BEST Historical Pole Weapons/Polearms RANKED 

Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/scholagladiatoria_Nov22 and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days

It makes sense that a lot of these scored very close to one another. If one were clearly superior to the others, then presumably we wouldn't see the huge variety in polearms that we did historically. Everyone would have used the same thing. Also: I know you didn't include non-European weapons, but as someone who practised naginata for several years and has some experience with the guandao, I'm Team Glaive!

Here's the final tally for all the weapons: Single Combat Formation Combat Anti Calvary Anti Armor Total Spear + Shield 10 10 7 3 30 Spear 8 8 9 6 31 Pike 1 9 10 2 22 Partisan 9 8 8 7 32 Glaive 10 7 7 8 32 Halberd 8 8 8 8 32 Polax 10 7 5 10 32 Bill 8 8 8 8 32 Flail 6 6 3 7 22 Great Axe 8 6 2 7 23 Ahlspiess 7 8 9 8 32 Spear+optional shield 10 10 9 6 35 Edit: Sorry this only looks right on desktop. Thanks to Thornescapes for suggesting to add Spear and optional shield, which combines the best scores of both, as a spearman (given a few seconds) could ditch the shield and opt for using the spear two handed instead. Feel free to discuss it in the comments, I'm not 100% on the idea myself, and I'd like to hear some more takes on it.

Gary Gygax would approve. For many people of a certain age, their first introduction to polearms was seeing many varieties listed in Dungeons & Dragons and wondering "WTF are these things?". Man liked his polearms.

POKEY STICK

The spear and shield really only starts to fall down when cavalry and armor start to show up, which explains their dominance until that point.

I think an interesting follow up would be more of the logistics questions around those same weapons. Like "how easy to make?" "how easy to carry to field?" "how easy to maintain?" would be interesting to see differences (if any). Though I guess many of them would have a lot of "same" answers, would still be interesting conversation on how these things might change given logistics?

The flail may have lost the competition, but it has won my heart!

Awesome video descriptive on the use of these lethal weapons! Recall family were visiting the Vatican, and their Swiss Guard had an immense polearm standing next to a giant church door we thought open to tourists! We thought we could traipse inside but that polearm suddenly blocked our entry, whilst a friendly smile emanated from that Swiss Guard. We apologized and his friendly smile didn't disguise the fact that his polearm was quite imposing and real! Lol

