Polearm spikes--for piercing or for tripping?

By spikes I mean things like these:

  The spike across the hammer part, or







I've heard assertions that these spikes were more for tripping than piercing armor, and vice versa. Any opinions?

I have no evidence, but I would think that the spike would have been used for whatever was needed at the time. Perhaps it would not pierce plate too easily (although it could), but I think it would be used against less-armoured soldiers. Yes, it may have been used for tripping; I personally probably wouldn't, and that's probably how it would have been decided back then as well: by preference.

If they used it for tripping, they are stupid. They should just jab it into their enemies faces. Also, it may have been used for taking down horses.

miclee1 said:

If they used it for tripping, they are stupid. They should just jab it into their enemies faces. Also, it may have been used for taking down horses.

Click to expand...

Not the spike at the top of the weapon, but across from the axe/bludgeoning head.

It was definately used to pull riders off of horses. It could also been used to pierce plate. I don't see how it could have done worse than the bladed axe head since it would concentrate more force on a smaller area, it should get better penetration. I'd think the axe would have been used to attack the horse, and the spike used to attack the armored riders.

allthesedamnnamesaretaken said:

It was definately used to pull riders off of horses. It could also been used to pierce plate. I don't see how it could have done worse than the bladed axe head since it would concentrate more force on a smaller area, it should get better penetration. I'd think the axe would have been used to attack the horse, and the spike used to attack the armored riders.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming that the "pull off riders" party is in the context of cavalry tangled in a mass melee instead of charging? Because I can't imagine people pulling off cavalry soldiers with a spike placed where it is on a polearm 

Those designed to unseat horsemen tend to be longer, the idea being to break the buggers neck when you pull him off the horse.

It would be useful for cracking open plate though, it would have the same weight behind it as the axe head, though concentrated in a smaller area. You could use it to trip, or even hamstring someone too by the look of it, though I guess you'd have to be good.

To be honest, once the rear of the head got that small it's a toss up whether it was specifically designed to do something, or whether the smith simply thought he might as well sharpen the rear of the axe head 'just in case'

Ah, the hook. A peasant weapon[originally] with a peasant purpose. Longer one's like Bills and Glaives, they were nice and long, and you could reach up and yank a horseman out of the saddle if he wasn't going quickly or stationary.

Archonsod said:

Those designed to unseat horsemen tend to be longer, the idea being to break the buggers neck when you pull him off the horse.

It would be useful for cracking open plate though, it would have the same weight behind it as the axe head, though concentrated in a smaller area. You could use it to trip, or even hamstring someone too by the look of it, though I guess you'd have to be good.

Click to expand...

Oh, and what he said.

Though, in the picture you[OP] posted, it looks as if it could almost be aesthetic.

I don't know, in that picture, the spike's bigger than the hammer. I certainly wouldn't like to be hit with it.

I'd say that the hooks weren't specifically used for anything. Tripping seems a little unwieldy, and the hook would contribute nothing to the effort.
It would be useful for catching on someone's armour, hooking their shield or smashing through someone's visor.

Of course, in the heat of battle, I'd imagine it pretty much boils down bashing people with whatever sharp stuff comes to hand, before they can do the same to you.
But there you go.

This is my personal opinion and based on nothing but simply observation, but I think the pole-arm was the equivalent of a swiss army knife, in that it provided multiple weapons to the wielder each with a different purpose.

The spike on the back of the Halberd could be used to pull someone off a horse, or it could be used to bash in their armor.

The hammers were obviously used to crush their armor and try to knock them down.

The spike on the top could have been used like a spear, but I suspect it was more of a "coup de grace" type of weapon where you bashed them down with the "side" weapons and then plunged the top spike into them once they were on the ground.  My reason for this is that most pole-axe type of top spikes aren't actually that sharp, and are typically pretty thick in cross section.  If you were to try to stab that into someone that was standing up and able to dodge out of the way, i highly doubt it would be able to penetrate their armor, given that the force would be negated substantially by the the fact that they aren't braced against something.  IE - the force of the blow would be transfered into pushing them back more than punching through armor.

But if that person were prone on the ground, the spike would easily punch through the armor and kill them.


A swinging blow almost always has more impact than a thrusting blow.



Incidentally, I recently acquired a "Pole hammer" in the M&B game.  Does anyone else think it looks somewhat ridiculous?  It's basically a large stone on a really long pole.  When I think of a Pole Hammer, I think of what was shown in the first post.  The "Pole Axe" looks a little bit better, except that it's way too long.

Goodness, it looks so much like mine, doesn't it? 


It's a remnant of an earlier age in the game's development, but such things DID exist -but as tools, not weapons, and with a tremendously shorter handle. 



Now, as to poleaxes. 

This is so simplistic that it descends to the point of fallacy and almost makes it back again, but "if you can do it, it was done."  If you can hook something with it, it was used for hooking.  But that's not why they put it there. 

The hook on a bill was definitely meant for pulling, tripping, binding, and generally taking **** you don't want taken.  But that spine on the back was meant for piercing things you don't want pierced.
This fellow is an extreme example, but it's for armor piercing all the way.  Personally I think it's made this way to be an aid in blocking/parrying.  That's not to say you couldn't hook or pull with it -if it hooks, pull!- but that's definitely not what it's made for. 

Talhoffer had a great picture drawn of a disassembled poleaxe that clearly shows the intent of design.

As you can see, there are pokey-bits everywhere.  If it touches something in any direction, even accidentally, it's supposed to hurt -a lot.

