| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
James Head
|
 Posted: Sun 03 Oct, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject: The Power of the Billhook |
 |
|
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?
|
|
   |
 |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sun 03 Oct, 2010 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas S
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Oct, 2010 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Oct, 2010 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
Wayne Norman
Location: Boston, UK Joined: 05 Oct 2010
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriele A. Pini
Location: Olgiate Comasco, Como Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 239
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wayne Norman wrote: | | 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. |
I was speaking about cutting, not thrusting :-) I guess everyone knows that a thrust is the preferred way of dealing with armored opponents.
You should wear a good breastplate and voiders made of riveted maille or at least a good arming doublet made of multiple layers of strong material next time. Will save you some blood, doctors some work and spectators some nerves ;-) However things we do are dangerous, and no matter what armor we have no-one is 100% safe.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | | 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. |
Wait a second there. It's reaching to assuming such a game accurately reflects earnest combat. Neither the weapons nor the warriors (if we want to call them that) are the same as their historical counterparts. Period sources suggest that a single strong blow from a staff weapon could kill or knock out armored opponents. Fiore wrote this about his pollaxe and a French source on Agincourt mentioned English hammers having that effect. A seventeenth-century source I recently stumbled across claims halberd could cleave lighter helmets. Smythe thought halberdiers making blows at the head and thrusts at the face would carry all to the ground. While I don't think the full stroke on the head always incapacitated, the evidence suggest no historical combatant could trust solely in their armor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Head
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | | 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. |
Wait a second there. It's reaching to assuming such a game accurately reflects earnest combat. Neither the weapons nor the warriors (if we want to call them that) are the same as their historical counterparts. Period sources suggest that a single strong blow from a staff weapon could kill or knock out armored opponents. Fiore wrote this about his pollaxe and a French source on Agincourt mentioned English hammers having that effect. A seventeenth-century source I recently stumbled across claims halberd could cleave lighter helmets. Smythe thought halberdiers making blows at the head and thrusts at the face would carry all to the ground. While I don't think the full stroke on the head always incapacitated, the evidence suggest no historical combatant could trust solely in their armor. |
Yes, blows to the head will bring people down. Occasionally. If somebody has a poorly made helmet that can be cleaved or the helmet is too light (cervelliere for example, actually many helmets, especially munitions grade, were made of very thin metal). But against a good helmet it does not matter much whether the weapon is sharp or blunt. It is obvious that people can withstand multiple halberd blows to the head and still continue fighting. These fights are much closer to real thing than any SCA. These people do not thrust because it is too dangerous (and of course it effects their way of fighting), but otherwise it's all (almost) same. They fall only when they want to (or when they are forced to). Which means that they can be hit many times and continue fighting if their armor protects well. Just like in a real battle. These people do wrestle. And take a look at medieval and renaissance paintings: there is always some (and often a lot of) brawling.
Now these were emotions, here goes the mind. Medieval authors would not write something like "no matter how you hit'em it won't work". Authors write to inspire those who are hitting and to warn those being hit. Imagine what effect on halberdiers' morale would have words "actually these guys can withstand your cuts and thrusts without any problem"? Authors say that some things can and did happen. Well, I've seen a helmet punctured by a blunt (reenactment) one-handed axe. This precedent shows that such thing can and did happen. However
1) it does not happen often
2) the wearer of the helmet wasn't injured by the blow
Actually a hit to the head may not be even the most dangerous one, but it is surely MUCH easier to hit opponent in the head then for example in the shoulder in a tight formation. And a thrust in the face is effective because there are always gaps or even the whole face is open. In other words authors tell to aim at the most suitable targets. I haven't read this manuscript, but your words "halberdiers making blows at the head and thrusts at the face would carry all to the ground" may be interpreted in different ways.