Something I think is often not appreciated is that Mesoamerica (the area where the Aztec, Maya, etc are from) had a great variety of polearms: Granted, there's a broader point to be made about how Mesoamerica in general isn't viewed as part of the broader Ancient and Medieval world despite having complex societies with huge cities, formal governments, and organized militaries during those periods; but like, most people are at least vaguely familiar with their use of the Macuahuitl as a weapon: Their Polearms? Not so much. (There was a large variety of other swords, clubs, maces, types of armor, etc, too, but Polearms is the focus here): Obviously, you had simple spears, just with a obsidian or flint point on the end of a shaft (or poles with a sharpened wood point or a blunt tip, like a quarterstaff, I guess?), but there were more complex constructions too: The Tepoztopilli for example was an Aztec polearm: You had a long shaft, which then ended in a broad, spade or leaf or diamond shaped wooden head (the exact shape and proportions differs depending on the depiction), which, like the Macuahuitl, was lined around the edges with obsidian blades. Hassig, who wrote the gold standard text on Aztec militarism and warfare, seems to think that this would have been less just a thrusting weapon, and rather also used for slashing, comparing it to a halbred. There was also a surviving Tepoztopilli alongside a surviving Macuahuitl (then the only, now there's 1-2 other surviving specimens) housed in the Royal Armorry of Madrid, which we have photos and sketches of (though the pieces sadly were seemingly destroyed in a fire, though the suits of Samurai armor they were pictured along are still around.... Some people have skepticism about the photos of the macuahuitl/tepztopiloi in comparsion to the sketches, since the scales are different), and in those sketches, both weapons are interestingly depicted without gaps between the blades as so often seen in Mesoamerican depictions, which would make sense to form more of a flush cutting edge. The Codex Rios also shows what seems to be an almost "Glaive" version of the Macuahuitl, with the iconic paddle-bat shaped wooden core (albiet not full length) lined with blades on the end of a long shaft (though not as long as Tepoztopilli). As far as i'm aware, this is the only depiction or description of this form of the weapon, and sources variously mislabel it as a Cuauholloli (the Nahuatl/Aztec term for ball headed maces), or as a "two handed Macuahuitl). Down in Oaxaca, surviving Mesoamerican books/manuscipts showing Mixtec and Zapotec armies, rulers, and soldiers, such as the Codex Selden, Zouch-Nuttal, etc, there seems to be weapons similar to this glaive, with a shaft (variously either full length or shorter), which oddly tapers, being thicker the closer to the head you get, with the head then being lined with blades. It's hard to say if the head is spade shaped like the Tepoztopilli, or is more of a club like a macahuitl/the glaive, since the proportions differ significantly even inside the same document, but it seems to be almost between the two, and the head also seems to not be made from the same piece of wood as the shaft, but rather affixed to it or otherwise the weapons being designed to give the impression they are, with the tapered end of the shaft extending past the width of the head Mixtec documents also seem to show spears with a almost triangular, needle like point, which is then lined with serrations of some sort. Maya spears also sometimes have serrated blades, albeit affixed to the upper portion of the pole length, not on the point itself, so are probably decorative: See Yaxchilan lintel 41, for example. In general, it's pretty common for Maya spears wielded by high status soldiers or rulers to have decorative components along the top portion of the pole on their spears: On the Bonampak murals, for example, you see a spear where most of the top third of the spear is in a jaguar pelt "sleeve", with the bottom end of that sleeve being tasseled with quetzal feathers, and the top portion above it directly below the point being inlaid with precious stones. Both Mixtec/Zapotec, Maya polearms (There are also some Maya weapons which seem to be half or full length shafts with huge flanges or spikes protruding from them along the side, in practice probably more like clubs or picks then polearms?), and the Codex Rios glaive also occasionally have balls of feathers or cloth with tassels affixed to them around the top portion behind the point, too: I know this is something you see in some Eastern/Asian polearms, and may serve a similar purpose, but I also wonder if these would have been heraldic to indicate royal dyanysty, the city state, unit division, etc: I know the emblem of some Mixtec royal dynasty affixed to banners and stadards were different arrangments of feather orbs, for example. But this sort of decoration seems largery absent from Tepoztoppili. Some groups had very, very long, 10-12+ foot pikes/lances: Per Bernal DIaz, The Chinantec civilization (one of the cultures in Oaxaca alongside the Mixtec and Zapotec) apparently used lances longer then the Spanish's, with "two fathoms of knives" (or one fathom in another mention) attached (The Maudslay translation here proposes that it was a dual pointed spear with then two lines of blades extending down from the points along each side of the shaft). The Pipil, a Nahua offshoot group way down in El Salvador, had some apparently 20 feet long, and there were also shorter spears. I don't have access to the original accounts describing these, but "Armies of the Aztec and Inca Empires, Other Native Peoples of The Americas, and the Conquistadores (Armies of the Sixteenth Century)" depicts it much like Tepotzopilli, except the head and the blades extend down to almost the top third of the entire shaft length, and notes it was dipped in poison, though the book has some issues so I take it with a grain of salt. Finally, there are some ceramic figures from West Mexico and the Gulf Coast areas in Mexico which show some truly bizarre polearms: Some of the bits on them may merely be decorative tassels, which would make them less odd, but the ceramics seem to show some almost Pole-axe like hatchet, spike, and blunt protrusions around the polearm's head in different directions. I really wish I was able to link images for these and the other things I've mentioned, but sadly youtube tends to get iffy when I do that. But yeah, as you can see, quite a bit of variety here! It makes sense, since the area had organized armies for thousands of years and would have had to develop a great variety of weapons, but it's not something that's often apperciated in broader conversations about polearms, or their different types of clubs, maces, other weapons, etc in those conversations about historical weaponry and armor. Sadly, this is also probably only a small cross section of the true diversity of their arms and armor, considering barely any surviving specimens remain, and we only have scarce descriptions and visual depictions in Spanish accounts or the few surviving Mesoamerican books and accounts that the Spanish didn't destroy. I'm also sure Andean civilizations like the Inca, Moche, Wari, Tiwanku, Chimu, etc had their own large variety of polearms, I know metal halbreds were a thing there, but i'm less familar with that area.

