So I was reading the thread on pole axes and halberds and bills and glaves etc.


What are these weapons? I know what a glave is, I know what a bill is, but I always thought a pole axe and a halberd shared a "toe-mate-o toe-mot-o" relationship.

a halberd is a longer weapon often with a wider cutting face than a pollaxe, and intended for line infantrymen.
a pollaxe does not necessarily have an axe head (hammers are very popular) and intended for armored knights and officers for use on the battle field as well as in duels

Maybe this might be of some use. Some very simple explanations..

http://virtuatheque.free.fr/The%20Halberd%20a...learms.pdf

See, this is the problem with polearm study. They lack a proper catagorization system, which makes it particularly difficult to converse on the topic without pictures, since not everyone knows what a ``guisarme`` looks like, versus a voulge, or a glaive. George Snook takes a good look at them in that link below.


Anyhow, as per your question. The difference is both one of context and use, as well as pure appearnce.

The halberd predates the poleaxe, and was a much simpler weapon, at least in the beginning. It was almost exclusively used by non-noble infantry. It was simple to produce. It usually consists of a squarish axe on a pole, sometimes with a top spike and a rear fluke. These projections are usually the same thickness of the blade, (ie. not four sided). As time wore on, the axe got smaller, and the whole implement became more decorated.

A poleaxe was almost exclusively a knightly weapon. It was usually more thickly built for armoured combat. It had a smallish axe head, with a hammer (sometimes a spike) at the rear, and a reinforced topspike. Unlike the earlier halberds, it was often ornamented, as fitting a noble weapon.

Another difference would be the length of the shaft. Poleaxes were usually somewhat shorter, while a halberd was often longer for use in formations.

There is a very comprehensive set of illustrations of various types of polearms here:

http://historykr.com/bbs/zboard.php?id=blog&a...a23ce7c844

As to whether the illustrations are entirely reliable, I leave that question to those with greater expertise than I.

That's right. Many originals in museum collections have been re-hafted in modern times.

Thanks Sean and Corey,

My uncertainty as to accuracy had more to do with the illustrations of the heads themselves (guisarme vs. glaive, for example) than the length of the shafts... but it is good to know that we shouldn't take the attributed lengths for granted.

With regard to the heads/points/blades, then, are these fairly representative of the "real thing"-- granted that there will be variation within each category?

I don't want my responses to be interpreted as dismissive of the resource in question. It's better than some I've seen, but has some misleading information and seems to turn up pretty frequently. Snook's monograph (see the link above) is better but still lacking in many ways. Waldman's book--discussed at length elsewhere in this forum--is the best current source of information, although even it has some problems (including a prohibitive price).

I'm working on a primer intended to bring together in one spot the consensus polearm information. Don't know when that might appear, though.

Again, I can't stress enough that contemporary art is the best source of information about these weapons--length, dimensions, how they were used, who used them, etc. Obviously, the more realistic the artwork the more reliable the arms information might be. I say "might" because we still have to allow for the artist's firsthand knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the arms in question. It seems to me, though, that what we see tends to match well with surviving arms and other contemporary depictions.

Thanks very much Sean. This is an area which is beginning to interest me more and more-- I've been following your own projects and previous discussions with interest for a while now, and I appreciate the knowledge you bring to these discussions. I look forward to seeing your primer.

David