yet concerning spears: In 14th century Bamberg, Germany, townsfolk was equipped with a Crossbow and a small square-like shield (Tratschin) to protect their city. They then could throw in their own knives or axes or whatever. Which makes more sense than the pikes and spears many guards do carry on battlements in movies, does it :)
On railway maintenence when started in the 80's, with BR , one of the items used was a slasher, an agricultural billhook. Strimmers and chainsaw were not as readily available, requiring training and by the 90's certification, and regulation including the PPE. For line side management ,the slasher , cut and drag was still used. I Often see this Drag and unbalance element as being the key to its wide use. Since given the heavy armoured opponents were considered high value hostages. Maybe not so much at Flodden, when the Chivalry practice seems to have changed, possibly War of the Roses and Anglo-French codes of conduct in the later 15th Century. ? Pike lost at flodden ,yet was the most adopted weapon into the 17th Century. Lindybeige spear test was very good. Maybe we should get back to growing and tending hedge rows, with a slasher and relearn those skills . IMO. Thanks for upload.
Better leverage and power. Not necessarily easy to repair though. If you crack your halberd shaft, you can't just get a blacksmith to hammer it into shape again.
The amount of information in treatises is indicative of how swords were not a battlefield weapon, and how these were for non-soldiers. Soldiers don't learn how to fight from reading books. They learn from their military training. Also, they don't learn to fight one on one. They learn to fight as a unit against units.
Big assortment at New York Metropolitan. And to support your thesis of the focus on swords, while visiting, my friend could not believe halbardes were actually used in battle. He's was like "I'm sure the were only used in parades or as piece of art."
Question for you, Matt. We often hear about how shields largely fell out of favor for knights once plate armor became more common, but no one ever says the two were NEVER used to together, which implies there may have been the odd case of a knight intentionally using both full plate armor and a shield. In regards to actual combat, are there any reasons a knight might have opted to still use a shield despite also wearing full plate? Do we have any historical examples of someone doing this?
As a follow on it could be worth talking about how for example early medieval warfare, which is what we kind of imagine in our heads from say the 12th century roughly, developed through the high medieval period of the 14th century using the weapons you've described but then talk about how it evolved into the late medieval/very early modern warfare which is largely dominated by the pike block and german and Swiss mercenaries. As a British person we don't really see how the development went in school as the English used the longbow and Bill for so long but the evolution on the continent and things like the Italian wars are fascinating and kind of relevant to what you spoke of today.
If I ever make fiction, there will be 2 important rules. 1. The revolver guy always gets it in the end. Very important. 2. The spear user (not any other polearm, just spears) always gets it in the end. Very important. Because my own pure fan biases must be reflected in my work with a silly beef, like the blue car in Mr. Bean. Good info, as always. I do like that sword and shield is a good counter to spear and shield in the Medieval context (unless I remember you wrong, or misunderstand something based on what I see in sparring), the Roman style beat the Greek style in the end, and apparently greatsword is a good counter to pike. Sword wins! Very important lol. I also like that greatswords are a common weapon for bodyguards, a context of defending others and oneself is always especially near and dear to my heart. I wish we only understood more about all that. And yes, I understand polearms and spears are very effective weapons and tear things up in plenty of ways. The way Matt said that he does saber and it's a lot of 1 vs. 1, and there is something to the idea that a rapier is better for 1 vs. 1 than a saber. But rather than swtich to a rapier, he's more interested in learning to use the saber to beat the rapier. Because there is more than 1 vs. 1. That's how I think of swords vs. spears, AK vs. AR, and many other things. I remember the first time I saw a bill. I thought, 'It's a can-opener for humans..." One of my very favorite units in Medieval Total War 2
"Hey folks, medieval RoboCop Easton, here!" ^^ ~ Jokes aside, how muche trained were those commoner pole-arms equipped medieval troops you talk about here? 🤔
Philip Zahn Probably depended on their background. I’m sure a fairly wealthy-ish man at arms would have very good training. Since that is their job after all I would imagine.
It will depend on who we talk about. Man at arms will have fairly good training. I gess poeple with halberds poleaxe or polehammer would have training. But were i would doubt on any training is for pique man, lances vouges, and bardiches.
There were Trayned Bands of volunteers in most larger towns (drawing their strength from the town and surrounding rural parishes) and they would get a couple of days a month, to train together.
Matt, you mentioned spears as part of polearms, by that view polearms have dominated EVERY battlefield upto the gunpowdwer era. If one includes musket & bayonet as a pole weapon it extends well into the gunpowder era. (Until the use of bayonets on the battlefield became a rare thing. Post WWI for sure.)
Ironically most of western heavy cavalry neglected the lances in favor of pistols and sabers, with only a few units in each army dedicated to lances. The only exception is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Mike Rodrigues Although not heavy cavalry, the likes of Stratioti mercenaries also generally replaces their light lances/spears with pistols and rifles since the 16th century. (while keeping swords) Ming cavalry in general also tended to favor armored horse archers with shorter cutting weapons (as opposed to being lancers). Heavier ones often wielded glaives, lighter ones also functioned as dragoons primarily armed with sabres
Quite true. Spears are a simpler form of polearm. Polearms indeed dominated every battlefield across all cultures until around the time of revolvers and machine guns, when pike blocks were no longer workable.
I can see why the bill hook was so loved as a pole arm. You've got a thrusting point, a cutting edge, and the ability to hook your enemy off his horse or off his feet. You've pretty much got most of your major possible techniques covered.
4 роки тому+1
We also tend to focus on individual weapon skills. There's a lot of lost knowledge about tactics and techniques like for example how to use a pike block and how to fight in one.
Something to consider. Perhaps part of the reason the treatises are so heavily focused on the sword rather than the polearm is because the sword is so much harder to use effectively on the battlefield. Thus, much of the focus becomes on using it in the duel or for personal defense. In the meantime, if you are in a unit of spearmen, halberdiers, billmen, etc... well, the basic use of the weapon en masse is pretty simple. The pointy end goes in the other guy!
I'm looking behind Matt's left shoulder and thinking of casually opening the door of one of his wardrobes and and being smashed by an avalanche of sharp swords, halberds, maces... that's a dangerous home!
What fascinates me most is that for a very long time the main weapon was the humble spear and while we had some interesting variants pop up now and then in the Middle Ages we see this profusion of polearms and this is to do with the fact that both knights and common soldiers began to wear more armour to the point that they could leave the shield behind and use their weapons two handed and do more than stabbing.
I was reading an account from the English Civil War about how Pikemen resisted wearing their regulation hanger swords and gloves/gauntlets, presumably because the soldiers thought the gloves and sword got in the way of them doing their job.
I know of one book on polearms in English, "HAFTED WEAPONS IN MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE EUROPE The Evolution of European Staff Weapons between 1200 and 1650 " by John Waldman. It covers most of the main ones.
Can you cover how polearms were used in formation. I mean I can see how spears used in formation such as a phalanx since they're primarily a thrusting weapon. But I image polearms need some room to swing if they're used for chopping. How did they coordinated their attacks?
