Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Charlie_ on January 20, 2016, 02:44:39 AM
-
Title says it all really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzoyMHJIwzY
Very interesting! I've actually not really seen late medieval polearms 'swung' properly before, and seeing this pleasant chap puncturing some steel plate with a poleaxe, halberd and some sort of double-headed hammer I've never seen before really shows how destructive these things could be to a man in plate armour. I'm guessing there is no way he could have that sort of effect on armour with a sword....
Also interesting to see exactly how they could be held and wielded, because I've often wondered how you could get a good swing from one of these in a closely packed formation. But just a good strong two-handed thrust with the point looks lethal!
I know, I know, he is not actually puncturing armour, but flat sheets of steel. But he does say at the end that his next job is to try it on curved plate backed with padding and some simulated skulls! But this video is nearly two years old and I can't find his follow-ups, so don't know if it ever happened...
Anyway, worth a watch I think.
-
That's pretty cool
-
Yep, pretty cool. Doesn't really translate to armour (whose shape would give it structural rigidity and alter the results) but I've no doubt with a good swing, any of these could give you a hell of a bad day. (or your last...)
-
Interesting.... but, puncturing a piece of steel plate is not the same thing as puncturing armour which was designed to have the maximum number of glancing surfaces in order to avoid a head on blow.
I'm not denying that it couldn't happen, I'm pretty sure that it did. It was just harder to achieve a deadly blow than that portrayed in the 'test'.
Cheers,
Darrell.
-
This is the Bow versus Crossbow thread all over again.
There are tons of reservations to a test like this. For starters. All of his weapons look to be tooled out of solid steel in stead of having been hammered out like it would have been in medieval times. The same goes for the target as well there is a hell of a difference between rolled plate steel and a breastplate hammered out by a blacksmith.
Mind I only fast forwarded through the video without sound. So he might have adressed some of these things in that case feel free to ignore my ramblings.
-
It was interesting to see that most of the punctures only went in an inch or so. You can easily imagine padding, etc underneath preventing very serious injury (except perhaps to the skull)
I get the impression that those puncture type weapons are for driving into the gaps between the plates rather than actually driving a hole in them. Would be interesting to see the deflection caused by mashing it with the blade/hammer part. Could a serious dent be made to the same effect - incapacitating the opponent for long enough to make them yield with a bodkin to their visor?
I would also be interested to know how much of combat revolved around not harming your opponent too badly. If you kill them they are worthless, incapacitated and captured you can ransom them. So weapon/armour combos would perhaps be designed to be stunning rather than dismembering?
-
In the immediate heat of battle I would expect that knocking someone off his feet would achieve much the same thing, allowing the second rank to despatch him. However I don't beleive for one moment that fighting methods were developed simply to stun an opponent for ransom. Soldiers would have had a much more primeval instinct to stay alive rather than worry too much about ransom. After all you can only claim the ransom if a. your side has won and (more importantly) b. you are alive.
-
Soldiers would have had a much more primeval instinct to stay alive rather than worry too much about ransom.
I concur.
Ask Charles the Bold ;) lol
Darrell.
-
I concur.
Ask Charles the Bold ;) lol
Good idea.
Is he a member on here?
;) ;)
-
Guys, I said in the first post, It's obviously not actual armour, and he knows that! He says in the video he next plans to do the same tests on 'real' shaped armour.
Unfortunately upon looking for the follow-up video, which never happened, it looks like he hasn't posted a video for quite some time, and has been diagnosed with cancer. I hope he's ok!
This is the Bow versus Crossbow thread all over again.
Yes, that was me as well :)
No one person filming some tests to put on youtube is ever going to have all the answers as to how certain medieval weapons worked, the truth is we will never know for sure. But videos like this are still interesting. Any sort of discussion about medieval weapons and their usage is interesting, regardless if said discussions have happened many times before.
For what its worth, I'm more interested in seeing exactly how these polearm weapons could be wielded and swung with a lot of force, rather than measuring exactly how far they could penetrate plate steel under controlled circumstances. So there is something very satisfying about watching this guy swing a poleaxe!
Also, it's true that if a spike penetrates say an inch through steel, that's not going to be an inch into flesh. Once it's got through the padding underneath, it might just graze the body. But it's probably going to cause a big old dent, and to the head especially it's going to cause serious discomfort to the man inside!
-
However I don't beleive for one moment that fighting methods were developed simply to stun an opponent for ransom.
Actually the financial incentive and the chance of hitting the jackpot with a ransom, was a motivator to become a professional soldier. While pay rates were slightly above average wages on the whole, they wouldn't be enough to ensure anyone would hope to enrich themselves by the extra couple of pence they received.
Certainly self-preservation was the primary concern, but chances would be taken and indeed if you were wealthy and in dire straits, surrendering was the sensible option; even if it might beggar you.
Charles the Bold was a bit of a head case by 1477, I would imagine he probably declined the offer of surrender and the Swiss were probably tired of his shit anyway.
;)
Good idea.
Is he a member on here?
;) ;)
Can you imagine what he'd be like as a member? lol
-
For what its worth, I'm more interested in seeing exactly how these polearm weapons could be wielded and swung with a lot of force, rather than measuring exactly how far they could penetrate plate steel under controlled circumstances. So there is something very satisfying about watching this guy swing a poleaxe!
If you are interested in watching clips of polearms I would suggest watching some modern naginata. I believe, and others may question, doubt, comment etc. that this is one of the best representations of medieval polearm combat.
