Poll of the Day > I'm so disappointed in real life halberds

(+) Yeah! (+)

The fantasy kind have some good weight and surface area on the axe part, like they can easily cut a goblin's head off.

except you wouldn't be able to swing those fantasy ones around
---

I think swinging seems like it would easier than holding it up and poking though.

Technically real halberds have never been tested on goblins so

---

Blighboy posted...

Technically real halberds have never been tested on goblins so

AR15 completely ineffective against goblins probably! PROBABLY!!

---

Blighboy posted...

Technically real halberds have never been tested on goblins so

maybe they have, and they were so effective that they are all dead
---

Pretty sure Skallagrim and Shadiversity have both covered in depth just how stupid a lot of fantasy weapons are in actual use.

---

I mean its pretty much a spear-axe

you could totally lop of some goblin heads at higher level

---

Did anyone actually use a halberd in actual combat? I thought they were just things guards held in medieval times to discourage people from fucking around.

---

Zareth posted...

Did anyone actually use a halberd in actual combat? I thought they were just things guards held in medieval times to discourage people from fucking around.

I'm sure they would. Polearms and axes would typically see more use (in warfare) during the middle ages than swords, which were more of a sidearm and symbol of status, or used in more 1 on 1 situations. In a battle, people would typically carry the biggest piece of fuck off they could find or afford, and reasonably swing.

---

Zareth posted...

Did anyone actually use a halberd in actual combat? I thought they were just things guards held in medieval times to discourage people from fucking around.

Yes.
---

Why bother engaging in swordplay or fisticuffs if poking at you from 5 or 6 feet is even an option?

---

Blighboy posted...

Technically real halberds have never been tested on goblins so

Lokarin posted...

AR15 completely ineffective against goblins probably! PROBABLY!!

In the Monster Hunter movie that was preciously the premise, modern weapons don't really work on Monster Hunter monsters, you have to use the Monster Hunter weapons.

---

Zareth posted...

Did anyone actually use a halberd in actual combat? I thought they were just things guards held in medieval times to discourage people from fucking around.

Halberds and pole arms were weapons of war, not things you held on a daily basis.

But unlike fantasy weapons, real life weapons are much smaller and thinner, so they could actually be held and used instead of being a giant weight nobody could actually use.

Sword were more analogous to modern handguns, people carried them around because they were a convenient to have at all times side arm, not because they were deemed more effective than other weapons.

---

Actual halberds are still pretty baller, even though the proportions aren't ridiculous. I'm not as fond of the shape of the blades on the European models (which generally look kinda axe-like); I generally prefer the look of the Asian halberds, like the naginata.


---

Naginatas are halberds? I thought they were machetes on sticks

---

TigerTycoon posted...

In the Monster Hunter movie that was preciously the premise, modern weapons don't really work on Monster Hunter monsters, you have to use the Monster Hunter weapons.

I haven't seen it but I am excited to since I love Monster Hunter...

The "Hunters" in the games are supposedly descendents from super solders so I thought it'd be a nifty throwback if the Hunters were all originally a product of Umbrella

---

I prefer the pollaxe myself. Pike, axe, hammer, hook, and quarterstaff, all in one convenient package.



---

Hook?

---

Thats why I practice the scythe. The strongest weapon that can beat anyone in just one hit.

---

PK_Spam posted...

Thats why I practice the scythe. The strongest weapon that can beat anyone in just one hit.

I dont know about effectiveness and practicality but its without a doubt one of the more wicked looking martial weapons

---

PK_Spam posted...

Thats why I practice the scythe. The strongest weapon that can beat anyone in just one hit.

That's one that I actually have and know how to use. It's the best thing for mowing hemp.


---

Only the deadliest of warriors were known to ride into battle wielding lawn mowers

---

captpackrat posted...

I prefer the pollaxe myself. Pike, axe, hammer, hook, and quarterstaff, all in one convenient package.

you hate polls that much?
---

Not as cool as the Zweihander, which was more or less made to counter them (well, spears, really).

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Not as cool as the Zweihander, which was more or less made to counter them (well, spears, really).

