Halberdiers and Billmen

[Gazza the Lionheart]

I just want to know what the difference is between halberdiers and billmen and which is better.

[Brother Derfel]

Billmen in my opinion are better than halbadiers as they are better in attack and still very good in deffence, whereas the halbadiers may be excellent at defending, they do not do so well attacking.

Always go for Billmen.

[LadyAnn]

Billmen in my opinion is better than halberdier, although halberdier has better defense (6 vs 4) and better armor (5vs3). This is for 3 reasons:
1. speed. Billmen is a bit faster and sometimes that little bit can make the difference between having the cav go around you or intercepting it.

2. better melee. Sometimes killing the opponent is as important as not dying.

3. Morale. Billmen has morale of 2 while halberdier has morale of 0. That means when halberdiers are tired, they tend to run more often. And halberdiers tired easily with their heavy armor.

Annie's take: billmen

Annie

[Marco]

I agree with ladyann, the reason I prefer billman is cos of their higher moral. These are very good against a cav charge.

[Shahed]

Billmen perform very well, hals do too, but bills seem to outclass hals, specially post patch 1.1. Best used against cavalry.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kaaskop]

billmen

but be advised taking the brunt of a cav charge with these guys can be very costly ,but the extra speed and more importent morale make it better

[Knight_Yellow]

im gonna say halberdiers simply becos to use billmen u have to go the english wat if u want to go french or german?

[Efrem Da King]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Thats like saying gothic knights are bad cos u have to be germany or italy to get em http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

ehhh no its not.

its like saying wat if i want to go spain i sure as hell cant get billmen their but i can get halberieds so i say their better since they are far far far more available.

[Efrem Da King]

But if your spain you can't get othic knights etheir making chivalric knights better?????????? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[Gregoshi]

Efrem Da King, welcome and hello.

I think Knight is basing his assessment on general availability of the unit. Billmen are specific to the English, whereas halbierders(?) have a wider availability with regards to factions.

[Gazza the Lionheart]

Im using the English and im about to invade mainland Europe and im creating my armies which is why I was asking. Thanks to everyone for there perspective on this issue.

[Shahed]

BILLMEN BILLMEN BILLMEN MADE IN MERCIA. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Coldstream]

Eh, I'm going to have to say the good ol' Halberd gets my choice for weapon of mass destruction for this one.

When I first started playing, I was a bit turned off by the slowness of the Halberdiers, so I left them at home in Denmark while the rest of my army full of Chivalric units went off to go and step on the French in Flanders.

Well, while my best units were off frolicking amidst piles and piles of dead Frenchmen, the clever French King decided to lead some ungodly large number of heavy cavalry and light infantry up through German territory and invade my little province of Denmark. Because I'm an idiot, all I had left to defend myself were 3 Halberdier units, 1 Viking unit, 1 Crossbow unit, a 7-man Royal Knight detatchment, and some 200-year-old Spearman unit.

When I saw just exactly how many knights I was actually facing, it really made me lose hope. It was something like 400 some-odd Chivalric and Royal knights. A smattering of Urban Militia and a huge throng of Peasants.

Lucky me, though, because that French king had an ego on him. He personally led the cavalry charge, and got quite a good distance infront of the rest of his horsemen before they followed. I deployed my men on a hill, spearmen in the middle, Halberdiers on the flanks, Cavalry in the back protected by the Vikings, and one Halberdier off in some forest somewhere for good luck.

I killed only about 2 or 3 of the King's guard with my crossbowmen, and they charged into my spearmen. I had to prior experience with Halberdiers, so I figured I'd just do what I usualy do against cavalry: charge into their flanks

I folded my units around in a really sweet envelope and had them charge. I was absolutely stunned when my Halberdiers just melted through those Frenchies like a hot knife through butter. The initial charge knocked down at LEAST half of the knights, and the resulting hand to hand quickly finished off his guard. I charged my Vikings in from behind and killed the French King pretty tidily.