A lot of what reenactors, interpreters, scholars base their views on is the plates and written instructions from surviving medieval fight manuals, which I have often seen interpreted badly or to the reader own agenda. Naginata has a living tradition which means by and large it is being taught in a very similar way to how it was being taught a thousand years ago. There obviously will be some slight variations as with all martial arts, however as I see it wherever you are in the world in war you will use a weapon in a way that will most efficiently, maim, kill, defend, protect, etc.
Again I am no expert but I think it's an interesting an enlightening comparison and I have trained quite extensively with both weapons.
-
White armour or plate armour became popular after the process of annealing was discovered sometime in the 14th century probably in the Middle East. Annealing is the process by which steel is hardened and is still used today. The piece of mild steel used in the video had not been annealed.
As mentioned earlier in the thread the piece of mild steel was not shaped as armour would be.
Modern steel has a different composition to medieval steel and the manufacture of medieval steel is largely still a mystery.
So as a test it was pretty pointless.
As for a bloke hitting things with a hammer it was too far to slow, here's a video of Mike Loads hitting a hardened breast plate with the hammer end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqCM68-UoUA probably still pointless but at 55 seconds its a bit more watchable.
-
I think the reality is quite simple. Look at a medieval polearm like those in the video - they appear to me to be very much a simple multi-tool. By giving a foot slogger a blade/spike/hook...he can do just about anything. I always imagined the hook on a halberd say, to be used much more for yanking someone off a horse, or yanking a shield down from an opponent etc. They just look an awful lot like an infantryman's swiss-army-weapon.
My more curious question...were polearms used heavily outside of combat as tools while an army camped? Were they intentionally designed as tools/weapons, or solely as weapons?
-
The bill takes it's design from the billhook a traditional agricultural tool.
-
The bill takes it's design from the billhook a traditional agricultural tool.
My guess is that most pole arms, with the exception of a few, had their origins in agricultural tools.
Darrell.
-
Voulges and glaives also have agricultural/domestic origins; one is a essentially a scythe blade remounted in line with the pole and the other is essentially a meat cleaver on a long pole. Toss in a spear and a pruning hook (bill hook) into the mix and you have the basis of most pole-arms.
I would imagine back in the days of raising levies to fight wars, a few hours work work with what tools were to hand ensured that you met with the law as to what weapons you were required to have, which in England was;
"... and he who has less than forty shillings worth of land shall be sworn to have scythes. gisarmes, knives and other small weapons;
he who has less than twenty marks in chattels, swords, knives and other small weapons.. " - Statute of Winchester 1285.
Oddly there is actually no requirement to own a 'military weapon' (or indeed armour) whatsoever when you look at it. I'm not aware that the Statute was ever revised and this was the same class of folk who supposedly provided the 'billmen' for later English Medieval Armies.
-
Voulges and glaives also have agricultural/domestic origins; one is a essentially a scythe blade remounted in line with the pole and the other is essentially a meat cleaver on a long pole. Toss in a spear and a pruning hook (bill hook) into the mix and you have the basis of most pole-arms.
I would imagine back in the days of raising levies to fight wars, a few hours work work with what tools were to hand ensured that you met with the law as to what weapons you were required to have, which in England was;
"... and he who has less than forty shillings worth of land shall be sworn to have scythes. gisarmes, knives and other small weapons;
he who has less than twenty marks in chattels, swords, knives and other small weapons.. " - Statute of Winchester 1285.
Oddly there is actually no requirement to own a 'military weapon' (or indeed armour) whatsoever when you look at it. I'm not aware that the Statute was ever revised and this was the same class of folk who supposedly provided the 'billmen' for later English Medieval Armies.
Agreed. Strange.
However, it would be a sorry individual indeed who headed off to war without some sort of protection, at least some sort of helmet.
Darrell.
-
Or indeed a sorry lord who had to rely on such folk. I imagine the practice of telling your tenants they don't have to go if they pay a fine was mutually well-received by all concerned, not least the professionals who were hired in their place. Goodbye feudal levies, hello bastard feudalism.
;)
-
I had a mate who lived in a marshy area and they used a bill hook (hand held, ot on a pole) for clearing away the tall reeds and stuff that used to grow up along the edges of their land.
Just saying.
I wanted to feel like I was involved.
-
I've used one too, it's quite a handy tool for what it's designed for and is pretty much the European version of a 'panga' or machete, with one significant difference; the sharp part is inside the curve of the blade and 'the hook' is apparently there to protect that edge if the tool hits ground (when hedging etc). When things go wrong a whacking bruise from the hook is more common than a gaping wound too.
I'm no weapons expert but in its usual form this 'hook' limits its effectiveness as a weapon, especially on those types with a longer two-handed handle. To get the 'cut' you would have to be drawing the weapon back towards you. Okay the hook is likely to snag on something if the blade doesn't cut, so if you aren't wounding someone, you are at least pulling them towards you and your friends and they are probably unbalanced into the bargain.
The 'military bill' with its usual long spike added (and usually a smaller one on the top edge), makes a world of difference. You have the 'stab' as the weapon goes out and the 'cut or hook' as the weapon is drawn back. So for my money this is a thrusting-drawing weapon, rather than a 'swinging' one; a 'spear +'.
The halberd adds a little more to the mix, being a meat cleaver and spear combined, often with a side-spike or hook (that usually lacks the bill's cutting edge). It's more multi-role than the bill I imagine, but I think it's also less 'instinctual' and I think it would take some skill and practice to get the best from it. While you can still 'stab and hook', you can't really combine those with a 'chop', so it seems an 'either-or' weapon.
As an unskilled warrior I think the bill would offer me the best option and the action I would be most comfortable with. With guys either side of me, jabbing and recovering seems easy enough and if the opportunity presents itself, I do have that spike to punch through armour with a chop if a guy goes down. Have me swinging a halberd around and it's evens on whether friend or foe gets it. Just my take obviously...
