The Armour Archive

Hi,

By the rules (and please cite for your kingdom, SCA, etc…) if a polearm strikes an opponent and both the blade and haft hit with the force of a good blow, is it good?

I give as an example, these pictures.





-Aaron

I'd call them haft. If I hit someone like that I would not let them accept the blow.

I agree with Nissan.

If there is ANY question on the blow/shot, ask your opponent to not take the shot.

Or.. if a marshal is present, and your opponent agrees to it, ask the marshal for their input on it.

Ultimately, it is up to your opponent.

edit Just make sure the next shot is cleanly struck!

Frankly, I'm not sure you can tell from those photos.

If you don't think it was clean, don't let them take it. If they don't think it was clean, don't make them take it.

And you get to fight some more!




.

That explains why we fight with boat oars so often.

I'll have to go get a boat oar then. When the polehammer flexes, unless I'm EXACTLY on target, there will be some haft.

For example, if Sir Corby steps forward, it would be haft due to the bend of the weapon (in this picture). The velocity is forcing the bend in the rattan weapon, where there wouldn't be in an oak weapon.

With respect,

-Aaron

Hey, if boat oars were good enough for Musashi....

Again, I think if you trust your opponent and are honest with yourself, the whole good/not good issue goes out the window.




.

Great pic Aaron!

Cant really tell from the first, second looks like it should be haft, as the head missed, and is behind his head. Still could have hit then slid behind the head, but one cant tell that from the picture. Thats the suck of small stiking surfaces.

While we teach that only the one being hit can call whether a blow is good, I beleive the opposite when it comes to a haft/flat shot. The person being hit cant really tell in alot of cases. Its up to them to call it good if it is of sufficient force. If it is flat or haft, its up to the person throwing the shot to tell them, that while the shot was hard enough, it was not a good blow. This should happen only if the shot was called good.

I dont really care for when the person being struck calls flat or haft. If it is obvious, it can be ok, but it puts pressure on the thrower. If the one struck calls flat, the one who threw then has to counter that no, it was indeed, aligned correctly. In our sport that often comes across as whining, and right or wrong, thats the quickest way to lose face in our game.


So, it should have been your call, if he called it good.

The pictures don't tell enough of the story. Did the haft only hit because the head had compressed or flexed? If that happened to me I would want to call the shot. Did the head only hit because the haft flexed, perhaps after being blocked? I would not want to call that sort of shot. Ultimately it comes down to the amount of force delivered by the head and the judgement of the person receiving the blow.

If you are throwing blows that seem good to you and are not being called, you may want to work with a trusted observer/local knight to see what is happening and correct it so that you make blowcalling easy for your opponent. You may also need to relax and let go a bit, because blowcalling is never perfect and worrying about it can only make you less happy. I have had to this some with my rubber-headed poleaxe. I like the look and balance but I have to accept that it is harder to call. I also have to accept that it gives a more gradual impact so it is both OK and necessary for me to swing harder than I would with my unpadded glaive.

Aaron wrote:By the rules (and please cite for your kingdom, SCA, etc…) if a polearm strikes an opponent and both the blade and haft hit with the force of a good blow, is it good?

IMO, if a blade hits with good force, then it hits with good force. Even if I managed to get some block against the haft, it obviously wasn't sufficient if the blade is still hitting hard enough. I'd take the shot as described.

If I was the thrower, and felt that the blow was significantly impeded, I'd call the shot back.

As to the photos, it's impossible to tell. Did the block happen before, after, or at the same time as the blade impacted?

From the pictures I have no idea what happened before or after.

I'm redesigning a pair of matched poleaxes right now, and was curious.

And I've had people call things haft that looked like blade by others and the video. It's all in the angles.

A good fight is always the best fight. I would just rather throw clean, powerful shots that leave little to question. Marking the poleaxe might help, in that if I hit haft, it will leave a mark and therefore the question will be answered.

I don't fight much anymore due to family and work , but when I do I want to be known for fun, good and honorable combat.

With respect,

-Aaron

D. Sebastian wrote:Great pic Aaron!

The picture is from Sir Corby's site and his photographer is wonderful!

-Aaron

Aaron wrote:That explains why we fight with boat oars so often.

I'll have to go get a boat oar then. When the polehammer flexes, unless I'm EXACTLY on target, there will be some haft.

For example, if Sir Corby steps forward, it would be haft due to the bend of the weapon (in this picture). The velocity is forcing the bend in the rattan weapon, where there wouldn't be in an oak weapon.

With respect,

-Aaron

I think the flex in that picture is not due to velocity, but to the head having stopped against the helm. If the rattan is flexing that much without making contact, just in the act of swinging, then the rattan is too flexible for a polearm and stiffer rattan should be chosen for future weapons.

Also, it wouldn't be haft due to the bend, but due to the head having been past the target.

In the first two pictures of the OP, the first picture is impossible to judge, as the head ofthe weapon is completely obscured by the helm. From that picture it could as easily be a missed buttspike thrust to the face as a strike with the blade.

