NationStates Jolt Archive

Reference is the wikipedia pages about polearms. European polearms only, no naginata etc.

Pick your favourite and debate preferred methods of disembowelment or other gruesome way of killing fellow humans and horses alike.

Personally, I like the pike.

We could play a game of Polearm/Axe/Dopplehander.

Though as this is about polearms completely, my favorite European polearm is definitely the Halberd... Though the Sarissa comes very, very close.

We could play a game of Polearm/Axe/Dopplehander.

Though as this is about polearms completely, my favorite European polearm is definitely the Halberd... Though the Sarissa comes very, very close.

Damn, I fucked up with the poll and didn't include the halberd. Well, I guess it was sort of a natural choice, anyway. I hope that many people will go crazy trying to sort a bill from a bill-guisarme.

Of course, the halberd could be included in the Voulge group.

Goedendag.

It's funny.

Bohemian Ear Spoon.

The Sarrissa, seeing as it'll prang you before enemies even get to you with whatever stupid, impractical weapon people will start posting "but this is better" because it was on Naruto.

*coughs*

Guan Dao. It just looks so damned cool..Irregardless of the fact it wasn't used till at least 500 years after the guy it's named after croaked.:D

The Sarrissa, seeing as it'll prang you before enemies even get to you with whatever stupid, impractical weapon people will start posting "but this is better" because it was on Naruto.

*coughs*

Are you really saying that compared to a 12-24 foot stick any weapon would count as impractical? It's a fucking stick the quarter the length of a football field!

http://www.clas.canterbury.ac.nz/graphics/sarissa_1b.jpg

halberd, i used to have to do parades with them.

Spear.

The most practical polearm out there.

Oh Hell, why be so medieval about it? One of you blood-n-guts types oughtta just strap a chainsaw to the end of a stick and have done with already.

Damn, I fucked up with the poll and didn't include the halberd. Well, I guess it was sort of a natural choice, anyway. I hope that many people will go crazy trying to sort a bill from a bill-guisarme.


Bill: Early English halberd type weapon popular with militias; developed originallt as a farming tool. It was about 6 and 1/2 feet in length and usually had a hardwood pole and low quality spring steel head.

Bill-guisarme: A longer bill about 10 to 12 feet in length used in siege warfare or to disrupt cavalry charges.

I like the pike, the halberd, and the billhook (Mideival Total War made me fond of billhooks)

Are you really saying that compared to a 12-24 foot stick any weapon would count as impractical? It's a fucking stick the quarter the length of a football field!

http://www.clas.canterbury.ac.nz/graphics/sarissa_1b.jpg
Just imagine how many people you could impale on that pole.
(That doesn't sound right)

Are you really saying that compared to a 12-24 foot stick any weapon would count as impractical? It's a fucking stick the quarter the length of a football field!

http://www.clas.canterbury.ac.nz/graphics/sarissa_1b.jpg

That's one seriously long pokey-stick. :eek:

Bohemian Ear Spoon.

Bohemian Ear Spork.

Just imagine how many people you could impale on that pole.
(That doesn't sound right)

I'd say 5 or 6 before it got too heavy to carry.. much less if you had a horse on there.

Sishkabobs anyone?!

Always had a hankering for the axe, but would go a bit "pikey" with a pole-axe, nae bother......

While I did pick the Lucerne hammer, I favor the mace (yes, I know it's not a polearm).

I like the idea of a weapon that doesn't have to penetrate armor, but merely dents it in so far that the person inside looks like sausage, and the act of removing the person afterwards from his armor requires someone with an iron constitution.

Glaive or glaive-guisarme

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

Pikes used in concert with musketeers. Extremely potent defensive punch.

I say: scythe. Simple, but just cool:)

@Dobbsworld: yeah :> What about a pair of automated scissors on a pole?

Bohemian Ear Spork.

A Bohemian Ear Spoon is an actual weapon, believe it or not.

Lucerne Hammer. No question.

No halberds, ranseurs, or naganatas in the post. Sad. I guess that a Naganata is sort of like a glaive so I voted glaive. When it comes to sharp weapons, the Japanese pretty much dominated.

Of course, the halberd could be included in the Voulge group.
Ok, voted for voulge even though I meant halberd.

