Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You don't need to be cav focused to take out the mongols if you are in rough terrain. Like forests or hilly areas.

Indeed. As noted the Hungarians stomped Mongol butt with terrain, lots of fortresses and lots of archers-primarily crossbowmen. Be aggressive and hit THEIR camps etc.
Their bows are decent but still short bows vs. other bows and crossbows.

Another example, in the American West, when ever Plains tribes attacked if the defenders could fort up they could typically hold out and cause substantial casualties.

The Romans actually did better than popularly believed. Looks to their tactics as well as those of the Byzantines.

The Roman Empire fell because of politics, not because of any problems with their armies. Assuming their politics don't cause them to collapse, the Roman Empire would still be around today.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You don't need to be cav focused to take out the mongols if you are in rough terrain. Like forests or hilly areas.

That is certainly relevant.

But I still need to discover more about the evolution of the various pole arms in Europe.

Part of this conversation has led me to the conclusion that in the case I am looking at, these sorts of weapons would not have developed much over most regions, as there was no warfare between competing nations, each with heavy cavalry and Knights that just kept getting heavier.

One side of the majority of the conflicts had no dominant focus upon Knights and Heavy Cavalry, while the other side was mostly about pure numbers of infantry (with almost no cavalry).

But the conversation about the Mongols resolved most of the questions regarding facing off against the mounted.

But I would still like to discover what the earliest use and appearance of these sorts of pole arms was


MB

BeAfraid wrote:

But I would still like to discover what the earliest use and appearance of these sorts of pole arms was

As said earlier in this thread, weapons like spears are the absolute most basic weapons of war since the Sumerian days, and they honestly haven't "progressed" much. Different countries used them differently, they lengthened and shortened them. They threw them, or they braced them for defensive postures.

The hard part here is, you could spend a lifetime tracking down the "origins" and "evolution" of many of these weapons. They are old weapons, and they are very much unlike firearms where we can clearly delineate the evolution of hand-held things that go boom and aid in the transition from living to unliving.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

But I would still like to discover what the earliest use and appearance of these sorts of pole arms was

As said earlier in this thread, weapons like spears are the absolute most basic weapons of war since the Sumerian days, and they honestly haven't "progressed" much. Different countries used them differently, they lengthened and shortened them. They threw them, or they braced them for defensive postures.

The hard part here is, you could spend a lifetime tracking down the "origins" and "evolution" of many of these weapons. They are old weapons, and they are very much unlike firearms where we can clearly delineate the evolution of hand-held things that go boom and aid in the transition from living to unliving.

But there are a handful of very specific weapons we see in the 14th centuries to 17th centuries that are clearly different from any predecessor.

The pole arms that came into use, and continued through the Renaissance are an order of magnitude more advanced than what came before.

The development of heavy armor (and advances in metallurgy) are the REASON for their evolution.

But it does not explain from what they came.

MB

Could they not simply have come from deciding it might be an idea to duct-tape an axe or a hammer to the business end of a spear? It's fairly easy to see how being able to deliver armour-piercing strikes from a safe distance would be a desirable trait in a weapon.

As someone who's not exactly an expert on this sort of stuff, would something like a halberd necessarily need an origin more complex than "I wanted to hit that guy with an axe, but from over here"?

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Could they not simply have come from deciding it might be an idea to duct-tape an axe or a hammer to the business end of a spear? It's fairly easy to see how being able to deliver armour-piercing strikes from a safe distance would be a desirable trait in a weapon.

As someone who's not exactly an expert on this sort of stuff, would something like a halberd necessarily need an origin more complex than "I wanted to hit that guy with an axe, but from over here"?

It could be something like that, or it could stem from some sort of "knowledge" being passed down about how effective the Dane-ax was for the Vikings. It could quite possibly be that somewhere, the Dane-Ax WAS what was being used, but someone with too much money, wanted to not pay taxes to his liege, and so to truthfully say he didn't have the money to pay taxes, he paid for a bunch of really fancy looking axes with spear points on them (that's just purely speculation)


Another thing to take into account, is that we have many instances of peasant farmers using their tools in an improvised fashion to such success that smiths eventually began making those same implements as weapons.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Could they not simply have come from deciding it might be an idea to duct-tape an axe or a hammer to the business end of a spear? It's fairly easy to see how being able to deliver armour-piercing strikes from a safe distance would be a desirable trait in a weapon.