In the second picture from the OP, it appears to me that the head of the polearm has missed the helmet and the haft has struck the helmet. What woudl be revealed by a series of high speed photographs showing the entire sequence I can't say, but the image provided appears to show a haft to the helmet, the blade having been past the target.

Using an axe comes with advantages and disadvantages. The bit reaches a little past defenses, lending some opportunities for strikes that would fail with "oar" shaped blades. On the con side, the bit offers a much shorter blade length than "oar" shaped polearms and so one must be more precise with strikes to insure that the blade makes contact.

I'll note that there are plenty of perfectly valid blade shapes for polearms that are longer than a poleaxe. There's an apparent derogatory tone in the use of "boat oars" that's quite uncalled for.

Aaron! For shame! Use those pole-hammers properly and stab him with the cue to his arm-pit instead. Then you will know for certain he is defeated.

Good Day Duke Gavin,

In the entire exchange with Sir Corby, I didn't touch him once. He's THAT good.

I'm updating my weapons to add two poleaxes and perhaps an alphese (small boat oar...).

With respect,

-Aaron

both the blade and haft hit with the force of a good blow

If any part of the blade strikes me with good force, then its good. Assuming the blade was not flat of course.

The debate seems pretty 50-50.

Vladimir wrote:

both the blade and haft hit with the force of a good blow

If any part of the blade strikes me with good force, then its good. Assuming the blade was not flat of course.

+1

Aaron wrote:I'm updating my weapons to add two poleaxes...

Now, if you can get good with that weapon form then you will be a bad, bad man.

Vladimir wrote:

both the blade and haft hit with the force of a good blow

If any part of the blade strikes me with good force, then its good. Assuming the blade was not flat of course.

This is also my assumption. But This also brings up one of my biggest complaints with SCA weapon construction and the use of non-constructed pole weapons.

The standard SCA "glaive" leaves much to be desired in my opinion when it comes to its look on the field, and behaves nothing like the real pole weapon. A constructed head would very easily resolve much of issue here.

Maelgwyn wrote:The pictures don't tell enough of the story.

QFT. They never do. It's useless to ask, mate.

Eyvandr wrote:This is also my assumption. But This also brings up one of my biggest complaints with SCA weapon construction and the use of non-constructed pole weapons.

The standard SCA "glaive" leaves much to be desired in my opinion when it comes to its look on the field, and behaves nothing like the real pole weapon. A constructed head would very easily resolve much of issue here.

I will note that the OP raises the question involving specifically a constructed head - a rubber poleaxe.

Aaron wrote:Good Day Duke Gavin,

In the entire exchange with Sir Corby, I didn't touch him once. He's THAT good.

I'm updating my weapons to add two poleaxes and perhaps an alphese (small boat oar...).

With respect,

-Aaron

If your poleaxe is bending that much without making contact, the rattan is, simply, much too flexible. The business end of the polearm should never be lagging that far behind the haft.

Changing the head construction isn't going to help the problems that come with such flex in the haft - whcih include poor blow recognition because when the rattan is that flexible very little energy winds up going into the target... unless you're using the "flyfishing" technique, in which case the flex can help deliver force into the target, after bending around any block... but that is just another problem

I will note that the OP raises the question involving specifically a constructed head - a rubber poleaxe.

The initial post speaks to an non-constructed glaive style weapon of "haft/not haft" and I should have clarified but my response should have been directed strictly to that point.

As for the rubber head, and the flexing pole axe, I have always encouraged the use of the starting with oversize rattan and milling of planing it down to prevent this sort of flex and whip.

I generally start with as close to 2" rattan as I can find and begin taking the sides down to roughly 1&3/8" and then working out the rest of the pole. Have never had issues with whip using this method.

Eyvandr wrote:

I will note that the OP raises the question involving specifically a constructed head - a rubber poleaxe.

The initial post speaks to an non-constructed glaive style weapon of "haft/not haft" and I should have clarified but my response should have been directed strictly to that point.

As for the rubber head, and the flexing pole axe, I have always encouraged the use of the starting with oversize rattan and milling of planing it down to prevent this sort of flex and whip.

I generally start with as close to 2" rattan as I can find and begin taking the sides down to roughly 1&3/8" and then working out the rest of the pole. Have never had issues with whip using this method.

I believe Aaron is asking with regard to his experiences using a poleaxe, as shown in the photos. Note his later references to making a "boat oar" style of polearm as a means of addressing the problem he has experienced.

I'm quite confident that his question is specifically not related to the unpadded glaive style weapon, based on both the photos referenced in his first post, and on his residence in Atlantia, where the unpadded glaive issue does not exist.

In summary:

1. Thicker rattan to reduce flex.
2. Take up flyfishing if I use thinner rattan
3. Reconstruct the heads of the pollaxes
4. Become an evil, evil man if I get good at this.

With respect,

-Aaron