No halberds, ranseurs, or naganatas in the post. Sad. I guess that a Naganata is sort of like a glaive so I voted glaive. When it comes to sharp weapons, the Japanese pretty much dominated.

*sniff*
This is because the Europeans were smelly barbarians who wouldn't know wouldn't know how to work metal if we got hit in the head with a bronze age, iron age, and industrial revolution, right?

I've a softspot for the bill, though.

No halberds, ranseurs, or naganatas in the post. Sad. I guess that a Naganata is sort of like a glaive so I voted glaive. When it comes to sharp weapons, the Japanese pretty much dominated.

All things being equal, I'd bet on a guy with a European short sword and standard kite shield over someone with a katana anyday. Hell, give the European and two-handed long sword and I'd still bet on him.

Why? You can't block a European style sword with a katana. Euro-swords are too heavy, it'd be like trying to block someone's baseball bat with a golf club. It's a sure-fire way to damage the blade past the point of usability.

Oh, and pole hammer. Nothing like pure concussive force turning the opposing horseman's insides to goo while (relatively) preserving the integrity of his armor to make for a grand weapon.

Why? You can't block a European style sword with a katana. Euro-swords are too heavy, it'd be like trying to block someone's baseball bat with a golf club. It's a sure-fire way to damage the blade past the point of usability.


Misonception. A katana weighed exactly the same as a european style blade of similar type. they both weighed about 6lbs.

Misonception. A katana weighed exactly the same as a european style blade of similar type. they both weighed about 6lbs.

Yes, of similiar type. In length and weight they're approximately the same as a short sword- around 4-6 pounds depending on the alloy and around 40 inches long, except the katana has a bastard hilt and a typically thinner blade. That thinner blade makes a lot of difference.

Yes, you could parry a European short sword with a katana with less risk of damaging the blade, but I still wouldn't risk it. A two handed long? Not a chance. Attempting to parry or block that blade would only result in a damaged katana.

I was about to say something similar to the affect of what Talesha said... I have 4 swords in my collection currently. A gladius sword from ancient rome, a functional replica katana and wakisashi (collectively called a daisho set) and a functional Bastard Sword (Or Irish Broad, or English Doublepay) wich I enjot cutting (small) trees down with to show people it really is a sword. The Katana weighs much less than the bastard, and the bastard is easily swung in one or two hands as well.

Reference is the wikipedia pages about polearms. European polearms only, no naginata etc.

Pick your favourite and debate preferred methods of disembowelment or other gruesome way of killing fellow humans and horses alike.

Personally, I like the pike.I sure don't want to stare down one of these (http://www.findfish101.com/Pics/pike2.jpg).

A Bohemian Ear Spoon is an actual weapon, believe it or not.

I am completely and utterly aware of that - I am no stranger to 1st edition AD&D and the helpful but IIRC somewhat misleading chart of polearms that was contained in the back of the original Unearthed Arcana.

I still think there is a gap in the market for a Bohemian Ear Spork though.

the helpful but IIRC somewhat misleading chart of polearms that was contained in the back of the original Unearthed Arcana.
That chart was excellent. How many of us must have wondered what the differences were between a Glaive, a Glaive-Guisarme, a Guisarme, a Guisarme-Voulge, and a Voulge?

That chart was excellent. How many of us must have wondered what the differences were between a Glaive, a Glaive-Guisarme, a Guisarme, a Guisarme-Voulge, and a Voulge?

That just raises the question of the feasibility of a Glaive-Voulge.

I was always a tad disappointed that none of the more exotic names got hybridised: just think of the possibilities of a Holy Water Sprinkler-Bec de Corbin.

Scythe. Can't beat 2d4 damage and a x4 crit.

Though if I can pick any personal weapon, I'll take the one with the longest range. :sniper:

I prefer the Phillips-head screwdriver duct-taped to a hockey stick.

I prefer the Phillips-head screwdriver duct-taped to a hockey stick.
Also serves as an excellent Lazy Stick.

The harmonica is superior.

Most of those polearms are designed for use in groups of men clustered together or in siege defense and their length reflects that. I can only imagine a few being suitable for actual man-to-man combat.

9h34R 73H R3493R!!!! (fear the reaper)
i also like halberds (i think its spelled like that)

Oh Hell, why be so medieval about it? One of you blood-n-guts types oughtta just strap a chainsaw to the end of a stick and have done with already.