-
And the Pol Axe?
I personally have never handled one.
Darrell.
-
The pol axe is better designed as a piercing, crushing weapon rather than for cutting. This one is better for tackling men in armour but it's use is very similar to most other pole weapons and it would be just as effective against un-armoured men.
I have been fortunate enough to handle and use most of these weapons and honestly they are all much of a muchness in terms of weight, heft etc.
As Arlequin has suggested all of these weapons could be used by an untrained or semi-trained soldier but in the hands of someone with some skill they really would have been lethal.
Referencing back to naginata, if you have even the most basic of training it is very easy for you to use these weapons effectively in close quarters with minimal risk to the people around you, obviously I have only ever done this in a controlled environment so bring on the confusion of the battlefield combined with the adrenaline they could be much more threatening to your friends as well as foes.
-
And the Pol Axe?
I personally have never handled one.
Darrell.
Me neither, there's not much practical use for one in an agricultural context. As Mr J says, those sort of specialist weapons came into their own with someone trained to use them and who of course had the spare time to train in any case... the various fighting books and 'forms' weren't designed for the loikes o' I.
For the humble field worker, thatcher or hedger, using a bill to lop limbs and branches is pretty much muscle memory though. ;)
-
The pol axe is better designed as a piercing, crushing weapon rather than for cutting. This one is better for tackling men in armour but it's use is very similar to most other pole weapons and it would be just as effective against un-armoured men.
I don't think I was clear enough in my last question; I know what a pol axe is and how they were used after studying various sources including Hans Talhoffer, my questionnshould have been phrased:
Does anyone have any experience of using a polaxe especially in relatation to how to defeat armour (in practical terms)?
Cheers,
Darrell.
-
I don't think I was clear enough in my last question; I know what a pol axe is and how they were used after studying various sources including Hans Talhoffer, my question should have been phrased:
Does anyone have any experience of using a polaxe especially in relatation to how to defeat armour (in practical terms)?
Cheers,
Darrell.
-
I have fought in armour with poleaxe. The poleaxe is meant for finding weak spots in the armour or rather the places not covered with armour. All thrusts and such target armpits and such places not covered by plate. In general combat in armour is very brutal and usually ends up in some form of wrestling. As the main focus is to pummel your opponent and eventually get him off balance to get him on the ground.
Here is part 1 of 6 of a demonstration of fighting in armour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg
While the video shows "halfswording" the same basic principles apply to the poleaxe.
-
The Royal Armouries do some very good demonstrations of Poleaxe and hand-and-a-half sword. There's a video clip here; as I recall it the actual demonstrations were much faster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjDjoqjaaKE
-
The poleaxe is meant for finding weak spots in the armour or rather the places not covered with armour. All thrusts and such target armpits and such places not covered by plate. In general combat in armour is very brutal and usually ends up in some form of wrestling. As the main focus is to pummel your opponent and eventually get him off balance to get him on the ground.
This. Another small point is the use of hammer or weighted end is designed to punch the armour out of shape, exaggerating the existing weaknesses and crumpling it into the body of the wearer or in order to limit movement and vision. Generally speaking to make a mess of it.
-
I have fought in armour with poleaxe. The poleaxe is meant for finding weak spots in the armour or rather the places not covered with armour. All thrusts and such target armpits and such places not covered by plate. In general combat in armour is very brutal and usually ends up in some form of wrestling. As the main focus is to pummel your opponent and eventually get him off balance to get him on the ground.
Here is part 1 of 6 of a demonstration of fighting in armour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg
While the video shows "halfswording" the same basic principles apply to the poleaxe.
Thanks, that bears out what I've seen demonstrated by Talhoffer etc.
He recemmends always starts with a jab with the spike (end) to the face, obviously an attempt to make your opponent lose focus.
I'd dearly love to have some experience, as it's such an interesting field- however, a full suit of harness in not on the cards at the moment! lol
Darrell.
-
What I'm taking away from these videos is that 'poleaxe' fighting combines what are effectively traditional 'quarterstave-fighting' techniques (blocks, thrusts, abrupt changes of grip and using both ends of the weapon), combined with the utility of spikes, hammers and blade, to injure 'by opportunity', or more typically to unbalance your opponent and put him down. If you like, rather than trying to defeat the armour, the method is to defeat the man first and then make a 'killing strike' or thrust, when he's down or otherwise unable to counter.
The somewhat impressive videos of guys swinging with all their might invariably show someone seriously exposed while making the swing; so I would anticipate only making such a strike when your opponent is unable to counter it. Certainly chopping up a dead pig, or wrecking a car with a poleaxe does indeed demonstrate the force that can be applied with the weapon against something completely defenceless, armour or not, but in a boxing sense, your guard is most certainly down and you are 'telegraphing your punch' in the worst possible way.
What also comes across is that whatever weapon you are using, skill and practice is more valuable than the actual weapon itself. As a layman I already knew the value of swings and thrusts with the sword, but never considered using the pommel as a weapon as they did when 'half-swording' and that's in spite of being taught to use both a bayonet and a follow up with the rifle butt in one fluid motion many moons ago.
Fascinating stuff guys! :)
He recemmends always starts with a jab with the spike (end) to the face, obviously an attempt to make your opponent lose focus.
I think there are few forms of combat that don't recommend an immediate strike towards the eyes, it's a universal tactic, along with a swift strike to the testicles as an alternative (presuming they aren't protected). People have a natural instinctive fear of losing their sight and it almost invariably causes someone to flinch at the very least. It's also the least well-protected part of the body in armour too... everyone has to see where they're going.
