The Armour Archive

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:44 am**

I am not fond of the unpadded glaive, I was using a loaner at Gulf Wars from a Calontiri and it was big fun. It was "shaped/padded". Still big smashy fun.

Regards
ThorvaldR

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:03 pm**

owen matthew wrote:
Hrolfr wrote:Depends on the back-up weapons

This, in my humble opinion.

I would also tend to think about pole or Great sword VS. sword and shield, since that will be the form of every other contestant in the lists. In that case I really think the Glaive has a slight advantage over the greatsword. I feel it is a bit easier to learn some very effective techniques against the sword and shield, in a comparatively short amount of time vs the greatsword.

His Grace, Paul B, taught me some Pole techniques that work extremely well against sword and shield. He also showed me that the weapon is more effective at the inside game than the outside, something I would have never dreamed, but agree with completely now.

An observation regarding your interjection of an inappropriate consideration re sword and shield.

The current context of the Eastern Crown tournament involves a round robin of great weapons only. There won't be any sword and shield matches for people who don't advance out of their round robin bucket.

So, the question wasn't which form does better against shieldmen, but which has the advantage against the other, pole v greatsword. The environment in which the question is asked is one wherein that specific match-up has a special significance.

With regard to the OP, I'm pretty sure he does well enough against shields with his polearm, and if speculation as to his theoretical greatsword opponent is correct, I know that he does quite handily against shields with his greatsword.

Easterners have known for a very long time that a polearm is a terror weapon at close range. We have Vissevald :twisted:

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:08 pm**

Kilkenny wrote:
owen matthew wrote:
Hrolfr wrote:Depends on the back-up weapons

This, in my humble opinion.

I would also tend to think about pole or Great sword VS. sword and shield, since that will be the form of every other contestant in the lists. In that case I really think the Glaive has a slight advantage over the greatsword. I feel it is a bit easier to learn some very effective techniques against the sword and shield, in a comparatively short amount of time vs the greatsword.

His Grace, Paul B, taught me some Pole techniques that work extremely well against sword and shield. He also showed me that the weapon is more effective at the inside game than the outside, something I would have never dreamed, but agree with completely now.

An observation regarding your interjection of an inappropriate consideration re sword and shield. The current context of the Eastern Crown tournament involves a round robin of great weapons only. There won't be any sword and shield matches for people who don't advance out of their round robin bucket.

So, the question wasn't which form does better against shieldmen, but which has the advantage against the other, pole v greatsword. The environment in which the question is asked is one wherein that specific match-up has a special significance.

With regard to the OP, I'm pretty sure he does well enough against shields with his polearm, and if speculation as to his theoretical greatsword opponent is correct, I know that he does quite handily against shields with his greatsword.

Easterners have known for a very long time that a polearm is a terror weapon at close range. We have Vissevald

The result of Their Majesty's crown format is folks "dusting off" their polearms & great swords. Last Sunday, I qualified 2 fighters in pole. Even I--a confirmed sword & shield fighters--picked up a polearm. Don't everybody laugh at once.

Mord.

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:23 pm**

I'll take the GS.

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:55 pm**

If you take the skill of the fighter out of the equation and just look at the weapons I would put it like this.

At long distance I would put the 7.5' pole as the advantage, Thrusting and cutting he has distance and as long as he can keep that distance then the 6' Great Sword can not reach.

At Medium Distance that 5.5-6 foot range both can cut and thrust, The Great Sword doesn't have to worry about hafting as the weapon is all blade. the 7.5 is going to have to choke up a little to make things work.

At Close Range it's sort of a wash assuming the 7.5' has a butt spike (I know some kingdoms allow butt spikes on great swords but I'll assume this isn't one of them) The 7.5' will only have the option of trying to stab their opponent with the butt spike or trying to distance themselves. The Great Sword can still cut close in. Both fighters can grab the haft/handle of their opponents weapons and I would say it's easier to grab the 7.5' pole as it has more area to grab..

So my conclusion is if the 7.5' Pole can keep at long distance than they have the advantage. If the Great Sword can close past the point I would give the advantage to Great Sword. Obviously Skill with the weapon, footwork and distance control play a pretty large factor so once you throw that into the mix then it could be anything.

Rey

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:11 pm**

I don't think one is better than the other overall, but they are different. I think it boils down to GS being better at defense (that big crossguard helps there) and polearms being better at offense. Which of those is preferable really has to do with the individual and their own style.

