gigastar said:
NeutralDrow said:
Can't really fault the other criticisms (except maybe the "visibility" part)
I shall elaborate.
This may be an exxagerated example but it can happen.
It's still not significant enough to count as a flaw for the weapon itself.
NeutralDrow said:
Arm's-length fighting removes most of the advantages of the halberd head (barring some fancy hooking from behind), but you're still with a staff...
A very heavy staff, but granted.
Also both of those videos you linked were for polearm to polearm combat.
No. They both
featured polearm to polearm combat. The techniques (especially those close-quarter grappling techniques) are applicable far beyond that.
Any idiot could deflect an incoming blow with a shield then go for the kill before the halberdier recovers
While we're in thought experiment mode, any idiot could dodge a sword stroke and stab him with a knife while he recovers. Or <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqiSZjj-HR8&feature=related>this could happen (since we're on shields now, all of a sudden).
But really, it's not all that clear-cut. Shields are great advantages, but not gamebreakers, and halberds and poleaxes can still be used against them to good effect (not to mention they still have the attack range advantage), and were <url=http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html>the non-prestige weapon of choice for a few centuries.
For that matter, an idiot could only do what you describe if he's fighting another idiot. Someone in a weapon fight who attacks with no thought to defense or balance deserves a sword in the kidney. The shield (specifically, a larger shield, not a buckler or similar) doesn't have an advantage because of parrying, but because <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnezTM2UA_k>it
can be used to not only close in, but shut down the pole weapon. Like the video uploader (the sword'n'boarder) points out, his main aim in those fights was to keep his shield on the spearman's hands; the latter wouldn't need all that much torque to attack or trip, otherwise.