Video of bloke puncturing steel with a selection of polearms in a barn

[Arlequín]

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.

[Hobbit]

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".

[Atheling]

Mike Loades demonstrated very well just what Arlequin is alluding to in his Weapons that Made Britian TV series, whoch was seriously informative.

Darrell.

[JollyBob]

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.

[LCpl McDoom]

This provides a good general outline for 'La Jeu de la Hache': http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/NotesLEJEUDELAHACHE.htm

[Arlequín]

Excellent link, thanks. 

[Charlie_]

Yes, great link, thanks! I'm reading it now 

[Warren Abox]

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.

[jon_1066]

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.

[Arlequín]

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.   

[Atheling]

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.

[Cubs]

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.

[Arlequín]

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.

[Cubs]

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!

[Charlie_]

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?