“Bear in mind the horses usually have lances” I’ve been underestimating the might of historical equines this whole time! Handgonnes were on poles. I think they deserve to make the top 10. They get at least an 11 in range.

I feel like spear and shield is de facto a better choice than 2 handed spear, despite scoring lower, because you always have the option of just dropping your shield if cavalry or armored opponents show up.

My only disagreement with you is that I would rate spear and shield lower for one vs one fighting, and two hands on a simple spear as higher for one vs one. In my experience I tend to drastically prefer two hands on a spear over a spear and shield as long as I am not worried about being hit by missiles. Otherwise I think you are pretty spot on, I just tend to have a much harder time stopping a single opponent from charging me down with only one hand on a spear, whereas with two hands I feel like the distance "sweet spot" is much more forgiving.

Having this informal style of video with your knowledge and experience behind it results in awesome content!

Matt! New fan from East Texas here; caught one of your videos a couple months back and haven’t been anywhere else since, catching up on Medieval history since. Hope this early comment reaches you, thanks for doing what you do… Best wishes, God bless

I like how you separated them into those distinct categories, that really makes sense in how they are useful depending on the circumstances. I agree wtih your rankings on the weapons and I think your approach does well to take into account the different variables depending on the use.

I love the spear since it’s the basis of where everything else comes from, be it a halberd or a glaive or a pike or being used with a shield. It is the bare essentials for being effective on the battlefield, one pointy stick and you become a weapon. I also love the look of certain cutting spears like the Yari or some of the ones from the Viking era.

Ranking videos from a specialist are always fun! It would be even better if we saw the ranking on the screen ie putting pics of the weapons on some kind of matrix or least a spreadsheet with points for specific categories and total. When it comes to talking about numbers it's good to see them on screen as well, for a better grasp.

This was phenomenally helpful for my worldbuilding research! I need a detailed breakdown of effectiveness like this for different types of swords!

As usual good video, only way you can argue against your scoring is put it to the test. 👍 Any chance of doing a video looking at the winged hussars, please?

It's always fun seeing these kinds of rankings and seeing that, shock of shocks, the best weapons tend to be the ones that saw the most use historically, as their popularity was largely _because_ of their effectiveness. From the Bronze Age -- probably even earlier -- to the adoption of firearms, pointy stick and handheld cover is hard to beat.

I’d be interested to see how a greatsword would score by these standards.

I disagree with the conclusion on pikes v.s armour. We have many pikes with heads specifically designed to deal with armour, and the weight of a pike on a 14-15 feet shaft have a good deal of weight behind it and works as a battering ram when moved back and forth. The sarissa have a heavy but-spike which will increase this effect even more. This will increase the kinetic energy on impact quite a lot. We have primary sources on pikes being used against armoured opponents as the primary weapon, as well as sources on them penetrating plate armour, presumably of munition grade quality. Do a test for yourself and you'll see. If what a rondel dagger when used against armour surprised you, a pike definitely will do the same.

Yes, Finally another video about Matt's favourite poles! By the way, when is the video about the coat of plates coming? I recently rewatched one of the videos about the brigandine, and you said a future video will be dedicated to the coat of plates. I would love to hear you ramble about that armour for half an hour or more, especially since it was your disertation subject. A promise is a promise, Matt!

I mostly agree here, except your score of halberd vs calvary. The halberd, at least as I understood, is specialized at pulling a rider from his horse or taking out the legs of the horse. Of course, halberdiers would've had access to pretty decent armor by the time calvary became a serious issue