By the time the King had fallen, the other cavalry units had stopped charging. Cold feet I suppose. In the end they sent 2 more units in against my Halberdiers who just chewed the French knights up and spit them back down the hillside. I then charged his Peasents with my knights and routed their entire army. I then repeated this process for 3 more times before I finally got reinforced.

To this day, I absolutetely swear by my Halberdiers.

[Gregoshi]

Hi Coldstream. Welcome to the Entrance Hall. Nice post BTW, especially as first posts go.

[Grothgar]

I also swear by Halberdiers, although its usually when ive used them wrong and they have been slaughtered when i swear. Anyway after that extremely lame joke i will stand by my decision.

Halberdiers have a really nice defensive advantage over billmen, and if you put them in hold position its even better. They are just able to withstand large numbers of cavalry attacks before they rout.

I personally like the English, what with being one, and a nifty combo is Halberdiers AND Billmen. The Halberdiers stand their looking all tempting, probably mooning the advancing enemy, while the Billmen are on their flanks. When the inevitable charge comes, most likely by the enemy king and his escorts, the halberdiers take the impact of the charge and stand firm.

Then the billmen fold into the center and charge the flanks of the cavalry. You could say this would work with any units, and it probably would, but this combination just annihilates the cavalry in a few seconds (honestly) even if they dont flee.

But the beauty of this is that is can be used against any unit and it have never failed me. Even when outnumbered hugely, 1 unit of Halberdiers and 2 units of Billmen, properly deployed and with a bit of luck can destroy many times its own number.

So go billmen and halberdiers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

But still good question and nice debate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[Gregoshi]

Grothgar, nice of you to swing by the Org and join us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I have to say, that is the finest bit of fence sitting I've seen in a while Grothgar. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif But it works And that was a fairly lame joke even by my standards. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Efrem Da King]

I still think billmen are the better unit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
although if you weren't english and they killed you i wouldn't like em etheir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[A.Saturnus]

Can`t say much about billmen, haven`t played them yet in campaign. But what I like about halberdiers is that they can be used against nearly every unit. They are usually hard to kill. I had a failed crusade once, where my general got killed (a chiv knight, slain by desert archers in melee http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ), while my whole army was in retreat, one unit halberds rallied and killed maybe about 250 men before leaving. And that in sand desert

[Grothgar]

Me sitting on the fence?? Your accusing me of sitting on the fence?? Well your absolutely *takes a look at his post*... right.

Thank you for the welcome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif , and yes the joke was lame, but then it was intended to be, had to put it out of its misery. Should have placed it on a horse and charged it at some Halberdiers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I actually registered about 3 days ago, but not reading the rules, i kept trying to post in the advanced users forum with no sucess, i thought it was my computer, but it was my brain. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif

[DBS]

Must admit that as someone who always plays English, have never bothered with halbardiers - my billmen have always easily beaten them in SP, and slaughtered them in the pursuit. If I were playing other nationalities, I must admit halbardiers would be a unit I would self-impose house rules on. Unlike billmen, who became a common English unit during the late period, halbardiers tended to be, historically, relatively rare units. One or two units per largish field army would be about right. I suspect billmen are relatively too powerful in the game at present, especially against cavalry. Although everyone knows that the bill-hook was supposedly useful for dismounting an opponent, I am straining quite hard to think of real battles where they were used effectively against significant numbers of cavalry. By the time the bill was widely used, the threat was more from dismounted men at arms than mounted, and it was against them that it proved effective. I am not saying that it would not have been effective against cavalry, just that I am not certain there is quite the historical evidence that many people assume. And again, context is all. Put billmen behind a hedge, or in and around farm buildings, and I am sure they would have slaughtered mounted opponents. But even the French nobility would have thought once, if not twice, before going in mounted in such circumstances.

[chilling]

I never use Habs. They are too slow. You try and move your army and your main defensive wall is lagging behind all your shock troops. Not a good position to get yourself into when someone's laid an ambush.

As he's talking about billmen I'd suggest that he's refering to the English faction, well Duh.

