View Full Version : Poleaxe/Polearm discussion
Michael the Great
11-22-2002, 15:03
Ok,so,most poleaxes in the game have armor pierceing(I believe all of the have...),and they get a good defence(most of them...),and kill cav very good...
So,what's the difference between poleaxes and polearmes,how were they used,and are they well represented in thy game???
I'm concerned both by historical and game realations...
Go ahead...
A 'poleaxe' would basically be an axe mounted on a pole (the stick, not the inhabitant of poland).
I think it is sometimes used to describe a Halberd, which would be incorrect since the axe-blade of the halberd was but one of it's functions (it also included a pike at the top and a hook to pull down cavalry).
The more generic 'polearm' is simply a weapon on a stick (of any form).
Examples of polearms include the Hauberk, Halberd, 'Goedendag', Pike etc.
In the game there does not see to be a generic way to model polearms (and rightfully so), as Pikes are totally different in intended use from a Goedendag for example.
I wouldn't have really put pikes in with polearms.
Pikes are pikes.
Think of polearms as kinda the swiss army knife of medieval weapons.
They have a blade or spike for any purpose
The problem with classifying them is that a whole bunch of farm instruments underwent parallel evolution in different countries till they wound up being roughly similar.
The original poleaxe would have been an axe on a pole, but the more generic term refers to something much more like a halberd.
My dictionary specifically calls a halberd a variety of poleaxe.
Michael the Great
11-22-2002, 15:36
Furthermore,how were haldberds used?? For what function,defence???
It seems haldbardiers,in the game,have a very good defence,wich seems a bit unrealistic,I mean,i mean a slash from a haldberd is VERY hard 2 escape.......
Haldbardiers have a very low attack,hhmmm,maybe coz of their heavy weapon,with an axe,a hook, and a pike,but haldberds were shorter tham usual pikes weren't they???
They were the offensive equivalent of pikes/spears...
Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Nov. 22 2002,08:36)]They were the offensive equivalent of pikes/spears...
That is why they get the 3/1 bonus against cav, while the spears get 1/4. Against infantry halbards are good, but they are not that good. They suffer a little from the same problems as the pikes (easy to get under) while they don't have the help from their buddies behind them, as a halbard is not very effective over the shoulder of a man.
Michael the Great
11-22-2002, 16:01
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Nov. 22 2002,08:51)]
Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Nov. 22 2002,08:36)]They were the offensive equivalent of pikes/spears...
That is why they get the 3/1 bonus against cav, while the spears get 1/4. Against infantry halbards are good, but they are not that good. They suffer a little from the same problems as the pikes (easy to get under) while they don't have the help from their buddies behind them, as a halbard is not very effective over the shoulder of a man.
Hi Kraxis http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Remember,haldbards did have a pike on them,but they were much shorter than a pike,and not so easily to get under...btw,u saw those poleaxes that Chivalric Foot Knights and JHI have?
Is it their polearms,or their life-long training in war that gives them those great melee stats?
JHI r the best polearm unit,with a 5 attack,in their description,it sez that"they carry polearms that give them an advantage in melee"...
Polearm and poleaxe are the same in the game. The five infantry hth types are:
1) swordsmen, no bonus
2) pikemen, +2att/+6def vs cav
3) spearmen, +1att/+4def vs cav
4) polearm, +3att/+1def vs cav and armor piercing
5) axemen, armor piercing
Michael the Great
11-23-2002, 17:47
I think the attack bonus for haldbardiers should be increased,i mean,spears/pikes are better defensive weapons,but it is very hard 2 defend against a hit from this weapon..why the very high defence-only from armor??-really,who can u defend that well with a haldberd?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
JHI,are the best polearm troops,but it's odd that all the poleaxe troops in the game have the lowest charges,while Janissary HI have 4 charge...
Haldberds are a distinct type of poleaxe units,separate from other "simple" poleaxe weapons,like Chivalric Foot Knights use...