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:54 pm**

Use your favorite. If you lose, you can't blame your choice of weapon.

Kilkenny wrote:An observation regarding your interjection of an inappropriate consideration re sword and shield. The current context of the Eastern Crown tournament involves a round robin of great weapons only. There won't be any sword and shield matches for people who don't advance out of their round robin bucket.

In that case, I would grab my six foot partizan over both of the options originally presented. Wider grip makes it faster than the great sword and reduced length makes it faster than the seven and a half footer.

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:02 pm**

white mountain armoury wrote:... I just cant get beyond the "headless" shape of the 7.5 unpadded pole.

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:36 pm**

Thomas MacFinn wrote:Use your favorite. If you lose, you can't blame your choice of weapon.

Kilkenny wrote:An observation regarding your interjection of an inappropriate consideration re sword and shield. The current context of the Eastern Crown tournament involves a round robin of great weapons only. There won't be any sword and shield matches for people who don't advance out of their round robin bucket.

In that case, I would grab my six foot partizan over both of the options originally presented. Wider grip makes it faster than the great sword and reduced length makes it faster than the seven and a half footer.

I'm pretty much right there with you. I don't like the 7.5 for singles. About 6.5 for me

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:32 pm**

Personally I would go with the polearm. I've just found a glaive to be much more versatile than a
greatsword, but that is probably because I know more highly talented polemen than greatsword
fighters in these parts. If you have ever seen Duke Miguel with his glaive then you have seen
magic. One advantage I can think of with the greatsword is the opportunuty to grapple the
pole haft and use the sword one-handed. But I still prefer the better thrusting capabilities and
(legal) quarterstaff moves of the pole.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:37 am**

I love people to grab the haft of my glaive. If you want to use your one hand against my two, be my guest.

Regards,

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:18 am**

Friends, here are my thoughts and opinions.

On a large even tournament field the advantage is to the polearm (I prefer split rattan) as long as he maneuvers as well or better than the greatsword. If the greatsword is more maneuverable he controls the range and all advantages are his except first strike. Maneuverability is won or lost on endurance, speed, and armor (heavy or encumbering armor costs).

On a 20' field (which I think of as 'postage stamp' sized

) things are much tighter - the pole still has first strike but the greatsword can force the when of the issue. On such a field I would eschew a longer polearm for a 6' polearm if I sought the advantage. I would also be sure to bring a mouth guard. Great-swords and poles are big time bell-ringers in my experience. I don't ever willing spend significant amounts of the fight at 'their sweetspot range'.

Regards

Avery

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:25 am**

white mountain armoury wrote:I am 5'8 so I like 6 ft.
The 7.5 does indeed rock for wars, I just cant get beyond the "headless" shape of the 7.5 unpadded pole.
I enjoy using them, but the visual "appearance" of representing a weapon is important to me.

I refuse to use them, and make a habit of mocking them.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:01 pm**

People who diss unpadded polearms must have never heard of a quarterstaff.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:29 pm**

And that was used during a medieval tournament between gentry of related status when? For bashing down peasants, probably, but AFAIK, never perceived as a noble's weapon.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:42 pm**

I am not so sure that a quarterstaff would do a ton of damage to a guy with a gambeson under chain.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:53 pm**

Payn wrote:I am not so sure that a quarterstaff would do a ton of damage to a guy with a gambeson under chain.

It would knock the living shit out of a guy in a norman nasal helm though.
Unless he is wearing the gamby and chain on his head.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:03 pm**

Leo Medii wrote:There are so many ways to look at this scenario, but I can go at it at a different angle because of the last year or so of my training.

I have found that a longsword is a weapon far more versatile and deadly than I learned using my SCA skill set. Combining an SCA skill set (of a high end) with formal training in the historical uses and descriptions has totally changed and improved my SCA ability. Forever. I have also learned that the "7.5 foot polearm" is an SCA construct for those who like the long thrust, but also like the ability to chop in SCA melee's at a distance still in a safer zone than a regular pollaxe. I have sworn off the longer 7.5's (as I was once a huge user) because I no longer hold my pollaxe like a spear that can J-cut or C-shot fake (the standard shots of mid-level users). I also stopped using a "greatsword" for similar SCA restrictions that just make them difficult to use.