As someone who's not exactly an expert on this sort of stuff, would something like a halberd necessarily need an origin more complex than "I wanted to hit that guy with an axe, but from over here"?

It could be something like that, or it could stem from some sort of "knowledge" being passed down about how effective the Dane-ax was for the Vikings. It could quite possibly be that somewhere, the Dane-Ax WAS what was being used, but someone with too much money, wanted to not pay taxes to his liege, and so to truthfully say he didn't have the money to pay taxes, he paid for a bunch of really fancy looking axes with spear points on them (that's just purely speculation.

Another thing to take into account, is that we have many instances of peasant farmers using their tools in an improvised fashion to such success that smiths eventually began making those same implements as weapons.

Ok... I am having a "DUH!" moment, in not paying attention to the origin of some of these weapons as farm utensils utilized by peasants to great effect (or greater than the guys in tin cans expected).

Now I just need to look up what farm utensils were used in this way. Obviously the flail (I knew that one already - grain flails, studded with spikes).

This will help greatly.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
Now I just need to look up what farm utensils were used in this way. Obviously the flail (I knew that one already - grain flails, studded with spikes).

Check out the tools found on a farm before there's machinery and you'll find that a lot of it has something sharp, pointy or just heavy attached. A scythe isn't really made to reap people with, but you can damn well use it for that purpose - maybe reseat the blade to be more like a spear first. Hoes, picks, pitchforks and many other tools look like they could do nasty things to anyone getting in the way, armor or not. And a man always has at least one personal axe for woodcutting, while a farm could have a whole host of different axes for making beams, poles and whatever pieces of wood for building with. My grandfather was born long enough ago that men still built stuff like their house by hand. I've got his pretty impressive broadaxe in the cellar for the coming zombie apocalypse (well, it was actually used to square beams of timber for use in building).

Ofc, the effect will suffer from the tools not being made as weapons and the peasants not really being warriors.

Spetulhu wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Now I just need to look up what farm utensils were used in this way. Obviously the flail (I knew that one already - grain flails, studded with spikes).

Check out the tools found on a farm before there's machinery and you'll find that a lot of it has something sharp, pointy or just heavy attached. A scythe isn't really made to reap people with, but you can damn well use it for that purpose - maybe reseat the blade to be more like a spear first. Hoes, picks, pitchforks and many other tools look like they could do nasty things to anyone getting in the way, armor or not. And a man always has at least one personal axe for woodcutting, while a farm could have a whole host of different axes for making beams, poles and whatever pieces of wood for building with. My grandfather was born long enough ago that men still built stuff like their house by hand. I've got his pretty impressive broadaxe in the cellar for the coming zombie apocalypse (well, it was actually used to square beams of timber for use in building).

Ofc, the effect will suffer from the tools not being made as weapons and the peasants not really being warriors.

Well, yes. . .

But some tools are regional.

I know they did not have wood-cutting tools very much in areas without wood to cut.

And areas that had things like orchards would have tools for the pruning and cleaning the trees (many of which are sharp or heavy).

MB

I think a very good example to look up is the bill-hook. If memory serves me correctly, it was originally used in places with apple orchards or other similar tree type areas.... essentially the bill hook is a medieval "pruning saw"

Turns out, it was pretty good for unhorsing a tin-can as well

Billhooks are a classic example of a farming tool repurposed for war, with military bills looking similar to halberds with a blade and spike, but the hook adding extra use against armoured enemies by being able to exploit chinks and gaps in armour to drag infantrymen down and pull knights from their mounts, even if the weapon didn't necessarily penetrate.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You don't need to be cav focused to take out the mongols if you are in rough terrain. Like forests or hilly areas.

Indeed. As noted the Hungarians stomped Mongol butt with terrain, lots of fortresses and lots of archers-primarily crossbowmen. Be aggressive and hit THEIR camps etc.
Their bows are decent but still short bows vs. other bows and crossbows.

Another example, in the American West, when ever Plains tribes attacked if the defenders could fort up they could typically hold out and cause substantial casualties.