Katasaki Hirojima
11-23-2002, 23:52
Also, Naginata can be consiered a kind of Polearm, and they got the same huge defensive ability. You'd be very hard pressed to get inside a halberdier, and a person can slide his hand up the shaft to turn the polearm into a sword with a reallllly long hilt. I designed my own polearm, its blade is more naginata-ish. It's a heavy one sided blade that becomes a two sided blade 2/3's of the way to the end, and at that 2/3's point where the thick, flat 'backbone' tapers into a double sided blade theres a armour peirceing spike and hook. Like this
Michael the Great
11-24-2002, 18:36
[QUOTE=Quote (Katasaki Hirojima @ Nov. 23 2002,16:52)]Also, Naginata can be consiered a kind of Polearm, and they got the same huge defensive ability. You'd be very hard pressed to get inside a halberdier, and a person can slide his hand up the shaft to turn the polearm into a sword with a reallllly long hilt. I designed my own polearm, its blade is more naginata-ish. It's a heavy one sided blade that becomes a two sided blade 2/3's of the way to the end, and at that 2/3's point where the thick, flat 'backbone' tapers into a double sided blade theres a armour peirceing spike and hook. Like this
The JHI, Chiv Foot Knights and Swiss Halbardiers have good attacks because of their training. Halbardiers are only citizens (remember the Morale) with good equipment and rather rudimentary training. They are trained to stay close and cover each other because they are not good enough to take on proffesionals one on one. So they get a great defense because of the length and build of the halbard and because of their formation. The lack of attack is because they are locked and can't move around freely like the other units. Of course in the game they do so, so they would have to be limited by some other factor, the stats.
Michael the Great
11-24-2002, 19:46
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Nov. 24 2002,11:50)]The JHI, Chiv Foot Knights and Swiss Halbardiers have good attacks because of their training. Halbardiers are only citizens (remember the Morale) with good equipment and rather rudimentary training. They are trained to stay close and cover each other because they are not good enough to take on proffesionals one on one. So they get a great defense because of the length and build of the halbard and because of their formation. The lack of attack is because they are locked and can't move around freely like the other units. Of course in the game they do so, so they would have to be limited by some other factor, the stats.
Yeah,but only spear/pike units can fight in multiple ranks...yeah the good stats of those units are because of their training,just look at Haldbardiers and Swiss Haldbardiers......
And proffesional haldbardiers CAN take on other units one-on-one,no?
I said in my other post that halbardinfantry could not fight over each other shoulders, so their support of each other would be by presenting a good front and helping the guy next to you. So obviously they can't have a rankbonus.
But since this is not possible to present in the game as of now (don't talk about Hold Formation) the Halbardiers are simply given a 'bonus' to defence and a 'penalty' to attack, compared to what it would be normally, and are still allowed to fight normally.
You can say the Swiss are the true Halbardiers, the ones that don't need each other so much as it would limit them, while the Halbardiers are the citizen troops that don't have enough training to be capable of doing that.
Michael the Great
11-24-2002, 20:06
Yes,and the Haldbardier seems 2 be the closest version of the nanginata.
Hmmm... haven't considered that, but they are very much like them now that I check it.
A little cheaper and 1 better in both attack and defence, though that doesn't say much, as many units are stronger than them while the Nags were stoic in all cases and could hold on for 200 years in battle if protected.
Vlad The Impaler
11-24-2002, 21:40
Kraxis u wrote that those swissmen arent proffesional soldier; but as far as i know about they were mercenaries during medieval ages and they were perhaps the best battle team since the apparition on the battlfields of spanish tercios and aquebuses.
in France it was a quote at that time: "pas d'argent pas de suisses" ; i think that they can be considered proffesional soldiers just because they fight so good in formation; for this kind of battle i think it is needed a lot of training;discipline means a lot in any army ;on my opinion knight doesnt mean automatically professional soldier;
just some thoughts...
Michael the Great
11-24-2002, 22:18
A good trained soldier with a polearm/poleaxe can do great things 1vs1,just look at my examples.....only 1 type of unit with swords has the 5 attack of JHI,and that is Gothic Foot Knights...
deejayvee
11-25-2002, 05:28
Quote[/b] (Daevyll @ Nov. 22 2002,08:14)]Examples of polearms include the Hauberk, Halberd, 'Goedendag', Pike etc.
A hauberk is a polearm??
Here's me thinking that a hauberk was a knee-length mail shirt.
err yes, you're absolutely right. I meant the Hache, not the Hauberk.
mea culpa.
Quote[/b] (Vlad The Impaler @ Nov. 24 2002,14:40)]Kraxis u wrote that those swissmen arent proffesional soldier;
Thanks for your input (about the parts I left out)... But you are wrong, I never said Swiss Halbardiers were not professionals, in fact I said that they were the professionals and the Halbardiers were the 'poorly' trained citizens. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yeah I wondered about the Hauberk too... I thought it might have had a different meaning in different countries and cultures.
