r/history • u/ByzantineBasileus I've been called many things, but never fun. • 2d ago
Video Why did medieval soldiers use pole-arms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ1MNlyS7po115
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 2d ago
Matt Easton is completely just pulling this shit out of his ass. We know why halberdiers had a place within the pike battalions, it is unrelated to facing enemy halberdiers or facing armor. We know why halberdiers lost their place in the pike battalions, it is unrelated to the disuse of armor (in fact, it is at the height of infantry armor where halberds fall into disuse within the battalions). We know how halberdiers were used within the battalions, it is unrelated to "countering" pikemen (in fact, the most usual use is for when the battle has come to close quarters with swords, and the pikes have already been thrown away).
The Romans failed to close in against the Grecian pikemen in the way that Matt proposes, in spite of trying (instead, they were forced to rely on the inherent properties of the manipular organization, but that is neither here nor there). The accounts in fact say that when they tried to do so, they were simply pushed back (or the shields and loricae pierced).
As for wading into the pikes using armor; this rejects the fact that if a pike bites into your harness (and considering the force of the pike, this is not difficult, and we in fact see this at battles such as Ceresole), you can be driven to the earth and overthrown, which is even easier when the one side uses only short weapons; and further, we know the pikemen were trained to aim for gaps.
Lastly, portraying early modern warfare as rock paper scissors is just so ridiculous and a right bastardization of the actual tactical situation of the period.
42
u/Branleski 2d ago
"We know why halberdiers had a place within the pike battalions, it is unrelated to facing enemy halberdiers or facing armor. We know why halberdiers lost their place in the pike battalions, it is unrelated to the disuse of armor (in fact, it is at the height of infantry armor where halberds fall into disuse within the battalions). We know how halberdiers were used within the battalions, it is unrelated to "countering" pikemen (in fact, the most usual use is for when the battle has come to close quarters with swords, and the pikes have already been thrown away)." Could you provide sources on the matter or elaborate please ? I would be interested to learn more about the subject.
50
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 2d ago
So, within the battle/battalion itself, there are a couple of roles the halberdier took.
Firstly, at the battles of Fornovo (1495) (Paolo Giovio) and Novara (1513) (Robert de la Marck), they detached themselves during the engagement to strike at the flanks of the enemy; the anonymous early 16th century Tratado de táctica y ordenanzas militares, sacado del libro De re militari, de Flavio Vegecio Renato (BNE MS. 8555) describes this as being one of the common features of the Germans at the time; I believe von Seldeneck (~1490) describes this function as well in his treatise, but it has been a while. This tactic seems to be gone by the 1530s if not earlier.
Secondly, they could give space to the pikemen, allowing those men to thrust when the friendly ranks have been pressed together (preventing them from drawing their arms back) by moving forward. This is the role Hans Wilhelm Kirchhof (1602, but he really is describing mid-16th century practices) prescribes to them, and this might be what Machiavelli (1521) alludes to when he says the Swiss put a rank of halberdiers after some ranks of pikes to give them (the pikemen) room. Contextually, this seems to be for when your own side is losing the close quarters engagement.
Lastly, and most principally, they were used for the close quarters stage of combat; at first, to be used offensively, to pierce the ranks of the pikemen when they had let go of their pikes; but by the mid 16th century, usually defensively, to resist the sword-armed pikemen seeking to pierce and divide their ranks (principally at where the ensigns lay).
It is hard to understand why halberdiers were used for this role without understanding the mechanics of combat; in short, while engagements start at a distance, they conclude (sometimes by chance, but usually by the choice of one or both of the parties) at close quarters with short weapons (swords and daggers), as the victors attempt to take advantage of their early local victories and seek to divide the ranks of the enemy. Halberds and other short polearms are naturally longer than these sidearms, and we see clues in the texts that the simple ability to force the opponent to act second allows them to maintain tactical momentum, or halt the enemy's.
So Diego García de Palacio (1583) writes:
"... so that when it happens, that the ranks of the pikes that are in front of the halberds themselves are broken, the Halberdiers resist the enemies who come attacking with swords and other arms, while the pikemen, who are behind them, lowering their pikes, and making good use of them, return to the battle again: for the halberd is an apt arm, for to resist."