I can't imagine that a great sword was much of a counter for spears. What you gain in reach you lose out in mobility/speed, precision, etc. And unlike with a spear, you can't even use a shield >_>

---

Zeus posted...

I can't imagine that a great sword was much of a counter for spears. What you gain in reach you lose out in mobility/speed, precision, etc. And unlike with a spear, you can't even use a shield >_>

I do not have such weaknesses

---

Zeus posted...

I can't imagine that a great sword was much of a counter for spears. What you gain in reach you lose out in mobility/speed, precision, etc. And unlike with a spear, you can't even use a shield >_>

That was the point: the humungous weight, length, and broad blade allowed them to shove aside spears, and lop off the heads. Those doing so had to be in the front of the formation, so they were paid twice as much (Doppelsoldner).

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

That was the point: the humungous weight, length, and broad blade allowed them to shove aside spears, and lop off the heads. Those doing so had to be in the front of the formation, so they were paid twice as much (Doppelsoldner).

I'm going to need some citations there, because an oversized sword should be terrible at something like that. Great swords typically required full body rotation, which typically doesn't work well in combat formations (unlike the spear which was basically designed for that).

And the only citation I've found for it being used against spears was an unverified legend about it being used against pikemen. However, if it was an effective tactic, it would have been in widespread use. And, realistically speaking, you're not going to be "lopping off heads" with it. As for the Doppelsldner, they were more commonly armed with ranged weapons (and backed up by pikemen), which makes more sense.

---

I love pole arms, spears, naganata etc as weapons. In an open field 1v1 duel I'm still going to give an arming sword the advantage every time.

In phalanx/shield wall scenarios, push vs push of infantry? The spear like thing is always going to come out on top. Especially when backed by proper archers with mounted cavalry or chariots to charge into the void with random hammers and long axes behind the shield wall.

That's just math.

---

Zareth posted...

Did anyone actually use a halberd in actual combat? I thought they were just things guards held in medieval times to discourage people from fucking around.

Yes. And they were ludicriously effective to the point of almost single-handedly obsoleting all other melee weapons except the sword. A halberd can be wielded like a spear for piercing, swap over to an axe, and then has a hook attachment for dealing with shields and heavily armored foes. The only drawback was the amount of training required but even that was much less than what was needed in both time and money for an armored knight. The only drawback it had was that it wasn't as effective in close-range combat as a sword but even that was not only minor but soon rendered moot with the arrival of the pistol and other firearms. The halberd still remained viable for years before the musket became more practical and finally surpassed it (especially since a bayonet could be attached to turn it into a spear).

Maybe you could argue a dedicated knight or swordsman was superior to a halberd wielder but for the same cost as one of those you could easily field multiple halberders. You could even easily arm peasants with the weapon though they wouldn't be able to use it anywhere near as effectively as a trained soldier and you may as well just hand them spears for all the good it will do.

---

Zeus posted...

I'm going to need some citations there, because an oversized sword should be terrible at something like that. Great swords typically required full body rotation, which typically doesn't work well in combat formations (unlike the spear which was basically designed for that).

And the only citation I've found for it being used against spears was an unverified legend about it being used against pikemen. However, if it was an effective tactic, it would have been in widespread use. And, realistically speaking, you're not going to be "lopping off heads" with it. As for the Doppelsldner, they were more commonly armed with ranged weapons (and backed up by pikemen), which makes more sense.

Greatswords were mainly used against spears because the extra reach allowed them to deal with the spear shaft by swatting it aside. Once moved aside it was easy to close the distance and, against unarmored or lightly armored foes, it also allowed a person to use both arms and body rotations for damage. However they were phased out as they were ineffective against armor and longswords and shields both became better. You can easily cleave through a wooden shield but a metal one is going to cause serious damage to your blade. They still had their purpose since they were one of the few ways to reliably deal with the halberd but the knight was well on the decline at that point. They were also good against horses due to their reach but since medieval knights armored their steeds it was only against the more lightly armored cavalry from the east and muslims that this really came into play (since the desert environment was not good for wearing heavy armor).

