| Author |
Message |
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
 Posted: Sun 01 Oct, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: First Halberd and Swiss military power? |
 |
|
Where, to the best of our evidence, was the first weapon we can call truly call a halberd, invented?
Now, I'd like to clarify that a tad. I wouldn't call an Atgier a Halberd, (It's the so called Viking Halberd, which many believe is better translated as hewing spear, or cutting spear.)
The reason I ask is due to some documentaries on the Knights Templar which have aired in the last few months. One of them presented the idea that some of the Knights Templar, after the great purge of the Templar, fled to Switzerland and may have been in part responsible for the subsequent rise of the Swiss as a military power, as it was some time after this that the Swiss infantry were armed with Halberds and best up on the French.
But I don't know much about this particular interesting area of history. Can anyone direct me to some good online sources on the rise of the Swiss..... And more directly help me determine if we can say if the Halberd might possibly have been invented by the aforementioned exiled Knights? Obviously we can't prove an affirmative, but we can see if the numbers add up.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
    |
 |
|
Wolfgang Armbruster
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Oct, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The word Halberd, or more the precisely "Helmbarte" as ist was called by the Swiss, simply means staff-axe. The first examples were probably made from farming tools.
I'm pretty sure this suggested Templar-connection is nonsense...to put it nicely 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Oct, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Agreed. Even if Templars had fled to what is now Switzerland, they were a standard medieval fighting force of the time; it would have been bizarre for them to abandon horse, lance, shield for the halberd. If Templars had trained a Swiss fighting force, it would likely have used conventional weapons, albeit with unusual skill and discipline. Very long handled axes were known at the time, and show up in some of the art work (i.e. the Maciejowski Bible); but not used in very great numbers, and in the absence of knightly forces - those features were unique to the Swiss.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Oct, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The "Templar connection" is unlikely for a lot of reasons, some have already been covered. The Templars were finay suppressed 1312 in France, the Swiss became a true military power in the 1475-1499 period. (While they did win several impressive victories before that period it was in the Burgundian and Swabian wars that Swiss military power matured)
I.e more than 160 years after the Templars had been suppressed and usign tactics that would have benn througly foreign to the Templars.
Regards
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Oct, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah well. Looks like I've been dubed by the TV again. Still, it's consceptually interisting. I can certainly see a few of the Knights who did get away saying "We could train these fellows up, why not experiment? We'll find a way to combine the two most powerful weapons we know, the spear and the axe...."
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Oct, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| George Hill wrote: | | Ah well. Looks like I've been dubed by the TV again. Still, it's consceptually interisting. I can certainly see a few of the Knights who did get away saying "We could train these fellows up, why not experiment? We'll find a way to combine the two most powerful weapons we know, the spear and the axe...." |
To me a Templar connection is less interesting than the idea that towns and villages, common people, could get together and create a nation that survived back then. To throw off the powerful and entrenched feudal system that had hoarded power for so long in Europe was certainly no small feat.
In fact I think its a shame that any TV show attributes the achievements of the Swiss people to mysterious forces as part of a Templar conspiracy theory. Frankly I'm amazed at how popular Templar conspiracies have become, and how they are accepted by the mainstream as truthful explainations for a wide array of histroical events. To me, saying the Templars trained the Swiss wrongly ascribes credit for all the things the Swiss nation achieved to the actions of the noble (knightly or ruling) class who the Swiss spent a great deal of time fighting. To me the Swiss myth of the common man rising to the occasion is much more interesting and compelling.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
Last edited by Joe Fults on Mon 02 Oct, 2006 9:10 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll have to go with the majority on this one, nothing I've read about the Swiss indicates that they were unduly influenced by any mysterious group of foreign knights.
As an interesting side note if the "suppressed" Templars actually escaped to do all the things that they were credited with Phillip the Fair and company did a mighty lousy suppression job. This Swiss connection is a new one on me, but previously I've heard that it was the Templars that turned the tide in favor of Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn, it was Templars that took a treasure fleet and discovered America, spirited off with the Holy Grail, hid Christs descendents from the Catholic church etc. etc. Honestly it sounds like those Templars did more after they were suppressed ( and more effectively too) then before they were suppresed. 
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Russ Ellis wrote: | I'll have to go with the majority on this one, nothing I've read about the Swiss indicates that they were unduly influenced by any mysterious group of foreign knights.
As an interesting side note if the "suppressed" Templars actually escaped to do all the things that they were credited with Phillip the Fair and company did a mighty lousy suppression job. This Swiss connection is a new one on me, but previously I've heard that it was the Templars that turned the tide in favor of Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn, it was Templars that took a treasure fleet and discovered America, spirited off with the Holy Grail, hid Christs descendents from the Catholic church etc. etc. Honestly it sounds like those Templars did more after they were suppressed ( and more effectively too) then before they were suppresed. |
And lets not forget the secret templar Area 51 base and the templar engineers who work for NASA. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
A point not yet touched upon (or lightly touched upon) is that halberds, pikes etc. are most effective when used en mass by well-trained, disciplined and formally deployed infantry. That's classical military thinking, and it led ultimately to the marginalization of the heavy cavalry so highly regarded in the medieval era. Some would say that the (re)ascendence of organized infantry in this period (starting with the Swiss?) is an artifact of the rediscovery of ancient Roman and Greek military theory and tactics. The Swiss would probably just say, "great minds think alike." 
