Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > The spread of halberds and javelins Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Michael Wiethop




Location: St. Louis
Joined: 27 May 2012

Posts: 63

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 12:55 pm    Post subject: The spread of halberds and javelins         Reply with quote

Reading Romance of Three Kingdoms lately got me thinking about East Asian polearms. For the purposes of this post, I'm not including spears as polearms (even though that's what they are); I'm talking in general about halberds, halberd-like weapons, glaives, and the other bewildering amount of names for these sorts of things. There were quite a few types of polearm in East Asia, but what strikes me about them is that in China, they were used since the Shang Dynasty in the second millennium BC, and that the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, and perhaps the Mongols all extensively used weapons similar to halberds with both hands on horseback. But in Europe, if I'm not mistaken, polearms didn't catch on until probably the fourteenth or fifteenth century AD.

Likewise, javelins were very widespread in most of Europe for thousands of years. Yet despite their effectiveness, they don't seem to have been used much if at all in China, Korea, or Japan.

Very often on this forum I see phrases to the effect that "if it were any good, people would have used it." But both javelins and polearms were useful in Europe and Asia. In most of East Asia, the bow (or sometimes the crossbow in China) was the premier ranged weapon until it was slowly replaced with firearms. You might say that East Asian warriors didn't use javelins because they were outranged by bows; why, then, did the Greeks once have many ancient heroes who were archers (Herakles, Philoctetes, and Odysseus, for example), only to later shun bows as cowardly weapons and focus on javelins? Why did it take thousands of years for Europeans to develop weapons similar in function to the ge and ji, and why did they never seem to use such weapons from horseback?
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Ruhala




Location: Stuart, Florida
Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Posts: 335

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 1:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

In Europe the Dane axe occupied the niche that would later be associated with the halberd. In fact central European artwork shows proto-halberds that were essentially a Dane axe whose shaft protruded through its eye and was fitted with a spearhead. Ignoring the construction method the silhouette of the weapon looks startlingly like a 15th/16th century halberd.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 1:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Europeans really, really loved shields for a really, really long time.

That's pretty much it.

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 2:05 pm    Post subject: Re: The spread of halberds and javelins         Reply with quote

Michael Wiethop wrote:
Reading Romance of Three Kingdoms lately got me thinking about East Asian polearms. For the purposes of this post, I'm not including spears as polearms (even though that's what they are); I'm talking in general about halberds, halberd-like weapons, glaives, and the other bewildering amount of names for these sorts of things. There were quite a few types of polearm in East Asia, but what strikes me about them is that in China, they were used since the Shang Dynasty in the second millennium BC, and that the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, and perhaps the Mongols all extensively used weapons similar to halberds with both hands on horseback. But in Europe, if I'm not mistaken, polearms didn't catch on until probably the fourteenth or fifteenth century AD.

Likewise, javelins were very widespread in most of Europe for thousands of years. Yet despite their effectiveness, they don't seem to have been used much if at all in China, Korea, or Japan.

Very often on this forum I see phrases to the effect that "if it were any good, people would have used it." But both javelins and polearms were useful in Europe and Asia. In most of East Asia, the bow (or sometimes the crossbow in China) was the premier ranged weapon until it was slowly replaced with firearms. You might say that East Asian warriors didn't use javelins because they were outranged by bows; why, then, did the Greeks once have many ancient heroes who were archers (Herakles, Philoctetes, and Odysseus, for example), only to later shun bows as cowardly weapons and focus on javelins? Why did it take thousands of years for Europeans to develop weapons similar in function to the ge and ji, and why did they never seem to use such weapons from horseback?



Well for one you cannot really use a halberd or similar two handed polearm in conjunction with a shield, and shields haperend to be quite popular in Europe for a very very long time. For the Greek Hoplite, the Roman legionary and Germanic 'barbarian' a shield is an essential. The pikemen of Alexander the Great even used shields unlike some medieval pikemen. I believe the armored cataphract or the Falx wielding Dacian were one of the few who eschewed a shield in favor of a two handed weapon.