-
Yes, from what I recall of the displays at Leeds the interpreters talked of testing and probing blows to try to get you opponent to make an error. I think they used a French manuscript that translated roughly to "the joy of the ax".
-
Mike Loades demonstrated very well just what Arlequin is alluding to in his Weapons that Made Britian TV series, whoch was seriously informative.
Darrell.
-
Yes, from what I recall of the displays at Leeds the interpreters talked of testing and probing blows to try to get you opponent to make an error. I think they used a French manuscript that translated roughly to "the joy of the ax".
Burgundian actually, La Jeu de la Hache, axeplay or The Game of Axes. My HEMA group have a go with it occasionally and it is a right good laugh. If you don't mind getting hit in the head.
We have noticed that a lot of the effective technique comes from crushing your oponent's fingers with your axe head, then smacking him when he yelps and drops his weapon. Either that or using the hook to trip him and kill him on the ground as Arlequin said.
The big, showy, powerful overhand blows are pretty, but really you just end up with the other guy's point in your chest or face.
-
This provides a good general outline for 'La Jeu de la Hache': http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/NotesLEJEUDELAHACHE.htm
-
Excellent link, thanks. :)
-
Yes, great link, thanks! I'm reading it now :)
-
The one-on-one stuff is well and good, but these are tools of war. What happens when you zoom out to the battlefield view? Those things always struck me as implements much like the Roman Gladius - meant to be wielded in concert by large masses of men in formation.
Which leads me to a couple of points to make/questions to ask. (I have no real background here beyond an interest that doesn't even rise to the historian level of 'amateur', so feel free to point out where my thinking is wrong.)
A polearm doubling as a farm implement is 'found' material. It costs money, but because it doubles as a farm too, it's something you have anyway. On the other hand...a full suit of fully articulated plate armor would have been like a sports car - something for the rich guys to parade around in. My guess is that most of the fights between guys holding these they would have been wearing either heavily quilted armor or some third hand chain with a few plates cobbled on. So for the vast bulk of the guys carrying these, the pole-arm itself was the preferred defense of choice.
The videos of what one guy with a poleaxe can do to one guy with a poleaxe are interesting, but how how often where pole-arm fights really mano-a-mano. I figured that polearm fights would consist of half the guys just stabbing forward, trying to keep the other mass of men at a distance, while the back rank guys where engaged is a chaotic forest of spikes jousting, blocking, and swinging in an attempt to find a chink in the other formation by which an effective blow or two could be landed.
Put yourself in Joe Polearm's shoes. You're wedged into a mass of a hundred other farmers, you march around in the hot sun all morning, grumbling, hearing shouts, maybe seeing some horsemen flying back and forth, then you walk up out of a low spot in the hills, and suddenly there's a crowd of blokes fifty yards away dressed like you, but following a flag of the wrong color. So the sargeant kicks you in the butt, you stumble forward, shouting, watching those gleaming points get closer and closer, and what do you do?
Your first thought is, don't get whacked. If you're in the front row, there's not enough room to get a big overhand swing, so you just get to stabbing your pointy bit at the other crowd, keep them bastards well back. Meanwhile those jerks are trying to poke your eye out, so you're constantly moving around a bit, ducking a bit, dodging a bit, avoiding their pointy bits. Maybe if you keep them back long enough, your cousin Jack, safe enough behind you in the back ranks can get his polearm up and around and break a few of their twigs, maybe even crack a skull or two.
Meanwhile, Jack is looking at the guys in the back rank of that other crowd - the one with the wrong color flag - and watching their hammers and axes trying to drop down on his head. You're too busy to help him, so as he's bringing his pointy downwards, he's also looking to black any pointy bits headed his way. His best opening are always a little to the left or right, but every time he spots an opening, one of the two idiots on either side of him swings their stick in his way.
So you get nothing but a whole lot of jostling around, short stabbing feints and shoving up front, with a forest of waving sticks overhead. Until that one glorious moment when Joe hooks somebody's leg and makes him stumble at the exact moment the wooden sea parts, leaving Jack with a wide open path to the poor bloke's skull. If the guy behind the poor bloke doesn't step up and plug that gap in the line, the idiots next to Jack can bring their poles down into the hole, clearing room for Joe to get stabbing at the next guy in the formation. Seeing that their defense has broken down, that demoralizes the guys with the wrong flag, who turn and run before Jack, Joe, and the rest can butcher them like hogs.
Hopefully the guys with the wrong color flag have another block of polearm men behind them willing to keep up the fight...
tl;dr: The raw penetrative power is like a boxer's strong right cross. Most fights consist of a bunch of jabs that do little damage and present little threat, but those little shots add up until they can force open the way for a knockout blow. As awe inspiring as the knockout blow can be, the beauty of the art, and the secret to success, is all in the little jabs. The video was fun, but it doesn't help me understand the all important set-up, that delicate and chaotic dance with two hundred partners, that allows for the killing blows to be made.
-
The archaeology and history of combat wounds would all point to your interpretation as well - most of the wounds and kills were done when one side ran away.
-
I would say so too... but in balance we hardly have an exhaustive supply of Medieval burial sites to say so with 100% certainty. Added to which forensic archaeology can only use injuries that have impacted on bone; if someone had been disembowelled while fighting in the battle-line, there would possibly be little bone damage to signify that.
The evidence we have does indeed point to a lot of head wounds and certainly apparently from the rear. Bear in mind however that the evidence also apparently prompted someone to suggest the remains from the Towton pit had their hands tied (as opposed to having been 'swung' into the pit by legs and arms by whoever was moving the bodies and which would bring arms together in a similar fashion).