[Znake]

I go with billmen as over all better unit, but downside with billmen is english faction only.

Halbardiers, I can choose them when map conditions are right, like lush and when u defend hills.
Because of their lack of speed, they are dangerous to use on stepps and flats,its really easy to get around them.
Dont either use them in arid or desert conditions, they suffer heavy fatigue penalty therefore the possiblity they rrun or route are very high.

[econ21]

DBS - Not sure I agree with you about the history and billmen being too strong. My understanding is that in England they pretty much replaced spears, being just as able to defensively fend off cavalry through a wall of points but much more lethal when used offensively against armour or horse. On the continent, spears were replaced by pikes in some instances and/or by polearms. You have to think why the knights dismounted - because they would rather be well-armoured fighters on foot with polearms than fight as lancers. At least that's my understanding at the moment.
In the game, I've always been disappointed in my billmen - I don't know why but they seem to die too quickly for my taste. But then most of my men die too quickly for my taste... Never tried halberdiers, they may well be better.

[DBS]

Simon

I quite agree - classic case of chicken and egg, which, at this distance of time we can never hope to resolve: do the knights dismount because of an effective infantry threat against horsemen, or for another reason, which then gives a false impression of the effectiveness of the infantry. My suspicion - but it is only that - is the latter. It is noteworthy that English knights dismounted from a much earlier period than they are often given credit for; there is evidence of the practice as early as the Anarchy of Stephen and Matilda, with just a reserve left mounted. But why? It is generally assumed that it was to strengthen the infantry staying power, particularly against mounted knight attack. But if so, why not stay on horseback and counter-charge? Was it instead to provide better offensive power against enemy spearmen? And why did the English continue to dismount, when non-gentry infantry capabilities improved? If the infantry were now better able to look after themselves, why not keep the knights/sergeants on horse-back as a larger, more flexible reserve.

Perhaps our mistake in MTW (for understandable gameplay reasons) is to think too much of neat units of homogeneous troop types, and the chief concern in real life was to spread sufficient knights and sergeants along the line, on foot, to provide decent leadership.

David

[cugel]

I quite agree - classic case of chicken and egg, which, at this distance of time we can never hope to resolve: do the knights dismount because of an effective infantry threat against horsemen, or for another reason, which then gives a false impression of the effectiveness of the infantry. My suspicion - but it is only that - is the latter. It is noteworthy that English knights dismounted from a much earlier period than they are often given credit for; there is evidence of the practice as early as the Anarchy of Stephen and Matilda, with just a reserve left mounted. But why? It is generally assumed that it was to strengthen the infantry staying power, particularly against mounted knight attack. But if so, why not stay on horseback and counter-charge? Was it instead to provide better offensive power against enemy spearmen? And why did the English continue to dismount, when non-gentry infantry capabilities improved? If the infantry were now better able to look after themselves, why not keep the knights/sergeants on horse-back as a larger, more flexible reserve.

Perhaps our mistake in MTW (for understandable gameplay reasons) is to think too much of neat units of homogeneous troop types, and the chief concern in real life was to spread sufficient knights and sergeants along the line, on foot, to provide decent leadership.

I think that one reason is that England became a homogenous nation much earlier than other countries in Europe, allowing the king to exercise greater control on the battlefield over his various contingents. In addition, civil wars and other fighting refined english tactics. They were generally feared in Europe: the English are all good soldiers and archers. . . This nation is cruel and bloodthirsty and they even fight among themselves in the same way, waging great battles. Such is the condition of this kingdom. They also make war upon all nations of the world by land and sea and all that they gain. . . they send back to their realm and through this it is rich. Chronicler of Charles VII, quoted in Contamine, War in the Middle Ages.

