I have the A & A warhammer and the beak is rather short of fat diamond section and not of the very slim and long ones that might find uses in hooking armour or deep penetration against lightly armoured foes.
http://www.arms-n-armor.com/view.html?pole005a.jpg

Now my question would be: Against someone in full armour when would one favour using the hammer side and when the beak side ? Is one better for striking at the plate or better aimed between plates ( chinks in the armour )

Use of the point ( dag ? ) is sort of a third option in an armpit or under a visor if one has the opportunity to thrust or range of movement in a press make a wide swing impossible.

So: What are the merits of hammer side versus beak side ? Assuming one had time to choose, as both seem as they would do about the same amount of damage ?

Concussive damage with the hammer followed by a focussed carefully aimed piercing by the beak ?

This might vary depending on the design of a specific warhammer or the longer poleaxe

In all the Fechtbücher I've seen the one-handed warhammer is shown only once, in Talhoffer's 1459 Alte Armatur und Ringkunst:
http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_...p_lang=eng
http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_...p_lang=eng
and that's obviously unarmored, so it has little relevence.

I can say, however, that I've made a special study of the pollaxe, and with the pollaxe, the hammer head is the only surface used for striking. The spike on the back is used only to hook, never to strike. While the specific reason for this is never explicitly stated in any book, I believe from the context that it's because the hook, as pointed as it is, is far too likely to slip when it hits plate whereas the teeth on the hammer face are designed to "grip" the metal to transmit the maximum force of the blow into the target.

Based on a barbute in the Germanisches National Museum, Nuremburg, I am inclined to say that the spike was used for more than just hooking. That does not mean that it was the "proper" way to do things, but it seems it still happened.

I think sometimes we get too wrapped up in fechtbuchen. They are mostly prescriptive (meaning they talk about how things should be done), not descriptive (in this case, meaning they talk about how things are done). Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against fechtbuchen, but just because they don't mention something doesn't mean it never happened.

-Grey

---

 Attachment: 27.67 KB

In the press of hand to hand combat you can´t absolutely accurately use a weapon. Not as in your fechtbuch "user´s manual".

Whichever side of your warhammer you use, you have its sheer mass plus a dangerous device at two sides which gives you a chance to hurt, cripple or kill your opponent, or just stun him and win a second to place your next blow more effectively. A warhammer is not just a beak and a hammer face or axe blade.
It is technically a mace "with extras". Even if you can´t manage the proper angle to use the "extras" efficiently, you can always land a massive blunt impact.

Ivo

In a fight or man to man (face to face) armed battle, you (hypothetical) are going into a Nightmare. Anyone going into battle, armed or unarmed with a choreographed plan will find himself half dead or dead, those seconds that are used by a fighter or a warrior whether in a street fight or in a 13th century battle with a bludgeon, are the precious seconds that can and often will determine life or death! This is why "muscle memory" is taught, and this is learned only by practicing with a particular weapon repeatedly, over and over and over, until it becomes instinct.
A warrior should also have keen instincts to read his opponents body mechanics by means of watching the shoulders and hips, stance, relative distance, whether the opponents body is balance 50 / 50, 70 forward 30 back, etc. These should all be instinctive, because there is no time to "think"!
I am sure the Roman gladiators trained in these things for hours, day in and day out, just as a modern day boxer, karate fighter, UFC fighter, so it would be the same for a swordsman, samurai, man at arms, knight, foot soldier, etc.
In a medieval battle, you are trying to kill your opponent and your opponent is trying to kill you, there are no rules of engagement, it's kill or be killed and that second or two seconds a warrior spends to think out his next move could well be his death sentence :!:
So it would seem obvious to me that any part of the business end of a warhammer (incidently I have the same warhammer as Jean and a Windlass warhammer too). Whether it be the hammerhead, back hook, side spikes or the top spike.
This is why for instance in karate, a person training with a nunchuku will practice any of the numerous strikes, blocks, trappings, etc. over and over and over again, until each and every movement is muscle memory and instinct. So I would think it would be the same principle whether the weapon be a sword, warhammer, poleaxe, halberd, spear, etc.
Also, practice drills against friendly opponents would be done repeatedly so that each warrior could develop the instinct to read his opponents body position, distance, balance, etc. So that when he went into battle in the real thing, he would have developed all the necessary instincts and muscle memory of his particular weapon or weapons against a variety of weapons.
I am not a medieval weapons expert but I did earn a black belt in karate from Keith Hackney of UFC Fame and a former Navy SEAL in October of 2004.