In this battle, all things equal (and barring that one or the other has a side-arm), I give the numerical advantage to neither. It is what I call "lottery fighting" where it will most likely end up 50/50 or close every time.

I would prefer to use a longsword against a 7.5' polearm. All they usually are is a shorter spear with a counterpunch chop most of the time when used.

What is a J-cut?

What is a C-shot?

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:17 pm**

Ahh, cool topic. Ok, most of the salient points here have already been covered, but I will add that greatsword is actually my preferred form to take on a polearm fighter who knows what he is doing. For example at Ymir, depending on who won some fights I might have had to face Count Vlad next. I didn't care for the odds of fighting him sword and shield, since he has made a career of destroying good sword and shield fighters with his glaive. I planned to face him with my greatsword--didn't actually happen, since we both lost at that stage of the tourney.

To effectively take a good glaiveman with GS, my strategy is to trick him into letting me get to B range.

Since the glaiveman has the advantage at C range due to thrusts, I start in a low halfsword guard. This gives enormous control of the centerline and makes it easy to set aside the long range thrusts.

My right hand is about halfway along the hilt of my sword, my left hand clamped around the flat of my blade. I either wait for him to thrust, or I launch a thrust of my own, then step in to B range, bring my left hand back to my hilt, and strike his right side.

I only have one example of this being caught on video, but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckvr-0TMMgg

I use the halfsword thrust as a distraction to close to B range, then take the arm and finish with a quick flurry. You'll see that the opponent guards his ribs, but left his arm open, so you have to be ready to redirect your attack as needed.

To use this non-SCA-conventional style effectively against a polearmer, you have to be mobile, have decently fast hand speed, and be comfortable shifting grips quickly.

IMO, the traditional static SCA greatsword style of pommel on thigh, blade in front of face, tip to the sky, will get rocked by a good glaiveman.

There are obviously many other factors in play, and this is certainly not the be-all and end-all of greatsword vs polearm, but I have found that this method works very well against polearm fighters.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:29 pm**

Trystyn of Anglesey wrote:
Payn wrote:I am not so sure that a quarterstaff would do a ton of damage to a guy with a gambeson under chain.

It would knock the living shit out of a guy in a norman nasal helm though.
Unless he is wearing the gamby and chain on his head.

Sure, and in this mythical fight where you have someone in full chain and nasaled helm with a quarterstaff going against the guy with a sword and shield or a spear, I am not putting money on the guy with a stick.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:01 pm**

Personally, if I have my druthers, I'd rather take my single basket-hilted broadsword against
either pole or greatsword.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:56 pm**

Gunthar, you should come to Valor this year!

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:33 pm**

Sounds fun, but I'm unable to fight for six months. I tore my tendon off my inner elbow.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:19 pm**

I'd take the greatsword over the polearm but that's largely based on personal bias. The mechanics of greatsword come much more naturally to me than polearm. I also don't agree that the polearm has an inherent advantage in close. I'm a lot faster with a greatsword and capable of some finesse that I can't accomplish with a 7 and a half foot pole.

The butt spike on a pole is only minimally helpful. To bring it online you're moving your cutting attack away even if you only target legs and hips with it so you can keep your weapon vertical for defense (instead of targeting your opponents chest and face which takes your defense away almost entirely). If I have a pommel thrust on my greatsword then I can attack with it as I roll through a high guard/cut to the legs-hip which isn't a maneuver I can easily accomplish with a pole.

I got a chance to try this dance at Gulf Wars this year and I found that as a relatively inexperienced greatsword fighter (about a year playing with the weapon form) I was competitive against a knight who specializes in polearm. We were playing in an open field though and there was a lot of running away which couldn't happen in a 20x20 list. Only once was his superior reach a major factor when he caught me daydreaming and stabbed me in the face. ("My mother stabbed me in the face once. Once!" ~misquoted Pooh.)

At the end of the day every weapon has it's strengths and weaknesses so the fight depends more on the wielders ability to maximize the former, minimize the later and do unto his opponent(s) before they can do unto him.

But I'd still take the greatsword.

-Tegan

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:35 pm**

Payn wrote:
Trystyn of Anglesey wrote:
Payn wrote:I am not so sure that a quarterstaff would do a ton of damage to a guy with a gambeson under chain.