The point to remember also is that the Towton pit was on the line of retreat and some distance from where the battle is believed to have taken place, so logically it would contain only 'rout victims'. If one is ever found closer to the battle, then potentially those remains might have a different story to tell.
I'm on-side with Warren's colourful description, but I think it pays to at least acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that things could have been different to how we imagine them and that what evidence we have might only tell part of the story.
-
The one-on-one stuff is well and good, but these are tools of war. What happens when you zoom out to the battlefield view? Those things always struck me as implements much like the Roman Gladius - meant to be wielded in concert by large masses of men in formation.
Amply demonstrated by the Swiss at the Mortgarten, 1315 ;) :)
Darrell.
-
Which presumably helps to explain why so many polearms had little hooks and spikes, not to deal damage, but to snag on armour and drag heavily armoured opponents (foot or especially mounted) down to the deck where they can be more easily dispatched.
-
Sure, when you have two rows of guys facing off with the same weapons and probably skill, if you can disrupt their cohesion, or drag a guy down to be despatched, you've an obvious advantage. Think of a rugby scrum where knees, heads and hands are all trying to cause the other lot to break up or collapse while your guys stay solid.
-
Think of a rugby scrum where knees, heads and hands are all trying to cause the other lot to break up or collapse while your guys stay solid.
You know me too well!
-
Thanks for keeping this discussion going guys, it's been very interesting.
Particularly so as it's given me a lot of things to consider for the wargame rules I'm working on. If interested, here is a dense paragraph on what I've been puzzling over...
I've been scratching my head quite alot about different weapons and advantages they should give, and how many different categories to have, how much detail to go into, etc. What I'm thinking currently is (at least in terms of infantry) to classify units as 'lightly armed' or 'heavily armed', and leave it at that (the exception being pikes, which should present some unique tactical advantages and disadvantages). So for example, archers would be lightly armed, generally with swords and bucklers, and billmen and men-at-arms would be heavily armed, with various polearms (bills, halberds, poleaxes, etc), plus longswords and other hand weapons. The latter should have an advantage over the former in combat, assuming equal skill and armour. The 'heavily armed' side I'm thinking will just have a bonus for attacking, and the details of what's actually going on don't matter so much. But that made me think, if archers v archers results in an average X number of casualties on both sides.... and archers v billmen results in X+1 casualties from the billmen.... if it's billmen vs billmen, both sides will be causing X+1 casualties. Meaning, an evenly matched billmen v billmen fight would end up being a much more bloody affair compared to an evenly matched archer v archer fight, which seems odd. Thus should the 'heavily armed' bonuses of two sides cancel eachother out?
-
If you're in the front row, there's not enough room to get a big overhand swing, so you just get to stabbing your pointy bit at the other crowd, keep them bastards well back. Meanwhile those jerks are trying to poke your eye out, so you're constantly moving around a bit, ducking a bit, dodging a bit, avoiding their pointy bits. Maybe if you keep them back long enough, your cousin Jack, safe enough behind you in the back ranks can get his polearm up and around and break a few of their twigs, maybe even crack a skull or two.
No direct experience of this, but have seen a bunch of re-enactors at Alnwick castle (in the snow) showing the effected of 6-8 guys with bills, in 2 ranks, vs a few swordsmen.
And it was a wall of points keeping the opponents away, with various swings from the second rank to cause damage.
Now found the photos - it was nearly 8 years ago, so my memory was a bit astray there were only 4 with bills.
1 vs 1 there was lots of movement and dancing around - they were well armoured, and seemed to be going for it.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6Bp5IATHKz8/Vq_Vttqj8WI/AAAAAAAAFsA/c9Jp28sXBaQ/s1024-Ic42/100B9410.jpg)
They then ranked up.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QlGdvZIppKg/Vq_VeedUiWI/AAAAAAAAFsA/czfgaTJdc6s/s1024-Ic42/100B9480.jpg)
3 bills in the front rank, one 'knight' in the second rank, ready to counter attack.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bx3vSyzz44g/Vq_VhiRmhpI/AAAAAAAAFsA/xTm79IzNP1A/s1024-Ic42/100B9490.jpg)
The 2 swordsmen attack, are blocked by the 3 with bills, and the armoured guy counter attacks, with overhead swing. I recall they were deliberately keeping the bill heads fairly low for safety.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bJ1VpKPLDg4/Vq_VjmWcWUI/AAAAAAAAFsA/qRQNOI-UL4o/s1024-Ic42/100B9491.jpg)
The armoured guy, uses the hook on the helmet of the front swordsman - I guess if they weren't playing safe, he would have used the spikey end.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-A2CvfwhM0Dw/Vq_VpnqSTwI/AAAAAAAAFsA/tlW6Vxb2XMU/s1024-Ic42/100B9502.jpg)
Here they have gone 3 vs 3, all with bills, and suddenly it is much more cagey - and more snowy!
-
What I'm thinking currently is (at least in terms of infantry) to classify units as 'lightly armed' or 'heavily armed', and leave it at that (the exception being pikes, which should present some unique tactical advantages and disadvantages). So for example, archers would be lightly armed, generally with swords and bucklers, and billmen and men-at-arms would be heavily armed, with various polearms (bills, halberds, poleaxes, etc), plus longswords and other hand weapons.
Some common contemporary terms in England were 'naked', '(de)fencibly arrayed', 'half-harness' or 'part-harness' and 'harnessed'. A harness being a full suit of armour.
Other peoples' mileage might vary on this, but as far as 'the law' went the top of the social ladder had to be fully harnessed, the gentry varied between harnessed and part harnessed (brigandines, partial plate etc) - both groups were required to be mounted.