Great video! Granted, I'm a bit biased as a polearm enthusiast (even as a kid when I was doing martial arts, once I was old enough to train with one my favorite weapon was always the staff), but overall I think the scores you've presented here make a lot of sense and are presented in a way that's easy to understand, even as someone who doesn't have as much hands-on experience with hafted weapons as I'd like to. Somehow I'd managed to go about a decade or so (the length of time I've been making any meaningful effort to learn about historical military equipment) without realizing that glaives tend to be a bit more like a lighter and occasionally longer pollaxe than they are like a halberd (though the "occasionally longer" aspect might depend on whether you count what we modern folks call the "Lucerne hammer" as a member of the pollaxe family; actually, I'd be curious to see how you'd rank Lucerne hammers, but I imagine they'd score similarly to the halberd and bill or the traditional form of pollaxe depending on the length of the specific example), which I'm going to chalk up to the editions of D&D I'm familiar with giving glaives similar (if not identical) stats to halberds and glossing over pollaxes entirely (what with D&D being responsible for most of my misconceptions about arms and armor, some of which apparently still persisted in my brain many years later, as evidenced by this particular realization). In the context of editions where they're not statted out, pollaxes would presumably be lumped in with greataxes or some other axe weapon, which isn't entirely accurate, but I suppose it's understandable from the perspective that in the context of the two editions I ever made any effort to learn the rules of - 4e and 5e - a pollaxe would likely be mechanically identical to or at least incredibly similar to one of the existing fantastical "superior" axe-type weapons like the urgrosh or gouge (4e); or near-impossible to differentiate from a greataxe within the limited rules for mundane weapons, unless you went out of your way to give it the "special" property despite other clearly multi-damage-type weapons (like many swords and polearms) not getting that same treatment (5e). Also as a D&D homebrew nerd, it tickles something inside me to see that so many of these weapons got very similar scores (including more than a few with the exact same score), as if someone had balanced them using a point-based system like someone might use while designing playable races/species/ancestries/lineages/[insert your terminology of choice here] or... well, weapons! And then of course the lower-scoring weapons are either more specialized (the pike and flail), an inferior version of a better-scoring weapon (the greataxe compared to the later pollaxe which is basically its upgraded, more-developed descendant), or weren't terribly popular compared to the others (the flail), which is something you often see when evaluating the balance of things in the context of a TTRPG with what's meant to be an objective scoring system. Admittedly I do find it a little odd that across every category you rated the bill identically to the halberd and always wound up saying things like "it's exactly the same as a halberd in this context", in that it makes me wonder why you didn't lump them togetherfor the purposes of this video. I remember thinking to myself at the start of the video when you listed the weapons you'd be covering, "Is the bill really that different from the halberd, functionally?" Obviously they're considered different weapons, but I'd be curious if there's a context where the halberd and bill DO meaningfully differ in utility, since I've always seen them as basically the same thing except one is shaped like an axe and one is shaped like a pruning hook, and this video hasn't really done anything to change that perception (though if I'm mistaken about their degree of similarity, I'd love to find out why!). And going back earlier in the video, I think something worth noting about the spear & shield in the context of massed combat is that not only does the shield protect you from missile weapons, it also usually protects the person to your left to some degree as well, and likewise you're protected a bit by the shield of the person to your right (assuming a unit where everyone is holding their spear in their right hand and a reasonably-sized shield in their left, anyhow, which I'm assuming applies to the vast majority of military units throughout history). Not that you could possibly have ranked it any higher in that category anyway (without pulling a Spinal Tap at least), but I think it's something that contributes to its 10/10 score in the context of massed combat.

I like this type of rating over tier lists. It examines each of the weapons in many different cases. In some cases a weapon is supreme, while in other times it does poorly. Then there are the weapons that are just good general purpose.

You're always so passionate, it's a pleasure to listen to you.

I found this thought provoking. I would love to see you rank different categories of weapons.

Fairly good scoring system for all weapons. Personally I like the spear used with 2 hands but if I had to pick something else it would have to be the pole axe

How did I miss this video?! Excellent. This video is an excellent start to the day!

one thing that might be interesting is to rank how they are for an armored user, since wearing armor can change how aggressive you can be with a weapon

Very informative video Matt as always. It was a good idea to rank these different pole weapons. ps: As german speaking individual I have to say your pronunciation of the word Ahlspieß was very interesting. You butchered it but it was still pretty good for a non German native speaker. It is hard word to pronounce.

flails were used specifically by Husites against cavalry and very successfully. from the war wagon fortresses and also in formations.

