What's the deal with the poleaxe?

[Jonathan Newhall]

EDIT - Sorry, I mean Sydney Anglo's book, I had confused it with Clements' work.

Don't have Anglo's book on the martial arts of renaissance Europe, but somebody brought up this quote in a debate I was having over the effectiveness of a poleaxe (hammer head + spike)

it is worth remarking on the nature of the axe envisaged by their authors, since it is not at all what modern readers would expect. Roughly speaking, there are two principal types of poleaxe: those bearing an axe blade with cutting edge, and those wit hammer head - the former balanced at the back with hammer, spike or curved fluke; the latter by spike or fluke.

Continued later in regards to the hammer headed poleaxe,

Outside the confines of the lists, the poleaxe was not an effective weapon, for, unlike two-hand and bastard swords, they are not well balanced. Their insuffiency is attested by the many acounts of fifteenth-century combats in which knights battered each other unmercifully - denting, puncturing and even knocking bits off each others armour, yet eventually emerging unscathed and often not even out of breath. This suggests that armour was effective, and that axes were not. But they did offer knights scope for Brilliant display

Does anyone have the book mentioned? Can you give me a better context and why, perhaps, a poleaxe may or may not be considered an effective anti-armor weapon (with blunt hammer head and spike)?

[Sal Bertucci]

I'm rather confused myself. You can find poleax works from Talhoffer to Mair. To me, if it was that ineffective then it wouldn't have stuck around for so long.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Personally I'm thinking it was a misinterpretation on the part of the author, but I can't be sure without owning the work in question and only having the quotes I put here to work off of

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Does anyone have the book mentioned? Can you give me a better context and why, perhaps, a poleaxe may or may not be considered an effective anti-armor weapon (with blunt hammer head and spike)?

Hi Jonathan,
I have the book at home, I'll look for the passage and see if there is anything giving a better context.

Note that the fact that it could have been ineffective in battle does not mean that it couldn't have stuck as a weapon for dueling. Does anyone knows of mentions of widespread use of the poleaxe in battle? Most of our manuals are focused on dueling techniques, which of course can have applications to battle, but that's not a given. For example I'm not aware that the big spiky dueling shields saw much use in battle...

[Jonathan Newhall]

I know that poleaxes such as halberds (not necessarily the bludgeoning type) were used in formations of Swiss pike, but I'm not sure about the bludgeoning variety.

[Sal Bertucci]

Note that the fact that it could have been ineffective in battle does not mean that it couldn't have stuck as a weapon for dueling.

We talked about something similar in the past:
http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23347&highlight=battle

And if it is correct that the battle axe that Silver is talking about is indeed the poleaxe, then we are at an odds there. B/c Silver specifically states that the battle axe is one of the more feared weapons in battle, and even implies that it is a better weapon for battle as opposed to dueling. (That obviously paraphrased, but I think I've got that right. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

OK, I have looked into the book. Said quote is at the end of the first part of the chapter about pole weapons, p.150. The part is a brief overview of which masters taught what about these weapons. The idea exposed is that pole weapons in general were given far less attention than swords in all traditions, with fewer theories developped about their use.

The paragraph containing the quote underlines that even though pole weapons used in formations (halberds then pikes by the Swiss first, then the Spanish and the Germans) enjoyed increasing success on the battlefield during the period, masters wrote rather about duel applications than fight in formation. Mr Anglo takes the poleaxe as an example of this tendancy. There are three footnotes in the quote that give some sources he used:

Outside the confines of the lists, the poleaxe was not an effective weapon, for, unlike two-hand and bastard swords, they are not well balanced. Their insuffiency is attested by the many acounts of fifteenth-century combats in which knights battered each other unmercifully - denting, puncturing and even knocking bits off each others armour, yet eventually emerging unscathed and often not even out of breath [1]. This suggests that armour was effective, and that axes were not [2]. But they did offer knights scope for Brilliant display, as in a famous combat between Portuguese and French knights in 1415; and some of the early masters of arms also found it a sympathetic subject [3].