1) It is enough to hit a person in the head or thrust in the face once to kill him
2) Hit in the head and thrust in the face-these are easy target and you have a good chance of succeeding even if your opponent is armored
3) Don't bother finding other targets. Hitting in the head and thrusting in the face is enough. Even if there are other seemingly more vulnerable targets they are too difficult to hit
I am not telling that armor protected against everything. Nor I am telling that hafted weapons are ineffective. What I am trying to tell is that GOOD armor protects against cuts well enough so that one might need to find other ways of killing his WELL-armored opponent than simply walloping him with a big-piece-of-steel-on-a-long-stick. Thrusting and grappling are some of the possible ways. Using help of other guys with big-pieces-of-steel-on-long-sticks is another :-) After all, quantity usually tends to transform into quality.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James Head wrote: | | But would a machete or kukri be able to accomplish the same effect in one stroke? |
With a skilled operator, definitely. I'm sure it's easier with the bill, but both historical accounts and test cutting show you can lop off limbs and heads with one-handed swords.
| Quote: | | I think the hook itself might have proved to be effective at cleaving armor at the joints or puncturing plate. |
Maybe. We don't have much to on about the English bill specifically, except that sixteenth-century writers consider it a halberd equivalent. Another important function of the hook is, well, hooking. Silver suggested hooking your opponent's leg at the close when fighting with forest bills.
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | | It is obvious that people can withstand multiple halberd blows to the head and still continue fighting. |
I didn't see anybody wielding anything like a sixteenth-century halberd in those melees. Additionally, we don't know how hard historical warriors hit and how well these modern equivalents compare. Consider the question of draw weights. Many present-day archers never draw more than 50-60lbs, yet the average draw weight for the Mary Rose was 150-160lbs. Smythe emphasized how "lustie" (meaning vigorous) men should wield the halberd.
| Quote: | | Actually a hit to the head may not be even the most dangerous one, but it is surely MUCH easier to hit opponent in the head then for example in the shoulder in a tight formation. |
So why do armored pollaxe manuals recommend the blow to head and never (to my knowledge) anywhere else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James Head wrote: | | I think the hook itself might have proved to be effective at cleaving armor at the joints or puncturing plate. |
Hooks are good for... Hooking :-) They do puncture armor better than straight blade, but their best use is to hook. Pull horsemen from their horses. Throw people to the ground. And then finish them off. We tried fighting with axes and the thing we hate about them most of all is that even proper armor does not protect well when someone hooks you with a bearded axe (or pollaxe) by the knee. The "beard" of the axe goes right where you have no armor at all. Pretty unpleasant I should say.
P.S. There is a video on ARMA site where a (as far as I remember) deer carcass is being cul in half by a longsword. I believe that it is more difficul to do than to cut a goat's neck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
So why do armored pollaxe manuals recommend the blow to head and never (to my knowledge) anywhere else? |
Where else can one hit? Legs? Lowering your blade is not the best thing to do (unless chances of success are high enough). Also legs have thick bones and no brain. Difficult to damage unless you cut though the armor which is almost impossible. Torso? There is breast plate! The thickest part of the whole armor. Arms? Too difficult to hit hard enough. So head is the best option. Relatively easy target and also pretty vulnerable. However feet (footmen usually did not wear sabatons and often did not wear greaves), fingers (in case of fingered gauntlets) and elbows (in case of earlier armor that did not protect "inner" part of the elbow that well) are much more vulnerable than head. Same goes for armpits and groin. Before anybody wants to argue I would like this person to fingt full-contact with steel weapons at least 20 times (or even more. He should get hit in one of the above-mentioned places at least once to be able to compare it to a hit in the head).
The question is not in what is the most vulnerable place to hit. It is what vulnerable place can be hit with high enough chance of success.
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Spreier
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | | Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
So why do armored pollaxe manuals recommend the blow to head and never (to my knowledge) anywhere else? |
Where else can one hit? Legs? Lowering your blade is not the best thing to do (unless chances of success are high enough). Also legs have thick bones and no brain. Difficult to damage unless you cut though the armor which is almost impossible. Torso? There is breast plate! The thickest part of the whole armor. Arms? Too difficult to hit hard enough. So head is the best option. Relatively easy target and also pretty vulnerable. However feet (footmen usually did not wear sabatons and often did not wear greaves), fingers (in case of fingered gauntlets) and elbows (in case of earlier armor that did not protect "inner" part of the elbow that well) are much more vulnerable than head. Same goes for armpits and groin. Before anybody wants to argue I would like this person to fingt full-contact with steel weapons at least 20 times (or even more. He should get hit in one of the above-mentioned places at least once to be able to compare it to a hit in the head).
The question is not in what is the most vulnerable place to hit. It is what vulnerable place can be hit with high enough chance of success. |
All the axe manuals I am aware of do recomend alternate targets.
Fiore, in his description of Breve la Serpentina says "This point is very strong and can penetrate breastplates and cuirasses".
