[George Hill]

I have been thinking for quite a while that we do not pay nearly as much attention to the handling charateristics of polearms as we should. I have no idea what the weight of a peirod glaive or halberd ought to be. I have the MRL Glaive, and I've been wondering for some time how the weight conforms to whatever original (if any) it is based on. It feels a bit heavy, but perhaps it is the correct weight and I'm not handling it like it should be handled. This was touched on in another thread, but I'd like to see it in a thread of it's own.

We pay a great deal of attention to the weights and weight distribution of swords... why not the polearms?

Any now that I've said all that... Does anyone have data on the weights of peirod polearms of any kind? I'm also very curious about where the point of balance ought to be (more or less) on these. I'm not being very speific as to type, since I would like to see what comes out of this.

[Glen A Cleeton]

Hi George,

Here's a handy reference that I grab from google when the need arises. You might want to bookmark it, it has some other data you might find useful.

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_a...ights.html

Although the discussion preceding the tables is about SCA regulations, the weights are referenced from historical pieces.

Cheers

GC

[Greyson Brown]

I, too, would like to learn more about this, but I am afraid that we are going to have some trouble studying the originals simply because so much of the weapon is of perishable material. We may have to be content, at least to some degree, with information based on educated recreations. I know that there are at least a couple of people around here working on various polearms and I would be greatly indebted to them if they would post information when their projects are completed. Just like with swords, I would like to know measurements, weights, and points of balance.

Whether these figures are based on originals or recreations, I understand that they won't give one definative information about handling, because the use of a polearm is just as complex (I would venture to say more complex simply because they can be used in so many ways), but I still think that it would help to further our knowledge base. Just thought that I would head that discussion off at the pass.

I'm looking forward to becoming more educated about polearms.

-Grey

[Jean Thibodeau]

Greyson;

We might be able to get some idea of handling by looking at the handling of Chinese and Japanese polearms: Fighting styles might be very different from European use but similar types should have similar handling.

A Naginata and a European Glaive might be comparable and a Yari might be compared depending on type to a Partisan or Roncha ?

Chinese Halberds can be very similar to some European Fauchard, and the large variety of sometimes strange polearms would give us examples of light and agile weapons to some rather extreme ones being as heavy or heavier than any known European polearm.

Styles may vary greatly but a spear is a spear is a spear ! The are only so many ways of using one that is " optimum ": Some techniques would have to be almost identical and any technique that is overly " artificial " or " decorative " might look good in a Chinese opera, but would get you killed quickly on a battlefield.

In any case the known surviving Eastern weapons and martial arts should give some starting point to " guess " at what we don't known.

Those among us practising some forms of Asian martial arts using pole arm might be able to help us understand the handling of polearms of various weights and point of balance ?

Craig at A & A might be able to give us a few statistics about his spears and Poleaxe and the two different Bills that A & A makes.

Using my bathroom scale I get a weight of 4.5 / 5 LBS for my A & A Poleaxe, the total length is 66", the point of balance is 21" / 22" from the point. The rondelle guard is at 25 1 /2" from the point, so the point of balance is about 4" / 5" from where one hand would be placed just below the guard. Shifting the hands from close together or wide apart, one hand close to the guard or far from it, gives a wide range of " presence " from fast and agile to with both hands wide apart to very heavy blows with slow recovery when both hands are 18" apart close to the butt. Recovery can be faster by sliding one hand back up near the rondelle guard. ( For what it's worth the above is mostly guesswork and dry handling from someone who reads a lot but doesn't do any practice sparring. Don't want to give a false impression of expertise. )

[George Hill]

[Bill Grandy]

I think George is spot on with his reasons for not using Asian weapons as a base of comparison. I think that if we start assuming that they must be close to European weapons then we run the risk of having major misconceptions about them, something that is already a problem with our knowledge of historic arms. It would be akin to assuming a Chinese jian should handle like a typical migration era sword because both are double edged straight swords.

[Patrick Kelly]

I also agree with George. I think polearms may be found to be as complex as swords in some ways. We need to avoid generalizations in this area as well.

[Jean Thibodeau]

I admit I could be completely wrong about using Japanese or Chinese polearms and the Asian martial arts as a starting point to arrive at conclusions about European handling of polearms.

I guess my point is that we are dealing with people: The same two arms, two legs, a body and a head, and we are dealing with the same physics when it comes to balance, inertia, weight etc ....