If we go past Antiquity and head into the early Middle Ages it seems this general trend of shield usage was still a thing. The Carolingian cavalry of Charlemagne, the Anglo-Saxon fyrd or the Danish viking were still quite likely to head into battle with a shield. Don't quote me on this but I believe one of the first genuine two handed weapon used during the Middle Ages was indeed the Dane Axe. From that point on we come across two handed weapon more often, like the mac bible for example. So say from around 1000 AD folks start using two handed weapons in lieu of shields plus a one handed weapon. The reason one would ditch a shield in favor of a two handed weapon might be increased coverage of armor or really big Maracas.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 3:40 pm    Post subject: Re: The spread of halberds and javelins         Reply with quote

Michael Wiethop wrote:
Likewise, javelins were very widespread in most of Europe for thousands of years. Yet despite their effectiveness, they don't seem to have been used much if at all in China, Korea, or Japan.


There were Chinese armies reported to include 30,000 javelineers: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QDsfWBimDEkC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146

There is also a variety of traditional Japanese javelins, though I don't know whether these were used much in warfare.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Sat 28 May, 2016 7:43 pm    Post subject: Re: The spread of halberds and javelins         Reply with quote

Pieter B. wrote:
Michael Wiethop wrote:
Reading Romance of Three Kingdoms lately got me thinking about East Asian polearms. For the purposes of this post, I'm not including spears as polearms (even though that's what they are); I'm talking in general about halberds, halberd-like weapons, glaives, and the other bewildering amount of names for these sorts of things. There were quite a few types of polearm in East Asia, but what strikes me about them is that in China, they were used since the Shang Dynasty in the second millennium BC, and that the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, and perhaps the Mongols all extensively used weapons similar to halberds with both hands on horseback. But in Europe, if I'm not mistaken, polearms didn't catch on until probably the fourteenth or fifteenth century AD.

Likewise, javelins were very widespread in most of Europe for thousands of years. Yet despite their effectiveness, they don't seem to have been used much if at all in China, Korea, or Japan.

Very often on this forum I see phrases to the effect that "if it were any good, people would have used it." But both javelins and polearms were useful in Europe and Asia. In most of East Asia, the bow (or sometimes the crossbow in China) was the premier ranged weapon until it was slowly replaced with firearms. You might say that East Asian warriors didn't use javelins because they were outranged by bows; why, then, did the Greeks once have many ancient heroes who were archers (Herakles, Philoctetes, and Odysseus, for example), only to later shun bows as cowardly weapons and focus on javelins? Why did it take thousands of years for Europeans to develop weapons similar in function to the ge and ji, and why did they never seem to use such weapons from horseback?



Well for one you cannot really use a halberd or similar two handed polearm in conjunction with a shield, and shields haperend to be quite popular in Europe for a very very long time. For the Greek Hoplite, the Roman legionary and Germanic 'barbarian' a shield is an essential. The pikemen of Alexander the Great even used shields unlike some medieval pikemen. I believe the armored cataphract or the Falx wielding Dacian were one of the few who eschewed a shield in favor of a two handed weapon.

If we go past Antiquity and head into the early Middle Ages it seems this general trend of shield usage was still a thing. The Carolingian cavalry of Charlemagne, the Anglo-Saxon fyrd or the Danish viking were still quite likely to head into battle with a shield. Don't quote me on this but I believe one of the first genuine two handed weapon used during the Middle Ages was indeed the Dane Axe. From that point on we come across two handed weapon more often, like the mac bible for example. So say from around 1000 AD folks start using two handed weapons in lieu of shields plus a one handed weapon. The reason one would ditch a shield in favor of a two handed weapon might be increased coverage of armor or really big Maracas.

Pretty much this. Also, China was one of the first nations to practice conscription and semi industrial casting of large blooms of iron and the most populous nations of the ancient and medieval world, just like they are now. So they produce and crap ton of weapons and armor at much higher quantities than Western Europe. I can't of more basic to outfit large bodies of shoulders Melee weapons that big long spears and big two handed weapons and more easy armor to assemble that lammellar and scale. If you look that Terra Cotta warriors, lammellar and scale was pretty ubiquitous. have guys die by arrow fire, just raise more men and keep going. Western European armies and nation population were pitiful in size by comparison. Each man in Medieval army was allot more valuable. Fo rthe Greek think, I've read for someone on here that a man throwing a javelin with running start can deliver more force that a arrow from stationary position. Also, the Greek relegated allot of cowardly weapons to Peltasts, which were essentially skirmishers sorta like High Roman Imperial Infranty was made purely of Roman citizens and low status roles (calvary, archers, slingers,) were fulfilled by Auxilleries.
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Wiethop