It would knock the living shit out of a guy in a norman nasal helm though.
Unless he is wearing the gamby and chain on his head.

Sure, and in this mythical fight where you have someone in full chain and nasaled helm with a quarterstaff going against the guy with a sword and shield or a spear, I am not putting money on the guy with a stick.

I believe George Silver would.

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:56 pm**

+1 on what InsaneIrish and Corby de la Flamme said. -- Gest

Posted: **Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:16 pm**

Trystyn of Anglesey wrote:People who diss unpadded polearms must have never heard of a quarterstaff.

I'm pretty sure we've all heard of quarterstaffs. Problem is, an SCA unpadded polearm is not supposed to represent a quarterstaff; it's supposed to represent a bladed polearm, such as a glaive.

I was using my 6-foot greatsword against a skilled opponent with about a 7-foot polearm a couple of days ago. Fairly even match, which has usually been my experience. Half-swording is useful. I've never had trouble using the edge while half-swording.

I've been on the other end of it too, but prefer a 6- or 6.5-foot glaive. The buttspike can definitely come in handy.

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:27 am**

spearweasel wrote:
Leo Medii wrote:There are so many ways to look at this scenario, but I can go at it at a different angle because of the last year or so of my training.

I have found that a longsword is a weapon far more versatile and deadly than I learned using my SCA skill set. Combining an SCA skill set (of a high end) with formal training in the historical uses and descriptions has totally changed and improved my SCA ability. Forever. I have also learned that the "7.5 foot polearm" is an SCA construct for those who like the long thrust, but also like the ability to chop in SCA melee's at a distance still in a safer zone than a regular pollaxe. I have sworn off the longer 7.5's (as I was once a huge user) because I no longer hold my pollaxe like a spear that can J-cut or C-shot fake (the standard shots of mid-level users). I also stopped using a "greatsword" for similar SCA restrictions that just make them difficult to use.

In this battle, all things equal (and barring that one or the other has a side-arm), I give the numerical advantage to neither. It is what I call "lottery fighting" where it will most likely end up 50/50 or close every time.

I would prefer to use a longsword against a 7.5' polearm. All they usually are is a shorter spear with a counterpunch chop most of the time when used.

What is a J-cut?

What is a C-shot?

Shots that are possible with a low weight double end pokey Q-Tip stick that just aren't possible or desirable with the actual historical weapons.

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:48 am**

paulb wrote:I love people to grab the haft of my glaive. If you want to use your one hand against my two, be my guest.

Regards,

My Move to grab a haft of a weapon is just to move it off line or control that weapon for a second while my shot comes in one handed. It also doesn't hurt that I'm 6'4" 340lb guy either.

Rey

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:06 am**

Rey wrote:
paulb wrote:I love people to grab the haft of my glaive. If you want to use your one hand against my two, be my guest.

Regards,

My Move to grab a haft of a weapon is just to move it off line or control that weapon for a second while my shot comes in one handed. It also doesn't hurt that I'm 6'4" 340lb guy either.

Rey

It is the most common response I get when I teach pollaxe classes. I guess not everyone can do 80lb single arm curls so perhaps throwing somone around with one hand on their axe isn't for them. I've never had a problem messing with people doing this, even the "I'm going to spin/fulcrum/etc it" folks. YMMV.

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:03 pm**

Leo Medii wrote:
Rey wrote:
paulb wrote:I love people to grab the haft of my glaive. If you want to use your one hand against my two, be my guest.

Regards,

My Move to grab a haft of a weapon is just to move it off line or control that weapon for a second while my shot comes in one handed. It also doesn't hurt that I'm 6'4" 340lb guy either.

Rey

It is the most common response I get when I teach pollaxe classes. I guess not everyone can do 80lb single arm curls so perhaps throwing somone around with one hand on their axe isn't for them. I've never had a problem messing with people doing this, even the "I'm going to spin/fulcrum/etc it" folks. YMMV.

Not sure what your saying is the most common response or what your saying.

Sorry.. Dumb Fighter Moment I guess.

Rey

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:32 pm**

Leo Medii wrote:Shots that are possible with a low weight double end pokey Q-Tip stick that just aren't possible or desirable with the actual historical weapons.

I've never gotten to handle a historically accurate reproduction pollaxe or glaive; would really like to.

The Armour Archive

7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword

Re: 7 1/2 foot Polearm vs 6 foot Great Sword