I've been looking for a name for this weapon, used in an opera (Dracula):

http://www.worldsedge.org/images/polearm.jpg

It's not quite like any glaive I've found images of- it's also not quite like the Asian equivalents (Bisento, Kwan Do).

If you were writing an article that mentioned this weapon, what would you call it?

Thanks all--

Glaive or bill, probably. Maybe just a pole-arm. Naming historical weapons is not really an exact science - most of the monikers we use were either not used back then, or meant a variety of different things back then. As a case in point...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html

Looks like a war scythe or kriegschickle in German. The usual peasent agricultural implemet roots.

ya. glaive, kuss etc are usually the same thing

Technically, a glaive's socket is centered on the blade while the socket of the couse/kuse or couteau de breche is in line with the back of the blade. What's shown here resembles a war scythe/sickle, as mentioned above, but I'd say it's mainly just stage fantasy, possibly inspired by ubiquitious and often incorrect copyright-free 19th c. images.

See Victorian depictions of the war scythe here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bitwa_pod_Raclawicami.JPG

If you're referring to the weapon to the right of the axe and left of the bill and what looks to be a spear with a roundel, I believe that's called a bardiche (or whatever spelling variation you prefer).

Those weapons are, L-R, an axe, a bardiche, an ahlspiess (awl pike) and a bill. The bardiche doesn't have much in common with the glaive in terms of design or construction. It's more directly an axe derivative, while the glaive is more closely related to the bill--a knife on a stick, essentially.

It's true that we often don't know what these weapons were called by their users, but modern scholars have reached consensus on many or most of them, and that's what we have to work with when we discuss polearms. Waldman clearly defines the basic forms in his recent book, the best scholarship to date on the subject.

I'm afraid I'm giving the wrong impression or at least the wrong tone, so please allow me to clarify: While it's certainly true that polearms terminology has pretty much always been chaotic and inconsistent, and while it's true that "glaive" has been used to describe a variety of arms, historically, (and not just polearms), the best, most complete scholarship to date (Waldman) separates the glaive (broad, often curved blade and central socket) from the Vouge/Couteau de Breche/Kuse (narrower, thicker kitchen-knife shape and socket aligned with back of blade). It's more convenient to call all these weapons glaives, but the discussion is better served by the specificity suggested by Waldman. Thinking of it in more common terms, it's the difference between talking about "passenger cars" and talking about "Toyota Camry". If the discussion is about construction, design and use, we need to be at the "Toyota Camry" level, if not even more precise--"1996 V6 5-Speed Toyota Camry". It may seem pedantic, but establishing clear and consistent terminology is the first step toward better understanding this class of weapons.

I have to agree with Sean on this one... but then I would I own the Waldeman book as well. Unfortunately there a multitude of sources both modern and ancient that refere to the plethora of polearms with a mulititude of names. I think what we see here is a good arguement for Oakeshott's type typology. It puts everyone at least relatively on the same page.

Thanks for clarifying what you mean Sean; I see where you are going. We modern folks feel the need to have a specific label for everything though I am not sure medieval folks did, for instance a bill can be a million things medieval wise, even a small hand held hooked blade used to garden with.

A little more info from the libretto:

--This is set in 19th century Algeria
--The notes refer to it as a "paulo"- Anyone know anything about this term?

So, if you wanted to be as specific as possible without being incorrect, would you just call it a "polearm"? The author I'm working with wants to call it a "halberd", but I know that's just silly.

Polearms study today seems to be where sword study was just before the Oakeshott revolution. As valuable as Waldman's work is, it really just gets us to the point of having a comprehensive primer. We don't yet have our Oakeshott, and it won't be Waldman. IIRC, he's in his 70s, so the current book is likely to be his major contribution to the field.

I favor an alphanumeric system for polearms, as it seems to work pretty well for swords. I think one key to success is to be comfortable with exceptions and open to ongoing reconsideration, as Oakeshott certainly was. To avoid confusion with Oakeshott's sword typology, I'd suggest using Arabic numbers, but otherwise I think his arrangement (number/letter) makes good sense.
1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, etc.

Waldman's categories seem pretty sound to me (the "Morgenstern Group" is a particularly elegant construction). I'd favor using his categories as the starting point for a typology, adjusting as needed.

So....who wants to take on this project? All you need is ten years, 500,000 frequent flyer miles, a library to die for and a particularly bad case of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. ;)

Anyone?

(cricket)

The price of the Waldman book is prohibitive to many people and the printing run seems rather small. As such, I think it's needed that somebody tackle the job of condensing the information relating to terminology and, perhaps, the beginnings of typology that are presented in the work. This would encourage people to seek the book to read more and learn of the details and other points discussed. I should perhaps take this as a sign that the readers of myArmoury.com would be well served with such a general overview of polearms. ;)

ahh...ur...yes. :blush:

I seem to recall that someone was working on something like that. I'll see if I can light a fire under him.