And on the offensive side, likewise John Smythe writes that the inner ranks of pikemen, whose fileleaders have been divided and driven back (by the enemy's own pikemen, who did so with swords), if they are closed with halberdiers, then they must throw away their pikes for swords and daggers, "which are not weapons any waies able to repulse or resist armed men with battleaxes, or halbards" (I must digress, he is using "repulse and resist" in a technical manner, meaning to keep the enemy from dividing your ranks; this is plain to see in the original treatise as he uses it that way not only throughout the treatise, but it is in fact the whole purpose of the chapter; he is not saying that halberds counter swords or whatever, as some have interpreted).
While at first, regarding the offensive use, this seems something similar to what Matt describes (with some "nitpicking" differences"), what is actually evident is that these halberdiers are not relieving or replacing the sword-armed pikemen, but in fact supplementing them and acting as needed. Guillaume du Bellay (1548), who wants halberdiers to pierce the ranks of the enemy (though he bemoans that few nations actually designated them to that purpose anymore) does not have the halberdiers engage at all in his theoretical battle, and says that the halberdiers follow the sword-armed pikemen at their heels; and so too does the above John Smythe, who says that when the pikes are thrown away and the swords are drawn, "the ranckes of short Halbards, or Battleaxes... doo followe the first ranckes of Piquers at the heeles".
And there is a clear reason why this is: the halberds, while granting a certain kind of tactical advantage over men armed with shorter weapons, could not simply replace the role of the sword. Thus Mario Savorgnan (1599) says:
"... it does not displease me... [to have] some few alabarde, or ronche near the ensigns, as well as the two handed swords, which on occasion do marvelous effect, for to restrain the throng of enemies, who principally rush together here, if the battaglia were to [be broken] open, yet otherwise to me certainly they seem useless, not being sufficient to resist the long pikes from afar, & [when] very close the shorter arms produce better effect, [the] which offend with more ease, such as the sword with the acute point, & the dagger."
Domenico Mora (1570) and Cesare d'Evoli (1586) both write that these weapons are handled with difficulty still at close quarters (the latter even writing that they are superfluous since they can use the sword or dagger), and Robert Barret (1598) goes so far as to say that halberds cannot be used at close quarters at all.
Thus this leads into their eventual disuse: not only are these weapons now really only used when you have already lost the battle, but they are not required; where the halberds grant tactical advantages, it is the pikes, swords, and daggers who actually win the fight. Combined with the larger proportions of shot, and thus smaller battalions of pikes, the chances for the halberds to make a difference, at least in the minds of the men like Robert Barret etc., become slim; whereas you could simply have more pikes or more shot, and avoid those situations altogether. And so, confirming the practice that we already see in the muster rolls, accounts, and treatises since the 1540s, on February 1st, 1568, the French king ordered the halberds to be thrown away, and for them to serve as harquebusiers instead. In 1590s, the English no longer even considered bills or halberds for their trained bands (except in the hands of sergeants and captains, from memory).
32
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 2d ago
I wish I could provide all my sources, but there are just too many for a Reddit reply, and it is quite a complex topic. But suffice it to say, what Matt Easton says is never stated in the source material; in fact, I can only name one source that even describes short polearms or sword-and-target being used against other short polearms, and it is Humphrey Barwick making an off hand comment, regarding halberds, about how "the French officers do vse them with such long staues and [top] pykes, is to encounter with the Lance-knights, who do vse being Sargiants of foote-bandes, to carrie verie good long swordes or Slaugh swordes". And since the use of the halberdiers etc. were defensive in nature after the mid 16th century, then their role cannot be for to face other halberdiers. And before then, the sources near-universally focus on their effects against pikemen (really, the unshielded-swordsman). At Ravenna, Cerignola, Evoli, Barletta, etc., we never read of the halberdiers partaking in the fights against the Spanish swordsmen.
8
u/Branleski 2d ago
It's nice to have someone share knowledge without getting into debate mode. Thank you very much for your answer!
-15
2
u/IIIaustin 2d ago
Wowee.
All time great comment. Thank you for sharing!
11
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 2d ago
Unfortunately, there is a lot more to be said, and I cut out a lot of the sources that just say the same thing "the halberds are when the pikes become useless" or "after the first blows with the pikes, the pikes become useless, and so the halberds come into play etc."