Another point you touched on is that armies were combined arms affairs. Pikemen were frequently protected by interspersing soldiers with other weapons in their ranks. A great sword-armed man could deal with infiltrators trying to get at the pikemen while also striking at the narrower end of enemy pikeshafts. In an overlapping rank of shield & spear men, soldiers in the second rank with longer two-handed spears could move up to thrust over the top of the shield bind to deliver long range thrusts. Archers put up rows of sharpened spikes to thwart cavalry charges, reaching out with their bills to hook and unhorse any cavalryman that tried to get too close. These are just a few examples. A video where you discussed common weapons combination used in battle formations would be extremely interesting. I hope you'll consider that. Thanks!

really good video... I read a lot about the medieval period and get a lot out of this kind of analysis

This was fun, always thought spear and shield was most versatile combination. Have heard different things about the willingness or maybe unwillingness of horses, even highly trained "chargers", to face or jump a fence. Steeplechasers come to mind, but have no knowledge of knights' horses or any way of comparing with today.

thanks, these are my absolute favorite videos

Thanks for video, Mr. Easton. I believe there must be two mandatory categories: (1) cost of production & maintenance; (2) efforts & time to master particular type of weapon.

In my brief experience with spear and shield it is to hard to maneuver the spear. This makes it really easy for people to close with me and almost impossible to retract the spear fast enough with one hand to deal with them. Unless dealing with missiles my defense comes from my reach. If I can keep them at distance the shield is useless. If they close then the shield can help but I have no offense at that point so it just makes it take a little longer to kill me. My options at that point are rather to try and disengage or to try and close to a grapple.

Definitely surprising with how even they are. Each have their specialties that they are made for, but can still do great in other categories as well

Great and very interesting video. If you feel like it, could you share your thoughts on comparing glaives to very long swords such as montante?

What a treat! One of those rare HEMA videos that is _not_ about swords.

It makes me happy that halberds and bills both got straight eights. Like a Swiss Army knife on a stick. There's no battlefield situation you aren't prepared for. But "jack of all trades, master of none," as they say.

Another excellent video, the only things I wish you would've touched up on were pole maces and hammers as well as scythes. Particularly the scythes as that was a very common pesant weapon when levied into armies. Still this was a fun video do more like this please.

Good video, I agree 99.9%! I fight armored combat buhurt in the U.S. love your videos!

Keep doing videos about polearms and I will keep liking and commenting it.

I loved this vid. I would like to see it for other weapons in the future.

This was fun! So, here are your numbers vs. mine Matt. Let's see if the formatting works?! Where I disagreed with you, I have written my assessment in parentheses. Single Combat In formation/massed vs. Cavalry Anti-Armor Total Spear & Shield 10 (9) 10 7 3 30 (29) 2H- Spear 8 8 9 6 31 Pike 1 9 10 2 22 Partisan/Spetum/Winged Spear 9 8 (9) 8 (9) 7 32 (34) Glaive/Gisarme 10 7 7 8 32 Halberd 8 8 8 (9) 8(9) 32 (33) Pole ax 10 (7) 7 (6) 5 10 32 (28) Bill 8 8(9) 8 (9) 8 32 (35) Flail 6 6 3 7 22 Grt Axe 8(7) 6(7) 2 (4) 7 23 (25) Ahl-Spiess 7 8 9 8 32 Spear and shield in single combat are ok as long as your opponent does not have the combination sword & shield or axe and shield, etc. If they do, they can usually get close to you and all they have to do is get past your point once. You will not be able to recover your spear for an accurate stab, before they are in on you. With a shield it is easy to get past the point. You have no buddies to back you up, so in that case you'd be screwed. Those are only a few cases, but they were commonly used cases. You would obviously kick ass vs. anyone without a shield, in this case. The partisan is just as effective in a formation as it is in a single combat. I mean sure you cannot swing the thing, but you do not usually do that anyway and the little projections can be used to "hook" or shove or deflect other weapons, even just with their geometry. I think they are every bit as good as a two handed spear vs. cavalry, they are light and nimble enough to be 'stabby' like a spear, but they have a bit more weight on the point. Again the projections add to the geometric defensive capability of the weapon, making it easy to scoop or shove an enemy spear, lance or other weapon offline. You can't really do that as well with a spear. I think you are a bit partial to poleaxes. In single combat, they do not have the reach that a halberd, spear, glaive or bill would have. That counts for a lot, so I gave the poleaxe a 7 in single combat. I also think you over-valued them in formation combat and dropped them to a 6 there. For me, the pole ax was a specialized weapon used by armored men vs. other armored men and usually in a duel situation or a mêlée in a fairly open formation. In a tight formation, they are far too short to cover your friends and you cannot wind up and wail on someone with them, because you do not have the room to swing the bloody thing effectively. The poleaxe is also quite heavy. Poking with it is not as effective as with a spear, bill, partisan. The Halberd is long and you can hook and pull horsemen off their horses with it. Sure, they will run you through if you try to do that frontally, but I think it is feature that would be valuable in a mêlée with horsemen. The halberd is also long enough to oppose a charge as you said. Plus it can deliver a hell of a chop vs. armor. Arguably more than a bill or glaive, but it is a bit like splitting hairs. I blinged the Halberd up a bit, because of its reach, its nasty chop and its versatility (stab, chop, hook, pick). The Bill is a bit more effective than a halberd in a formation, you can stab & chop with them fairly well and they are a good medium-thing between weight and nimbleness. Whereas swinging a halberd is like swinging an anvil on a stick swinging a bill is like swinging a falchion on a stick. They are easier to use in a formation than a halberd. Also, they have all those hooks for pulling down horsemen, so I bumped them up to a 9 vs. cavalry. They are just more nimble and versatile than a Halberd. The Halberd does pack a wallop though. I think you also are a bit partial to Dane axes. I can understand that me too, but I do not think that they are as good as a 2-handed spear, bill or halberd, because of their short reach. I think they are a bit more nimble than a poleaxe in formations. You can stab with the spike on the poleaxe, but getting stabbed with one wing of the blade on the great axe hurts as well and I think the great axe is only a little less effective than the poleaxe vs. cavalry. I think you went overboard there. We should have added the Goedendag!