The 'Yeomen' were the next step down and these were owners or tenants of land, who paid rent rather than provided service. They were all required to own bows and the top tier were also required to own horses. They varied from half-harness to 'fencibly arrayed' (helmets, brigandines, jacks and mail etc). The very top tier fell into the gentry and tended to be as above.
Next down were the ordinary guys earning above average wage; the journeymen, animal husbanders, skilled craftsmen who weren't yet 'masters' of a trade and so on. These were required to own bows and a helmet and that's about it. Top end of the class were require to own jacks.
Bottom of the pile are the labourers, unskilled workers and those earning below average wage. They were required to just own some form of hand or pole weapon of unspecified type... these are who we typically expect to be carrying a bill and are not quite the well-armoured bringers of death we imagine somehow. The ones who could begged, borrowed or stole bows to practice with, because it meant they could get the extra 2d a day as archers.
So in terms of heavily armoured you have the 'men at arms' ranging from fully armoured to part-armoured. The best of the archers are as well armoured as the lowest of the men at arms. The archers range from 'armoured' to 'lightly armoured' and 'unarmoured' and finally 'the bills' are at best lightly armoured but mostly have nothing.
In the Wars of the Roses some authors have commented that men at arms were used to 'stiffen the bills', but I don't recall ever hearing of them 'stiffening the archers'. In the HYW occasionally you find archers being signed up as men at arms, so in martial terms they were considered hardy enough to act in that role.
In short I think archers would be far less the shrinking violets you might imagine, while it was the billmen who were there with their knees knocking.
;)
-
Of course, I do not underestimate the brave archer!
In short I think archers would be far less the shrinking violets you might imagine, while it was the billmen who were there with their knees knocking.
Ah, but that would be in an English context?
If we assume both the archers and the billmen were equally skilled and equally armoured, surely the billmen have the advantage, as the pics just posted by fred show.
-
Your also thinking of the archer as only able to use his boy. In the English since at least they did not seem to have any problem getting stuck in.
The skill of the man or unit comes into play. Just like in the modern era, you can have the best kit ever made, but if your not trained or have the motivation you will lose to the cage under equipped guy from two villages over.
-
Of course, I do not underestimate the brave archer!
Ah, but that would be in an English context?
If we assume both the archers and the billmen were equally skilled and equally armoured, surely the billmen have the advantage, as the pics just posted by fred show.
Of course, the post was long enough without covering the entire world, which I couldn't do in any case.
;)
The point is that bowmen and bill/spear/pike/halberd armed men are never equally armoured and skilled.
Sticking with the English, all those guys in Fred's photos are way too well-nourished and well protected to be billmen, they'd be archers. Pit one of them with sword and buckler against Baldrick with a bill, and who has the advantage?
That indentures for the HYW show men at arms and archers, but no bills, suggests they were not equal, nor considered to be so.
Moving into Europe and there will be similar disproportionate examples. Swiss pike versus Flemish, same class of guy, same weapon and armour, both conscripted. Except one has trained on a regular basis over a few years, while the other had never seen a pike before he was handed one.
Going a step further, Swiss pike versus 'Landsknecht'. The Switzer has training, but every time his canton raises men, it's a different set of men, whereas the Landsknecht fights year in and out as a rule of thumb. Given their record you'd have to flip a coin to determine who was better.
I'm not saying that there aren't some troops that are equal, but you need to avoid 'wargame lore' and assumptions and dig deeper, which is I guess the point of this thread and the contributions we've all made.
:)
-
I'm not saying that there aren't some troops that are equal, but you need to avoid 'wargame lore' and assumptions and dig deeper, which is I guess the point of this thread and the contributions we've all made.
Indeed it is, and it's giving me lots to think about!
As is your blog which I've been perusing :)
And the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking equipment should be irrelevant on the tabletop. I'm definitely aware of 'wargame lore' and am trying to get as far away from it as possible. For instance I've long ago completely abandoned the idea of units comprising of identically equipped troops in a Warhammer style, i.e. this unit of men-at-arms has hand weapons and shields, this one has two-handed weapons and this one has halberds. That's certainly all nonsense!
I'm leaning now towards each unit's fighting ability being represented by just TWO stats - combat skill and armour, as an average across the unit. What they are armed with, and how many of them are in full plate and how many not, whether they have shields or not, what weapons have advantages over others etc, is all irrelevant.
(plus a separate discipline stat)
-
Thank you. I'm currently re-writing some posts on late French and Post-Charles Burgundians, so it's not all it could be and of course only one guy's view.
You are thinking in a way that makes sense to me... it's the man or men more than the weapons or armour... they skew the odds of course and a good man with the best of everything will always come out on top unless his advantages are neutralised.
I am inclined to view shooting as demoralising and disruptive in its overall effect, as opposed to dangerous and destructive... unless we were talking 'naked Irish' versus English archers. Typically we are talking about reducing a unit by missile shooting, but how about men being driven to anger by their inability to strike back at their tormentors?
I think trying to write a set of rules for all that's come up here alone is an unenviable task and I really hope you succeed.
:)
-
Charlie_ it looks like you might need a seperate thread for your developing ruleset ;)
And the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking equipment should be irrelevant on the tabletop. I'm definitely aware of 'wargame lore' and am trying to get as far away from it as possible. For instance I've long ago completely abandoned the idea of units comprising of identically equipped troops in a Warhammer style, i.e. this unit of men-at-arms has hand weapons and shields, this one has two-handed weapons and this one has halberds. That's certainly all nonsense!
I'm leaning now towards each unit's fighting ability being represented by just TWO stats - combat skill and armour, as an average across the unit. What they are armed with, and how many of them are in full plate and how many not, whether they have shields or not, what weapons have advantages over others etc, is all irrelevant.
