The halberd, despite being delicious in all of it's utilty, is a jack-of-all trades.
Knower of all, master of **** all.
Knower of all, master of **** all.
The most versatile medieval melee weapon is the halberd
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Romans- Spear and javelin. Short sword as sidearm.Blaster395 said:
Vikings- again spear and javelin plus axe. Sword if wealthy. Plus they didnt supply armies with weapons at all, every man took what he could afford to own.
Yeah, i remember how my history teacher told about that.
Back at that time the cavalry was unbelievably powerful. And then came these, that raped all the cavalry dead. The halberd had great reach and pulled a person off a horse asap. And If you're wearing a load of armor, try getting up. Seriously, the armor was really, really heavy.
I think there was some sort of battle even, when for the first time, a bunch of footmen beat a bunch of heavily armored horsemen, using these weapons. But my memory might be shitty.
Back at that time the cavalry was unbelievably powerful. And then came these, that raped all the cavalry dead. The halberd had great reach and pulled a person off a horse asap. And If you're wearing a load of armor, try getting up. Seriously, the armor was really, really heavy.
I think there was some sort of battle even, when for the first time, a bunch of footmen beat a bunch of heavily armored horsemen, using these weapons. But my memory might be shitty.
Each medieval weapon had a specific purpose for a particular purpose, halberds were anti-cavalry if I remember correctly, but were bad to use in cramped conditions because they were very long. Soldiers usually carried 2 or 3 melee weapons, that is where the idea of a side-arm came from.
The type of armour also affected how well your weapon did, for example, chainmail stopped slashing weapons - large swords, but was bad against stabbing weapons - the Roman gladius, If a person was using a large, slow, slashing sword your best strategy would be using a quick, small stabbing sword to strike first, but small swords were suicide against a knight on horseback, or a polearm. Hence multiple weapons.
The type of armour also affected how well your weapon did, for example, chainmail stopped slashing weapons - large swords, but was bad against stabbing weapons - the Roman gladius, If a person was using a large, slow, slashing sword your best strategy would be using a quick, small stabbing sword to strike first, but small swords were suicide against a knight on horseback, or a polearm. Hence multiple weapons.
Mongol composite bow? Theres a reason why the mongols were unstopable. On horseback it was nothing less than yon olde drive by.
You might be thinking of the battle of Crecy, where the British Longbowmen were the first people ever to stop a full french cavalry charge. At that time the French cavalry was one of the most renowned in Europe for being general badasses, and it was a tremendous upheaval of power. But you are right that polearms were anti-cavalry weapons, and devastating at their job, but they made sub-standard anti-infantry weapons, and stopped you from fighting with a shield.Owlslayer said:
EDIT: Oops, someone posted a link to a battle in which French Cavalry get butchered by the Flemish about 50 years before Crecy (Battle of Golden Spurs). I read about Crecy a while ago, so maybe it was the first time a French Cavalry charge were beaten by archers, or the first time their actual charge was stopped in its tracks, and retreated. Either way I got schooled, but the sentiment is the same.
yeah, just think of all the killing you'll be able to do with your magnifying glass, nail file or corkscrewApocalypse Tank said:
No, i think it was some other battle, on a smaller scale. Though i know the battle you're talking about. I think they used heavier arrow-points so longbow+aim upwards+gravity= arrow straight trough heavy armor. Or some thing like that.Hero in a half shell said:
Assuming equal levels of armor on body and a 1 on 1 scenario.The halberd loses out against spears because it is more cumbersome. It loses out against swords, maces, flails, axes and other one-handed weapons because the off hand can be used exclusively for defense. It may be equal or better than a two-handed axe, because it's basically the same thing, only without the spear tip. It wins out against pikes, because pikes are more cumbersome. It wins against most cavalry because it's a polearm and does this better than other polearms because of the hook. So, uh, most versatile? No. Or, if we go by your method of counting, a rock is the most versatile thing because you can hit a man with any part of a rock and still cause damage.