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Yes. And they were ludicriously effective to the point of almost single-handedly obsoleting all other melee weapons except the sword.

Indeed, once firearms became more commonplace the halberd was toned down due to not needing anti-armour or anti-shield techniques any more, so only the pike was needed to repel the horses.

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

I love pole arms, spears, naganata etc as weapons. In an open field 1v1 duel I'm still going to give an arming sword the advantage every time.

That would be a poor decision:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U

Spears have a massive reach advantage and an insane ease-of-use. At close quarters, a sword will win almost every time, but that involves being able to close the gap.


---

Zeus posted...

That would be a poor decision:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U

Spears have a massive reach advantage and an insane ease-of-use. At close quarters, a sword will win almost every time, but that involves being able to close the gap.

Perhaps, but the effective part of the spear is more or less the tip, and you're not going to do much with the shaft aside from parry and you're never going to beat a man to death with the shaft unless his entire battle plan is to stand 3 or feet away from you with his arms at his sides, face presented.

I'm not saying spears are ineffective as a weapon, but their efficacy on the field of battle still relies heavily on many people with them and a shield wall to protect a spearman's squishy bits.

Just like how archers in large numbers at range are a pox upon their enemy, but I'm never going to suggest a normal human archer is going to beat an average swordsman in 1v1 combat starting from 10 paces.

---

Zeus posted...

'm going to need some citations there, because an oversized sword should be terrible at something like that. Great swords typically required full body rotation, which typically doesn't work well in combat formations (unlike the spear which was basically designed for that).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppels%C3%B6ldner

I have a few books on weapons and warfare, as well as a weapons master friend, but wiki is easier. Basically, the Zweihander itself functions like a polearm and sword cross: long enough to catch and intercept spears and keep them at bay (especially with a cross in the blade), but short enough to offer some defense for those that close the distance. As well as the ability to be swung, which you can't do with a spear.

To wit, warfare with them isn't well understood, and their use was quite isolated. But the generally idea is that the flat of the blades could shove aside a spear/cut the spearhead off, allowing to create a gap in a spear formation and close the ranks. It's basically an anti-spear weapon.
Zeus posted...

However, if it was an effective tactic, it would have been in widespread use. And, realistically speaking, you're not going to be "lopping off heads" with it.

Lopping the heads off of spears, that is.

And not true. There's loads of example of weapons that were effective, but isolated, due to a number of reasons through history. Hell, the katana is considered the perfect sword for virtually all situations, and Europeans didn't both to make their own even after learning about them. The use of the Zweihander largely died off with the rise of gunpowder, which killed off spear formations and most all other type of melee weapon usage aside from calvary.

---

I like how half the people in this topic are thinking Dark Souls is how weapons really work.

---

You know how heavy iron and steel are? Big stupid weapons are confined to anime and video games for a reason.

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

the katana is considered the perfect sword for virtually all situations

This is a meme

---

JoanOfArcade posted...

I like how half the people in this topic are thinking Dark Souls is how weapons really work.

I would also note the idea that battles are fought by little squares of men moving around using RE tank controls shoulder to shoulder is more a consequence of how things look on a map than how things work in practice.

One of the biggest issues when talking about military history, especially medieval and earlier, is that it assumes a level of consistency and organization that often simply wasn't there. A lot of people memorize the boot colors of Napoleon's regiments, but that doesn't account for a soldier who loses his boots and has to find a new pair.

The other issue of course being that it tends to overshadow other more important areas of historical study, but we're nerds, not scholars.

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Hell, the katana is considered the perfect sword for virtually all situations

A "Katana" is just a japanese word for "sword". Perhaps you mean Odachi in the context you're using it in? The traditionally regarded japanese longsword? Or are we talking Nodachi? The great sword? Wakisashi? The shortsword? The Tanto, a dagger?

The Odachi IS fast for a longsword for sure, but the poor crossguard and lack of distal taper may be trivial against other Odachi, but against a gladius or arming sword, the single edge and poor stabbing ability alone is a huge disadvantage.

For close combat, the wakisashi is probably best, but it still suffers from the same issues, just shorter in form.