The Halbardiers were basicaly defensive Units. The Halbard was designed to fullfill many diffrent roles. The Pointy end could be used like a Spear, the Axeblade to crush heavy Armour (especialy Helmets) and the Hook to pull Cavalrymen down from their Horses or to push off Stormladders. The Fact that Halbardiers couldn´t carry a shield while wielding their weapons limited their offensive capabilities.
With a weapon like the Halbard and some strong Armour those Units were well suited for almost any situation, but on open field (Weapon to big to use shields, Armour real heavy slowing them down .... easy targets for Arbs or Longbows). They were however perfect to defend Castlewalls or Gateways (which is why you always see Halbardiers standing guard in movies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).
In my opinion the attack Bonus vs. Cavalry should only be applied if they manage to flank the Cavalry ( a lance is simply longer than a polearm, so ... bye, bye buddies ).
Just my 5 cent.
J.
Michael the Great
11-27-2002, 00:14
Quote[/b] (Jaret @ Nov. 25 2002,13:38)]The Halbardiers were basicaly defensive Units. The Halbard was designed to fullfill many diffrent roles. The Pointy end could be used like a Spear, the Axeblade to crush heavy Armour (especialy Helmets) and the Hook to pull Cavalrymen down from their Horses or to push off Stormladders. The Fact that Halbardiers couldn´t carry a shield while wielding their weapons limited their offensive capabilities.
With a weapon like the Halbard and some strong Armour those Units were well suited for almost any situation, but on open field (Weapon to big to use shields, Armour real heavy slowing them down .... easy targets for Arbs or Longbows). They were however perfect to defend Castlewalls or Gateways (which is why you always see Halbardiers standing guard in movies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).
In my opinion the attack Bonus vs. Cavalry should only be applied if they manage to flank the Cavalry ( a lance is simply longer than a polearm, so ... bye, bye buddies ).
Just my 5 cent.
J.
Good point,but just look at good trained poleaxe infantry,JHI wear a shield,altough they carrry a poleaxe weapon,and have superb melee.....(oh,and they're fast too).
But,a sword could be more easily used b anyone,while a poleaxe is harder 2 handle....but when in the arms of trained porffesionals...just look at the results.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Also,pikes are meant 2 keep caav back,but they still suffer their offensive drawbacks.
Michael, while the JHI does have shields they are like the Varangian shield, they give no bonus besides armour. This is because for the JHI/Varangians to use their twohand weapons they need to slig the shield onto the back. And this they do.
Hakonarson
11-27-2002, 05:27
In modern re-enactments polearms are quite easy to "get inside" on foot as long as you can survive any initial slash - which is where a sheild against them comes in handy.
The prefered method of using them is as a spear with an additional function - the cutting blade and hook/hammer.
Their long length means you are unlikely to get more than one shot at an advancing enemy if you try to use it as an axe.
TO answer your Question, A poleaxe is an Axe on a Pole ( many different types and developments over history.
A Polearm, is any weapon used to extended reach fighting, everything from a Spear to a Pike.
It's a Historical Classification.
Like all pistols are called Side Arms or Personal Arms.
It's just a classification of a class.
fenir
Right Michael ... but JHI are no Halbardiers *gg* they are JHI ... "Yenni Cherry" - New Soldier Heavy Infanterie .
Their way to fight was completely diffrent from Halbardiers ... and so was their Polearm. Basicaly it had the same Classification ( Polearm ) but it is wielded way diffrent from an Halbard. It was more like the weapon of the english Billmen. Billmen however were more likely an offensive unit because their weapon was wielded in a way that you could defend yourself with it in an 1 on 1 situation.
A single Halbardier would easily loose vs. a single Swordmen ... it was the formation of many Halbards that gave them strenth. A Billmen would stand a better chance since a). The Head of his weapon is not so heavy, b). due to the shape of the Headblade it could be used effectively if wieded from the side, while Halbards are best used to crush them on the enemy from above (needing comrades to protect its flanks.)
A strong standing formation of Halbardiers is a force that is hard to overcome in hand to hand combat, but vulnerable to missile fire. Billmen could operate in an loose formation, thus beeing not so vulnerable to missile fire.