Depends on the make and length, naturally (otherwise, the simple spear would be the more versatile choice), but you're more-or-less correct. It's a weapon that can function like a spear, poleax, club, and staff.
If they all came with their own detachable knives, they'd be the perfect melee weapon.
If they all came with their own detachable knives, they'd be the perfect melee weapon.
That's what the long, pointy end of a polearm is for, keeping a sword-wielder from getting close.green_dude said:
And when they do get close, depending on the halberd, it basically turns into a sword vs. staff battle.
You're thinking of a pike, which is technically a different weapon. Halberds were only about 5-6 feet long and would not be as effective against charging horsemen. Halberds were used more like two-handed axes, but with the added benefit of range, power, and a more versatile head.Hero in a half shell said:
It might be the Battle of the Golden Spurs. Flemish footmen with spears and clubs called goedendags defeated the French heavy cavalryOwlslayer said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
They're metal-reinforced staves with the capacity of axes, spears, and staves. They're effective formation, anti-cavalry, and personal defense weapons. Maybe you're thinking of the pike?DeadSp8s said:
Not really. "Swords" as a whole might be, but the only single sword that approaches halberd levels of versatility is probably the European bastard sword.
In versatility the halberd is unmatched.
Just some critical issues-
-In the heat of battle, youre not likely to make use of it beyond 'hit them with sharp end'
-If someone gets in close, youre screwed. Even if you push them with the staff you have arms length, they have arms length and the length of thier sword or axe.
-Halberds arent small weapons. Carrying them isnt going to be pleasnt and if its wieght is negligible then it would be too light to be effective.
-Again they arent small. If you carry a weapon thats large and cumbersome its increases your visibility, and your chance of bieng shot at instead.
Personally I think the flail is better. Chief advantages/disavdantages are as follows.
Advantages-
-In combat cavalry can be knocked off thier horse by sheer impact of thier own weapons. Flail counters this because no force can be transferred up its chain.
-The chain allows it to curve around and hit the more vulnerable back of the soldier. Back then, armor was biult for front defence only. They didnt want thier soldiers to survive when they diecided to run away.
-Fear factor, Spikey ball on a spikey chain. As compared to a shiny stick or a pole with a sharp end.
Disadvantages-
-Control. Many flail users are at risk of thier swing missing and coming back to hit them. Those who arent are wearing special heavy armor to counter it.
-The chain can be grabbed. Spikes were later added to the chain to counter this, but it comes with a further thing to come back and hit you. Literally.
-Storage. There really is no way to keep this in a sheathe and carrying it on the road isnt pleasnt when you keep hitting your leg with it.
Just some critical issues-
-In the heat of battle, youre not likely to make use of it beyond 'hit them with sharp end'
-If someone gets in close, youre screwed. Even if you push them with the staff you have arms length, they have arms length and the length of thier sword or axe.
-Halberds arent small weapons. Carrying them isnt going to be pleasnt and if its wieght is negligible then it would be too light to be effective.
-Again they arent small. If you carry a weapon thats large and cumbersome its increases your visibility, and your chance of bieng shot at instead.
Personally I think the flail is better. Chief advantages/disavdantages are as follows.
Advantages-
-In combat cavalry can be knocked off thier horse by sheer impact of thier own weapons. Flail counters this because no force can be transferred up its chain.
-The chain allows it to curve around and hit the more vulnerable back of the soldier. Back then, armor was biult for front defence only. They didnt want thier soldiers to survive when they diecided to run away.
-Fear factor, Spikey ball on a spikey chain. As compared to a shiny stick or a pole with a sharp end.
Disadvantages-
-Control. Many flail users are at risk of thier swing missing and coming back to hit them. Those who arent are wearing special heavy armor to counter it.
-The chain can be grabbed. Spikes were later added to the chain to counter this, but it comes with a further thing to come back and hit you. Literally.
-Storage. There really is no way to keep this in a sheathe and carrying it on the road isnt pleasnt when you keep hitting your leg with it.