You just don't draw the head of the weapon to your back and sides very often is all, can still stab in in a number of ways, draw cut, pull using spikes or do swings from above, really though most polearms are 90% thrusting weapons in formations. Things like poleaxes though carried by knights that you might want to need a little room for are weapons for professional men at arms and knights, so they'll know how to and know to have a looser formation and provide more space for each other.
@Karol Jeske or you can always do a downward cut to the head or torso, you don't need much space for that. And you can always go for their legs, hook em', stab em', cut em'.
@@GeneralAdvance I recon that the "poleaxe family" weapons were also handled in such way that you wouldn't swing in the full length of it - rather, like a double bladed oar, which would conserve some room.
Like people have said, I believe most of the polearms vere used as a thrusting and hooking weapon, and hooking was very effective, when you had a staby bro beside you. I think chopping was mostly an anti-armor action, cause thrusting and draw-cuts worked perfect for unarmored.
While we know that there were laws requiring men to practice archery once a week, could we assume that it also included pole and other weapons that their lord might have a supply of, before going off to the pub? these were after all, farmers accustomed to working with long, sharp, pointy things. From the Rebellion of 1088 onward what most Englishmen would face was enemy territory the next Hundred, Parish or such over in some sort of Civil War. Also, besides skirmish and guerrilla warfare, much of it was siege warfare rather than some great battlefield.
The Spanish did try and use Rodeleros (sword and shield armed soldiers) in the early 1500's as a deliberate copy of the Roman Legions to try and break enemy pike formations. (The Spanish didn't realize that Romans used their swords only after they'd "disarrayed" the enemy with a volley or two of javelins). The Rodeleros did have some success in one battle against a pike block that was already partially broken by cannon fire but were never able to repeat this success and were removed from the Spanish order of battle by the 1530's. A lot of these soldiers would go on to serve with the Conquistadors in the conquest of the Aztecs who didn't have the disciplined polearm formations they had in Europe. As for swords in general I can imagine they would have been more useful than polearms in attacking a walled city or castle than in an open field battle or when the armies were raiding civilian farms and small villages to supply themselves as they moved through the countryside.
Subjects like this is why I think there should be more crossover and co-operation between hema and buhurt (BOTN, IMCF, etc.) guys. I'd be really fascinated to see Matt try out buhurt, just to build bridges. :)
in modern times it's kinda the same, the sword is like competitive shooting with guns, you need ALOT of training, learning and consistency which can take years. But in the military it's more if you can shoot in that general area you are good enough and can serve in a conflicted area everywhere from 3 month to 12 months of training.
Well Matt actually cleared up some things for me here and in previous polearm vids. I'm not into HEMA as a practise, but it definitely helped me to understand some medieval features that were a total mystery to me for quite a bit. When I was researching Slavic early medieval warfare it seemed they were always portrayed as carrying no armor and a javelin (or two) against Byzantine army for example. So I was like wtf no swords? But they were in general treated as a dangerous enemy in these sources, so it kinda bugged me. And this continued, javelins or spears were widespread through all Middle Ages. There are descriptions of Pomeranians (north-western Slavs) thrusting Danes' feet with their spears when they were crossing the wooden bridge above them. Well anyway, archaeologically when you pull the stats from the Middle Ages polearms (spearheads specifically) are like 60-70% of all melee weapons found in this territory. Well I trained a lot with a stick when I was younger and it's extremely effective when used by a skilled weapon, I can only imagine what a skilled spearman could do back then. He was definitely able to keep a distance against a sword wielding armoured enemy and probably slowly bleed him to death. I imagine a grappling on a ground would do too if you could shorten the distance holding the spear just beneath the head and try to thrust into the biggest hole you could find. They were also used for cutting with a slightly more rounded heads, so if you had no armour on your legs for example you could quickly bring your opponent to the ground by attacking legs. It's a very interesting topic and I think Matt should elaborate on that a few times more.
I think pole arms are popular because of fact people usually want to engage the enemy as far out as possible along with what you said in video of course thanks for the knowledge
Another aspect of military fighting that is usually totally ignored in popular culture is the the role of teamwork and group fighting. If you watch most movies and TV shows, it is just a massive free-for-all. Some of the better descriptions of disciplined fighting is in the works of Bernard Cornwell. Better described in his books than in the TV series.
Its curious, im from spain, and this lands were in total warfare throught all the medieval period from the seventh to the fiftinth century, but i dont recall any pole or distance weapon from this period famous here. We have the late 15th century spanish rapier, espada ropera, and the tercios pike, but nothing before....Does any1 know of one?
@Harvey Dustin not very accurate, the iberic peninsula was mayorly muslim in the ,8th, 9th and 10th centuries but even then u had cristian and muslim powers there. Even if it had veen completly muslim what were those musim "weapons" u are talking about?
I love polearms! Medieval and Eastern alike! I do wish polearms got a little more respect in modern story-telling media, but I guess being wielded by an elite halberdier adversary is probably the closest kind of respect they'll ever have. Even though I still love swords too by default, I myself would like to try for a having a heroic warrior use a polearm instead for once.
I'd love any show which is about polearms! If you want ideas though, how about a description of how to classify polearms? Thanks for coming back in time again!
I noticed in the pic with the halberd there were a bunch of guys with clubs. A heavy enough club would ring their bell. Blunt force trauma is always useful.
Given that breaking the line, or formation, is generally what has won battles throughout history, not necessarily killing the most men while doing so, I’ve always wondered how much of polearm combat was a push of the polearm against the heavily armored opponent so as to knock him down, push him back, or otherwise disrupt the enemy’s line to create gaps to exploit and thus break the formation. Kinda of like Hoplite warfare.
As for suggestions on future topics I'd like to ask you to discuss Native American arms and armor. Such as the Iroquois "Skull Cracker" war clubs, or the Aztec warriors kit. They had their own unique war clubs, armor and shields, and of course the Atlatl they were famed for. The Aztec fielded an army of differently armed and trained warriors. From lightly armed foot soldiers, to heavily armed and armored knights. While utilizing stone age technology they fielded a sophisticated army armed and armored somewhat similar to European historical armies. Certainly more than just crudely armed bands of wild Indians as depicted by Hollywood.
Could the reason that that there were not many books on polearms be because they were directly trained in polearms so they didnt need books to learn the tactics and use of them?
I was thinking a bit along the same line. Some considered cavalry the queen of the battlefield in medieval times so maybe polearms were used as a counter-mesure
@@etiennesauve3386 To charge disciplined quality infantry armed with spears, pikes or poleweapons was extremely costly(suicidal) & stupid. Most horses would refuse to charge home against a "hedge"" of points. Cavalry would usually wait for archers, crossbows, handguns, their own melee infantry or artilliary to begin to break up the units moral & formation & then charge into any gaps formed. The classic medival knights charging home with lances couched was principly for dealing with other cavalry, infantry without pole weapons(swordsmen, archers etc), or already broken & fleeing troops.