(plus a separate discipline stat)
While I totally understand where you're coming from, aren't you afraid you are oversimplifiying things just a tad?
I completely agree with the armor and shields and such, your remark about weapon advantages sounds a bit weird. It's rather difficult to imagine men armed with daggers be evenly matched with a unit of pikemen. It would make of course sense should the pikemen be disordered by the shooting and such as you already mentioned before in the longbow thread.
Another question: how do you see those two stats, will they be rigid or susceptible to change? (like veterancy or training modifiers and so on)
Well anyway, I'm interested to see where your rules go :)
I am inclined to view shooting as demoralising and disruptive in its overall effect, as opposed to dangerous and destructive... unless we were talking 'naked Irish' versus English archers. Typically we are talking about reducing a unit by missile shooting, but how about men being driven to anger by their inability to strike back at their tormentors?
I said something similar in the Longbow thread. Perhaps that the lower types would be more eager to flee while the higher more inclined to get stuck in there. (Kind of like in Lion Rampant and its Wild Charge)
-
Charlie_ it looks like you might need a seperate thread for your developing ruleset ;)
Yes, maybe.... :)
While I totally understand where you're coming from, aren't you afraid you are oversimplifiying things just a tad?
I completely agree with the armor and shields and such, your remark about weapon advantages sounds a bit weird. It's rather difficult to imagine men armed with daggers be evenly matched with a unit of pikemen. It would make of course sense should the pikemen be disordered by the shooting and such as you already mentioned before in the longbow thread.
Well yes, let's just say my opinion on the whole weapon thing changes every day... or even every few hours...... Or maybe with every interesting informed post on these threads!!!!
Well anyway, I'm interested to see where your rules go :)
Me too! It started out slight amendments to the WFB/WAB rules I was used to, then developed into quite a few big changes, and is now maybe going in the direction of something that stands by itself. Though there are one or two elements of WFB/WAB that are in there pretty much unchanged and anyone familiar with those rules will recognise...
I said something similar in the Longbow thread.
Yes I do seem to have two threads at the top of this board right now, that wasn't the intention.... And though this one started out with me just posting a video of a guy hitting things, I'm happy that it's developed into a discussion of medieval melee weapons in general!
-
Of course, the post was long enough without covering the entire world, which I couldn't do in any case.
;)
The point is that bowmen and bill/spear/pike/halberd armed men are never equally armoured and skilled.
Absolutely, even within the lower echelons of the Gentry as Arlequin has painted out already.
That indentures for the HYW show men at arms and archers, but no bills, suggests they were not equal, nor considered to be so.
This is very interesting..... As far as I have gleaned (and there has been a lot of gleaning unsuccessful over the years!) I have been unable to place the introduction of pole arms en masse in English armies. This suggests that they were in use to some extent for a long time prior to the HYW/Wars of the Roses etc
Moving into Europe and there will be similar disproportionate examples. Swiss pike versus Flemish, same class of guy, same weapon and armour, both conscripted. Except one has trained on a regular basis over a few years, while the other had never seen a pike before he was handed one.
Take the terrain out of the picture and Flodden is a very good example of what can happen without the fullness of training.
I'm not saying that there aren't some troops that are equal, but you need to avoid 'wargame lore' and assumptions and dig deeper, which is I guess the point of this thread and the contributions we've all made.
And this is the problem with nearly all Medieval rule sets that I have come across. I'm yet to find the holy grail; I don't expect to find it very soon :) One never knows though :)
-
There seems to me to be two main things to nail down when writing a rule set. What are you attempting to model and how do you translate that into game rules.
For WWII there are lots of documentary evidence. You can still interview people who were there. The issue is therefore how to translate reality into game.
For the medieval period there is so much we don't know. Even the stuff we think we know you can usually find a contradictory opinion. It also covers a huge range of cultures, time and technology. This makes the ultimate medieval rule set impossible since what rule set could accurately reflect the Battle of Hastings and Bosworth when we aren't even sure of the details and the details will have changed.
-
This is very interesting..... As far as I have gleaned (and there has been a lot of gleaning unsuccessful over the years!) I have been unable to place the introduction of pole arms en masse in English armies. This suggests that they were in use to some extent for a long time prior to the HYW/Wars of the Roses etc.
I'm not sure they were ever used en-masse in formal expeditions (there are after all a lot of indentures, patent rolls etc that survive from the entire HYW), but in domestic strife and against the Scots, it was a case of 'bring everyone' (someone has to dig the toilet pits after all ;) ).
There are some quite detailed indentures for the expedition to Brittany of 1492 which include billmen in very small quantities or none at all. The sole exceptions were men drawn from very poor areas; Herbert's Welsh contingent had 50% and I think another had 20%, but the rest were in numbers not really worth having (3 or 4 per hundred etc.), other than that it was all archers*.
* Along with 'men at arms and their custrells', mounted archers and 'demi-lances' :o
I can't locate the original link, but I did make a list: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pm9768o47kpp2yj/1492%20Expedition.docx?dl=0
All that aside the generic 'men at arms' (or spears, lances, gens d'armes... yadda yadda) covered a whole host of people that were not fully armoured, in England the class above mounted archers were 'men at arms' yet only needed a haubergeon (or a brigandine would pass I expect), helmet, spear, sword and horse to qualify for their shilling and were the larger part of the greater whole of 'men at arms'.
So the 'retinue billmen' people bang on about, but which there is no historical record for, are actually the poorest of the men at arms (and their varlets, valets and 'custrells') and what are identified as 'demi-lances' in the list above... what we might call 'lesser men at arms', although no such distinction was drawn back then; at least until chief accountant Henry Tudor's time.