One time a Sam's Club sold a pruning chainsaw on a stick. The actual motor and blade was the size of a kid's toy but the starter rope was extra long.

Most of those polearms are designed for use in groups of men clustered together or in siege defense and their length reflects that. I can only imagine a few being suitable for actual man-to-man combat.

True for something like the Pike, but a glaive or halberd could easily be used in a duel, being shorter and easier to handle then some 15ft monster

Reference is the wikipedia pages about polearms.

Might help if you actually linked it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_weapon

European polearms only, no naginata etc.

Nonsense. I vote naginata.

No halberds, ranseurs, or naganatas in the post. Sad. I guess that a Naganata is sort of like a glaive so I voted glaive.

Sad indeed.

When it comes to sharp weapons, the Japanese pretty much dominated.

Ohhh. I think I'll sit this round of that argument out.

Most of those polearms are designed for use in groups of men clustered together or in siege defense and their length reflects that. I can only imagine a few being suitable for actual man-to-man combat.

Naginata certainly is suitable for individual combat, as are many pole arms.

Oh Hell, why be so medieval about it? One of you blood-n-guts types oughtta just strap a chainsaw to the end of a stick and have done with already.

End of a stick? Pfffft.

Cut off your own hand and strap the chainsaw to the nub, Ash-style! Why bother with a stick? I say cut out the middleman!

I've always prefered spatulas.

>.>

That just raises the question of the feasibility of a Glaive-Voulge.
Now you're just being silly.

That chart was excellent. How many of us must have wondered what the differences were between a Glaive, a Glaive-Guisarme, a Guisarme, a Guisarme-Voulge, and a Voulge?

Answer: Not much.

Answer: Not much.

I for one.

End of a stick? Pfffft.

Cut off your own hand and strap the chainsaw to the nub, Ash-style! Why bother with a stick? I say cut out the middleman!

Strapping it to a stump sans pole, by definition makes it no longer eligible for this thread about polearms. (Even if you want to be silly and try and confuse the issue with a pun about arms, that doesn't work - stumpweapon =/= polearm.)

I've always prefered spatulas.

>.>
Ucchan, is that you? :D

Well, if I can't have a Japanese weapon, give me a glaive. By preference, give me the Silence Glaive. :p

All things being equal, I'd bet on a guy with a European short sword and standard kite shield over someone with a katana anyday. Hell, give the European and two-handed long sword and I'd still bet on him.

Well, maybe a katana-wielder could use the advantage of speed against a two-hander, if the guy with the two-hander doesn't wear steel armour.
Japanese blades were created to punch through wood or bronze armour (at the top of japanese armour tech). They are no use against a steel chain or plate, because that's not their job.


It's a sure-fire way to damage the blade past the point of usability.

Japanese steel is usually more rigid than european steel. This makes sharper blades, but also more brittle.

I sure don't want to stare down one of these (http://www.findfish101.com/Pics/pike2.jpg).

ÜberLOL!:D

Japanese blades were created to punch through wood or bronze armour (at the top of japanese armour tech). They are no use against a steel chain or plate, because that's not their job.

I know I said I wasn't going to get into this, but I can't resist, because you are just so plain wrong there. Both O-Yoroi and Dō-maru styles were iron plate and mail.

Halberd.

I know I said I wasn't going to get into this, but I can't resist, because you are just so plain wrong there. Both O-Yoroi and Dō-maru styles were iron plate and mail.

I would also note that both tended to be, at best, a rarity.

Of course, as I understand it, Katanas weren't really battlefield weapons anyway. Samurai were more likely to use a No-Dachi (two-handed sword) or a Naginata in actual battle, or their bows. The Daisho was a sign of their position; the Katana primarily used for duelling, the Wakizashi for seppuku. This would make the Katana the equivalent of a "Court Blade" in Europe: a quite functional weapon, but one whose purpose is actually more for display.

As to the thread: Lochaber Axe. I like punching holes in heavily armored people.

Chainsaw-nunchuk-wielding-ninja on a stick.
*wins*

THe Bill , becasue at the time of flodden it was supposedly out of date yet it showed it was more superior in ways to the pike

I would also note that both tended to be, at best, a rarity.