European and especially French knights maintained greater independence on the field. They distained integrated arms concepts favored by the English and Byzantines, and especially the Turks, for example take the battle of Nicopolis in 1396 in which Hungarian Emperor Sigismund organized a coalition combined with crusader knights from France, Burgundy, England, Germany and the Netherlands to attack the army of Turkish Sultan Bayezid, who was attacking the Byzantines. The knights, against the wishes of Sigismund, charged impetuously up the hill against the Turks. The sultan simply allowed the knights to wear themselves out against his 1st 2 lines of light skirmishers and cavalry, then swept down on them with his fresh reserves of cavalry and Serbian infantry, anihilating the now exhausted and disordered knights. The knights simply rode over their own light infantry in their haste to attack, ignoring proper combined arms tactics. While this is an extreme example, it serves as a reminder that feudal knights in the early period often distained the role of supporting foot infantry and archers (although they were themselves not above fighting on foot, as they did at Nicopolis after their charge).

(Phew - on re-reading, that was a bit heavy, but I'll let it stand) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

I think that halberdiers are the most underrated unit in the game. They have low morale, which I believe is due to CA attempting to balance the unit. But, if you build them in a province with church, monestary, reliquary and/or cathedral, then WATCH OUT With those morale bonuses they stand toe-to-toe with any infantry or cavalry unit, they have heavy armor (which you can enhance with armorer buildings), and the armor-piercing bonus They kill cavalry in nothing flat and stand strong against spearmen and other infantry. Plus, best of all, they're cheap to produce and have low maintenance All round killing machines for a reasonable price. You can't beat that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[econ21]

Interesting topic, I had not thought about dismounting the knights to maintain or provide a disciplined frontline, although Terence Wise did mention the effect on morale of making sure the nobles could not up and run when discussing the War of the Roses.
With the English, and the French fighting against the English, I suspect missiles also played a large role in inducing the knights to dismount. The armour protecting the man in the period appears to have more or less kept pace with the arrow and bolt, but full horse armour was rather rare and so horses were more vulnerable to the massed longbow archery that characterised later medieval warfare against the English. For other wars on the continent, I am less sure why knights dismounted - maybe the pike and halberd? Maybe they did not dismount as much as in the wars involving the longbow.

[Alrowan]

halbreds are better... after running an extensive series of tests, i am pleased to say that halbreds scored much better than billmen in almost all inctidents. They cost exactly the same, but the only problem with halbreds is speed and morale. I tend to field them at v3, this gives them a mighty morale of 6 not much really, but its neough if you can stop them from being flanked. as for speed, when you defend, its not an issue

[Nobunaga0611]

Yeah I like Billmen better because they've got better morale, and move slightly quicker. I only take Hal.'s when I'm playing with Russia.

[DBS]

Cugel and Simon

I agree with Cugel that the English homogeneity played its part. The Scottish and Welsh Marches may well have played a part here - the sometimes constant petty warfare against opponents who did not always play by the rules, probably helped the English gentry develop a greater sense of respect for his infantry. People tend to forget that the true English longbowman of the High period was often himself mounted (for movement, not fighting), and properly liveried, second only to a sergeant in importance to his lord. I am not saying that other men did not wield a longbow when needed - hence the famous legal requirements - but the core of the army at least was semi-professional. To be fair to the French gentry, they do seem to have generally regarded mercenary crossbowmen with proper professional respect, even if of an inferior social class - one famous incident of riding down the crossbowmen is probably not a fair reflection on the normal relationship.

Perhaps another key point is the greater incidence of fighting on the Marches than elsewhere in Europe. After all, in the great clashes between kingdoms, and even civil wars such as Stephen vs Matilda, sieges were the norm, field battles the exception. How much battlefield experience did the average French knight at Crecy, say, actually have? Well trained, yes. But number of field actions under his belt?

I also agree with Simon on the role of missiles, albeit cutting both ways. Perhaps the first great English archery victory was the Battle of the Standard in 1138 - pre true longbow. The English knights dismounted, it seems to strengthen the protection of their archers against the Scots infantry charge. In other words, they seem to have recognised that the key to victory was potentially held by the archers, not themselves, and that the most important job they could do would be to protect and bolster the bowmen.

