>Hires morons who can't afford
equipment >The people with actual training and experience would all have own shit >Leaving you with the rejects >They get killed because the actually GOOD men at arms all got hired by people who could afford to pay them
Why do you want to be poor?
also a lucerne is (literally, in terms of development) just a bec de corbin with a split hammer face and a spear added - basically a poleaxe ripoff for manlets
>referring to the talon
The entire advantage of a pike over a spear is reach. The "talon" doesn't make a fricking pollaxe a fricking pike. It makes it a fricking half-pike, another weapon that ALSO had a talon and limited reach.
>no axe, therefore shit
Got a split hammer instead. Better for mauling. Axe or hammer will shred unarmored all the same but hammer's better for armored. >also a lucerne is (literally, in terms of development) just a bec de corbin with a split hammer face and a spear added
Incorrect. A lucerne hammer is a subcategory of bec de corbin. It's not considered a separate weapon type. So it's literally just a bec de corbin. I called it a lucerne hammer to specify the attachments involved.
Also, as a further point of clarification, the classic pollaxe that isn't just a fricking dwarf halberd, the axe+hammer+spike variant is a direct downgrade across the board to the lucerne hammer.
Axe is worse split hammer. Hammer is worse bec de corbin. Spike's a spike.
And if I wanted to be a pedant, I'd point out historically lucerne hammers were actually sometimes called pollaxes as well as becs de corbin, despite having no axe head. They were pollaxe derived, after all. Or put another way, they're a pollaxe but stronger.
>pike >half-pike
i wonder what these things might possibly have in common >Axe is worse split hammer
this is like calling an apple a worse orange. hammers don't shred anything, they aren't for cutting
I would imagine a suit of carbon-fiber armor affixed with spikes. Just go berserk and charge/hug the enemy. Cf. rope/fork rig as seen in end-episdoe of "The Terror."
If you're in armor you want a poleaxe, spear, or even longsword if you can't manage either. Halberds aren't great for close fighting, which is a huge part of what you're doing in armor, either again at someone else in armor, or the three plebs who are trying to get you on the ground and stab you.
You're talking about duels in armour. They were a major driving force for weapons development. Battles demanded different approach, they were hectic, they required quickness, versatility and range. By the time Halberds came around, spears were phased out. Halberds vogue's, and partisans took their place. Similarily guisame and bardiche made axes obsolete. Halberd was tremendous piercing and slashing weapon, hook and edge added to the mass of the weapon, with enough force it would crush armour with ease, and since battles didn't allow for fancy footwork, it's range was a major advantage. Only way to counter them was to employ even longer weapons, that's how pikes came back.
halberds and halberd-like weapons were at their peak directly preceding the pike
the extra-long pike meant you needed a longer pike to counter their pikes, and the arms race quickly led to the halberd no longer being able to directly compete
not totally shut out of use, but the main battlefield role gave way to pikes
and when firearms became more pronounced then that was it, pike and shot became the new state of the art
>Spears were phased out
They absolutely were not. >Muh versatile halberd
Absolute ass in a close press. Poleaxed weren't, which is why men at arms used them. It has nothing to do with dueling and everything to do with being able to kill men at an arms length away, which a halberd can't do.
>Quickness
A halberd is one of the absolute slowest moving polearms. Fricking ready.
>Easily crush armor
No. Isn't fricking real life.
[...]
Duels or not, I was mainly talking about the USER not the TARGET.
The main issue these weapons have is zero protection for the user.
Longword, Halberd, poleaxe yadda yadda. They are mainly used by armored soldiers.
Which is why I chose spear and SHIELD for unarmoured.
The spear is problematic for use against armored opponents, be it war or duels. As is the longsword (less so if it's a 1v1 due to grappling etc).
You lose a massive amount of flexibility, speed, leverage, and striking power with a shield. It isn't always a good idea.
You're talking about duels in armour. They were a major driving force for weapons development. Battles demanded different approach, they were hectic, they required quickness, versatility and range. By the time Halberds came around, spears were phased out. Halberds vogue's, and partisans took their place. Similarily guisame and bardiche made axes obsolete. Halberd was tremendous piercing and slashing weapon, hook and edge added to the mass of the weapon, with enough force it would crush armour with ease, and since battles didn't allow for fancy footwork, it's range was a major advantage. Only way to counter them was to employ even longer weapons, that's how pikes came back.
Duels or not, I was mainly talking about the USER not the TARGET.
The main issue these weapons have is zero protection for the user.
Longword, Halberd, poleaxe yadda yadda. They are mainly used by armored soldiers.
Which is why I chose spear and SHIELD for unarmoured.
The spear is problematic for use against armored opponents, be it war or duels. As is the longsword (less so if it's a 1v1 due to grappling etc).
>against armored opponents
fully armoured that is.
And of course this opens up the discussion of what "armoured" means in regards to targets, but the use of 2 handed weapons like these demands at least hand and arm protection.
>talks about halberds as weapons
>posts a 18th century toy soldier halberd
what did op mean by this?