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
 |
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am brought to understand a large number of Templars did get away. Seems someone leaks the news of the plot, and how many times have we seen Government leaks of one kind or another? That said, I rather doubt the majority of the stories told have any validity, but these fellows did have to go somewhere. I'm also brought to understand many of them in friendly nations changed the name of the order to "the Knights of Jesus Christ," and kept right on doing what they were doing.
Still, what is the first time we actually see a true Halberd?
Oh, Sean, the more I learn about the dark ages, the more I'm inclined to believe that variants on the phalanx never really went out. Spears and shields for everyone! The basic kit for everyone in Europe seems to have been a spear and a shield from the time of Tacitus, Still, I suppose you could say that the ways that they were used in mass in the hellenistic world was different?
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
Last edited by George Hill on Mon 02 Oct, 2006 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
And lets not forget the secret templar Area 51 base and the templar engineers who work for NASA. |
Yes and they also kidnapped the Lost Colony of Roanoke!
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| George Hill wrote: | I am brought to understand a large number of Templars did get away. Seems someone leaks the news of the plot, and how many times have we seen Government leaks of one kind or another? That said, I rather doubt the majority of the stories told have any validity, but these fellows did have to go somewhere. I'm also brought to understand many of them in friendly nations changed the name of the order to "the Knights of Jesus Christ," and kept right on doing what they were doing.
Still, what is the first time we actually see a true Halberd? |
The Templars had extensive holdings all over Europe, however most of those holdings were run by common folks not Brother Knights as it were. I suspect that the Brother Knights were collected mostly in the major cities and were therefore fairly easy to pick up in one go. It would be interesting to know something about numbers that got away. I'm betting there's a movie plot in there somewhere...
As for friendly kingdoms I know in Portugal the King refused to hand them over and their name was changed to The Order of Christ. That is the only such circumstance that I am aware of however.
Halberds were in use from the late 13th century on if I remember correctly...
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| George Hill wrote: | | I suppose you could say that the ways that they were used in mass in the hellenistic world was different? |
I think that's the key--organization, training, discipline and formal deployment. I don't know when the technology and theory came together for the Swiss. Oakeshott covers this, as does Waldman. I do recall from Waldman that the halberd didn't simply appear on the battlefield one day. It took shape gradually, starting with long axes in the early medieval period.
Here's the basic history from Waldman:
The typical long axe (the Danish axe, for example) has a weakness just below the socket due to the size of the head and the forces the haft must withstand at that point.
Extending the lower point of the blade downwards and securing it to the haft with a pin or rivet helped distribute some of that force and stabilize the haft.
That lower point of contact between blade and haft eventually was turned into a second socket or "eye" and that's the form most of us would agree to call a halberd (except in the late Scottish context, in which we call it an axe  ).
With the further passage of time, the upper and lower eyes blended into a single socket and this rear socket eventually became a middle socket formed by folding around a mandrel the two leaves of the head. The leaves were then forge welded together, leaving the socket. I think that and the associated innovation of langets are the last great technological innovation in these weapons, although the blade forms varied greatly after this point.
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
|
|
|
Max von Bargen
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| George Hill wrote: | | Oh, Sean, the more I learn about the dark ages, the more I'm inclined to believe that variants on the phalanx never really went out. Spears and shields for everyone! The basic kit for everyone in Europe seems to have been a spear and a shield from the time of Tacitus, Still, I suppose you could say that the ways that they were used in mass in the hellenistic world was different? |
Also, the importance given to them was very different. As far as I can tell, from the ascendency of the knight as the foremost weapon (as in, after the Dark Ages), most western European powers viewed their spear-armed infantry as "second-class," albeit with exceptions. This may be an oversimplification (or downright wrong), but they were certainly not viewed as the main war-winning weapon* like the Greek and Macedonian phalanx** was. This began to change with the early Anglo-Scottish battles in the 14th century that led the English to adopt the use of dismounted knights. And, of course, in other parts of the world, many countries may have had different takes on the situation. Accounts vary and there are always exceptions, but for the most part the more "respected" parts of armies were heavy cavalry and missile soldiers as far as I can tell.
*Unless one is referring to Scottish or Flemish armies.
**Except as used by Philip II and Alexander the Great, to whom cavalry was the decisive arm.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Early shield walls would seem to have a lot in common with a phalanx but may have been used defensively only as a wall behind which the cavalry could regroup or wait for a good opportunity to charge. Shield walls being the anvil ( defensive) and cavalry being the hammer ( offensive).