@@2bingtim You are totally right but the thing is how frequent were those disciplined quality infantry present on medieval battlefield. If I recall correctly, the armies of the times were the collection of the retenues of the various lords present in the battle plus maybe a few mercenary bands but not all of them were like the swiss pikemen and I think their uniqueness is one of the reason they gather such fame. I also wonder to what extend medieval infantry was trained to fight in formations. I am under the impression that it only became generalized in the army of the renaissance. I would assume that most baron did not maintain such unit as they might be quite expensive. Dukes and counts could surely have the possibility to field such units but my guess is that they would still be few in number. As such, I wonder about the impact of those units on the larger battlefield as cavalry deterrent as they surely could have been avoided and isolated. Finally, If we look at the attittude of french knight at azincourt, it really looks like infantry was looked down upon by knights and would charge them without afterthought with the result that we know. Also what about the reach of the knights with their lances? did you need extra long pikes to be effective or was the regular spear long enough?
That would depend on what age you are referring to. One could say the Roman legionaries started out with spears, went to swords and then in the eastern roman empire went back to spears again.
They had spear men. But mostly the reason why they are famous for the short sword is they fought in close packed highly disciplined formations. They also rotated every few minutes the men on the front line.
One thing I've actually wondered for a while, and haven't found anyone really talking about (unless I just haven't found it yet) is what a typical knight's retinue generally consisted of. How many people, what kinds of people, what was their role in the retinue, etc?
Another factor to consider with bills is the fear factor. A sword may look scary but a seven or eight-foot pole with a can opener end (like a bill or halberd) is fear +2 or fear +3. B
You see the same thing with pistols in modern times. They're seldom used in battles, but a tremendous amount of media are devoted to them. Even in the Wild West, combat was usually with rifles or even shotguns rather than pistols.
Matt looks like he has elf ears in this video. He must be a half elf half man hybrid, thats why he is so skilled with weapons, he has some Elven bonus stats. I can see him as a new character fighting alongside the Witcher when season 2 comes out.
I have a friend who did a PhD on the Thirty Years' War, and does reenacting as a pikeman. He agrees. For a modern analogy, sword:pistol::pike:rifle. One is for self-defense, the other is for ruining the other guy's day from a distance. Light cavalry being the exception to the rule, I'd call 'em crazy for taking sabres and pistols to the melee, but the horse is a weapon in itself, either psychological (a horse running at a person is not conducive to a steady aim, let alone 600 horses, ) or physical (cav horses are trained dance upon the emey's body with their pointy hooves.)
Regarding pistol light cav- in most of their day, long guns were only firing a shot every minute or two. If swift horsemen swoop in with a few firelock pistols or revolver(s), they can each get several shots off without ever entering melee range and be out of effective range before the enemy has reloaded. Even with breech-loading cartridge rifles, although they certainly help close the gap, and cavalry were often the first to get them or lever-action rifles anyway. Even ground troops in WW1 preferred pistols, grenades, knives... just about anything over their issued rifle due to the cramped fighting nature of trench warfare. Pistol cav basically disappeared as rifles began to catch up to their firepower.
Well you asked for a video idea and this talk about polearms reminded me of the peculiar Dutch one, the Goedendag. It is referenced quite extensively as being a weapon of the low countries, but I've seen it described as a flail type weapon, or a mace, or a club with points sticking out of the sides, or even just a club with a point on the top like a spear point. I'd be curious to know which it actually is, but it is also interesting to think about why there is so little consensus about this weapon.
if you are looking for video suggestions, i'm repeating mine: Movie fight: 1973 Three Musketeers with Michael York; the fight in the monastery. Also - Born for the Saber - recent Polish docudrama (available on Vimeo worldwide) - i'd love to hear your thoughts on both of these.
In a modern context, it is much easier to store and display and transport swords, so I'm not surprised they are more prevalent. Someone living in a flat can have a sword and practice HEMA. They'll struggle to have a halberd and a pike is right out.
I would say look to the landsknechts as the final form of medieval/renaissance warfare massed blocks of aggressive pikes flanked by troops using shorter polearms often halberds and backed by crossbows or guns and you have about as nasty of a force as you can ask fore right up until mass produced muskets with bayonets replaced them
The argument I've heard that I've liked is that battles were pretty rare, and things like skirmishes were more common. So sure, when you know a battle is happening you're going to bring your armor and your polearm, but if you're just about town or you're foraging in the forest before a battle, and you happen to come upon some enemy soldiers, or some unruly peasants, you're going to want to know how to use your sidearm.
To bring it into a modern context... One thousand years from now, historians researching the late 20th and early 21st century may find a great deal of literature on the defensive use of the pistol. But they would be mistaken if they inferred from this that pistols were in any sense important weapons of war...
The pistol is basically the modern version of a sword, a sidearm. It's easy and convenient to carry, but for going to war you want a long gun.
I had the same thought! I don't know if late ME and early modern Fechtbücher are "military manuals" for war. Did those teachers (Lichtenauer, Thalhoffer, Marozzo etc) write their books more for knights/men-at-arms, or for Burghers in cities.
Exactly, useful for civilian self defense, but in a military context, only really carried as a side arm by officers and other troops with other primary roles, and usually only used if things have gone badly. An archer or halberdier forced to use their sword are as reduced in combat effectiveness as a driver or machine gunner forced to use their pistol.
@@davidlink3787 Pretty much, except that the pistol is used less often than the sword was and very few people in the military actually carry pistols. In some countries pistols are, or were, exclusive to officers and were badge of rank more than anything.
Original artifact glock will be worth times more than an artifact AK, and the latter will have reconstructed wooden parts of incorrect size and assumed to be a stationary defensive weapon :D
Weeb: Katana.
Western brat: Long sword.
Man of culture: Polearms.
Man of savage nature: Club
@@Hubert_Cumberdale_ Man of Refined Savagery: Mace
Context: Matt
@@notsoprogaming9789
Lloyd: Spandau
I still disagree. If it was true, halberdiers and pikemen would not carry swords as secondary weapon - why, your polearm is everything you will ever need? Observe the paintings of landsknechts, best soldiers of their time - their halberdiers, or their doppelsoldners with those threatening flamberges, all of them are carrying katzbalgers - short, cutting swords that did not even have a thrusting point. Why? Because there are situations, especially in tight battles where you have no space for elaborate technical kung fu, and you need a short weapon, not long. Or Romans - if polearms were so superior, why did not they fight with spears, and instead prefered the gladius?
Sword had the highest skill ceiling, was the most technical and versatile of weapons, so that's why the treatises and manuals focused on them. I disagree that it was "a gentry's leisure time pleasure", soldiers risking their lives were always very practical, and preferred simple stuff that worked. If the focus was on sword, that means sword was important.