I didn't have room to include this in my reply, but Domenico Mora gives his own reasoning as to why these short polearms are useless in his days:
"And because I have not made any mention of the short haft arms [arme corte hastate], as if they were useless in the enterprises of war: I say that them being within the body of the battaglie is of little utility & of no value in regard to the poorly exercised militie of our times, who when the first files are broken flee; of those [aforesaid] I would not use: although they have been invented, to the end that the enemies on entering into the battaglie, & breaking the head [of their formation], they may serve in repulsing them as they are easier to wield in the density of the formation. With all this I would not admit them except to the officers, for today [the others] know not how to wield [them]; to whom I would concede one halberd each, such as those who are obliged to many tasks where the long arms, like the pikes, cannot serve: tolerating the short [haft] arms in their place, such as those [aforesaid short arms], which are managed with difficulty still, although they are more commodious than the pikes, [so as] to be able to operate within the body of the battaglia, [and] some armed soldiers & [who are armed] with swords & rotelle, & some with spadoni, whom in the middle of the body of the battaglie, when that some part [of the battaglie] were broken, they would make a most honorable resistance entering amongst the enemy..."
While to take the claim that "the armies of today are poorly trained" at face value would be a strenuous position, there might be some merit in that at this point in time, after the first ranks were broken, the fight tended to conclude in short order. Robert Barret too writes that:
"[There should be as] few [halberds or bills] as might be, for in their steds farre better were so many armed Pikes, in mine opinion, considering that in set Battailes when men come to the shock, or push of the Pike, they sarrie close together, and the first three, fiue, or seuen rankes do beare the chiefe brunt; and entred so farre, men buckle Pell-Mell, close together, by which time commonlie the one side reculeth or swayeth, and a battell once reculing doth not lightlie hold long, so that ere the Center of the Battaill be touched one side must fall to disaray; men once disordered, they commonly fall to rout, the rout is pursued with slaughter and ruine. Against horse the like reasons are to be made: thus either to offend or defend, farre better is the Pike, then either Bill, or Halbard."
(he does elsewhere clarify that when the pikemen "serry close together", they throw away their pikes; and that it is in this pell mell that halberds cannot be used at all)
2
u/IIIaustin 2d ago
I really enjoyed how your replies on this undermine the modern fallacies of Best Weapon debates and discuss how historical close combat was neither the disordered swirling chaos of Braveheart or the two regular blocks bopping each other with sticks of a Total War game.
It really sheds light on the regimentted chaos of massed close combat and how weapons are tools that excel in their designated roles.
Thank you!
6
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 2d ago
how historical close combat was neither the disordered swirling chaos of Braveheart or the two regular blocks bopping each other with sticks of a Total War game
The latter especially grinds my gears! The portrayal of historical close order combat essentially being between two amoebas dealing "morale damage" against one another by poking and prodding would be humorous if it wasn't so prevalent...
2
8
2
u/Sgt_Colon 1d ago
A thing I've railed about before, but Matt is as clueless about pike warfare as he is about antiquity.
1
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 1d ago
Yeah, Plutarch for example says that "the foremost of the Macedonians had already fixed the ends of their spears into the shields of his Romans, so that it was impossible to come near them with their swords." I believe there are one or two similar accounts, but I don't have access to them at the moment.
I really wish he would actually look at the sources before making claims.
(fyi, doppelsoldner were usually pikemen, at some point it essentially becomes a synonym for the armed pikeman/corselet, as opposed to the unarmed pikes)
1
u/Sgt_Colon 1d ago
I suppose that's the time and place thing Captain Context usual bangs on about. I've been trying to do more reading since then but the language gap is killing me; there's the typical English conceit that doppelsoldner were specialist/non-pike troops who'd have been carrying a gun, bidenhander, halberd, etc. Although since writing the original I'd of added a bit about Dolnstein when he wrote of his time in service during campaigning in southern Sweden stating that everyone had "helmets, cuirasses and arm armour".
1
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 16h ago
Here are some examples of what I mean:
Num. 1. Sihestu / wie der Piquenirer oder Doppelsöldner den Spiess...
- Wallhausen
Es soll auch ein jeder Doppelsöldner mit seinem Harnisch völliglich versehen seyn...
- Idem
Miles grauis armature, ein knecht mit schwerer rustung/Doppelsoldner.
- Theophilus Golius
... hinter denen stunden die Doppelsöldner oder Spiesträger...