So there are only so many ways to move ones' body or manoeuvre a spear or any other weapon: I just think that what would work well for one group of humans would work well for any other group: What would be invented by one group could be independently re-discovered by another group far apart in time and space.

So if we paired an Asian polearm with an European one as closely as possible in weight, balance, cutting & thrusting characteristics and then look at how it was used by one or many different Asian martial arts it should give us some idea were to start in recreating European polearm techniques or at least what works with that type of pole arm for one specific martial art. Totally different techniques might have been used by Europeans but there should be some things so basic that you could not avoid seeing some similarities ! ?

One should also look at whatever known European quarterstaff styles and compare these to Bo styles to see where they use similar techniques and were they differ.

In any case this is not saying that a European polearm would be used exactly the same way as a roughly similar Asian polearm only that the idea shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and I'm just throwing the idea out there: I have little invested in the idea except if it helps getting at whatever the truth in the matter lies.

Bill;

Do we actually KNOW that some migration era techniques might not be similar in principle even if different in detail from the use of a jian. Actually who knows how many styles of sword use were common in the migration era: I would be tempted to guess ( That word again ) that there might have been as many European sword fighting styles as we see in China or Japan.

Oh, just a question: When we look at the various Japanese school of sword fighting that may differ widely in detail, can we find basic principles that are common to all

[Bill Grandy]

[George Hill]

Jean, I don't think manner of use is as big an issue. Many of the old masters set down a good bit about how to fight with spear. Certainly Asian styles may help understanding, but then they might also hurt it by sending us down the wrong path.


For the subject of this thread, it's more 'getting the correct feel, so when you do the moves, they feel right.'

Let's take the rapier for a moment. We current have about ten books translated and published in modern english, but I was once told by a man who handled a great many original rapiers that the replicas do not 'feel' like the originals.

When I held the Albion broadswords at the blade show, I was frankly amazed. I knew that broadswords weren't the clunky things they once claimed, but I had no idea they could be that light and well balanced.

So with the Rapier, for all the effort put into learning it by many good people, I strongly suspect that a large majority of replica rapiers would have been rejected out of hand by the old masters, (if they lived today) as clunky. Particularly many of the Windlass ones I handed last time I was at MRL. (No opinion on the Atrims for example.)

If you are learning music, it's important to have a good instrument. You can't get good sound out of a bad one, and you can't learn to use a good one with a bad one, as without good sound, how do you know if you are doing it right? That said, you can hand a bad instrument to a good musician, and he can play it better then a bad musician, but then he already knows what he's doing.

As Patrick said, polearms may prove to be as complex as sword. I believe they will prove to be exactly this, and I'm hoping to encourage the same level of study be applied to polearms as we already see applied to swords, by those who have the resources.

After all, the polearm was the primary weapon for most soldiers throughout history. Spear, poleaxe, lance, halberd, glaive. I wouldn't expect less development of the primary weapon then the secondary, Indeed, I would almost expect more. Much the way the rifle has more military attention then the pistol. (OK, that's a bad example, since police and civilian use makes up for the military's diminished interest, even so you can see the point.) Remember Silver saying that a man with an English Bill had the `vantage against everybody and his brother. It might however be such a subtle development that it is very hard for modern eyes to see. Taking a millimeter off a shaft's diameter might change the weapon's handling to a great degree. I read once that greek spears were extremely lightweight, the better to use single handed.

We have the manuals, now let's make sure we have good tools, and then let's all become fine spear fighters.



(edit) On the subject of the human body being the same all over, this isn't actually true. Size and proportion show great changes as you move from culture to culture. When Wing Chun was first being taught to whites, the asian master who's name I have forgotten altered the size of the training dummy to take into account the longer arms of the large men he was training. Also, many martial artists have noted that in men of the same height, the caucasian will have longer legs and less torso, whilst the asian fellow will have more torso and less legs 'on adverage.' Whilst I am open to seeing this disproven, I haven't heard anyone argue against it yet. There are those who say the longer legs account for different developments of technique, such as the fencing lunge.

[Bill Grandy]

Whoops, skipped this part:

[Bill Grandy]

George,
That's interesting, I've never heard anyone bring up the physiological differences between Caucasians and Asians (and any other ethnic groups for that matter) as affecting the fighting style. I can't make a strong argument against it without looking into it more, but I do think it's more conjecture than fact. Case in point, you bring up the lunge: Asians today compete in modern fencing just as much as any Europeans do. Still, it's interesting nonetheless.

