Greetings all,

I know that this question probably depends on the height of the wielder, but I have heard that polearms need to be 6 ft. (1.8 m) in length to be classified as such. Any truth to this?

Though I guess that also depends on your definition of a polearm. Mine is any weapon affixed to a pole (metal, wood, or otherwise) qualifies as one. That makes both a 15th c. poleaxe, a 10th c. handaxe, a 2nd c. spear, a 13th c. mace, and a 17th c. pike all polearms, right?

The reason I ask is that I am drooling over A&As Hungarian Axe. It comes w/ a 4.25' handle. Would a 6ft. handle be out of place on such a weapon? Historical accuracy and usage are my primary concerns. In regards to historical usage, I would imagine that lengthening the handle would turn it more into a quasi-Halbert or poleaxe type weapon, while w/ the standard 4.25' handle the weapon would be more wieldable in a melee the way, say, Vikings 400 years prior would have done.

Ahhh, semantics. Gotta love it!

to be honest, the 6 foot requirement seems fairly arbitrary.... akin to using a particular length as a requirement for being a sword.

For example, how would one categorize the presumably sub 6 foot pollaxes we see so commonly shown in artwork? I'd still categorize them as pole-weapons (i.e. a large hafted weapon)

As to how well a 6 foot haft would fit on that particular piece... I dunno... you may be able to fire off a query to the A&A folks, as they may be able to tell you if there is evidence of larger hafts (and why they chose the size they did).

I was taught, mostly for safety reasons, that it should be cut to the highest height that you can reach up and grab. This gives you control of the weapon and is out of eyeball height for most people. We had a lot of crowds to deal with though. YMMV.

Cheers,
Matt

Thanks for the opinions! They pretty much mirror my suspicions.

Perhaps the key to a good pole weapon is that it should outrange your "typical" sword, mace, flail, hammer, etc., while not being too cumbersome for the wielder.

Range/reach is good, but not the end all of a weapon's effectiveness.

I think I'll eventually shoot off a query to A&A about the length of the haft on their Hungarian piece. I'd like to think I'm pretty historically savvy on such subjects, but they would undoubtedly know better than me.

Cheers
Tormod [/quote]

Different lengths for different applications.

If we're talking mass infantry combat, long and "cumbersome" pollweapons work. You point them at the enemy, and probably don't use any fancy techniques. You could of course use a pike in a duel too, but that would seem like an unecessarily complicated way of killing someone, especially if they're in armour and the all-purpose can opener, the pollaxe, is available...

As a sidenote, one hand spears used in reenactment in Scandinavia are often 2,5 meter(max) in length. They're long enough to give a decent reach, but not as long as to be wobbly and unsafe. Some like me, use a 2 m spear for the sole reason that they're easier to bring along in the car or on the bus when travelling to events...

Johan Schubert Moen

Yes, one on one a 16 ft pike isn't very practical. They wobble even when made of good hardwood, and all your opponent has to do is get past the point and follow it to your gizzards. Even in a pike line the smart tactic in this case is to drop the pike and pull your dagger/short sword.

Wish they put some pics up, but we play with them at http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/gallery/index.html. Sorry, I'm getting off the subject a bit, you guys are reminding me of a fine day, a pike square in good order, and the smell of slow match in the air. ;)

Cheers,
Matt

Yeah, I wouldn't have expected pikes to be useful in single combat either. It's nice when period evidence goes against modern speculation. I feel as if I'm actually learning something when that happens.