Might also be worth looking at which polearms are best used by cavalry. Lances were common, but spear and shield were used on horseback, glaives and flails were used on horseback out in Asia.

I appreciate the enthusiasm about the sponsorship!

When bringing up the subject of winged spears, I feel they'd be a bit more effective against cavalry due to their ability to catch onto targets. Even if a knight is wearing plate, they'd likely end up unseated if they were caught with the langes on either side (if those were larger and hooked, such as those seen on a spetum, corseque, or jumonji yari). I'd also think this would be slightly safer to use against the horse itself for the same reason a boar spear is useful against a boar, it prevents the horse from trampling you after being stabbed through. Though I doubt a man could hold back a horse for very long, it might provide enough time to get out of the way while also killing the horse, a significant victory.

Thanks, Matt! I really enjoyed this vid. It was informative and entertaining. My single point of disagreement is in relation to ranking anti-cavalry weapons. You focused entirely on the moment of first contact between the cavalry and infantry. In that moment you correctly stated that reach was the most critical factor. But of course the engagement didn't end in that single brief moment. After the shock of contact the cavalryman had to regain his composure and control of his mount, back away, turn and then withdraw. In those few moments the bill and halberd could use the feature other weapons you rated identically just don't have; the hook. Cavalrymen could be hooked and pulled off their horse using halberds or bills. The very likely result would be the severe wounding or death of the cavalryman. There's plenty of accounts of exactly this happening, especially in late Medieval battles. Thus I'd give the bill and halberd an extra point in the anti-cavalry category. Please let me know what you think about this. I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. Thanks again!

Awh, was hoping to see the godendag on your list!

It would be interesting to follow this up with an analysis of the typical 'load out' of the Roman Infantry, English army pre-gunpowder, and how to outfit a modern prepper for a zombie horde right after all the bullets run out (which will be surprisingly fast).

In "Spears are better than Swords", I think we saw spear and shield perform worse in duels against the swordsmen than spear in two hands. After that video, I actually thought spear and shield was more of a battlefield weapon set, and that two-handed spear was better in single combat. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

That really was fun to watch! 😊

It’s too bad we never got a discussion of polearms between Matt & Gary Gygax, whose articles in The Strategic Review and Unearthed Arcana introduced many of us of a certain age to the topic. 🙂

Love your content. Just want to say it's a little funny that long pole arms like those used by the Greeks fell out of favor when the Romans adopted a different form of fighting, which fell out of favor when Heavy Cav was developed which caused a return to long polearms in the form of pikes. ect. Gotta love history

I think the greataxe deserves more points in armored fighting than the flail. It's not as good at getting around shields as the flail is, but it's nimbler and it's more capable of hooking. So you can easily pull someone in armor off balance and then deliver a chop. Maybe not a "cleave someone from crown to groin" type of chops like they describe housecarls doing, but enough to give someone a really bad day.