This fellow is probably the best example of the "pain in every direction" principle, and it's illustrative. You can clearly see the part that's made specifically for hooking.  You can also see, by the dimensions of the top spike, that it's awfully thick in cross-section and made for defeating armor whereas the rest is not so much.  Likewise, looking at the Talhoffer illustration and comparing its pulling hook to the crows beak on the hammerhead, you can see that the pickaxe is definitely for defeating armor. Yes, it'll hook on armor and yes you can pull someone off a horse or off balance, but that's *not* what it's put there for. 

I think there's a difference between the "hook" on the backside of the halberd and the "hook" on the backside of a polehammer or poleaxe.

I don't think the hook on the back of a Halberd would penetrate armor very well...  It's very flat (almost bladelike) and would be better used for entagling and so forth.

In fact, I am somewhat doubtful that the Halberd would be useful against a heavily (plate) armored opponent at all.  IMHO, they were designed more for dealing with lighter armed opponents.  The Swiss who employed them most fameously were usually unarmored.

The Pole Axe and the Pole Hammer were another story entirely.  I think they were employed exclusively for defeating (plate) armor.

Rameusb5 said:

I think there's a difference between the "hook" on the backside of the halberd and the "hook" on the backside of a polehammer or poleaxe. 
...The Pole Axe and the Pole Hammer were another story entirely.  I think they were employed exclusively for defeating (plate) armor.

Click to expand...

Yup.

I don't think the hook on the back of a Halberd would penetrate armor very well...  It's very flat (almost bladelike) and would be better used for entagling and so forth.  In fact, I am somewhat doubtful that the Halberd would be useful against a heavily (plate) armored opponent at all.  IMHO, they were designed more for dealing with lighter armed opponents. 

Click to expand...

it depends entirely on what halberd you're looking at.  There are halberds that would prove you correct, but there are also halberds with with reinforced blades on the top and back obviously for defeating armor.  Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say those reinforces were made to make the halberd punch THROUGH plate, but they were probably made to push it out of the way while hunting the gaps. 

[quote author=Ursca]Of course, in the heat of battle, I'd imagine it pretty much boils down bashing people with whatever sharp stuff comes to hand, before they can do the same to you.
But there you go.[/quote]
Yeah, I'm with Ursca on that one. I just can't see myself trying to trip someone with a pole-arm in the middle of a general melee, with him and his mates trying to off me.

Cirdan said:

[quote author=Ursca]Of course, in the heat of battle, I'd imagine it pretty much boils down bashing people with whatever sharp stuff comes to hand, before they can do the same to you.
But there you go.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with Ursca on that one. I just can't see myself trying to trip someone with a pole-arm in the middle of a general melee, with him and his mates trying to off me.

[/quote]

Are you denying the usefulness of the "You go behind him and kneel down and I'll push him" tactic?  OMG!

Cirdan said:

[quote author=Ursca]Of course, in the heat of battle, I'd imagine it pretty much boils down bashing people with whatever sharp stuff comes to hand, before they can do the same to you.
But there you go.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with Ursca on that one. I just can't see myself trying to trip someone with a pole-arm in the middle of a general melee, with him and his mates trying to off me.

[/quote]
Oh, it's astonishingly easy and effective.  You pull a guy's heel or knee out in one direction and smash him in the other, and down he goes.  And when he does, you get to poke at all the soft and squishy bits you've uncovered!

I agree with destichado, also many ancient depiction show those weapons use in this way: you can grab and trip your opponent with the hook by grasping articulations from behind (foot and knee mostly, but ankles too), and then you finish him off in the ground with the pointed spike, where the hard ground surface behind his back will multply your blow strenght many times (even allowing a plate penetration, maybe).

I think the main mistake is to think those weapons usefulness in a one-on-one scenario, where any reasonable fighter would surely resort to something else like a sword or dagger. Notice that this kind of weapons were used almost only in formations, where's much more difficult to fully swing, but much easier to reach and grab, or to lunge and thrust/pierce (expecially for those in second or third line). That's probably also the reason why halberd blades became smaller and smaller in size, instead of becaming larger: most hits were made with the straight point or with the hook, the blade itself was a last resort, a chop-unarmored-foe thingie, or a "lucky shot" chance when recovering up from a missed blow.

Those images should be more explanatory:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Bad-war.jpg
You don't have much room to swing is such a mess, you just lunge forward and backward mostly, so the hook usefulness is easy to understand.

http://www.kipar.org/military-history/military/uniforms/1660s_2.jpg
Looke at the lower image, you can grab your foe's neck with your hook at close range with a single motion.

http://www.freewebs.com/joesoldiers/sol0046-large.jpg
Those are miniatures, but that was what you faced with your polearm mostly: another tight packed pikemen formation. Again, not much space for swinging, you just try to reach forward for any foe, and a side blow may deal great damage with your hook against another pikemen's face.

Daimyo said:

Notice that this kind of weapons were used almost only in formations

Click to expand...

Not really. Polearms were the most popular armament of city watch and similar organisations, indeed by the later periods they tend to be the most popular choice of arms, especially among the non-professional population. Then again, there's a lot of utility packed into a pointy stick with a hammer on the end.

I think the main mistake is to think those weapons usefulness in a one-on-one scenario, where any reasonable fighter would surely resort to something else like a sword or dagger.

Click to expand...

Not according to Talhoffer and George Silver.  Silver especially, who considered the english bill -a very halberd-like weapon- to be the finest weapon ever devised for single or melee combat -and this was well into the age of firearms.

Why would you need a sharp stake on the end of a hammer to trip someone? Just use the hammer, almost certainly they were used for piercing and thrusting.