Of course, as I understand it, Katanas weren't really battlefield weapons anyway. Samurai were more likely to use a No-Dachi (two-handed sword) or a Naginata in actual battle, or their bows. The Daisho was a sign of their position; the Katana primarily used for duelling, the Wakizashi for seppuku. This would make the Katana the equivalent of a "Court Blade" in Europe: a quite functional weapon, but one whose purpose is actually more for display.

As to the thread: Lochaber Axe. I like punching holes in heavily armored people.

Actually no-dachis were rather rare weapons. Katanas were commonly used, previous to that the tachi was common. Samurai usually preferred, depending on the time period either bows or spear and gun.

I'd be better off with a light agility weapon (such as a rapier) than a heavy strength weapon (such as a broadsword). Polearms are ALL too heavy for my liking (unless, of course, they're made of styrofoam!), but scythes are damn cool.

No halberds, ranseurs, or naganatas in the post. Sad. I guess that a Naganata is sort of like a glaive so I voted glaive. When it comes to sharp weapons, the Japanese pretty much dominated.

The Japanese had terrible arms compared to the europeans (post 11th century I think). The weapons had to be worked on for much longer due to the lower quality Iron and Steel, they didn't have nearly comparable production levels.

Whilst they did have better individual training and fairly good army training they seemed to have lost (army based training, not individual) that after professional armies became common in europe.

Did the Chinese and Indians have comparable polearms?

I would also note that both tended to be, at best, a rarity.

Of course, as I understand it, Katanas weren't really battlefield weapons anyway. Samurai were more likely to use a No-Dachi (two-handed sword) or a Naginata in actual battle, or their bows. The Daisho was a sign of their position; the Katana primarily used for duelling, the Wakizashi for seppuku. This would make the Katana the equivalent of a "Court Blade" in Europe: a quite functional weapon, but one whose purpose is actually more for display.

As to the thread: Lochaber Axe. I like punching holes in heavily armored people.
It should also be noted that by the time the katana really got off the ground, large army clashes had come to an end in Japan.

The Japanese had terrible arms compared to the europeans (post 11th century I think). The weapons had to be worked on for much longer due to the lower quality Iron and Steel, they didn't have nearly comparable production levels.
Depends upon the weapon. Japanese firearms were far superior to their European counterparts for a very long time.

Whilst they did have better individual training and fairly good army training they seemed to have lost (army based training, not individual) that after professional armies became common in europe.
Mainly because war was outlawed.

Did the Chinese and Indians have comparable polearms?
Not sure about the Indians, but the Chinese did, yes.

Japanese blades were created to punch through wood or bronze armour (at the top of japanese armour tech). They are no use against a steel chain or plate, because that's not their job.


The lack of a suitable stabbing point on the katana does greatly hinder it's usefulness against plate mail and, to a lesser extent, chain.

The lack of a suitable stabbing point on the katana does greatly hinder it's usefulness against plate mail and, to a lesser extent, chain.
*sighs* Katanas were not the ONLY weapon used in Japan. Japan also did have iron armor and made weapons that DID go through them.

Jesh.

Depends upon the weapon. Japanese firearms were far superior to their European counterparts for a very long time.

Ahh, I was just talking about the close combat weapons (to tell you the truth I don't actually know that much about Japanese war tech). What would I be able to wiki to find more info?

Mainly because war was outlawed.

Ahhhh, I see. So that would be after the isolationist period.

*sighs* Katanas were not the ONLY weapon used in Japan. Japan also did have iron armor and made weapons that DID go through them.

Jesh.

Really? You mean...people...adapted? You mean katanas weren't the only weapon used in feudal Japan? :rolleyes:

Maybe you could tell me where I said that it was. Or better yet, maybe you could tell me how pointing out that the Japanese had other weapons relates to the fact that the katana lacks a stabbing point and that hinders its usefulness against metal armor.

I would also note that both tended to be, at best, a rarity.

Certainly not. While not the most common armor material, iron was not such a rarity. And mail was certainly quite common. Almost every museum suit of armor I've seen had some mail in it.

Of course, as I understand it, Katanas weren't really battlefield weapons anyway.

Nope. They were.

Samurai were more likely to use a No-Dachi (two-handed sword) or a Naginata in actual battle, or their bows.

Mixed. O-dachi weren't so common as tachi or uchigatana. Naginata tended to be an ashigaru or sohei weapon, rather than a samurai weapon. Howere, they were used by samurai . The bow was certainly.