I by and large agree with your scores and conclusions. I would've given 1 extra to point to the glasses for combat against horses. Assuming you don't get lanced a big choppy blade on a stick is very good for attacking horses, lopping their legs off etc which these types of weapon are often used for.

The great axe looks like it would be capable of jabbing/stabbing. The geometry leaves the top of the edge jutting out in a point. Not as pointy as a spear, but I doubt a perfectly good stabbing point would go unused in a time of need... :)

I think war scythe as kind of back drop for other elaborate head polearms would be nice. And I was really missing bardiche in this video.

Love videos like this !!

I use a Dane Ax in my local fighting group and I agree with your assessment. It is not as optimized as a pole ax and not at all for use against horsemen. For single combat against guys in armor it is great.

My ideal fantasy setup would be decent armor combined with large shield and spear as the main weapons, a war hammer as a side arm, and a (Rondel) dagger as a backup. Plus maybe a sling for ranged combat - might as well carry one and a bunch of sling bullets since they don't weigh much or take much space.

Spear and shield had the extra option of leaving the shield hanging on the back and wielding the spear two handed. That would give to it the highest score. As a tie breaker, you could give a versatility bonus by adding to each total the median of the individual scores, that would penalize the specialized weapons that have mostly low scores and a very high score.

I liked this alot you should do more comparisons like this maybe with armor in some way

The simple thrusting spear will always be my favorite.😁

Late medieval poleaxe is when pole arm aesthetic peaked imo

Very very interesting comparison video. One thing not mentioned, is...wait for it....context. the best pole weapon is the one most suited to the time, place, and opponents. Plus, the training of your troops, (the author and renacator Christian Cameron once made the suggestion, that the poorer quality your troops, the longer the weapon you gave them). My opponent is in full plate and on a horse? Halberd please. My opponent is another Greek Hoplite in linothorax and with and aspis? Spear and shield. My opponent is a Norman Miles using his spear overarm? Dane axe. And if he's a great mass of howling nut-jobs? I'd like a pike and five ranks behind me. Context.

What a great idea for a video : ) You can make more of this type.

I think that spear and shield against cavalry, depends on how it is used: an over-head grip may be weaker than a two-handed grip, but the under-hand grip gives much more "firmness". And you can always rest the back-end of your spear on the ground (if it has a back-spike even better) and the stopping power of that would be greater than that of a two-handed grip. And if you have a somewhat large shield, you could crouch on one knee, with all your body covered by the shield and the spear braced against the ground. A lance at full charge hitting the shield might still get you somewhat injured, but I believe that you'd still have a better chance of stopping a lance with a shield than with a two-handed spear. And I think that if you angle your shield in the right way, you could stand a chance of deflecting the lance (not saying easy, but certainly possible). A two-handed spear might be better at actively stabbing the horseman once the danger of the lance has passed, but if a lancer was charging at me at full-galop, I would rather hide behind my shield while pointing the spear defensively towards the enemy than try to actively stab him.

Halbreds, glaves and such add a defence making it easier to deflect or bind weapons, including a lance, while others provided the offense. I do like the Clubmen of the Civil War, often driving both sides into the next county.

Sword and Shield vs Cavalry: You can always drop your shield, and use two hands to brace the spear while you face the charge and then pick up your shield afterwards. But then that is still using two-handed spear really.

Hi Matt. I would like to add a few points. First I believe that the winged spear would actually have another advantage against cavalry because since it has wings there would be a lower chance of getting stuck in the enemy because of over penetration with the wings preventing it from happening. Second, in terms of cavalry again, I feel that another issue the Dane axe and poll axe might have is the head of the axe becoming lodged into the enemy as you impact with the weapon, due to the angle of the head to the haft and also due to the angle at which you would swing at, which could dislodge the weapon out of your hands as the horseman goes past. Third I also seem to recall a video that either you or lindybeige did a while back testing spear and shield vs spear in 2 hands against opponents with various types of weaponry. If I recall correctly the spear in 2 hands performed better than the spear and shield. I was wondering your thoughts on that video now.

In Switzerland the Bills were called "Rossschinder" (engl. "Horse punisher"). So we can assume that they were specialized weapons against cavalry.

I just finished forging out a halberd/poleaxe combo. I love the dang things.

I am curious to know when/where discussing lances would be appropriate here. I recall that the last of your videos discussing the assorted pole weapons left me wondering about lances, and it made me suspect that they may be lumped in with spears in general. But would be fascinating to hear this discussed. Cheers!