On the other hand, there is a saying in Czech "začínat od píky - 'to start with the pike'" that means starting at the very bottom, lowest rung of some hierarchy. That's because pikemen (in 30 years war or later, presumably) were the most basic troops that received very little training. The common sense was to arm village militia and levies with pikes - expensive swords would be wasted on them. As a pikeman, you just need to know 1) how to stand straight in a line 2) how to hold the pike properly, or how to rest the other end against ground 3) how to not sht in your pants and run away. That was all. You fought in a formation, you advanced on command, you retreated on command. If things went south, you just died to any other type of troop in the field. That's why there is no "Treatise on the noble art of pike - how to stick while avoiding being stuck in return" - or if there is, it was not a common topic. Halberd is a different beast, there is some kungfu to be done with halberds or similar type of shorter, cutting polearms, but pikes and spears are simple weapons.
All of them bow to the sword, however - the king of the cold steel weapons.
"I'm not always sitting in a helmet"
You do. Just admit it.
dammit Bill, stop messing about !
That's his masturbation helmet.
He always sits with his helmet but he only takes it out on special occasion
Don't be like that. It's excellent exercise for his neck muscles!
Matt is secretly Lord Buckethead.
"While you were mastering the blade, I was mastering the blade ON A STICK!"
Ha, HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
While you were sturdy how to master the blade on the stick, I was MASTERING THE EXTRA LONGER STICK WITH A LARGER ON IT
I too enjoy classic Jeff Dunham
And all proud Lancasterians were learning the ancient martial art of ekky thump.
10,000 years into the future: "It is common misconception that people used handguns as often as the ancient John Wick files would suggest... According to the Marvel manuscripts, many people didn't need these types of weapons as they had super powers. We are unsure how they did this...."
@@AKRex "... but the themes were"
Isn't this kind of what we're doing with revolvers in the Old West already?
The wars of the roses. Where people in rose shaped armor would yell violent love poems at each other to creep the enemy away. If that didn’t work. Less effective things were used. Like sword tossing.
@@Morachnyion holy crap, that would actually terrify me. just dont toss me !
If I do. I won’t tell the elf.
"Polearms Dominated The Medieval Battlefield - Why?" Because of the nefarious influence of Big Polearm.
You joke, but Big Sword is effectively responsible for the existence of the messers.
Why polearms dominated the medieval battlefield? Simple answer: long shaft and good penetration ...
Matt Easton is in the scabbard of Big Spadroon
Long weapon good!
Make Polearms great again!
In our group we can fight with swords at a high intensity, polearms we need to go much much slower because they are sooooo dangerous.
I have never seen anyone actually fight with a pole arm. Any source or information that you could point me to would be very much appreciated 👍
@lawsonbromley4208 Check out dequitem! He does hella polearm fighting
I'm glad that you mentioned the "up-armouring" of other battlefield units. Whenever I see the tired "English longbowman versus knight" debates pop up people seriously underestimate how heavily armoured the archers were (especially around the Agincourt period). It's almost as if a well-paid professional soldier bought equipment that would keep him alive.
It's easier to apply video game logic and assume archers were the squishy DPS class
Almost? Most certainly they were. Not all of them of course and I'm sure the ratio of conscripts to pros changed with fortunes and the ebb and flow of power. Think how long it took for a Longbowman to train; they were specialists. Study of skeletons shows the affect of pulling very heavy bows in the attachment points of the tendons affecting the growth of the bones. Pole arms could be taught to the farmer who could then just go back to being a farmer until war season again.
You can certainly have some heavy defences if you don't need to move around that much. Like those steel hats sine crossbowmen had,quite heavy and a classic ranged infantry helmets
Armour was quite likely sourced from defeated enemies as well I would say. After a long and successful campaign a soldier would have had a lot more and better kit than he started with.
Some liveried or mercenary longbowmen were indeed well armored. But the majority were not.
The Sire de St Remy, a participant on the English side at the Battle of Agincourt, describes the English archers on that occasion as:
"for the most part without armour except their pourpoints; their stockings rolled down to the knees, and having hatchets (probably mauls) and battle-axes hanging at their waists, or long swords, some barefooted and bareheaded, others with huvettes or capelinas (helmets) of cuir-bouilli, and others of osier, strengthened with a cross-band of iron"
Dominic Mancini, an Italian cleric who visited England in 1482, wrote this:
“Their bows and arrows are thicker and longer than those used by other nations just as their arms are stronger than other peoples’, for they seem to have hands and arms of iron. As a result their bows have a long range as our crossbows. Almost every man has a helmet and carries an iron shield and a sword which is as long as our sword; but heavy and thick as well. Only the wealthy wear metal armour; ordinary soldiers prefer comfortable tunics (stuffed with tow) which reach down to their thigh. They say that the softer they are the better they withstand blows; besides which in summer they are lighter and in winter more useful than iron.”
So, basically, if your enemy is inside of a tin can, you hit him with a tin can opener.
allluckyseven hehe what?
Or a Goededag,...basically a club with a steel nasty bit on the end.
ThatDutchguy Which is also a can opener LOL
@@WastelandSeven Indeed,...or a concussion simulator xD.
That tickled
In German language there is the word "Spießbürger" what is translated into "polearm citizen". In the 10th century, the Emperor of the "holy roman reich of german nation" Heinrich I. built a lot of castles, in german a castle is a "Burg", from what the word "Bürger", citizen, is comming from. Not to be confused with the word "Burgmannen", what describes the fighting soldiers and knights of the Burg.
Those Bürger, beeing privileged as well (Stadtluft macht frei, "city air makes you a free man") had to be able to fight with the "Spieß" (the pike), a up to 6m (20 feet) stick with or without an iron point. Everybody who was not allowed to carry a two bladed sword had to fight with the Spieß as primary weapon. You often see pictures of medieval battle scenes, where you see a massive number of soldiers carrying long polearms.
The expression "Spießbürger" was changed to a negative term, meaning somebody who is denying everything new, even better inventions, thinking backwards, as Spießbürger demanded to keep to their pole weapons, when firearms have been in use for some time, outperforming sticks, making them obsolete. Linguists see this change in the 17th century.
Today the short form of the word, Spießer, is still in use, naming someone who is backwards thinking, small minded.
Also the phrase "to learn something from the pike on" (meaning "learn something from the button up")
This obsession with swords i believe was covered by shadiversity on his videos a time ago, we tend to always associate heroes and medieval things with swords so often that sometimes it can change drastically the way we imagine history to be.
Its the same thing of the "old west pistols", it became an icon, or ideed rifles in the modern day, they are important, but great part of war is done by other weapons, such as cannons, tanks, aircraft, ships, machine guns, missiles, etc.
I think swords and pistols are just more relatable, so the stories and discourse and writing comes up in abundance for them. The common man is much more likely to have some experience with/need of a small weapon or sidearm than an ACTUAL big ol' weapon of war.
It also just looks better on movie posters etc, in a visual-presentation sort of way. A pistol makes a cool accessory for the actor, but a big gun will instead dominate the scene and the presentation.
The sword was fetishized because other tools were available to the commoners and had other non-war usage. Also keep in mind armor diminished the importance of swords.. Oh for personal defense a sword is great, if a brigand happens upon you on a lonely road etc. BUt in war, there are entirely different logistics and mechanisms at work. A battle is not a bunch of one on one duels to the death. IT's about momentum.
@ That's neat, thanks for sharing the Korean angle.