The Romans actually did better than popularly believed. Looks to their tactics as well as those of the Byzantines.

I think longbow and crossbow archers protected by large shields and pike formations would work the best against the Mongols.
Also, someone mentioned Hussites. I think tabor formations would also be extremely effective if you have good long range weapons.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Billhooks are a classic example of a farming tool repurposed for war, with military bills looking similar to halberds with a blade and spike, but the hook adding extra use against armoured enemies by being able to exploit chinks and gaps in armour to drag infantrymen down and pull knights from their mounts, even if the weapon didn't necessarily penetrate.

They're also an excellent example of how wide variation in a tool intended to do basically the same job can be


regional billhook variation in the UK


More bill hooks from the UK

where production of weapons of war is decentralised you'll get a similar variety, and as production becomes more centralised you'll start to loose it (some of the loss will be of the least effective weapons, some of the most expensive, but a lot will be random depending on who is in charge of the centralised production.. When I was a lad a glaive looked like this, so now I'm in charge of supplying glaives to the arms they'll all look like this even if theyare actually less effective and some of the other designs)

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Roman Empire fell because of politics, not because of any problems with their armies. Assuming their politics don't cause them to collapse, the Roman Empire would still be around today.

It's honestly both.

Remember that the Roman military was itself highly politicized, and frequently a tool of political goals, in large part because it wasn't the Empire's army. Though ostensibly supported by the state, the reality was that Legions were heavily dependent on the patronage of powerful (and wealthy individuals). The Roman state had a massively inefficient (and corrupt) tax system for pretty much its existence, which made controlling your own legion really easy for powerful men as the state couldn't effective finance its own forces, especially after the 2nd Century when military expansion basically ceased and the soldiery could no longer provide for itself with plunder. The Army (particularly the Praetorians) became very very big political problems as time went on, as military coups and corruption presented constant barriers to attempts to reform and fix the Empire's many problems.

For all it's tactical and strategic mastery, the the structure and organization of the Roman military made abuse and corruption of its power and authority (both inside and outside of the ranks) a major contributing factor to the disintegration of the Empire. War is after all the continuation of politics. You can no more separate the Roman Legions from Roman Politics than you can separate slavery and plunder from the Roman economy.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Roman Empire fell because of politics, not because of any problems with their armies. Assuming their politics don't cause them to collapse, the Roman Empire would still be around today.

It's honestly both.

Remember that the Roman military was itself highly politicized, and frequently a tool of political goals, in large part because it wasn't the Empire's army. Though ostensibly supported by the state, the reality was that Legions were heavily dependent on the patronage of powerful (and wealthy individuals). The Roman state had a massively inefficient (and corrupt) tax system for pretty much its existence, which made controlling your own legion really easy for powerful men as the state couldn't effective finance its own forces, especially after the 2nd Century when military expansion basically ceased and the soldiery could no longer provide for itself with plunder. The Army (particularly the Praetorians) became very very big political problems as time went on, as military coups and corruption presented constant barriers to attempts to reform and fix the Empire's many problems.

For all it's tactical and strategic mastery, the the structure and organization of the Roman military made abuse and corruption of its power and authority (both inside and outside of the ranks) a major contributing factor to the disintegration of the Empire. War is after all the continuation of politics. You can no more separate the Roman Legions from Roman Politics than you can separate slavery and plunder from the Roman economy.

I was more getting at the division between their tactics/equipment/training and the political issues they had. The army was definitely intertwined with politics.

flail was a farm tools. It was to wack weeds and bushes to flatten it.

Sort of the DIY version of the spiked things with the chains and the custom grips that you see in movies and RPGs these days. Of course, the halberd was just a woodcutter's axe nailed to a pruning hook with a hammer or an awl tied to the back.

Sure, you could get one of those nice jobs without all the extra twine and nailed-on bits, but then you were missing out on supporting local peasants and were, instead, posing as a shill for Big Halberd.

 Psienesis wrote:
Sort of the DIY version of the spiked things with the chains and the custom grips that you see in movies and RPGs these days. Of course, the halberd was just a woodcutter's axe nailed to a pruning hook with a hammer or an awl tied to the back.