Well, this is what makes sense to me.

Bob

I could drive nails with a wrench, too, in an emergency, but that doesn't mean that's what it's *for*.

While I tend to agree that to much weight is given to fechtbucher, it is worth noting that almost every encounter the French poleaxe manual "Le Jeu Della Hache"(certainly misspelled as I haven't seen my copy in years) ends with the bec (in this manual referred to as bec-de-faucon rather than bec-de-corbin) wedged into the opponent's eyeslit from which his head is levered to the ground. I have yet to read of an armoured pole axe duel ending in death and personally tend to view it as a sporting tool, at least in the bec-de-corbin/faucon form.

To answer Ben Condon, one scenario is a referee controlled sport fight, wherein yes you can go in there with a strategy and think as your grappling or clinching. But this has No relation to a real life street fight, medieval battle or any other true life situation of life or death with an opponent, meanwhile when the chaos of melee is all around you and at any second you could be attacked by a comrade of your enemy opponent.
In this situation, one must react with instinct, muscle memory, but this is not the situation where you have the luxury of planning your strategy. There are arrows flying, swords hitting shields, warhammers banging into helms, limbs plopping off of bodies, horrendous screams of terror and pain.
This is not the boxing ring, UFC cage or any other sport fight. This is war, life or death and seconds are precious!

I also heard this same analogy in a seminar I attended that was taught by Joe Lewis the former full contact "karate" heavyweight champion of the world in the late 60s and early 70s, the seminar was in November of 2001.

Joe Lewis world karate champion, not to be confused with Joe Louis the former world heavyweight boxing champ.
Attached is a photo of me with Joe Lewis in November of 2001 at Hackney's Combat Academy, so as to show who
Joe Lewis is, for those not familiar with him.

Sincerely,


Bob

---

 Attachment: 36.18 KB
[ Download ]

I don't have any experience with a hammer against a steel target, but as a student of geology I've had ample experience with a hammer against rock outcrop, and I found that you get much more "bang for your buck" with the broad hammer side than the point. I would guess that against a hard target like a man in plate armour and/or a helm one would use a similar strategy, as it would send some pretty nasty shockwaves into the soft bits inside. You could use the beak against plate, but it would probably do quite a bit more damage to the armour than the man inside. On the other hand, if you managed to get the beak into a seam in the armour and pry it apart it would leave a pretty big opening for your next strike.

This is just a hypothesis, but I would suggest the beak would be more for use against lighter armoured opponents, like someone in maille. With the combination of maille and the padding underneath, the impact from the blunt hammer side would be lessened by the 'give' of the armour. If you used the beak, you might penetrate further into the man, maybe even through the links, and have a greater chance of snapping bones.

As a huge fan of the bec de corbin and the war hammer, I'm pleased to see it depicted often-enough in large battle scenes in later medieval period art. Unfortunately, I don't collect those images, but checking the direction of the hammers in these types of work should give you a most basic answer.

I'll try to poke around and look for an example or two. This one here is too crude to determine a definitive direction.
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/p...trai08.jpg

Would the spike be used on the neck after stunning an opponent, similar to the way this fellow is doing-in the green-garbed knight with his rondel dagger?
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/p...recy06.jpg

In addition, Alexi Goranov's review of a Higgins Armory pole axe mentions, "...poleaxes were also used on the battlefield, as revealed by period art. This is further supported by recent archeological finds and forensic investigations of skeletal remains associated with medieval battles." I'm assuming that triangle-shaped punctures would be the forensic evidence mentioned, but I guess you could email Alexi and ask.
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_higgins_pole.html

Personally, I wonder why almost all surviving examples I've seen are either the 2 foot/60cm variety, or the 5 foot or longer bec de corbin/Lucern hammer variety with very little in-between. Since intermediate sized swords and axes have always had their proponents, why don't we see a longer (~3ft) hammer more often, which would offer more reach in combat, and could be used one or two handed? For those of you who've acquired a war hammer, does it seem short to you, or 'just right'?

Perhaps in extremely close combat, getting inside the reach of longer weapons may have been a reasonable strategy with heavily armored knights.