I think the hero image is more associated with the "hard to use weapons" or the ones that offers more risk or even things as close as possible to unarmed fights. Thats why the fight between the protagonist vs vilain its fought pretty much in melee range even in movies about modern times.
People don't usually like fights where one does shot others at distance while taking cover (its only acceptable for killing the vilain unworthly "minions"). Fighting at distance may make you look weak or coward. Its human primitive nature that matters more in the end.
@@RyuFireheart sure thing, everything to be more appealing to the public.
I for one would like a movie where they fight with guns the way its supposed to be, with covers and tatics, but i dont see it happening in the near future, at the moment what i like to watch are the real footage of soldiers with helmet cams.
I would love a video focusing on cut-and-thrust polearms. How they were used, either by themselves or in formation, the different types and their pros and cons to one another, etc. Thanks!
Please tag me here if you find a good video on this
Yes please
"Polearms": For when you want to stab that guy, "Over there".
or a flamethrower
I completely agree that polearms dont get the love they deserve. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
Hope you guys are getting enough sleep with the new baby, I know I didn't until mine turned 2.
Love this channel ,Cheers!
There's a general pattern that holds across much of Europe and Asia throughout antiquity: If a weapon had no practical application outside of a martial context, it tended to have high value as a status symbol. Swords, maces and war hammers fall into this category. They were the sort of weapons noblemen like to hold when having their portraits painted. Lower down the prestige scale were weapons derived from hunting weapons, like spears and bows. These weapons didn't clearly denote high socio-economic status, but they did have some association with wealth surplus lifestyles even if people of lesser means also used them. At the bottom of the prestige pile were weapons that either were, or were derived from, agricultural implements and other tools used by the peasant classes in their day-to-day toils. Many pole arms fall into this category. If you carried one of these into battle, in most cultures, that marked you out as a peasant. Peasants in any age aren't sexy and their accomplishments aren't worth writing about (at least in the opinion of the literate wealthy class).
A very underappreciated pole weapon is the berdiche, it seems it found its way in many armies since it's easy to make and durable. I think they are a weapon that deserve its own video
Might swords be preferable in siege assaults? ...or urban warfare, if you have to go into buildings. I do think swords are grossly over-represented, but I'm sure I heard that the majority of medieval battles were sieges.
Also maces and warhammers too, If we are talking about anti-armour, they should get a mention.
most sieges were only camping around a city or a castle waiting for the besiegeds to run out of food, siege assaults weren't much common beacuse the high casualties they demanded
I think the real point is that people didn't learn a preferred fighting style like we do in RPGs. They learned warfare, which included proficiency in a lot of different equipment needed for many different scenarios one might encounter in war. There were specialties, but they would be much broader, such as archer (which would need to know how to use hand weapons), footman and cavalry.
you are right in everthing you said except that sieges werent assaults, as represented in movies.. but just alot of logistics and waiting. But when it came to assaults, yeah short weapons and shields rulled ...
also i would add that bows and crossbows were also very effective in your scenario...
@@fabiovarra3698 All-out assaults were relatively rare. Skirmishes and sallies during sieges were not.
Fascinating video. I have been interesting polearms since I played D&D in the 1970s. Swords dominate in fantasy movies and role playing games, but this video sheds light on the reality of things.
Need a Mabinogion sequel where a magic halberd pulled out of a magic tree tells us which Welshman is meant to be the king of the EU.
"Brexalibur?"
@@fuferito I don't want the generations to come thinking Boris had the first thing to do with this.
@@bBlaF,
Not exactly the heroic profile, I'm guessing.
If Dark Souls 2 represented anything, it was because of the spin to win attacks!
In Dark Souls 1 spears were so OP that they had to nerf them for later games.
@@taekatanahu635 right though I have seen some spears be used effectively as long as they avoid being parried.
2:06 "you need to learn to use a sword unarmored regardless" My mom disagrees
Thank you again and again for spreading the truth and common sence among this sword-madness.
Favorite Lines from Shakespeare (for me) include -- "SHALL I STRIKE IT WITH MY PARTISAN?"
"DO, IF IT WILL NOT STAND!"
Hamlet act 1 scene 1
This video has got some BIG context energy!!! Particularly when you were talking about who fencing manuals were actually written for and you didnt even give us that juicy C-word, but was it dripping with context that is so often missed!
A lot of those medieval drawings make me feel a lot more competent about my own drawings :p
Also aren't pole weapons rarely used in HEMA because they're quite more dangerous than a sword, even when blunt?
It's literally impossible to make a safe steel polearm because they were that dangerous
You'd need to make them out of rubber which eliminates the accuracy of weight
Even not being a huge fan of painting, I request more of medieval art, please!
One plus of this is that I get to scoop up all my favorite polearms at quarter price of a sword of the same level of craftsmanship. The downside of course being that so few people are actually making them.
I look at the pole arm like a rifle and the sword like a pistol..Most soldiers hardly ever use a sword(or pistol) in combat, while in the civilian word is basically exclusively pistols(or swords) with hardly any rifle(polearm) use...But in either case it's still important to know how to use both very well to be well rounded. You are also not always in combat so a sword offers ease of carry while still being effective if need be.
I´m a great fan for a long time now, and the quality of the videos is ever increasing. Would like to watch something like "misconceptions about plate armor" like swords penetrating plates as they were made of paper. Things the movies make a lot of people belive. Keep doing a great job!
Absolutely fascinating. I love the fact that even today there is still a huge research opportunity for historians with respect to polearms. Let's hope this might be the start for more of them to do that.
Very enlightening & informative video. Putting names to different pole-arms whilst showing pictures and paintings of them and which countries used or favoured what polearm & how they were used in battle is highly educational. Thank you
The first thing that got me interested in how medieval and ancient weapon and armor systems actually functioned in a practical sense was reading SM stirling ember verse books. Can’t believe it took me so long to find this channel
It’s somewhat informative that you tell us how these pool alarms are used and were used in the battlefield but what would really be useful is to have you in full armor taking a poll warm and thrusting it against us wine cork us or maybe taking a pool alarm and denting the currass breast plate
You touched the major point lightly. Economics of war. Even if the sword was something from Warhammer 40K and goes through armor like a hot knofe through butter, with a fixed amount of money you can produce more polearms than swords. It's the same reason that AR-15 (or M16 in some regions), G3 and AK-47 are main infantry weapons, because they are cheaper than more specialised ones. And don't forget that at the time, a mercenary soldier paid for his own equipment.Although, my favorite weapon remains half a brick in a sock. It kills people, but leaves buildings standing :)
As someone who does foam combat and uses a polearm most of the time, it's great to see the poles geting some love :3
Beautiful. And swords have been pretty expensive as well, at least in the middle ages era. What sprang to my mind as equally popular, yet concerning spears: In 14th century Bamberg, Germany, townsfolk was equipped with a Crossbow and a small square-like shield (Tratschin) to protect their city. They then could throw in their own knives or axes or whatever. Which makes more sense than the pikes and spears many guards do carry on battlements in movies, does it :)
On railway maintenence when started in the 80's, with BR , one of the items used was a slasher, an agricultural billhook. Strimmers and chainsaw were not as readily available, requiring training and by the 90's certification, and regulation including the PPE. For line side management ,the slasher , cut and drag was still used. I Often see this Drag and unbalance element as being the key to its wide use. Since given the heavy armoured opponents were considered high value hostages. Maybe not so much at Flodden, when the Chivalry practice seems to have changed, possibly War of the Roses and Anglo-French codes of conduct in the later 15th Century. ? Pike lost at flodden ,yet was the most adopted weapon into the 17th Century. Lindybeige spear test was very good. Maybe we should get back to growing and tending hedge rows, with a slasher and relearn those skills . IMO. Thanks for upload.