Sure, you could get one of those nice jobs without all the extra twine and nailed-on bits, but then you were missing out on supporting local peasants and were, instead, posing as a shill for Big Halberd.

LoL! The dream of the 1090s is alive in Portland! I love the bit about supporting local peasants. I may have to use that angle in an RPG campaign at some point.


Looking at the pictures of the bills, if you put them on a 6-8 foot haft, you'd have weapons classed as all manner of things. Guisarme voulges, Halberds, lucerne hammers, bills, etc, etc. A good solution to give the reasoning of your society's weapon and its history would be to have someone from the older generation, perhaps a veteran of the last war, critiquing the newfangled weapon, and musing about its uses. That'll simulate historical development.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
A good solution to give the reasoning of your society's weapon and its history would be to have someone from the older generation, perhaps a veteran of the last war, critiquing the newfangled weapon, and musing about its uses. That'll simulate historical development.

Sure, it will add flavor. But weapons and armor are one of the few things where people will quickly notice what works and what doesn't (though they may be too dead to complain about it). As I recall even the Romans brought back some older and outmoded heavy infantry armor when faced with Dacian barbarians using huge swords (falx or falcata) that cut too well into the newer stuff the legions were using. The Romans actually started modifying armor on campaign by adding extra metal strips to helmets and issuing leg and arm protectors just for these opponents.

So to give flavor to a game world you could also tell how some armor was developed to defend against a specific weapon. That is what happens after all. New weapon brought up to defeat enemy, enemy makes new armor or starts using some tactic where the weapon or vulnerability against it is lessened.

 david choe wrote:
flail was a farm tools. It was to wack weeds and bushes to flatten it.

All weapons evolved from tools.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 david choe wrote:
flail was a farm tools. It was to wack weeds and bushes to flatten it.

All weapons evolved from tools.

Most, not all.

Some not most.

Most peasant weapons are derived from tools, biggest notable exception is the spear.

 Orlanth wrote:
Some not most.

Most peasant weapons are derived from tools, biggest notable exception is the spear.

IC wasn't making a distinction between "peasant weapons" and "noble weapons"

Yes, the majority of "peasant weapons" were adapted or derived from tools. But when you get into things like maces, swords of all types, lances, firearms, artillery, etc. you see that there is a sizable chunk of human weaponry that was purpose built from the very start.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Some not most.

Most peasant weapons are derived from tools, biggest notable exception is the spear.

IC wasn't making a distinction between "peasant weapons" and "noble weapons"

Yes, the majority of "peasant weapons" were adapted or derived from tools. But when you get into things like maces, swords of all types, lances, firearms, artillery, etc. you see that there is a sizable chunk of human weaponry that was purpose built from the very start.

The distinction between peasant and martial weapons is there to be made. with noble being a subset of martial. Many were derived from tools for purpose of ease of training, and in the case of the later Japanese for disguise.

Martial weapons are almost exclusively not based on tools, the best notable exception being the axe. Even the 'hammer' differs so greatly from the hammer as a tool that they share only the name. A martial hammer is actually a form of pick, with and alternate blunter head which is of secondary use.

 david choe wrote:
flail was a farm tools. It was to wack weeds and bushes to flatten it.

I thought the Flail originated from threshing wheat or grain?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail


You took the reaped wheat, barley, silage, etc. and heaped it into a great big pile, and then proceded to wail on it with the flail.

Doing so knocked the grain heads off the stalks, which fell to the bottom of the pile, while the chaff (stalks) floated to the top of the pile (not being weighed down by the heavy heads of grain.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, technically, weapons ARE Tools.

They just happen to be tools originally built for the purpose of inflicting (or threatening to inflict) grievous harm on others.

Rather than being a tool originally created for another purpose, yet which is capable of inflicting grievous harm (wheat threshers come to mind, as do Combine Harvesters. Excellent tools for instantly separating limb from body, although rather difficult to wield as a weapon, currently).

All of the fun historical inquiry aside... I just need to look at regions of the fictional world to see which agricultural tools were most common, and then look at how invading enemies to those regions would drive the development of purpose-built weapons derived from those tools.

MB

You are correct. a flail is a thresher. You don't beat weeds.

 Frazzled wrote:
You don't beat weeds.

You kill them with fire!