From his description of a fendente mandritto from Posta di Donna "If I can't strike his head I can do so to his arms or hands".
Le Jeu and the Anonymous Bolognese both describe feinting high followed by a blow to the knee. The Anonymous also has plays regarding thrusts to the foot and groin.
Is the head the "ideal" target? Yes and no. The goal is to make the other guy unable to continue fighting. Killing them works, but so does a concussion, or a broken arm, hand and knee; getting stabbed in the groin ain't no picnic either. Besides, it is not always in your best interests to kill your opponent.
Compagno, Northwest Fencing Academy
http://bunkaijuju.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Oct, 2010 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | | So head is the best option. Relatively easy target and also pretty vulnerable. |
That's my understanding as well. I thought you were arguing otherwise.
| Quote: | | However feet (footmen usually did not wear sabatons and often did not wear greaves), fingers (in case of fingered gauntlets) and elbows (in case of earlier armor that did not protect "inner" part of the elbow that well) are much more vulnerable than head. |
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.
| Quote: | | Same goes for armpits and groin. Before anybody wants to argue I would like this person to fingt full-contact with steel weapons at least 20 times (or even more. He should get hit in one of the above-mentioned places at least once to be able to compare it to a hit in the head). |
I've never heard of blows to the armpit before. As above, I'm dubious. Assuming mail gussets, what makes the armpit so vulnerable to blows? The groin I can imagine, though I'm only aware of manuals suggesting thrusts to the groin.
| Quote: | | All the axe manuals I am aware of do recomend alternate targets. |
Good point on Fiore's blows to the hand/arm. I'd forgotten about that. I wasn't aware of the knee blow - thanks for letting me know. Otherwise, though, I was talking about blows, not thrusts. For the armored pollaxe material I've seen, blows to the head predominate. With the murder stroke, this applies to armored longsword as well. Unarmored manuals, by contrast, include a diversity of targets for blows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
I've never heard of blows to the armpit before. As above, I'm dubious. Assuming mail gussets, what makes the armpit so vulnerable to blows? The groin I can imagine, though I'm only aware of manuals suggesting thrusts to the groin.
|
The armpit has very sensitive nerve clusters and is impossible to protect with plate. A maille voider even if it isn't penetrated by a point won't stop the tip from hitting hard. Any padding under the armpit can't be too thick and keep the arm mobile.
So even if the maille and padding can do a good job stopping a cut a heavy thrust to the armpit will hurt like hell: Just have someone give you a stiff fingers trust into your armpit and I'm sure you won't like it.    
Actually a good place to distract someone in a fight or self defence modern context.
In period a killing blow if the point of a poleaxe pierces the mail and goes in 6" or so depending on the angle of entry ( Lung puncture, major vein or artery or even the heart !? ), at the very least the arm won't be good for very much and a follow up blow to the head should finish the fight.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | | I said that these parts are more vulnerable because when you get hit there it REALLY hurts. Believe my, I have such experience. |
What type of armor do you wear? It is similar to the full plate used in fifteenth-century judicial duels? Physiologically, a blow to armpit that does not cut simply cannot end a fight, while (according to period sources and consist with the role of central nervous system) a single blow from certain polearms (hammers, at least) can kill or incapacitate.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | So even if the maille and padding can do a good job stopping a cut a heavy thrust to the armpit will hurt like hell: Just have someone give you a stiff fingers trust into your armpit and I'm sure you won't like it. |
I've been hit in the armpit with both blows and thrusts when sparring with padded weapons. It was never a big deal. Blows to the head (with a fencing mask), arms, ribs, or hip could be far more painful. Thrusts to the throat were the worst. Those actually scared me. I have no doubt that thrusts to the armpit were effective for fighting in armor, as they appear all over the place, but a blow, except perhaps from the back spike of poleaxe, would not inflict the same damage.
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Spreier
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | To Alex Spreier:
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. |
All of the manuscripts are set up as one-on-one combat - there is no advice about fighting in formation. So, I would, IMHO, be very careful about saying what one should or should not do in formation based on the manuscripts' advice. Yes some things are common sense, but there is no evidence of formation style techniques or advice given in the manuscripts.
I know you were talking about blows and I know that the billhook shown in the video would be a poor thrusting weapon - but that is why the "war" versions of so many agricultural implements (like the bill) became combination weapons - i.e. sticking a point on a bill?
Compagno, Northwest Fencing Academy
http://bunkaijuju.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic