[Adam M.M.]

This is something I've been pondering for a while; in unarmoured single combat with spears, is it worth giving up the leverage of a two-handed grip for the protection of a shield? I know that spears were predominantly used with shields in battle but that's obviously quite a different context.

[Timo Nieminen]

If you mean using the same spear one-handed or two-handed, then it depends on the details (including the kind of shield). E.g., for an iklwa (the short Zulu close-combat spear), stay one-handed and use a shield. For a long heavy spear, stay two-handed. But mostly, I think two-handed.

If it's a choice between a spear designed for one-handed use with a shield, and a spear designed for two-handed use, I'd bet on the two-handed spear.

[Adam M.M.]

[Andrew Gill]

[quote="Adam M.M."]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Adam M.M.]

[Andrew Gill]

As far as I know, the various bills he is referring to are varieties of the billhook-based polearm which the english used in the hundred-years war and some time after; something which actually looks a lot like a halberd, except with a hooked, concave cutting edge. The billhook was originally (and is still sometimes) used for cutting limbs of trees, which is probably why he calls it a forest bill. I'd also like to know exactly how a black bill differs from a forest bill, if at all. As to why it is supposed to be superior (asside from its length): like a halberd (what we understand as a halberd, anyway) it is very versatile - it can cut, thrust or hook, but part of his preference is probably because it was "a true english weapon" and he was a bit of a traditionalist and a bigot against foreigners.

Regarding the length of Silver's halberds, the fact that he groups them with battleaxes suggests to me that he was actually talking about weapons along the lines of the scots lochaber axe or the russian bardiche; these often have a shorter haft than other polearms, but have a long axe-like blade (usually with a sharp point for thrusting) and a hook at the back, so they are loosely similar to what we consider to be halberds in terms of "features" on the business end. (I think the similarity would be greatest with early halberds). Anyway, I get the impression that he wasn't too bothered by exactly what sort of head the polearm had (he says a quarterstaff with no head is very nearly as good as his beloved bill), as long as it was the right length, so he'd probably be happy with a nice 8 or 9 foot long continental halberd and group it with the other polearms of the true length.

Silver's two-handed sword is not a huge german-style zweihander; it is probably closer to a late-period longsword, as he mentions that the blade should be as long as that of his ideal one-handed sword (about one meter). In "Brief instructions" he also mentions some two-handed sword techniques in which one hand temporarily lets go for extra reach, and that it should therefore preferrably still be usable with one hand.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

While many halberds seem to have been seven or eight feet, others were in in the range recommended by Silver. Sir John Smythe thought halberds shouldn't be above six feet for the halberdiers intended to fight in the press. So there seems to be a school of thought in sixteenth-century England that considered around six feet the correct length for halberds, at least for fighting in formation. (Smythe recommended seven and half feet or more for the halberds of the halberdiers accompanying the shot, who often had to fight against multiple foes in loose formation.) Writing in the early sixteenth century, Machiavelli wrote that the shaft of the Swiss/German halberd was a little under six feet, which would imply a total weapon length of around seven feet, depending on the size of the head.

According to Paul Wagner, Silver's forest bill or Welsh hook looked like this. I'm not so sure about that exact head design - the forward point strikes me as too short and awkwardly positioned - but I suspect the general idea is correct.

[Andrew Gill]

Benjamin: thanks for the information.

So there were shorter halberds as well. I hadn't seen them, but it makes sense. The other short axe-like polearms which I mentioned have heads functionally similar to a halberd, as already noted, and I can imagine that a shorter weapon would be handier than a long one when two opposing pike-formations made contact and what I've heard referred to as "the bad war" ensued.

Thanks for the picture of the bill. The bill replicas I've seen have generally been simpler (probably because they're earlier?), but functionally similar - there is a hooked concave blade on one side, a prong or hook on the back and a thrusting point on the end. I do know about the italian-style bills from roughly the same period as Silver, which look quite different (in detail, at least), and I know of one weapon in that style which was apparently of english manufacture - Silver must have frothed at the mouth about that! But I digress.

[Timo Nieminen]

It looks like Silver's "forest bill" is lighter than the "black bill". This keeps it faster even though mounted on a longer haft. Of Silver's weapons of ideal length, it's the most versatile, being good for cutting, thrusting, hooking, trapping an opponent's weapon, hooking shields, etc., without being so heavy as to lose too much speed.

In a tight press, a shorter haft can be better. Silver notes the differences between single combat and the battlefield. The list quoted above is for single combat.

I think Silver would have liked the Italian bill. I think his main gripe was with losing students to Italian rapier teachers. If Spanish rapier was fashionable and stealing students from him and other English masters, he'd have complained about them. Economics, not nationalism.

[Len Parker]

Guy fighting with shield on chest: http://warfare.ga/6-10/Chludov-Psalter-Psalm-143-lg.htm