Well, that source was a professional historian, but he admits, as do the rest of the sources, that the evidence is a bit muddled, simply because so few specimens have survived and the folks of those times weren't exactly organized or using a fixed terminology.
But the arguments against just plain fails the common-sense test. We know that the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans all were familiar with bladed staff weapons, and their European enemies used them, like the falx. It's just not plausible to say that all these cultures miraculously forgot about this idea, then invented it again centuries later. This wasn't rocket-science, even by medieval standards.
The bill-guisarme is referred to as a weapon from the 10th century onwards. It just seems incredible that such a specialized weapon would be around, but not a simpler blade-on-stick like a fauchard (which is pretty much just a minor variant on war-scythes, which have been with us since the early Greeks).
But the arguments against just plain fails the common-sense test. We know that the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans all were familiar with bladed staff weapons, and their European enemies used them, like the falx. It's just not plausible to say that all these cultures miraculously forgot about this idea, then invented it again centuries later. This wasn't rocket-science, even by medieval standards.
The bill-guisarme is referred to as a weapon from the 10th century onwards. It just seems incredible that such a specialized weapon would be around, but not a simpler blade-on-stick like a fauchard (which is pretty much just a minor variant on war-scythes, which have been with us since the early Greeks).