8:08 "On this channel I've spoken sooo much about…"
CONTEXT!
"…the reach factor."
Oh :(
I'm german and it took a while until I understood that you said ,,Bloßfechten". 😂😂😂
Haha, da bist du nicht alleine :D
I’m german!
easy to make, easy to repair, reach advantage, possibly even a cheap missile weapon. hell in 2020 a pointy stick can still do a lot of dmg
Sharpen pointy stick will always do lots of damage regardless of time.
Better leverage and power. Not necessarily easy to repair though. If you crack your halberd shaft, you can't just get a blacksmith to hammer it into shape again.
that's the essence of war: take a sharp stick and make a lot of holes ;)
@@TheChiconspiracy You just swap out the shaft. That's where "cheap" comes in
Can you do a video about the lance types carried in the medieval era ?
The amount of information in treatises is indicative of how swords were not a battlefield weapon, and how these were for non-soldiers. Soldiers don't learn how to fight from reading books. They learn from their military training. Also, they don't learn to fight one on one. They learn to fight as a unit against units.
Big assortment at New York Metropolitan. And to support your thesis of the focus on swords, while visiting, my friend could not believe halbardes were actually used in battle. He's was like "I'm sure the were only used in parades or as piece of art."
"You are not bringing a full polearm into the living room for a video!"
Question for you, Matt. We often hear about how shields largely fell out of favor for knights once plate armor became more common, but no one ever says the two were NEVER used to together, which implies there may have been the odd case of a knight intentionally using both full plate armor and a shield. In regards to actual combat, are there any reasons a knight might have opted to still use a shield despite also wearing full plate? Do we have any historical examples of someone doing this?
This is very true for the viking age too. I have rarely seen a grave find that does not contain at least one spear point.
As a follow on it could be worth talking about how for example early medieval warfare, which is what we kind of imagine in our heads from say the 12th century roughly, developed through the high medieval period of the 14th century using the weapons you've described but then talk about how it evolved into the late medieval/very early modern warfare which is largely dominated by the pike block and german and Swiss mercenaries. As a British person we don't really see how the development went in school as the English used the longbow and Bill for so long but the evolution on the continent and things like the Italian wars are fascinating and kind of relevant to what you spoke of today.
If I ever make fiction, there will be 2 important rules. 1. The revolver guy always gets it in the end. Very important. 2. The spear user (not any other polearm, just spears) always gets it in the end. Very important. Because my own pure fan biases must be reflected in my work with a silly beef, like the blue car in Mr. Bean. Good info, as always.
I do like that sword and shield is a good counter to spear and shield in the Medieval context (unless I remember you wrong, or misunderstand something based on what I see in sparring), the Roman style beat the Greek style in the end, and apparently greatsword is a good counter to pike. Sword wins! Very important lol. I also like that greatswords are a common weapon for bodyguards, a context of defending others and oneself is always especially near and dear to my heart. I wish we only understood more about all that.
And yes, I understand polearms and spears are very effective weapons and tear things up in plenty of ways. The way Matt said that he does saber and it's a lot of 1 vs. 1, and there is something to the idea that a rapier is better for 1 vs. 1 than a saber. But rather than swtich to a rapier, he's more interested in learning to use the saber to beat the rapier. Because there is more than 1 vs. 1. That's how I think of swords vs. spears, AK vs. AR, and many other things.
I remember the first time I saw a bill. I thought, 'It's a can-opener for humans..." One of my very favorite units in Medieval Total War 2
"Hey folks, medieval RoboCop Easton, here!" ^^
~
Jokes aside, how muche trained were those commoner pole-arms equipped medieval troops you talk about here? 🤔
Philip Zahn Probably depended on their background.
I’m sure a fairly wealthy-ish man at arms would have very good training. Since that is their job after all I would imagine.
Swiss regulars very much, Irish farmers not so much
It will depend on who we talk about.
Man at arms will have fairly good training. I gess poeple with halberds poleaxe or polehammer would have training. But were i would doubt on any training is for pique man, lances vouges, and bardiches.
Commoner "Arrow fodder", untrained and thrown at the enemy.
There were Trayned Bands of volunteers in most larger towns (drawing their strength from the town and surrounding rural parishes) and they would get a couple of days a month, to train together.
Matt, you mentioned spears as part of polearms, by that view polearms have dominated EVERY battlefield upto the gunpowdwer era.
If one includes musket & bayonet as a pole weapon it extends well into the gunpowder era. (Until the use of bayonets on the battlefield became a rare thing. Post WWI for sure.)
Tinman 18 Yes.
Yes indeed; it's not until the ring bayonet that pikes finally go away (and the Swedes kept them into the 1720s).
Ironically most of western heavy cavalry neglected the lances in favor of pistols and sabers, with only a few units in each army dedicated to lances. The only exception is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Mike Rodrigues Although not heavy cavalry, the likes of Stratioti mercenaries also generally replaces their light lances/spears with pistols and rifles since the 16th century. (while keeping swords)
Ming cavalry in general also tended to favor armored horse archers with shorter cutting weapons (as opposed to being lancers). Heavier ones often wielded glaives, lighter ones also functioned as dragoons primarily armed with sabres
Quite true. Spears are a simpler form of polearm. Polearms indeed dominated every battlefield across all cultures until around the time of revolvers and machine guns, when pike blocks were no longer workable.
I can see why the bill hook was so loved as a pole arm. You've got a thrusting point, a cutting edge, and the ability to hook your enemy off his horse or off his feet. You've pretty much got most of your major possible techniques covered.
We also tend to focus on individual weapon skills. There's a lot of lost knowledge about tactics and techniques like for example how to use a pike block and how to fight in one.
Something to consider.
Perhaps part of the reason the treatises are so heavily focused on the sword rather than the polearm is because the sword is so much harder to use effectively on the battlefield. Thus, much of the focus becomes on using it in the duel or for personal defense.
In the meantime, if you are in a unit of spearmen, halberdiers, billmen, etc... well, the basic use of the weapon en masse is pretty simple. The pointy end goes in the other guy!
I'm looking behind Matt's left shoulder and thinking of casually opening the door of one of his wardrobes and and being smashed by an avalanche of sharp swords, halberds, maces... that's a dangerous home!