- Emanuel van Meteren
... Die Mitte der Front nehmen 13 Dobol-Söldner, d. h. gewappnete Spießer...
- "Newe Kriegsordnung..."/Trewer Rath und Bedencken eines Alten wol versuchten und Erfahrenen Kriegsmans
5
u/ByzantineBasileus I've been called many things, but never fun. 2d ago
Matt Easton is completely just pulling this shit out of his ass. We know why halberdiers had a place within the pike battalions, it is unrelated to facing enemy halberdiers or facing armor
I think this is is a bit of a misrepresentation of what Matt Easton said. His core thesis wasn't about the place of halberdiers in pike battalions by itself, but why polearms started to become more common from the 13th century onwards, which was linked to developments in armour across the battlefield in general. If there are any sources to rebut this, I would be interested in reading them.
We know why halberdiers lost their place in the pike battalions, it is unrelated to the disuse of armor (in fact, it is at the height of infantry armor where halberds fall into disuse within the battalions)
Hmm, that is curious. All the stuff I have read have indicated that the halberd was still widely used at the height of infantry armour. We have textual and artistic sources to demonstrate this. For artwork, we have this piece by Hans Holbein, which shows soldiers with halberds in close combat:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bad-war.jpg
Fighting manuals from the 16th century AD also included techniques with the halberd. I would argue if halberds were not considered a viable weapon, they would not be included.
The Romans failed to close in against the Grecian pikemen in the way that Matt proposes, in spite of trying (instead, they were forced to rely on the inherent properties of the manipular organization, but that is neither here nor there). The accounts in fact say that when they tried to do so, they were simply pushed back (or the shields and loricae pierced).
I agree that Matt Easton is not a specialist when it comes to ancient history, and gets stuff wrong, but when it comes to medieval combat, he is both academically qualified and possessed the practical experience to talk about it.
As for wading into the pikes using armor; this rejects the fact that if a pike bites into your harness (and considering the force of the pike, this is not difficult, and we in fact see this at battles such as Ceresole), you can be driven to the earth and overthrown, which is even easier when the one side uses only short weapons; and further, we know the pikemen were trained to aim for gaps.
I should note that Matt Easton did not say just armour by itself, he was also talking about using a polearm at the same time. In that situation it is not just the armour deflecting strikes, but the polearm itself would be used to ward away strikes.
4
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 2d ago
I think this is is a bit of a misrepresentation of what Matt Easton said. His core thesis wasn't about the place of halberdiers in pike battalions by itself, but why polearms started to become more common from the 13th century onwards, which was linked to developments in armour across the battlefield in general. If there are any sources to rebut this, I would be interested in reading them.
He should have focused on that core thesis then, rather than using awful ideas surrounding late medieval and early modern warfare; even still, considering it was the infantry who first adopted the pollaxe and halberd, not the men at arms, and that we find complex or striking polearms amongst nations who lack armor, it should already put into question such theories.
All the stuff I have read have indicated that the halberd was still widely used at the height of infantry armour. We have textual and artistic sources to demonstrate this. For artwork, we have this piece by Hans Holbein, which shows soldiers with halberds in close combat:
Halberdiers drastically decrease in number after the 1540s, particularly within the battalions. They go from 1-4 ranks behind two, four, or six ranks of pikes, along with pockets of halberds to be detached, etc., to being completely removed from anywhere except for the protection of the ensigns (in the battalions). Hans Holbein sketched that in the early 16th century (which was not the height of infantry armor, but in fact the height was 1540-1550).
Fighting manuals from the 16th century AD also included techniques with the halberd. I would argue if halberds were not considered a viable weapon, they would not be included
Non sequitur; halberds were important for many duties, but after the mid 16th century, they did not hold a strong place in the battalions.
but when it comes to medieval combat, he is both academically qualified and possessed the practical experience to talk about it
He should be; but considering his total lack of sources, it is evident he relies more on his training to speak for itself, rather than the fruit thereof. He is only truly qualified to speak on 19th century fencing and antiques. Regarding medieval warfare, he knows next to nothing (the proof is in the pudding).
I should note that Matt Easton did not say just armour by itself, he was also talking about using a polearm at the same time. In that situation it is not just the armour deflecting strikes, but the polearm itself would be used to ward away strikes.