The Daisho was a sign of their position; the Katana primarily used for duelling, the Wakizashi for seppuku. This would make the Katana the equivalent of a "Court Blade" in Europe: a quite functional weapon, but one whose purpose is actually more for display.

Nope.

Actually no-dachis were rather rare weapons. Katanas were commonly used, previous to that the tachi was common. Samurai usually preferred, depending on the time period either bows or spear and gun.

Samurai generally used swords and bows, while yari, naginata, and muskets were generally ashigaru weapons.

Polearms are ALL too heavy for my liking (unless, of course, they're made of styrofoam!), but scythes are damn cool.

Polearms, especially those useful in individual combat, like the naginata, are not that heavy and quite well balanced. (I did some kata with a "live" naginata when I was still practicing. It was no worse than the tachi.)

The Japanese had terrible arms compared to the europeans (post 11th century I think).

??? Evidence?

The weapons had to be worked on for much longer due to the lower quality Iron and Steel, they didn't have nearly comparable production levels.

The production levels were high enough for them to be exporting 1000s of blades to Ming China...

Whilst they did have better individual training and fairly good army training they seemed to have lost (army based training, not individual) that after professional armies became common in europe.

That they did.

Did the Chinese and Indians have comparable polearms?

Indeed.

Chinese polearms include the kwan-do/guan dao, ji, and qiang are fine examples.

I'm less familiar with the Indian weapons, but I would be utterly and totally shcked if the sub-continent did not turn up a wealth of polearms.

It should also be noted that by the time the katana really got off the ground, large army clashes had come to an end in Japan.

Hmmm... A tricky one. It depends on exactly what one means by "katana". Most laymen know all nihonto as "katana". Even I have trouble distinguishing uchigatana and katana. However, even by strict definitions, proper katana were being produced in sufficient numbers that there were exported in the 1000s to Ming China during the Muromachi jidai.

Depends upon the weapon. Japanese firearms were far superior to their European counterparts for a very long time.

Mainly because war was outlawed.

See above.

Not sure about the Indians, but the Chinese did, yes.

See above.

The lack of a suitable stabbing point on the katana does greatly hinder it's usefulness against plate mail and, to a lesser extent, chain.

Neither Western nor Japanese swords were designed to stab through plate.

(to tell you the truth I don't actually know that much about Japanese war tech).

:) Nice honest admission. I've been studying the topic for years, in cluding having actually worn museum piece quality suits of Japanese armor, handling live blades of historical quality, and so on; and I find myself scrambling for info at times, so no worries.

What would I be able to wiki to find more info?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Weapons_of_Japan is a start. Just becareful. It is wikipedia afterall...

Ahhhh, I see. So that would be after the isolationist period.

Again, it's tricky as to exactly what's meant by katana, like I said above. (for a clearer idea of how tricky, I remember a special nihonto exhibit at the Osaka Museum of History I attended with my part-time co-worker who was doing some post-doc research work there. He filled me in on the behind the doors arguments over a few of the swords as to whether they were katana or uchigatana.)

Or better yet, maybe you could tell me how pointing out that the Japanese had other weapons relates to the fact that the katana lacks a stabbing point and that hinders its usefulness against metal armor.

Katana do not lack a stabbing point. However, as I said just above, neither Western nor Japanese swords were designed to stab through plate.

a hockey stick

Neither Western nor Japanese swords were designed to stab through plate.


Of course they're not made to stab thru plate, I never said anything about stabbing thru plate.

However, using point-work to go after joints and vulnerable places/gaps in armor is much less effective when you don't have a suitable stabbing point. Lacking such a point negates one of the few remaining options someone armed with a sword has against plate armor. Ideally, you'd have at least a punching dagger or at best a suitable polearm.

Katanas lack such a point. The blade curves at the tip rather than coming to a point as european swords do.
http://www.valleymartialarts.com/images/katana27ab.jpg
compared to:
http://www.millenniumgiftshop.net/assets/product_images/product_lib/30000-39999/30024.jpg

You can't say that the katana's point would be just as effective as that short sword's.

a hockey stick

Excellent choice! :D

Of course they're not made to stab thru plate, I never said anything about stabbing thru plate.

It was certainly implied by your earlier posts.