What fascinates me most is that for a very long time the main weapon was the humble spear and while we had some interesting variants pop up now and then in the Middle Ages we see this profusion of polearms and this is to do with the fact that both knights and common soldiers began to wear more armour to the point that they could leave the shield behind and use their weapons two handed and do more than stabbing.
I was reading an account from the English Civil War about how Pikemen resisted wearing their regulation hanger swords and gloves/gauntlets, presumably because the soldiers thought the gloves and sword got in the way of them doing their job.
I know of one book on polearms in English, "HAFTED WEAPONS IN MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE EUROPE The Evolution of European Staff Weapons between 1200 and 1650
" by John Waldman. It covers most of the main ones.
10:19 All that armor and sometimes a beverage as well, awesome
Could you do a video on the history of dragoons/mounted infantry please?
Can you cover how polearms were used in formation. I mean I can see how spears used in formation such as a phalanx since they're primarily a thrusting weapon. But I image polearms need some room to swing if they're used for chopping. How did they coordinated their attacks?
You just don't draw the head of the weapon to your back and sides very often is all, can still stab in in a number of ways, draw cut, pull using spikes or do swings from above, really though most polearms are 90% thrusting weapons in formations.
Things like poleaxes though carried by knights that you might want to need a little room for are weapons for professional men at arms and knights, so they'll know how to and know to have a looser formation and provide more space for each other.
@Karol Jeske or you can always do a downward cut to the head or torso, you don't need much space for that. And you can always go for their legs, hook em', stab em', cut em'.
@@GeneralAdvance I recon that the "poleaxe family" weapons were also handled in such way that you wouldn't swing in the full length of it - rather, like a double bladed oar, which would conserve some room.
Like people have said, I believe most of the polearms vere used as a thrusting and hooking weapon, and hooking was very effective, when you had a staby bro beside you. I think chopping was mostly an anti-armor action, cause thrusting and draw-cuts worked perfect for unarmored.
@@jordansblabbering6303 mash'em, boil'em, stick'em in a stew...
While we know that there were laws requiring men to practice archery once a week, could we assume that it also included pole and other weapons that their lord might have a supply of, before going off to the pub? these were after all, farmers accustomed to working with long, sharp, pointy things. From the Rebellion of 1088 onward what most Englishmen would face was enemy territory the next Hundred, Parish or such over in some sort of Civil War. Also, besides skirmish and guerrilla warfare, much of it was siege warfare rather than some great battlefield.
The Spanish did try and use Rodeleros (sword and shield armed soldiers) in the early 1500's as a deliberate copy of the Roman Legions to try and break enemy pike formations. (The Spanish didn't realize that Romans used their swords only after they'd "disarrayed" the enemy with a volley or two of javelins). The Rodeleros did have some success in one battle against a pike block that was already partially broken by cannon fire but were never able to repeat this success and were removed from the Spanish order of battle by the 1530's. A lot of these soldiers would go on to serve with the Conquistadors in the conquest of the Aztecs who didn't have the disciplined polearm formations they had in Europe.
As for swords in general I can imagine they would have been more useful than polearms in attacking a walled city or castle than in an open field battle or when the armies were raiding civilian farms and small villages to supply themselves as they moved through the countryside.
Once I learned about pole-arms I got hooked.
oiSnowy hehe nice
Its a nice idea but the final Bill is always painful.
voice of raisin boi
Subjects like this is why I think there should be more crossover and co-operation between hema and buhurt (BOTN, IMCF, etc.) guys.
I'd be really fascinated to see Matt try out buhurt, just to build bridges. :)
These videos get better and better
in modern times it's kinda the same, the sword is like competitive shooting with guns, you need ALOT of training, learning and consistency which can take years.
But in the military it's more if you can shoot in that general area you are good enough and can serve in a conflicted area everywhere from 3 month to 12 months of training.
Well Matt actually cleared up some things for me here and in previous polearm vids. I'm not into HEMA as a practise, but it definitely helped me to understand some medieval features that were a total mystery to me for quite a bit. When I was researching Slavic early medieval warfare it seemed they were always portrayed as carrying no armor and a javelin (or two) against Byzantine army for example. So I was like wtf no swords? But they were in general treated as a dangerous enemy in these sources, so it kinda bugged me. And this continued, javelins or spears were widespread through all Middle Ages. There are descriptions of Pomeranians (north-western Slavs) thrusting Danes' feet with their spears when they were crossing the wooden bridge above them. Well anyway, archaeologically when you pull the stats from the Middle Ages polearms (spearheads specifically) are like 60-70% of all melee weapons found in this territory. Well I trained a lot with a stick when I was younger and it's extremely effective when used by a skilled weapon, I can only imagine what a skilled spearman could do back then. He was definitely able to keep a distance against a sword wielding armoured enemy and probably slowly bleed him to death. I imagine a grappling on a ground would do too if you could shorten the distance holding the spear just beneath the head and try to thrust into the biggest hole you could find. They were also used for cutting with a slightly more rounded heads, so if you had no armour on your legs for example you could quickly bring your opponent to the ground by attacking legs. It's a very interesting topic and I think Matt should elaborate on that a few times more.
Very chill and informative video. Thanks Matt!
I think pole arms are popular because of fact people usually want to engage the enemy as far out as possible along with what you said in video of course thanks for the knowledge
Really nasty weapons in this period. I've often thought that Tarantino should do a movie based around medieval warfare.
I'm now picturing a small village hall with a full HEMA class trying to spar with pikes.......
Not really a question I asked myself often. AoE2 taught me well.
Another aspect of military fighting that is usually totally ignored in popular culture is the the role of teamwork and group fighting. If you watch most movies and TV shows, it is just a massive free-for-all.
Some of the better descriptions of disciplined fighting is in the works of Bernard Cornwell. Better described in his books than in the TV series.
Its curious, im from spain, and this lands were in total warfare throught all the medieval period from the seventh to the fiftinth century, but i dont recall any pole or distance weapon from this period famous here. We have the late 15th century spanish rapier, espada ropera, and the tercios pike, but nothing before....Does any1 know of one?
@Harvey Dustin not very accurate, the iberic peninsula was mayorly muslim in the ,8th, 9th and 10th centuries but even then u had cristian and muslim powers there. Even if it had veen completly muslim what were those musim "weapons" u are talking about?
I love polearms! Medieval and Eastern alike!
I do wish polearms got a little more respect in modern story-telling media, but I guess being wielded by an elite halberdier adversary is probably the closest kind of respect they'll ever have. Even though I still love swords too by default, I myself would like to try for a having a heroic warrior use a polearm instead for once.
I'd love any show which is about polearms! If you want ideas though, how about a description of how to classify polearms? Thanks for coming back in time again!
I noticed in the pic with the halberd there were a bunch of guys with clubs. A heavy enough club would ring their bell. Blunt force trauma is always useful.
Hei Matt, I'm Italian, can you give me the title of the book you mention in the video?
Get off the comments
@@stolzerpfalzer768 It's "out of" not "off." Jetzt verpiss dich
Galaxy 7 Nails no it’s not. Learn some English or why did you reply in german? We don’t talk german here!!!