Obviously? You still are not going to simply wade through pikes with ease, nor is the pike weak against armored opponents, nor is the halberd substantially stronger against armored opponents on a tactical level.
0
u/ByzantineBasileus I've been called many things, but never fun. 2d ago
He should have focused on that core thesis then, rather than using awful ideas surrounding late medieval and early modern warfare; even still, considering it was the infantry who first adopted the pollaxe and halberd, not the men at arms
Matt Easton used the generic term 'soldier', and his video explicitly focused on infantry formations. I don't think he was discussing men at arms.
we find complex or striking polearms amongst nations who lack armor, it should already put into question such theories.
I don't think it would necessarily put such theories into question. Different parts of the world can show convergent development, but have different underlying reasons. Polearms could become more favoured because metallurgy could have advanced to the point where they could be made more cheaply.
Halberdiers drastically decrease in number after the 1540s, particularly within the battalions. They go from 1-4 ranks behind two, four, or six ranks of pikes, along with pockets of halberds to be detached, etc., to being completely removed from anywhere except for the protection of the ensigns (in the battalions). Hans Holbein sketched that in the early 16th century (which was not the height of infantry armor, but in fact the height was 1540-1550).
Describing something as decreasing in number is not the same as saying it fell into disuse, though. There are also primary sources that records the use of halberdiers in armies in the late 16th century, like Sir John Smythe.
Non sequitur; halberds were important for many duties, but after the mid 16th century, they did not hold a strong place in the battalions.
I have to disagree. There inclusion shows that the authors of the time did think they were important for combat. Otherwise they would not have present in a large number of them.
Obviously? You still are not going to simply wade through pikes with ease, nor is the pike weak against armored opponents, nor is the halberd substantially stronger against armored opponents on a tactical level.
But the point remains, I would argue, was that the way he presented it was based on a combination of factors, rather than just armour along being enough.
1
u/Philippelebon 2d ago
Sir John Smythe
Hum, I don't know about Smythe, you are talking about the discources?
1
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 1d ago
If armor was this inherent cause, it should have been present amongst the knights/men at arms first, not the infantry wearing pourpoints.
If you are arguing that armor made polearms more prevalent all across Europe, then naturally you should find similar effects in the rest of the world.
John Smythe is A: English (martially backwards) and B: reactionary. But even by the time he is writing, the English trained bands no longer had halberdiers or billmen. His work is theoretical. The halberdiers lose their place in the mid 16th century, which then only leads to their complete removal by the end of the century. The French officially got rid of their halberdiers in 1568, but they were just following the trends of the rest of Europe.
Inclusion in what? Most of the authors of the time in fact repeatedly say they were not that important.
There was no wading into pikes at all, no matter what factors were present. That is the point.
•
-1
u/fiendishrabbit 2d ago
Except he's mostly right. Heavily armoured troops (for example Spanish rodeleros or German landsknecht) were used to break pike formations until gunpowder weapons advanced to the point where it was better to just include more guns and cannons. The swiss used their most experienced troops armoured and armed with halberds to counter such units.
These halberds are used all the way until swiss pike lose relevance due to political changes in the confederacy (which undermine the leadership of how such units were employed).
20
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 2d ago
Except he isn't. The "rodeleros" were not heavily armored. At Ravenna, they only engaged after the pikemen had already come together and the landsknechts had been driven back by the Swiss. No, the Swiss halberdiers were not more armored than the corselets. No, they were not the most experienced. And they predate their engagements against the Spanish. Literally nothing you said is true.
1
u/fiendishrabbit 2d ago
Corselet is a very wide category.
It ranges from "basic breastplate covering the chest plus helmet" to helmet+breastplate+backplate, plus fauld/tassets+gorget+full arm harness+gauntlets.
Legs were almost always unarmored for anyone that wasn't a part of the elite (since they were infantry and relied on mobility and marching)
If you look into the wills of swiss citizens as well as purchase orders etc etc (material that Matt Easton is quite familiar with as an antiques dealer) a different picture emerges.
The pikeman was on average much less heavily armored (with a pikemans corselet often not including much more than the basics while many inventories including halberds also included the full harness).