[QUOTE=Telesha]However, using point-work to go after joints and vulnerable places/gaps in armor is much less effective when you don't have a suitable stabbing point. Lacking such a point negates one of the few remaining options someone armed with a sword has against plate armor. Ideally, you'd have at least a punching dagger or at best a suitable polearm.

Katanas lack such a point. The blade curves at the tip rather than coming to a point as european swords do.

The picture you posted is at a poor angle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Tachi-p1000626.jpg/800px-Tachi-p1000626.jpg

That should disavow you of any such notion that nihonto do not come to a point.

(And ask any kendo-ka what a "tsuki" strike is, before you go around saying nihonto aren't any good for point work.)

Edit: Since you've edited the pic in, and then cahnged it, since I started my reply, just so people who didn't see it know, here's the 1st pic he edited in: http://www.demiurgo.org/darcs/charla-ruby-ull-20060519/ui/full-katana-kissaki-2_small.jpg. That's clearly a misunderstood picture.

Excellent choice! :D

[QUOTE=Telesha]Of course they're not made to stab thru plate, I never said anything about stabbing thru plate.

It was certainly implied by your earlier posts.

-snip picture-

That should disavow you of any such notion that nihonto do not come to a point.

(And ask any kendo-ka what a "tsuki" strike is, before you go around saying nihonto aren't any good for point work.)



I never said the katana lacked a point, I said they lacked a stabbing point. They lack the /\ tip that european swords have. I'm well aware you can do effective point work with a katana, but lacking that particular point limits its ability compared to the european short sword. Granted, the short sword was made to stab.

note: I changed the picture because compared to the other, it was huge. Makes it less effective for comparison.

I never said the katana lacked a point, I said they lacked a stabbing point. They lack the /\ tip that european swords have. I'm well aware you can do effective point work with a katana, but lacking that particular point limits its ability compared to the european short sword. Granted, the short sword was made to stab.

note: I changed the picture because compared to the other, it was huge. Makes it less effective for comparison.

And as I said, ask any kendo-ka what a tsuki attack is...

And, as I thought it might when the OP disallowed Japanese blades and someone broght it up, this thread has gone off it's rails totally. And it's gone pretty much the usualy way these things go - a bunch of ignorant posts, a few semi-knowledgeble posts, and a couple of actually knowledgable posts. There was a reason I said I'd sit this round of this out. I'll go back to the sidelines now and let the ignorant bash it out with the semi-ignorant.

For the record, I still think a chainsaw lashed to the nub should be considered as a polearm.

ESPECIALLY if the arm in question is really long. Like Wilt Chamberlain's or something.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Army_of_Darkness_poster.jpg

Groovy.

And, as I thought it might when the OP disallowed Japanese blades and someone broght it up, this thread has gone off it's rails totally. And it's gone pretty much the usualy way these things go - a bunch of ignorant posts, a few semi-knowledgeble posts, and a couple of actually knowledgable posts. There was a reason I said I'd sit this round of this out. I'll go back to the sidelines now and let the ignorant bash it out with the semi-ignorant.

Yes, arguing the point does seem to have gotten us nowhere...

no pun intended

For the record, I still think a chainsaw lashed to the nub should be considered as a polearm.

ESPECIALLY if the arm in question is really long. Like Wilt Chamberlain's or something.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Army_of_Darkness_poster.jpg

Groovy.

An arm on a stump is not an arm on a pole....

What if the arm was as LONG as a pole? ;)

What if the arm was as LONG as a pole? ;)

Or you put the arm on the stump on the pole?

touché.

First, my answer on the poll's question.
If I could be guaranteed, oh, say, nineteen other pikemen with me and a sleeve of shot, I'd go for the pike any day of the week. Pikes are absolutely dependent upon formation work (mutual cover); a single pikeman is near-useless on a battlefield, save, perhaps, as a pell.
If not, probably a poll-axe, backed by a decent sword. If I recall correctly, a poll-axe has a stiff tip for piercing armor (mail), a hammer for knocking the sense out of a person wearing plate, and an axe-head opposite the hammer for dealing with lightly-armored footmen.

Second, to address some statements made here regarding arms and armor.