@@stolzerpfalzer768 Sorry? I dont understand.
Given that breaking the line, or formation, is generally what has won battles throughout history, not necessarily killing the most men while doing so, I’ve always wondered how much of polearm combat was a push of the polearm against the heavily armored opponent so as to knock him down, push him back, or otherwise disrupt the enemy’s line to create gaps to exploit and thus break the formation. Kinda of like Hoplite warfare.
This could not have come at a better time. Thank you Matt Easton Schola Gladiatoria.
From uruk to the introduction of gunpowder, people relied on the club and stick to insure victory
As for suggestions on future topics I'd like to ask you to discuss Native American arms and armor. Such as the Iroquois "Skull Cracker" war clubs, or the Aztec warriors kit. They had their own unique war clubs, armor and shields, and of course the Atlatl they were famed for. The Aztec fielded an army of differently armed and trained warriors. From lightly armed foot soldiers, to heavily armed and armored knights. While utilizing stone age technology they fielded a sophisticated army armed and armored somewhat similar to European historical armies. Certainly more than just crudely armed bands of wild Indians as depicted by Hollywood.
Huzzah, a polearm video! I would like more of these, please...your polearm videos are my favourites.
Anyone else think "Ohh antique pole arms are cheap to buy, I might get one."?
Could the reason that that there were not many books on polearms be because they were directly trained in polearms so they didnt need books to learn the tactics and use of them?
Please talk more about Medieval cavalry role in the battlefield. How would they be able to charge against a formation of pole weapons??
I was thinking a bit along the same line. Some considered cavalry the queen of the battlefield in medieval times so maybe polearms were used as a counter-mesure
@@etiennesauve3386 To charge disciplined quality infantry armed with spears, pikes or poleweapons was extremely costly(suicidal) & stupid. Most horses would refuse to charge home against a "hedge"" of points. Cavalry would usually wait for archers, crossbows, handguns, their own melee infantry or artilliary to begin to break up the units moral & formation & then charge into any gaps formed. The classic medival knights charging home with lances couched was principly for dealing with other cavalry, infantry without pole weapons(swordsmen, archers etc), or already broken & fleeing troops.
@@2bingtim You are totally right but the thing is how frequent were those disciplined quality infantry present on medieval battlefield. If I recall correctly, the armies of the times were the collection of the retenues of the various lords present in the battle plus maybe a few mercenary bands but not all of them were like the swiss pikemen and I think their uniqueness is one of the reason they gather such fame. I also wonder to what extend medieval infantry was trained to fight in formations. I am under the impression that it only became generalized in the army of the renaissance.
I would assume that most baron did not maintain such unit as they might be quite expensive. Dukes and counts could surely have the possibility to field such units but my guess is that they would still be few in number. As such, I wonder about the impact of those units on the larger battlefield as cavalry deterrent as they surely could have been avoided and isolated.
Finally, If we look at the attittude of french knight at azincourt, it really looks like infantry was looked down upon by knights and would charge them without afterthought with the result that we know. Also what about the reach of the knights with their lances? did you need extra long pikes to be effective or was the regular spear long enough?
This raises the question of why the roman legionaires werent fighting with spears
I googled it ...the did
That would depend on what age you are referring to.
One could say the Roman legionaries started out with spears, went to swords and then in the eastern roman empire went back to spears again.
Even the legionaires would fight with their spears sometimes not only throw them..according "pillum" wiki page
They had spear men. But mostly the reason why they are famous for the short sword is they fought in close packed highly disciplined formations. They also rotated every few minutes the men on the front line.
@@LazyLifeIFreak Actually they started with spears and swords, went to pilum and swords, and then went to throwing darts, spears and swords.
One thing I've actually wondered for a while, and haven't found anyone really talking about (unless I just haven't found it yet) is what a typical knight's retinue generally consisted of. How many people, what kinds of people, what was their role in the retinue, etc?
Another factor to consider with bills is the fear factor.
A sword may look scary but a seven or eight-foot pole with a can opener end (like a bill or halberd) is fear +2 or fear +3.
B
You see the same thing with pistols in modern times. They're seldom used in battles, but a tremendous amount of media are devoted to them. Even in the Wild West, combat was usually with rifles or even shotguns rather than pistols.
Matt looks like he has elf ears in this video. He must be a half elf half man hybrid, thats why he is so skilled with weapons, he has some Elven bonus stats. I can see him as a new character fighting alongside the Witcher when season 2 comes out.
I have a friend who did a PhD on the Thirty Years' War, and does reenacting as a pikeman. He agrees. For a modern analogy, sword:pistol::pike:rifle. One is for self-defense, the other is for ruining the other guy's day from a distance.
Light cavalry being the exception to the rule, I'd call 'em crazy for taking sabres and pistols to the melee, but the horse is a weapon in itself, either psychological (a horse running at a person is not conducive to a steady aim, let alone 600 horses, ) or physical (cav horses are trained dance upon the emey's body with their pointy hooves.)
Regarding pistol light cav- in most of their day, long guns were only firing a shot every minute or two. If swift horsemen swoop in with a few firelock pistols or revolver(s), they can each get several shots off without ever entering melee range and be out of effective range before the enemy has reloaded. Even with breech-loading cartridge rifles, although they certainly help close the gap, and cavalry were often the first to get them or lever-action rifles anyway. Even ground troops in WW1 preferred pistols, grenades, knives... just about anything over their issued rifle due to the cramped fighting nature of trench warfare. Pistol cav basically disappeared as rifles began to catch up to their firepower.
Well you asked for a video idea and this talk about polearms reminded me of the peculiar Dutch one, the Goedendag. It is referenced quite extensively as being a weapon of the low countries, but I've seen it described as a flail type weapon, or a mace, or a club with points sticking out of the sides, or even just a club with a point on the top like a spear point.
I'd be curious to know which it actually is, but it is also interesting to think about why there is so little consensus about this weapon.
That is a sweet stack of osprey books you have over your shoulder
if you are looking for video suggestions, i'm repeating mine: Movie fight: 1973 Three Musketeers with Michael York; the fight in the monastery.
Also - Born for the Saber - recent Polish docudrama (available on Vimeo worldwide) - i'd love to hear your thoughts on both of these.
In a modern context, it is much easier to store and display and transport swords, so I'm not surprised they are more prevalent.
Someone living in a flat can have a sword and practice HEMA. They'll struggle to have a halberd and a pike is right out.
I would say look to the landsknechts as the final form of medieval/renaissance warfare massed blocks of aggressive pikes flanked by troops using shorter polearms often halberds and backed by crossbows or guns and you have about as nasty of a force as you can ask fore right up until mass produced muskets with bayonets replaced them
polearms in combination with particular tactics, its never just a weapon type.
The argument I've heard that I've liked is that battles were pretty rare, and things like skirmishes were more common. So sure, when you know a battle is happening you're going to bring your armor and your polearm, but if you're just about town or you're foraging in the forest before a battle, and you happen to come upon some enemy soldiers, or some unruly peasants, you're going to want to know how to use your sidearm.
Need more polearms in videogames and dnd