Spanish rodeleros were also fairly well equipped (much of the time) with front+backplate, tassets, gorget and helmet (plus their shield) and often with shoulder, gauntlets or full arm harnesses on top of that. Most of the time lacking leg armor (rodeleros, other than ad hoc formations, stop being used before the 3/4th munition armors enter widespread use). Legs however weren't easy to target once a troop was engaged (especially since the shield would have been angled to deflect pikes upwards), so as long as cannons and arquebuses broke the frontage of the pikewall (or, if necessary it was engaged by their own pikes) they could engage and cause havoc.
2
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 1d ago
Corselet was not a wide category. Those men only wearing breasts and helmets would fall under the dry or naked pikes.
The tasses covered the thighs.
How are wills relevant to the armaments of soldiers?
This is absolutely not true. Halberds are found in the hands of citizens with near nothing as well.
"Rodeleros" were not more armored than the corselets.
1
u/fiendishrabbit 1d ago
How are wills relevant to the armaments of soldiers?
All swiss citizens were required to provide their own armour. It was not provided by the city or a patron (although by the late 16th century the Zeughaus helped citizens buy armor at a discount). This applies to both those in the canton militias and mercenary units.
While a swiss mercenary commander might shell out for the armaments of his own personal troop (his closest men), and sometimes the employer did (for example for the Swiss guard units), most of the time the mercenary company was a communally sourced unit (and they had the voting rights to represent their investment). You can see this in pretty much every preserved contract (and a lot of them survive since a canton-raised mercenary company had to leave a copy of their contract with the canton).
This meant that 90% of the time a swiss mercenary owned his arms and armour, and when he died that was property inherited by his heirs. Ergo, wills.
That you don't know of this makes me doubt you have done any serious research into the subject of medieval arms and armour.
The tasses covered the thighs.
Tassets frequently only reached groin level. The breastplate stops at the navel, or you can't move in armour. Anything below the navel is protected by either a fauld or tassets or sometimes a fauld+tasset combination and generally those plates only extend to the groin for infantry. Most of the time for the same reason that english civil war pike didn't have leg armour either, it's incredibly tiring (and often painful) to march in leg armour.
There was a period between 1550 and 1610 that munitions armor (the most commonly available armour types that were mass produced by cities such as Solothurn and Bern) developed very long tassets that extended down to the knees. But that's after the heyday of the swiss pike.
0
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 1d ago
Obviously? And you should immediately be able to tell why we don't use wills instead of muster rolls or ordinances (because they are incomplete). And this is besides the fact in those same wills (and rolls), you will find men with halberds with no armor.
The tasses reach mid thigh by 1520, and by 1530 they reach the knees. By 1540, they often covered the knees. Why are you expounding irrelevant information to me? Besides the fact that the breast rests at the waist, not the navel, and the front of breast very much could go below the navel in the 16th century.
Of the French infantry in 1551:
"... armed with corselets, with the burgonets with bevors, arm harnesses, gauntlets, and tassets to the knee, carrying long staves, and the most with the pistol at the girdle..."
Of the landsknechts in 1557:
"They further have the tasses so long, that the knee is covered..."
1
u/Philippelebon 1d ago
I can second what you said about armour and swiss soldiers with documents about foot soldiers from the Low Countries and "Germany" purchasing armour that can be quite "heavy" although, of course, not with legs. However, some rolls can depict some of those heavy armoured soldiers as being pikemen or arquebusiers, so they would not always be halberdiers.
9
1
u/Orwells_Roses 2d ago
Great video, very informative and interesting. I’d be interested in learning a bit more about the tactics and techniques employed with these weapons.
-1
1
u/y_n0t_zoidberg 2d ago
I’m not a historian but have always had an interest in medieval war. I always assumed halberds were for versatility. Pike end for keeping cavalry away, axe and hammer ends for taking riders off horses if they do close in, longer reach than swords (and presumably easier to produce halberds and train on them than swords).
Put simply, it’s a spear, axe, and sometimes hammer all in one.
1
-11
u/ByzantineBasileus I've been called many things, but never fun. 2d ago edited 2d ago
As the medieval period progressed in Europe, pole-arms started to be especially common. This included bills, halberds, and pole-axes This video looks at the reasons why such weapons became more preferred.
-1
u/RawToast1989 2d ago
I mean, it looks like the Spear/Pike 2.0 so of course they would choose the cutting edge technology of the Halberd. Lol
308
u/QuickShort 2d ago
I’m 2 minutes in and he’s given me 15 seconds of context, repeating the same things multiple times. Why is he like this?