Anyway, back on topic.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Bill;

( Note: I wrote the following before seeing a couple of the above posts so I will now go back and read those hoping that what is below still makes sense and doesn't come off as argumentative. )

No offence taken, the actual handling differences would make one to one comparisons less than optimal if I understand what you are getting at.

The subtle handling qualities of a sword influence the technique and the technique influence what is desirable in a sword in a constant state of evolution where changing conditions, armour types and other factors slowly influence design. ( Hope this makes some sense. )

So technique becomes optimized to a set of design characteristics and become twinned to that design: A sword with different handling won't be able to make good use of a technique better suited to an other.

Well, I'm probably way over my head here But maybe the misunderstanding ( In the original sense of the word: Not in the sense of conflict. ) is that I am wondering if finding what are the similarities wouldn't be useful and I wonder what they are! At least I don't think I meant that we should jump to conclusions and make general statements without testing.

Trying to get back to a specific case: I have seen European Fauchard that look remarkably similar in shape and " maybe " size and handling than some Chinese Halberds ! Now lets say you got two of these together and after physically handling both you arrived at the conclusion that they were sufficiently alike that the techniques used by a Chines martial art would work using the European model: Wouldn't understanding the Chinese methods give you some ideas ( Not proof ) of how the polearm might have been used in European hands.

In any case, since I have beaten this horse at least 3 times, I will drop the whole idea if it doesn't bring forward useful ideas or discussion and we can all explore other paths. ( Hope I haven't strained everyone's patience by being too stubborn to just let it drop. )

[Elling Polden]

Lets not forget the physicological development in Europe, as well. Most textbooks can tell you that medevial people was as tall as we are today. What they often forget to mention is that 19th century people was almost 25 cm shorter; The average height of Napoleon's Grande Armee was 1,52 cm (ca 5 feet).
In norway, the average height of military recruits did not reach the medevial average of 175cm until 1950. (Pressent average is 181 cm...)
The reasons for this is purely varying levels of nutrition; The same tendency can be seen in asia, as young, urban japanese and chinese consistently are taller than their parrents.

[Steve Grisetti]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Steve / Elling;

One possible theory that could explain worse nutrition in the 18th century might be a more urban poor undernourished population during these very early years of the industrial revolution.

Still I'm not sure about how much reliable proof there is about what the average height of people was in the 11th compared to the 18th century ?

As far as this impacts the use of polearms smaller people might need smaller and maybe lighter ones ? Although small in stature doesn't have to mean weaker ?

One theory I heard a long time ago from what source I can't remember is that the height of the Frenchmen was lower after all the tall Frenchmen got killed during the Napoleonic wars: Sort of after loosing the tallest members of your gene pool.

Although this would only affect the generations after and not the height of Napoleons' troops: Assuming the 5' height of his troops is accurate information the previous theory couldn't be true.

[George Hill]

I'm informed that the issue of height amoung the french in the period is flawed for a number of reason, but I don't remember what those reasons were. I do know that Neopolian himself wasn't actually that short.

[Elling Polden]

As far as I remember, the reason Napoleon was portrayed as short was due to english cartoonists drawing him that way during the war...
(An article from a quick google search on "historical average heigts":
http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/06/can-amer...again.html )

Now, by this time polearms had pretty much been replaced by bayonetted rifles. The height issue is more relevant to for instance the smallswords of the period than poles...

[Felix Wang]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Probably one or two generations of poor nutrition is not enough to affect the average height of a population but multigenerational might. It should be a useful adaptation since smaller people would need less food to maintain their weight and general health.

Interesting but it might be good to find information specific to the design and handling of polearms: Should be very varied and not just due to martial art styles. Light polearms versus heavy polearms, complex designs versus plain " Sword on a stick "
The influence of armour on design: Armoured versus unarmoured combat using polearms.

Oh, a thought: A heavily armoured Knight versus an unarmoured footsoldier ? The footsoldier would be " toast " if cornered by the knight having little or no protection. The polearmed lightly armoured footsoldier would have agility on his side and a weapon capable of being a real danger to the knight.

On the one side you have good offence and good protection and on the other you have speed and a strong attack with low defense.