In the attack the shield wall might have turned into a disorganized rush of numerous individuals rather than a controlled systematic disciplined advance of a true phalanx. ( Used when the ennemi was in full retreat or perceived to be in retreat or defeated. )
At least at Hastings it would seem that the shield wall was fooled into abandoning a good defensive position: If this advance was under some tactical control it would have retained cohesion and remained effective even if more vulnerable than in their defensive mode on the hilltop and might have been able to retreat successfully back up to their defensive position instead of being a loose mob that could be surrounded and destroyed in detail.
Anyway, just a theory I'm pulling out of the air. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Max von Bargen
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Early shield walls would seem to have a lot in common with a phalanx but may have been used defensively only as a wall behind which the cavalry could regroup or wait for a good opportunity to charge. Shield walls being the anvil ( defensive) and cavalry being the hammer ( offensive).
In the attack the shield wall might have turned into a disorganized rush of numerous individuals rather than a controlled systematic disciplined advance of a true phalanx. ( Used when the ennemi was in full retreat or perceived to be in retreat or defeated. )
At least at Hastings it would seem that the shield wall was fooled into abandoning a good defensive position: If this advance was under some tactical control it would have retained cohesion and remained effective even if more vulnerable than in their defensive mode on the hilltop and might have been able to retreat successfully back up to their defensive position instead of being a loose mob that could be surrounded and destroyed in detail.
Anyway, just a theory I'm pulling out of the air. |
I agree. The components of a Dark/early Medieval era shield wall would most likely have been of much more variable quality and equipment than the men in a classic phalanx. Since you mentioned Hastings as an example, I believe that there would have been the king with his household guard, some other Saxon (?) nobles with their retinues, which would have been well trained, well equipped, and motivated, and then they would have also have had the fyrd or general levy of more lightly armoured, more poorly trained, and less motivated troops. In classical phalanxes (both Greek and Macedonian), the soldiers were all of relatively similar quality and motivation. There would always be the best armoured and wealthiest men at the front, but the relative quality gap between their arms and the arms of the poorer soldiers would have been much less pronounced. In the traditional Greek phalanx, the soldiers were all middle-class men who could afford at least decent arms and armour, while in the Macedonian phalanx, the soldiers were all paid standing troops drawn from the lower classes (IIRC, I may be wrong about that) and equipped by the state. Furthermore, the standards of training in the classic phalanxes was much higher (extremely high for the Spartans and Macedonians particularly) than the standards of training for the levy en masse of the Dark Ages. While the nobles would no doubt be well trained, the rank and file of the levy would be much less efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Max von Bargen wrote: |
I agree. The components of a Dark/early Medieval era shield wall would most likely have been of much more variable quality and equipment than the men in a classic phalanx. Since you mentioned Hastings as an example, I believe that there would have been the king with his household guard, some other Saxon (?) nobles with their retinues, which would have been well trained, well equipped, and motivated, and then they would have also have had the fyrd or general levy of more lightly armoured, more poorly trained, and less motivated troops. In classical phalanxes (both Greek and Macedonian), the soldiers were all of relatively similar quality and motivation. There would always be the best armoured and wealthiest men at the front, but the relative quality gap between their arms and the arms of the poorer soldiers would have been much less pronounced. In the traditional Greek phalanx, the soldiers were all middle-class men who could afford at least decent arms and armour, while in the Macedonian phalanx, the soldiers were all paid standing troops drawn from the lower classes (IIRC, I may be wrong about that) and equipped by the state. Furthermore, the standards of training in the classic phalanxes was much higher (extremely high for the Spartans and Macedonians particularly) than the standards of training for the levy en masse of the Dark Ages. While the nobles would no doubt be well trained, the rank and file of the levy would be much less efficient. |
As more speculation: A disciplined army with a structured officer core might be lured into an ambush only if the leaders are fooled and in that case a part or all the force might advance with more or less disastrous results, but might manage to survive the mistake or prevail with luck. With no central leadership a small part of a force might fall for a trap and be followed by others: If only a small number advance they may be too few to be effective and after being destroyed the morale of the rest would suffer. If most or all advance there will be no way to order an orderly retreat even if the trap becomes obvious.
There may be other possibilities too numerous to mention, most of which will end badly when a force is suckered out of a good defensive position. Anyway, the difference is between a real army and at the extreme, large groups of individual fighters each making their own decisions: The individual fighting qualities varying from elite to poor may make things even worse and the best bravest individual fighters may actually be the first to break formation in their quest for glory and the worse fighters be the first to panic and run when they should hold fast.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Mon 02 Oct, 2006 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Oct, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, to comment on halberds I think they could have evolved from the Danish axe to the bardiche with a useable point for thrusting, to axe-like blades with a point closer to the axis of the haft and in parallel they might have evolved from improvised agricultural implements pressed into service and eventually modified to be more effective. At some point these two line of origins may have merged.
Like somebody mentioned in an earlier post somebody decided to combine the attributes of an axe with a spear and later the billhook for the back.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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