From a medieval perspective in terms of where the indentures largely come from, the accent is on who gets paid what, rather than what he's equipped with... so they are grouped by 4d, 6d, 1/, whatever 'knights' were paid and so on. The proof against 'massed bills' is that they would only have got 2d (iirc) per day and there are no entries for them.
You do find 'men at arms on foot' who get 8d in garrison lists, which is basically saying "you can have a horse, but you pay for it yourself", but essentially they are still 'men at arms' and get 2d more than the mounted archers in respect of their equipment costing more.
The 'hidden in the archers by lazy clerks' argument doesn't hold up for both the above reasons and that the rolls etc then usually go on to list virtually every cook, carpenter and bottle washer etc by his trade, even though they are mostly paid at the same rates.
I'm fairly convinced (as might seem painfully obvious from most of my posts) that 'billmen' (who would be equally as likely to be spear, voulge, guisarme or whatever men) were the lowest of the low and generally were not called upon (or wanted) in the picked forces to go overseas and you would have to be pretty desperate to rely on them in other situations.
However... Richard III was ordering hundreds of 'welshe bylls' in 1483 and even giving permission to conscript blacksmiths to make them. So was he anticipating levying large numbers of men who had sod all in the way of weapons, or did he appreciate the value of polearms more than his contemporaries?
This makes the ultimate medieval rule set impossible since what rule set could accurately reflect the Battle of Hastings and Bosworth when we aren't even sure of the details and the details will have changed.
It does. I would suggest that concentrating on a specific area might be more fruitful. You wouldn't for example use a set of 'Napoleonic' rules to fight the Seven Years War or the Crimea, so why would you have one set of rules to cover Hastings to Bosworth?
In an ideal world you would have one set for the HYW, another for the WotR, and yet another for the Burgundian-Swiss Wars.
-
I like the idea of 'lesser men at arms'. Ok, so how frequently would such troops be armed with bills and other such weapons, rather than the more 'knightly' weapons such as poleaxes?
-
I really couldn't say...
Here's a pic from the 'Beauchamp Pageant' which according to your taste represents men at arms on foot, or 'retinue billmen', or ... I don't know what. The artwork was done sometime in the 1470s and I've tatted about with the image to make it clearer (I hope).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-HQcd3m9ZwTo/VrI2rQS2miI/AAAAAAAAWP8/m_tILNlYltg/s490-Ic42/1.jpg)
Working from the back I can see a voulge, a lance, a broadhead spear, some sort of pointy stick (a lancegay?), a bardiche and two guisarmes. No bills and no poleaxes... which considering they are English might be considered odd.
There are other illustrations, including one or two which show 'mounted men at arms' carrying a variety of polearms, suggesting (to me anyway) they clearly intended to dismount at some point.
The full book is here: https://archive.org/details/pageantofbirthli00hopeuoft
-
I do enjoy watching an enthusiastic amateur.
And that's what the chap in the original video was - a big kid playing in his barn.
It had about as much to do with the actual experience of medieval combat and weapon use/effectiveness as me tucking into last night's sausage and mash.
I don't know. The guy demonstrated what he set out to demonstrate - that various pointy sticks powered by muscle can puncture steel plate with enough force to seriously jack up the guy inside. Although he proved his point (heh), he still threw in a bunch of caveats and warnings about curved armor, heat of battle, and so on. I wouldn't read much more into his demonstration than that it answered one very specific question.
It's kind of like those "Deadliest Warrior" blokes who analyze and demonstrate the various implements and tactics wielded by different soldiers through history. Great at showing the physics and scale of trauma inflicted by different weapons. Great at comparing defensive capabilities of different kinds of armor. Absolute garbage when it came to direct comparisons of soldier X versus soldier Y. Does what it says, and the people that read to much into it are the ones you gotta watch.
-
I don't know. The guy demonstrated what he set out to demonstrate - that various pointy sticks powered by muscle can puncture steel plate with enough force to seriously jack up the guy inside. Although he proved his point (heh), he still threw in a bunch of caveats and warnings about curved armor, heat of battle, and so on. I wouldn't read much more into his demonstration than that it answered one very specific question.
It's kind of like those "Deadliest Warrior" blokes who analyze and demonstrate the various implements and tactics wielded by different soldiers through history. Great at showing the physics and scale of trauma inflicted by different weapons. Great at comparing defensive capabilities of different kinds of armor. Absolute garbage when it came to direct comparisons of soldier X versus soldier Y. Does what it says, and the people that read to much into it are the ones you gotta watch.
I hate to state the obvious but that is all fine and dandy of you 'get it'. Not so if you're not so clued up re;armours and weapons of the Late Middle Ages.
Darrell.
-
I love stating the obvious, it's the only time I'm usually sure I'm right. ;)
I often think we are moving away from 'historical representation' in general and towards 'sensationalism'. There has been the odd comment here and there about hobby magazines being 'too heavy on the history' when it comes to articles. So the 'Deadliest Warrior' format plays to this depth of historical need.
You can add in the advertising blurbs for ranges from at least one big company, that typically says (I imagine they would use Samuel L. Jackson in voice over) "Cool troops! Buy them!" for every new release, whether they fought throughout WWII, or were raised in the last few months of it.
Let's face it the idea of massed archery mowing down droves of French orcs knights like Legolas in LotR and limbs flying akimbo in the melee, is far more exciting than the reality.
;)
-
You can add in the advertising blurbs for ranges from at least one big company, that typically says (I imagine they would use Samuel L. Jackson in voice over) "Cool troops! Buy them!" for every new release, whether they fought throughout WWII, or were raised in the last few months of it.
Naughty...... but nice :D :D :D lol
Darrell.