I would like to know more about the swordstaff in general, there are some interesting swedish drawings of some kind. You'd think they'd be more common in art

As for Great-Axe vs cavalry, I think realistically, they would be used as part of a formation with other weapons. Spears and shields would stop the cavalry, then great-axes could advance and deal a much more substantial blow to the horse or rider. Bardiches and Lochaber Axes were used well after shield walls and plate armor went extinct, so they were kept around for something

Thanks for this great informative video! I would love to get the pole ax you have featured in so many of you videos, would you be able to share the website/store where you purchased it?

Cave man: *invents pointy stick * Everyone: shut up and take my money Someone: *invents gun * Everyone: nice, but it needs a pointy bit on the end

Matt, at my HEMA school we learned a bit about Dane axe because they also do Viking reenacting/combat. We learned that the Dane axe can be used to thrust with the toe of the axe. Not all axes can do this, but most of the examples I've seen of Dane axes (including yours) can thrust since the toe extends further than the top of the pole. They can also hook like a bill. And even though they don't have a hammer, they could arguably still be used to bludgeon with the back on the axe head. In your experience do you not consider the toe of the Dane axe suitable for thrusting? Always appreciate your content.

Great stuff matt, butt i must say that the pike is the most underrated weapon...again! The pike was made for mass combat and it was very effective together with the halberd even against cavalry, infantry and armour. we just have too look into late XV and XVI century military history as for example the swiss and the landsknecht. It´s not fair for the pike to be judge as an individual weapon. keep in mind that the pike is weapon that lasted centuries in the battlefields were all the other weapons gradually disappear, and it´s weapon that´s is always being underrated together with the halberd...uff🙂

The last thing I would like to see while attacking on a horse is one heavy armored dude with a spear... Nice explanation man!

These pointed opinions are great when I haft to carve through the many pros and cons of these polearms. Thanks, Matt!

I think something as the "press" could be a category or subcategory for the mass formation, although in case of polearms the anti-armour scoring would be almost, if not exactly, the same. Kudos for high points to glaive in personal combat (I'm hugely biased) :v

Halberds and bills also have the advantage of being able to hook and pull a person off of their horse. (At least if you can avoid their lance first)

The shorter pole arms can be incredible in formations but mainly when they’re mixed in with spearmen.

I do really love this, but one bit of hopefully constructive criticism. Some kind of graphical form of the information, I follow better when I have something to read too. ADHD and things, but always better that way. Just a list on the side with the weapons and numbers, or maybe that Tier table people use (which tends to be S-A-B-C-D but that is translatable). Images wouldn't hurt either, but that's getting more complicated than what is a rather simple format. Need to Google the German sounding one. Anyways, thanks for the great info, may actually work into some character concepts for my next RPG, and is tempting me more towards getting plastic pollaxe pieces for HEMA. Looking forward to your next video as always!

You've just reinforced my love for a poleaxe...gotta get me a nice functional one...

I would love for you to do more videos on glaives and other polearms.

halberd/bill are a second rank weapon. Spear and shield in the first rank helps protect the second rank, and when the enemy stalls on contacting the first rank, they have the reach to hit hard, or hook an pull to open holes between enemy shields.

In military terms, that is, ignoring the single combat role, things look a little different. great axe 15 flail 16 spear and shield 20 pike 21 glaive 22 pollaxe 22 two-handed spear 23 partisan 23 halberd & bill 24 ahlspiess 25

"The Bill. In this specific instance it's functionally the same as a halberd. So i'm rating it the same." -Every instance of Bill rating.

Great video as usual, but you know what might help these kinds of comparisons? Some on screen gfx to help everyone keep track of the points and categories. I know you're a historian, not a VFX artist, but ... might be something to look into.

Form follows function. The various designs meet a tactical need.

My methodology would be based on history. The polearms that survived to end of the medieval period into the Renaissance were primarily halberds and glaives, especially for individual guards and specialists, and pikes that dominated the battlefield until the end of the 17th century. As regards winged spears we have plenty of illustrations of their massed use (Augsburg psalter, etc.), so they must have considered them to have advantages.

The pike in a mass formation protects against arrows if shot at in a high angle and probably also directly. It`s as if you try to shoot someone in the forest at an high angle.