By and large, most weapons in the West and the East were not intended to defeat plate armor head-on. Generally, the best way to deal with a heavily-armored opponent was to attack the weak spots in the armor (joints, etc.), or to inflict damage without having to punch holes in the armor. Percussive weapons (maces, poll-axes, very large rocks, etc.) were very good at that. Many European percussive weapons (the warhammer being a particularly nasty example) were backed with a spike opposite the hammer's head, which could be used to punch holes in a suit of armor. Now that's an unpleasant thought...

For those interested in this topic, I recommend the following website:
http://www.myarmoury.com/home.php

(My apologies for nattering on, but 11th-17th Century military history, both Western and Eastern, is one of my hobbies.)

. Percussive weapons (maces, poll-axes, very large rocks, etc.) were very good at that. Many European percussive weapons (the warhammer being a particularly nasty example) were backed with a spike opposite the hammer's head, which could be used to punch holes in a suit of armor.

Percussive weapons also had the nice side effect of not always destroying your victim's armor, the pure force going thru their body was usually enough to kill them leaving the armor salvagable. Dents can be fixed with a little effort, holes on the other hand...

First, my answer on the poll's question.
If I could be guaranteed, oh, say, nineteen other pikemen with me and a sleeve of shot, I'd go for the pike any day of the week. Pikes are absolutely dependent upon formation work (mutual cover); a single pikeman is near-useless on a battlefield, save, perhaps, as a pell.

:D

For those interested in this topic, I recommend the following website:
http://www.myarmoury.com/home.php

(My apologies for nattering on, but 11th-17th Century military history, both Western and Eastern, is one of my hobbies.)


Beauty of a link. The J armor section's nice.

*sighs* Katanas were not the ONLY weapon used in Japan. Japan also did have iron armor and made weapons that DID go through them.

Of course katanas weren't the only weapon used in Japan. And they weren't for the battlefield, where naginata and nagimaki were more common (and useful). The problem is that many westerners are so fascinated by the katana that they suppose that the best polearm ever is a katana-on-a-stick.

Iron armour isn't steel armour. Iron is easy to pierce. Steel isn't. Ok, the daikyu and the composite bow don't count (they can pierce about anything).

Btw, I really can't recall japanese suits of iron armour - at least, not something like the full-body steel plate armour of the Renaissance.

So here goes... Japanese heavy battle armor was usually made out of iron or bronze. The metalic parts only covered the chest, lower legs, and head and occasionally had plates for the shoulders as well. The remainder was protected by leather and standard stuff. Many suits had NO back protection at all, a Samuria supposedly never turned his back on his enemy and never attacked from behind.

And to settle the argument about Japanese weapon's inability to defeat heavey plate, I present to you the Tetsubo (http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/Tetsubo-01.jpg) Essentially a 4 to 5 foot long iron studded baseball bat :D.

And to settle the argument about Japanese weapon's inability to defeat heavey plate, I present to you the Tetsubo (http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/Tetsubo-01.jpg) Essentially a 4 to 5 foot long iron studded baseball bat :D.

Yeah, that'd do it...

Have a nice game of stickball with the guy's head after you're done as well.

I have an idea too... how about a 10 foot pool with a shotgun, a hand grenade, and a bayonet on one end? You can't tell me thats not an effective polearm...

I have an idea too... how about a 10 foot pool with a shotgun, a hand grenade, and a bayonet on one end? You can't tell me thats not an effective polearm...

How would you throw the hand grenade?

You don't, its just rigged to 'splode when you pull the pin.

I have an idea too... how about a 10 foot pool with a shotgun, a hand grenade, and a bayonet on one end?

And also a chainsaw lashed to an arm-nub.

As long as anything goes at the end of a stick, then how about a Pike at the end of a Halberd at the end of a Sarissa, at the end of a stick? Oh yeah, and a Bohemian Ear Spoon for added terror.

And to settle the argument about Japanese weapon's inability to defeat heavey plate, I present to you the Tetsubo (http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/Tetsubo-01.jpg) Essentially a 4 to 5 foot long iron studded baseball bat :D.
That IS a baseball bat. Don't you know that the Japanese love baseball so much they invented a time machine to bring it back to the Sengoku period where it was used to bring peace to a waring Japan?

Well, until Oda, Toyotomi and Tokugawa got into a bit of a disagreement about how to best coach the teams. (Yeah, only Daistallia is probably going to get the joke)

Seeing this reminded me of the several years I wasted playing Diablo.