Location: St. Louis
Joined: 27 May 2012

Posts: 63

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2016 7:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I suppose if the Chinese were better able to produce large quantities of armor than contemporary Europeans, shields would not seem so necessary. Most of the terracotta warriors have armor, for example, so if I'm not mistaken, lamellar, or something like it, was very common even back in the Qin Dynasty. Contemporary Europeans seem not to have that much mass-produced armor, except perhaps linothoraces, so shields would have made sense. I wonder, though, why armor was mass-produced in China but not as much in most contemporary European societies.
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2016 8:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Wiethop wrote:
I suppose if the Chinese were better able to produce large quantities of armor than contemporary Europeans, shields would not seem so necessary. Most of the terracotta warriors have armor, for example, so if I'm not mistaken, lamellar, or something like it, was very common even back in the Qin Dynasty. Contemporary Europeans seem not to have that much mass-produced armor, except perhaps linothoraces, so shields would have made sense. I wonder, though, why armor was mass-produced in China but not as much in most contemporary European societies.

More centralized state, more efficent stable crop (rice can be harvested more times per year that bread, you can feed more off the same land with rice paddies than grain) , more people and denser population equals more exchange of ideas and larger labor force, you get more innovation earlier unless you purposely shut yourself of from the rest of the world. China was the closest thing the Medieval time period had to a superpower.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 31 May, 2016 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: The spread of halberds and javelins         Reply with quote

Michael Wiethop wrote:
But in Europe, if I'm not mistaken, polearms didn't catch on until probably the fourteenth or fifteenth century AD.


Not really. The Thracians/Dacians had their falces (singular falx) at least as early as the 2nd century AD. Scandinavia has the mysterious "atgeirr" and the hewing-spear -- still basically a spear, but with a head long and broad enough to be worth using in cutting motions. Also, the history of Chinese polearms wasn't necessarily unbroken -- the ji and ge that were popular early on seem to have eventually disappeared, and we don't really have much evidence that later polearms like the guandao replaced them right away at the end of the Han era. As a matter of fact, the most up-to-date research seems to hint that the guandao was really a Ming-era weapon that had nothing to do with Guan Yu (although it might have had antecedents in the Song era)!


Quote:
Likewise, javelins were very widespread in most of Europe for thousands of years. Yet despite their effectiveness, they don't seem to have been used much if at all in China, Korea, or Japan.


There was a notorious "barbarian" nation in the south that stumped Chinese armies with their javelin-and-shield infantry. I'll have to look up the references offline.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Tue 31 May, 2016 3:47 pm    Post subject: Re: The spread of halberds and javelins         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Also, the history of Chinese polearms wasn't necessarily unbroken -- the ji and ge that were popular early on seem to have eventually disappeared, and we don't really have much evidence that later polearms like the guandao replaced them right away at the end of the Han era. As a matter of fact, the most up-to-date research seems to hint that the guandao was really a Ming-era weapon that had nothing to do with Guan Yu (although it might have had antecedents in the Song era)!


One problem with Chinese history is that between Han and Song is basically the Chinese Dark Ages - there's a shortage of surviving records, and a shortage of art, and a shortage of physical specimens. So it's hard to say much with certainty about polearms between Han and Song. The ge is gone. Art and written sources say that the main polearm was the spear (as expected), and the only other major polearm is the ji (戟), usually translated as "halberd". Not the same as the Zhou-through-Han ji, which appears to have been a direct evolution of the ge (戈), being a ge blade with a spear point (earlier ones had separate ge blades and spear points, later ones were one-piece (and iron)), while the post-Han ji is a spear with a shorter second point beside the first (like a trident with one of the side points missing). These appear to be still used during Tang. (The modern ji, the crescent-bladed halberd appears quite late - I don't know of any pre-Qing.)

Post-Han heroes are sometimes reported as using a "double-halberd" (as translated in Yang Hong, "Weapons in Ancient China"), which might be a trident - the contemporary ji with an extra point. Some art shows tridents (although the two-pointed ji is far more common).

The Song military manuals show a big variety of polearms, including the post-Han ji, tridents, and various glaives. There are also some surviving glaives dated to the Song, including some that would be comfortably classifies as guandao.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > The spread of halberds and javelins
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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