Same with JHI ... their weapon has an hooked blade at its end ( a bit like a Naginata with an hook ) ... no heavy axeblade.
Hakonarson
11-27-2002, 22:25
Jaret your assumptions about useage are pretty much trivial.
the mass of a hlaberd or Bill head is roughly the same, teh weapon is roughly the same length, both have a point, a hook (or spike) and a blade and do teh same job.
The fact that one was essentially English and the other continental is irrelevant.
Most differences between weapons of similar type are completely trivial - as are those between halberds and bills and guisarms and vouges and partisans and pole axes, etc.
They are all what I call cut and thrust polearms, as opposed to cut only (axes), or thrust only (spears, pikes).
The different usages by different nations are, IMO, due to fashion and tradition and trying to make the weapons act significantly differently is a grave mistake in analysis.
Not realy, at least in my opinion.
A diffrent shape brings diffrent kind of uses.
According to your definition a Halbard would be an ... trusting, crushing and pulling weapon.
A Bill however is more an slashing, crushing pulling weapon ... according to its shape it lacks the Spearpoint that is needed to make a trust.
Usage may be trivial when calculating stats ... on the Battlefields of medieval Europe it was not. Sometimes the diffrences seem to be trivial, but they were not.
For a Halbard it is very difficult to stand against an Swordsmen with a Kiteshield and when beeing charged by Knights they die like flies, because a Lance is simply longer.
That is why I don´t really like the weapons as they are momentarly with MTW. Most weaponstatistics don´t reflect their real usage ... in my opinion ... anyway.
Hakonarson
11-28-2002, 00:03
Quote[/b] (Jaret @ Nov. 27 2002,16:49)]According to your definition a Halbard would be an ... trusting, crushing and pulling weapon.
A Bill however is more an slashing, crushing pulling weapon ... according to its shape it lacks the Spearpoint that is needed to make a trust.
Usage may be trivial when calculating stats ... on the Battlefields of medieval Europe it was not. Sometimes the diffrences seem to be trivial, but they were not.
For a Halbard it is very difficult to stand against an Swordsmen with a Kiteshield and when beeing charged by Knights they die like flies, because a Lance is simply longer.
Bills most certainly DO have points Go have another look
All pole arms of this type had points and blades. A few lacked the hook or spike on hte rear - particularly French styled ones such as the Partisanf, Vouge and guisarme - possibly because they didn't need one fighting against mainly dismounted English armies (pure speculation on my part)
And Halberds were quite effective against knights in good hands - the Swiss started winning withthem alone and changed to pikes apparently because of weapons used on FOOT rather than by mounted troops.
The reason English billmen weren't tested by European cavalry is that they were invariably protected by lots and lots of archers - the bill was no longer than a halberd after all, so any comment you want to make about lance length and halberd length applies equally.
Cut & Thrust weapons were specifically designed for anti armour.
They also mostly all have some kind of blade for slashing. I don't know what Halberds you have been looking at Jaret but the ones I have seen seem to have only slightly smaller blades than a Bill.
The historys I have read specifically quote cut & thrust weapons as being a big part in the downfall of the superiority of the mounted armoured knight, as even relatively untrained people with one could:
Stand a charge much better than swords, pull the knight off his horse/chop the legs of the horse, pierce his armour with the spikes then kill him.
Hakonarson
11-28-2002, 22:18
I've never read that the cut and thrust type weapon had much to do with the downfall of knights
The standard infantry weapon is the spear - not the sword - swords are EXPENSIVE and for much of history lower class infantry couldn't afford them and weer not required to supply themselves with them.
IMO CAT weapons helped, but what really did for the knights was the increasing confidence of infantry in their ability to stand up to cavalry charges (oh no - here we go again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif ).
Without the confidence all teh halberds in het world wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference, and het confidence came BEFORE the improved weaponry in most cases.
Michael the Great
11-29-2002, 12:06
I believe,haldbards were slightly smaller in lenght than tippical pikes,so,besides keeping enemyes at a distance,it could do a slash in the case the enemy got beyond the tip of the haldberd(pike cannot do it,unless in disciplined,organised formation)...
Oh,and haldbard type troops are usually good armoured so u can't say there so vulnerable 2 arrows...........
Seems that they are the more offensive counterpart of pikes(I'm not talking vs cavalry).
So,apart from holding the enemy,they can DEFEAT it.....
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.