[1] For an excellent survey of foot combat within the lists, see Claude Gaier, `Technique des combats singuliers d'après les auteurs "bourguignons" du XVe siècle', Le Moyen Age, No 3-4 (1985), pp. 415-57; No 1 (1986), pp. 5-40. Viscount Dillon `Barriers and foot combats', Archeological Journal, LXI (1904), pp. 276-308, is informative but chaotic.

[2] There are exceptions such as the fight between the Earl of Warwick and Pandolfo Malatesta when the latter is supposed to have been `sore wounded' in the left shoulder. See Pageant of the Birth Life and Death of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick KG 1389-1439, ed. Viscount Dillon and W.H. St John Hope (1914), Plate XIV.

[3] The combat between three Portuguese and three French knights is mentioned by Monstrelet (I, 134) and more fully described by Saint-Remy, Chronique, ed. F. Morand (Paris, 1876-81), I, pp. 208-10.

That's about as far as I can get as I have none of the sources mentioned

Maybe the length of the weapon itself has something to do with the assessment. It seems to me that this is a difference between a poleaxe and a halberd. The poleaxe seems to be some intermediate between a warhammer and a halberd, both successful battlefield weapons, but maybe the middle ground in this case is not such a good choice? Edit: Actually I'm not even sure about the warhammer here

Hope this helps!

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I'm quite sure that the poleaxe was effectively used in battle. Accounts from the Hudnerd Years' War mention this knight or that fighting bravely with the battle-axe; for example, Froissart has this on Poitiers:

The fighters on both sides endured much pain: king John with his own hands did that day marvels in arms: he had an axe in his hands wherewith he defended himself and fought in the breaking of the press.

and of Otterburn:

At the beginning the Englishmen were so strong that they reculed back their enemies: then the earl Douglas, who was of great heart and high of enterprise, seeing his men recule back, then to recover the place and to shew knightly valour he took his axe in both his hands, and entered so into the press that he made himself way in such wise, that none durst approach near him, and he was so well armed that he bare well off such strokes as he received.

And by him was a gentle knight of his, who followed him all the day, and a chaplain of his, not like a priest but like a valiant man of arms, for all that night he followed the earl with a good axe in his hands and still scrimmished about the earl there as he lay, and reculed back some of the Englishmen with great strokes that he gave. Thus he was found fighting near to his master, whereby he had great praise, and thereby the same year he was made archdeacon of Aberdeen. This priest was called sir William of North Berwick:

and so on. When it comes to art...well:

http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/at13.htm
http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/at47.htm
http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/at54.htm
http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/at65.htm

The poleaxe was the weapon par excellence for a man-at-arms fighting on foot, at least in England and France. Germans and Italians seem to have preferred the sword and the pike/spear instead.

I hold Sydney Anglo and his research in very high regard, but it doesn't mean he has to be 100% right 100% of the time. In fact, if a respected researcher doesn't make minor errors like this from time to time, I'd begin to doubt if he/she was human in the first place....

[nathan featherstone]

slightly off topic but about the poll axe. i recently saw a picture of two guys with steel poll axes that were blunted for training as in the spear point was rounded and the blade was blunt. does anyone out there know where to buy one. i adore all things axe like and i love the poll axe and want to train with it so anyone have any clue???

[Sal Bertucci]

Where was the pic?

[CalebChow]

Whenever I think about poleaxe in armor I think about the fight mentioned here between Lalaing and Diego about 2/5ths down the page.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm

"When the combat began, Jacques and Diego traded blows with their polaxes so fiercely that sparks flew from their armor. 'Then Jacques de Lalaing, seeing how aggressive his adversary was, whirled the point of his poleaxe around, and struck 3 blows on the eye-slits of Diego, one after another, in such a way that he was wounded in 3 places in the face...the first blow landed on his left brow, the second on the point of his forehead, and the third above the right eye.'"

This may be one of the examples Dr. Anglo was referring to.