I love many eastern weapons, but once you take them out of the east, they're facing challenges their respective martial arts were never designed to deal with.

This is why Zulu warriors could curbstomp european forces for decades. The invaders were fighting the wrong army with the weapons they arrived with.

Pound for pound, I think the Aztec club/swords are one of the most horrific melee weapons ever made.

A sappy club rolled in volcanic glass. The force of a club combined with the flesh ripping and maiming properties that no other enemy brought to bear. The Aztecs were short changed by tactics and biological warfare only.

If the aztec civilization had developed in the old world, our calendars would be round to this day.

---

A sappy club rolled in volcanic glass. The force of a club combined with the flesh ripping and maiming properties that no other enemy brought to bear. The Aztecs were short changed by tactics and biological warfare only.

If the aztec civilization had developed in the old world, our calendars would be round to this day.

No. They wouldn't. The aztec may have been good at war but that was all they were good at. They sucked when it came to management and diplomacy. Basically all the other tribes stayed in line out of fear of being sacrificed but when they might be sacrificed anyways they were all too eager to revolt. Cortez was the catalyst but he wasn't what defeated them. No doubt both he and the smallpox didn't help but the thing that defeated the Aztec was the Aztec. They were terrible emperors with no capability to rule who kept order through violence. Their fate wasn't just inevitable but entirely predictable. The only reason it didn't come sooner was the lack of a rival power to rally the tribes but, with how they were managing it, it's very unlikely that they would have lasted much longer.

The Old World sort of saw something similar in the Mongols. They were powerful when it came to the conquests but once it came time to actually rule their land they quickly crumbled because being able to fight and being able to lead are not the same thing in the slightest.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

No. They wouldn't. The aztec may have been good at war but that was all they were good at

And who wrote that epitath? The conquistadors?

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

And who wrote that epitath? The conquistadors?

No. The Conquistadors would have you believe that it was a bunch of backwater natives subdued by superior Spanish technology and faith in God.

The reality is pretty straight-forwards. The Aztec were a war-focused society with bloodthirsty priests that were lacking in regards to social policy. It doesn't take a genius to tell what the inevitable outcome was.

https://youtu.be/KWmo9r0hnM8

That link goes to a good video detailing their history. Not my only source of information of course; but a good starting point.

If the Aztec had appeared in the old world they likely would have been just another war-focused tribe beaten into submission by a larger empire. Especially if we made the timeline synch up and they would have been stuck fighting off armored knights or whatever was used by the local empire with their clubs. Their only hope of survival would have been if they started off in the african jungles but even then that's just delaying the inevitable.

I don't know where this recent myth that the Aztec were basically demigods who would have been the dominate force in the world if even one thing had gone differently because that's like saying that the only reason the Byzantines aren't around still is because one person didn't lock the fish gate. Moments where history seems to turn based on one minor decision are EXTREMELY rare in the grand scheme of things (Hannibal's decision to not sack Rome, the sandwich that changed the world, and Prince John's disastrous rule come to mine) and there's no realistic scenario in which the Aztec remain a world power. At best they might have beaten Cortez and worked out a peace deal with Spain but their own internal strife and poor policy management ensured their downfall. Cortez was just the catalyst, the thing that set the powder keg off, but he wasn't the one who piled all the powder there in the first place or set up the nearby torches or decided that the powder keg made for a nice bed.

---

I don't think we'll ever understand human history prior to the written word.

The red haired giants with 6 fingers and 2 rows of teeth, the stone walls of New England, the ruins we keep finding in 40-60 meters depth off shore back when that water was tied up in the ice age.

We can dig all we want and pull dna out of random knuckle bones but when all is said and done we'll end up knowing more about the dinosaurs because they fossilized to stone than we'll ever know of our own history as humans.

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

I don't think we'll ever understand human history prior to the written word.

The red haired giants with 6 fingers and 2 rows of teeth, the stone walls of New England, the ruins we keep finding in 40-60 meters depth off shore back when that water was tied up in the ice age.

We can dig all we want and pull dna out of random knuckle bones but when all is said and done we'll end up knowing more about the dinosaurs because they fossilized to stone than we'll ever know of our own history as humans.