My initial thought upon seeing the topic was "omfg eth botd ghost spear lololol"

Mhm.

Hmmm... A tricky one. It depends on exactly what one means by "katana". Most laymen know all nihonto as "katana". Even I have trouble distinguishing uchigatana and katana. However, even by strict definitions, proper katana were being produced in sufficient numbers that there were exported in the 1000s to Ming China during the Muromachi jidai.
In this case, I am refering to what most lay people take as a katana, or rather, their movie counterparts that they see when they watch The Last Samurai. :p

See above.
I was just reading up on this one (Matsumoto Castle has the best gun collection in Japan for reasons the English translations never really got into), but apparently Japan took the matchlocks they got from the Portagues and turned them into some very fine weapons. They managed to bore the rifle, something that Europeans wouldn't do for quite sometime and worked out a way to get the darn things to fire in the rain (something Europeans NEVER figured out) as well as vast improvements in triggers and other areas. Europe surpassed Japan due to, as you know, the outlawing of guns by the Bakufu, and changing technology that make matchlocks obsolete. But, for a time, they were the best in the world.

In this case, I am refering to what most lay people take as a katana, or rather, their movie counterparts that they see when they watch The Last Samurai. :p


I was just reading up on this one (Matsumoto Castle has the best gun collection in Japan for reasons the English translations never really got into), but apparently Japan took the matchlocks they got from the Portagues and turned them into some very fine weapons. They managed to bore the rifle, something that Europeans wouldn't do for quite sometime and worked out a way to get the darn things to fire in the rain (something Europeans NEVER figured out) as well as vast improvements in triggers and other areas. Europe surpassed Japan due to, as you know, the outlawing of guns by the Bakufu, and changing technology that make matchlocks obsolete. But, for a time, they were the best in the world.

The Japanese did many good things with matchlock design. One of these was a pivoting cover over the priming pan that was actuated by the same motion that would lower the serpentine onto the pan, which is the "firing-in-the-rain" mechanism (though this would, of course, not help if the match got soaked.) They also standardized arquebus bores, which meant that mass-produced cartridge and shot was feasible. In contrast, many European arquebusiers had to carry their own bullet moulds. Unfortunately, the Japanese never moved past the matchlock's technology level until Perry's Black Fleet showed up.

And if we're going with the "something-on-a-stick" theme, I'll see your pike mounted on a halberd mounted on a sarissa mounted on a quarterstaff, and raise you one of Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler's sausages onna stick.

And if we're going with the "something-on-a-stick" theme, I'll see your pike mounted on a halberd mounted on a sarissa mounted on a quarterstaff, and raise you one of Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler's sausages onna stick.
Hey now... we're talking polearms, not a weapon of mass destruction!

Reference is the wikipedia pages about polearms. European polearms only, no naginata etc.

Pick your favourite and debate preferred methods of disembowelment or other gruesome way of killing fellow humans and horses alike.

Personally, I like the pike.
Which one has blades on both ends, balanced equally? I'll go with that.

But normally, for safety reasons--and the fact I'd prefer not to kill anyone if I can avoid it--I usually just use a bo staff, six feet long.

Polearms, especially those useful in individual combat, like the naginata, are not that heavy and quite well balanced. (I did some kata with a "live" naginata when I was still practicing. It was no worse than the tachi.)


Hmm... maybe I read about the Black Dragon too much? Still, I'm almost positive I'd be more comfortable with a wkizashi or kodachi than a tachi...

Sword/shield > spear

I really have to wonder how wieldy is a 24 foot spear off of a horse. Once you get inside its range, the spearman can only try to keep backing up or drop the weapon.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/8939/l3022wk1.jpg
My favorite ^ :D

Sword/shield > spear

I really have to wonder how wieldy is a 24 foot spear off of a horse. Once you get inside its range, the spearman can only try to keep backing up or drop the weapon.

That's why you stick with something like a six foot staff. It doesn't have too much range, but it's not going to make problems for you up close unless they start pulling knives on you, and who does that during normal combat?

How would you throw the hand grenade?

Thou shalt take the holy hand grenade and count...

Just attach a string to the grenade pin.

Which one has blades on both ends, balanced equally? I'll go with that.



I don't think it is an european design, looks more from southeastern Asia. Maybe it is called a lajatang, but I'm not sure.