Just classic clueless halberdgay, at least didnt mistake a poleaxe for a halberd
Literally wrong.
only right answer
spear, pike, axe, hammer - all in one convenient tool. who wouldn't love it?
the poors who can't afford one
in my mercenary company everyones armed and armored, the company will provide if you don't have your own
>Hires morons who can't afford
equipment
>The people with actual training and experience would all have own shit
>Leaving you with the rejects
>They get killed because the actually GOOD men at arms all got hired by people who could afford to pay them
Why do you want to be poor?
the company provides both actual training and on the job training opportunities often enough
>spear, pike, axe, hammer - all in one convenient tool. who wouldn't love it?
>pollaxe
>pike
?
referring to the talon
no axe, therefore shit
also a lucerne is (literally, in terms of development) just a bec de corbin with a split hammer face and a spear added - basically a poleaxe ripoff for manlets
>referring to the talon
The entire advantage of a pike over a spear is reach. The "talon" doesn't make a fricking pollaxe a fricking pike. It makes it a fricking half-pike, another weapon that ALSO had a talon and limited reach.
>no axe, therefore shit
Got a split hammer instead. Better for mauling. Axe or hammer will shred unarmored all the same but hammer's better for armored.
>also a lucerne is (literally, in terms of development) just a bec de corbin with a split hammer face and a spear added
Incorrect. A lucerne hammer is a subcategory of bec de corbin. It's not considered a separate weapon type. So it's literally just a bec de corbin. I called it a lucerne hammer to specify the attachments involved.
Also, as a further point of clarification, the classic pollaxe that isn't just a fricking dwarf halberd, the axe+hammer+spike variant is a direct downgrade across the board to the lucerne hammer.
Axe is worse split hammer. Hammer is worse bec de corbin. Spike's a spike.
And if I wanted to be a pedant, I'd point out historically lucerne hammers were actually sometimes called pollaxes as well as becs de corbin, despite having no axe head. They were pollaxe derived, after all. Or put another way, they're a pollaxe but stronger.
>pike
>half-pike
i wonder what these things might possibly have in common
>Axe is worse split hammer
this is like calling an apple a worse orange. hammers don't shred anything, they aren't for cutting
A pollaxe is just a shitty lucerne hammer
the best weapon in this image is that absolute watermelon ass
I would imagine a suit of carbon-fiber armor affixed with spikes. Just go berserk and charge/hug the enemy. Cf. rope/fork rig as seen in end-episdoe of "The Terror."
yeah
I'd vastly prefer a spear, halberd is the choice of uninformed plebs. If in my armor, maybe a poleaxe.
if you're wearing armor, yes. If unarmored, spear and shield.
If you're in armor you want a poleaxe, spear, or even longsword if you can't manage either. Halberds aren't great for close fighting, which is a huge part of what you're doing in armor, either again at someone else in armor, or the three plebs who are trying to get you on the ground and stab you.
You're talking about duels in armour. They were a major driving force for weapons development. Battles demanded different approach, they were hectic, they required quickness, versatility and range. By the time Halberds came around, spears were phased out. Halberds vogue's, and partisans took their place. Similarily guisame and bardiche made axes obsolete. Halberd was tremendous piercing and slashing weapon, hook and edge added to the mass of the weapon, with enough force it would crush armour with ease, and since battles didn't allow for fancy footwork, it's range was a major advantage. Only way to counter them was to employ even longer weapons, that's how pikes came back.
I thought halberd came into favor to counter pikes, not the other way around.
halberds and halberd-like weapons were at their peak directly preceding the pike
the extra-long pike meant you needed a longer pike to counter their pikes, and the arms race quickly led to the halberd no longer being able to directly compete
not totally shut out of use, but the main battlefield role gave way to pikes
and when firearms became more pronounced then that was it, pike and shot became the new state of the art
>Spears were phased out
They absolutely were not.
>Muh versatile halberd
Absolute ass in a close press. Poleaxed weren't, which is why men at arms used them. It has nothing to do with dueling and everything to do with being able to kill men at an arms length away, which a halberd can't do.
>Quickness
A halberd is one of the absolute slowest moving polearms. Fricking ready.
>Easily crush armor
No. Isn't fricking real life.
You lose a massive amount of flexibility, speed, leverage, and striking power with a shield. It isn't always a good idea.
Duels or not, I was mainly talking about the USER not the TARGET.
The main issue these weapons have is zero protection for the user.
Longword, Halberd, poleaxe yadda yadda. They are mainly used by armored soldiers.
Which is why I chose spear and SHIELD for unarmoured.
The spear is problematic for use against armored opponents, be it war or duels. As is the longsword (less so if it's a 1v1 due to grappling etc).
>against armored opponents
fully armoured that is.
And of course this opens up the discussion of what "armoured" means in regards to targets, but the use of 2 handed weapons like these demands at least hand and arm protection.
Why is it the hablerd though? Does anyone have any video reference on how the halberd is superior in practice in a sparring event?
Spears are the AK-47 of the medieval world
What’s the AR then? Bill hooks?
messer
wooden cudgel
AK is more like a club than anything
a bolt action rifle is the spear, used to be quite literally
end game medieval can opener
why would you want this over a normal spear? adding more garbage at the end just makes it unwieldly