Well, a huge problem is simply that most documents can't handle the test of time. A lot of times it seems like the winners are the ones who write the history because the winners were the ones who were developed enough TO write in the first place.

But that's why archaeology exists and why modern historians don't accept accounts as being universally true even if there is no counter-document. They try to piece things together from digsites and the like. The Aztec burned a lot of historical records and it's only because one of their emperors thought it was important that we even have any. But it's not like we're totally clueless or the like. We have people dedicated to unearthing history working on it.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

The Aztec burned a lot of historical records

Wrong...wrong AF. The Catholic church destroyed the history of the indigenous south americans wholesale. Full fucking stop.

The Aztecs were not the ones that went scorched earth on their own history and culture, and after seeing you say something that wrong I literally cannot take you seriously. A conquered people with an ingrained culture doesn't just say "yes master" and submit to their invaders unless their invaders totally destroy their culture.

Look at the ancient korean writing system for another example.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

The Old World sort of saw something similar in the Mongols. They were powerful when it came to the conquests but once it came time to actually rule their land they quickly crumbled because being able to fight and being able to lead are not the same thing in the slightest.

That's bull shit

The Mongols did pretty well as rulers. Some lands were lost quickly, others were managed for 50-100 years, and multiple parts of the empire lasted a few hundred years.
And they were good rulers in terms of overall management, allowing religious freedom and keeping the length of the Silk Road secure so Marco Polo could have his little adventure.

Not sure why so many people are so eager to discount the Mongols as some flash in the pan that "went away soon after Genghis died" (they kept expanding thru his successor Ogedai's reign, but why let facts get in the way of the narrative?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire#Legacy

Some Turko-Mongol Khanates lasted into recent centuries: The Crimean Khanate lasted until 1783; the Khanate of Bukhara lasted until 1920; the Kazakh Khanate lasted until 1847; the Khanate of Kokand lasted until 1876; and the Khanate of Khiva survived as a Russian protectorate until 1917.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

streamofthesky posted...

Not sure why so many people are so eager to discount the Mongols as some flash in the pan that "went away soon after Genghis died"

*cough*eurocentrism*cough*

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

Wrong...wrong AF. The Catholic church destroyed the history of the indigenous south americans wholesale. Full fucking stop.

The Aztecs were not the ones that went scorched earth on their own history and culture, and after seeing you say something that wrong I literally cannot take you seriously. A conquered people with an ingrained culture doesn't just say "yes master" and submit to their invaders unless their invaders totally destroy their culture.

Look at the ancient korean writing system for another example.

Yes. The Spanish destroyed a lot of historical records. They were far from the first though. It's actually not that strange historically speaking as a lot of empires tend to burn and destroy records of what happened before they were an empire (China did it for example). At no point did I say that the Spanish didn't destroy the records either. The simple fact is that, when the Aztec became an empire, they destroyed the records of the past and, while a later emperor changed that stance, when the Spanish came along they destroyed a lot of what was left.

That's bull shit

The Mongols did pretty well as rulers. Some lands were lost quickly, others were managed for 50-100 years, and multiple parts of the empire lasted a few hundred years.
And they were good rulers in terms of overall management, allowing religious freedom and keeping the length of the Silk Road secure so Marco Polo could have his little adventure.

Not sure why so many people are so eager to discount the Mongols as some flash in the pan that "went away soon after Genghis died" (they kept expanding thru his successor Ogedai's reign, but why let facts get in the way of the narrative?).

Because they didn't last. The fact is that the Mongols were a tribal and nomadic people and ruled an empire that was simply too large to actually BE ruled at the time. They only managed it by allowing a large amount of autonomy to their subjects and that comes with the drawback of quickly losing control. We saw the Mongols fracture apart quickly as the stronger nations broke free and, before long, it was basically the remains of the Golden Horde and rulers who had mostly integrated with the native cultures if they weren't outright deposed.

Historically speaking they WERE a flash in the pan compared with empires like Rome, China, Persia, and India. They couldn't maintain and fell apart swiftly.

---