I obtained a large, vintage two handed Billhook this summer. While I've found that its cutting power is fairly comparable to a machete for most jobs, I have been pleasantly surprised at how well the tool cuts limbs and branches at the joint. I usually have to hack at the 'crotch' of a branch a few times with my machete to take it off, but the Billhook blows through it like butter. Clearly it has something to do with the unique geometry of the 'hook' that makes such a big difference.

Recently I stumbled upon a video clip of a goat being slaughtered in rural India using a Billhook similar to mine. I have decided to share it here with a huge WARNING that some people might consider the scene very grisly.

Billhook Slaughter

If you can get past the initial shock, I'm sure you will agree that the Billhook is amazingly efficient at separating areas that are connected by a joint of some kind, whether that be a tree branch or a neck bone...

Personally, this clip really made me stop and consider what things would have looked like on the field of battle where English Billmen were employed. The two handed Billhook in the video is only about three and a half feet long. What type of separating power would come from a heavy Bill on a six foot pole?

A strong blow from a military bill would of course do horrific things to an unarmored human. On the field, however, the bill typically encounter some form of protection. An account of Flodden in 1513 describes the heavily armored Scots remaining standing even when two or three bills struck them at once. Sir John Smythe wanted billmen/halberdiers to strike at the head and thrust at the face. It's possible blows to the head could split certain helmets; even if they did not, the man beneath could be knocked down and/or unconscious.

The slaughter of the goat involved tying down the beast and the slaughterer carefully measuring distance before making the blow.

In reality, we know that our opponent would do everything in his power not to be hit, and would be busy trying to kill us. Therefore, I would expect a lot of glancing blows: theory vs practice, as it were.

See video linked in this topic: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21004 It shows the effect of a full-force blow of a hafted weapon on an armored person. People get hit and continue fighting. And whether weapons are sharp or not makes little difference here. It takes either multiple blows or a very lucky one to bring a man-at-arms down.

I got stabbed in the rib with a blunt one at Tewksbury, broke the rib and punctured the lung, and that was a re-enactment safe version. Would not like to be hit with a sharp one.

What armour did you wear at the time?
We should make as much as we can from your bad luck.... (joke apart, I hope your lung is ok)

I agree with Ben that re-enactment events and medieval combat games can hardly be considered reliable examples of how heavy pole weapons behaved on the battlefield. We must first look to surviving period sources (manuals, not necessarily artwork) and then draw examples from forensics and real life. In some ways, my gruesome goat decapitation clip provides more useful data than the battle game advertisement video referred to in this thread.

What I was hoping to focus on was the unique weapon geometry of the billhook. As an example, it was mentioned earlier that the goats neck was extended with a rope and this is why the strike was so successful. But would a machete or kukri be able to accomplish the same effect in one stroke? I'd like to suggest that it was the 'hook' of the blade that produced such an efficient slaughter.

There were plenty of hefty bladed agricultural tools available for the medieval commoner to modify when going to war. Every option was tried at one point or another. What was it about the billhook that prompted English Men at Arms to adopt it use, wholesale, and produce improved military versions of it? I think the hook itself might have proved to be effective at cleaving armor at the joints or puncturing plate.

To Alex Spreier:

Quote:

This point is very strong and can penetrate breastplates and cuirasses

I was speaking about blows only. Because bill in the video was not suitable for thrusting.

Quote:

If I can't strike his head I can do so to his arms or hands

If you cannot strike his head, you have to strike somewhere else or you will be dead. Isn't it obvious? This line specifically recommends aiming for other targets WHEN one cannot hit the head.

Quote:

Le Jeu and the Anonymous Bolognese both describe feinting high followed by a blow to the knee

In one-on-one combat. In formation everything is VERY different. Once you lower your weapon it is difficult to raise it again. And you have nothing to protect you from opponents' blows and thrusts. Also it is common sense (at least I hope so) that one should alternate targets, otherwise all blows will be easily parried (this applies mostly to one-on-one combat, in formation there are far less available targets for blows). It is also common sense that any hit is better than no hit at all. Even if it does not damage it distracts.

Quote:

The Anonymous also has plays regarding thrusts to the foot and groin

Again, I was speaking only about blows.

To Benjamin H. Abbott:

Quote:

Are blows to the feet or elbows recommended or mentioned in any period source? Thrusts, certainly, I have trouble imagine effective blows against those targets in armor.

That is because it is very difficult to hit these targets hard enough or hit them at all. What I was trying to say is that head is not the most vulnerable part. However it is probably the easiest target, that is why manuscripts in most cases tell us to strike at the head. After all, a hit to the well-protected part will (at least usually) do more damage than a blow that hit only air or was parried.

I said that these parts are more vulnerable because when you get hit there it REALLY hurts. Believe my, I have such experience. However it happens so seldom that we don't bother about improving our armor (well, at least don't bother too much). I would not count on a blow to such place in a combat. I'd rather batter my opponent on the head until his helmet deforms together with his scull. Or until he falls, whatever happens first. However I would be ready to hit him 5, 10, 20 times, as many times as needed. I would not expect a single blow, even a very strong and well-placed one, to bring my opponent down, because I have seen people keep standing and fighting after receiving such blows. That is what I was speaking about in my first reply in this thread.

Alex,

Whereas there are many one on one weapons manuals that is not 100% accurate. A few do include some reference to fighting multiple people. More importantly, there are scores maybe hundreds of military manuals from the medieval period from Vegitius to C. de Pisan all including formation and tactical info. Further in the 15th century this gets better as several major rulers decide to make up their own, Charles the Bold has several in his Ordinances about how men of various types of soldiers were expected to line up and fight in unison.

The idea of the one-on-one medieval battlefield is not in an of itself right. I am sure after a time the ranks would shift and bleed rank But formations were still used and important. If you look at the English, Scots and Swiss this was in many ways how they survived with the troops they were using.

RPM