Maybe with regards to archery vs cavalry, it is not just a case of the vulnerability of the horse, but also of reducing the size of the target. Robin Hood aside, one has to wonder how accurate archery really was in field conditions - you have been dragging your longbow or crossbow around muddy fields for three months and there's a dew in the air - Lord knows what effect it has had on the bow and string. To boot you are tired, hungry, scared, etc. The English longbow victories seem to have been relying on arrow storms, rather than true aimed fire, which perhaps makes sense.

[chilling]

With regard to your last point. You've been shooting your longbow for 6 hours every Sunday for the last 14 years. I'm sure you've used it wet and cold before now.

Seeing professional archers today, although they use fancy composite bows, I'd guess a medeival longbow man could be equally as accurate. They would be at one with their weapon.

I've shot a good selection of bows in my time and once you're used to the strength of the bow you can quickly become quite accurate. Not that I'd like to spend my day drawing a bow thats strung as heavily as a medeival longbow. Those guys must have had the shoulders of an Ox.

[DemonArchangel]

not really just sundays, english longbowmen had to get 3 arrows off before breakfast EVERY day.

[HopAlongBunny]

If you are the English in SP billmen are the way to go. Better morale, v1 out of Mercia with very little effort; get them to v2 way too easily; faster

The speed of halberds drives me crazy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[BDC]

Well I think that knights dismounted because it is much easier to defend on foot than on a horse, however it is still easier to attack on horseback. The French (or someone, this is all a bit hazy) attacked back, copying the English but attacking on foot and needless to say didn't do too well in full armour.

Also if you are a knight you don't want to be the first to charge, because after you have hit home then you have lost your main advantage and have to try to pull back and charge again. However if the enemy charge first you can counter-charge and wipe them out when they are disorganised and spread out.

[NateEngle]

Given the choice, I build Billmen for the extra speed and not that much worse armor, but really either one is a better choice in bag-for-the-buck than practically any other unit Christian factions build. Deploy them in a woods on a hillside, and I've seen 1,000 of them hold off 10,000 Mongols with only minimal losses.

[cugel]

Another point that needs to be made is the rise of professionalism, especially in the English armies, such as the use of the mercenary free companies. As the wars the crown waged were increasingly in France, the King's vassals began to resist serving for long periods of time in the field. Their idea of their feudal obligation was service for a fixed period every year and in a fixed geographic area (England). But the king rarely needed them to serve in England he needed them basically year round in France. Thus, increasingly they were encouraged to pay the king a fee instead of actual service, which the king could use to hire mercenaries who would serve year round wherever the king wanted. The point about how much actual service the French knights had is also valid. Training is great, but nothing would naturally prepare a person for actual combat, but experience.

This point can't be overemphasized. Generally speaking, the more powerful the nobility became, vis a vis the king, the more the power of the state declined. This was true in Rome, where it led generally to the fall of the Roman Empire (see Ramsey Macmullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome on this point). In Byzantium, the rise and increasing independence of the landed gentry in Anatolia and consequent impoverishment of the free peasantry also led to a decline in power of the Emperor to raise an effective army. The Byzantines lost Anatolia forever shortly thereafter. The French were dormats for centuries largely because of their disunity. Their great lords had too much independence. The Dukes of Burgundy even allied with the English against the French. Once they developed a sense of basic unity against the English, they fairly rapidly threw them out of France.

[Portuguese Rebel]

I haven't seen billmen yet... The english seem to get creamed by the french everytime i play... Don't now why...
Perhaps next time i'll join in and give the english a hand, just to see billmen. Anyway Halbardiers are pretty slow and you don't usually need such a slow unit to stop cavlary IMO.

[NewJeffCT]

Well, I'm in my 2nd round on the English, and I love billmen, but was disappointed in halberdiers my first go-round. I heard a lot of buildup online about the awesomeness of halberdiers, but found them too slow for my army that was dominated by mounted sergants, hobilars, longbowmen and feudal sargents... (and, billmen, of course)... and, since the Egyptians were my toughest opponent the first time around, the heavily armored halberds were almost useless in the desert