Ha, HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

While you were sturdy how to master the blade on the stick, I was MASTERING THE EXTRA LONGER STICK WITH A LARGER ON IT

I too enjoy classic Jeff Dunham

And all proud Lancasterians were learning the ancient martial art of ekky thump.

The pistol is basically the modern version of a sword, a sidearm. It's easy and convenient to carry, but for going to war you want a long gun.

I had the same thought! I don't know if late ME and early modern Fechtbücher are "military manuals" for war. Did those teachers (Lichtenauer, Thalhoffer, Marozzo etc) write their books more for knights/men-at-arms, or for Burghers in cities.

Exactly, useful for civilian self defense, but in a military context, only really carried as a side arm by officers and other troops with other primary roles, and usually only used if things have gone badly. An archer or halberdier forced to use their sword are as reduced in combat effectiveness as a driver or machine gunner forced to use their pistol.

@@davidlink3787 Pretty much, except that the pistol is used less often than the sword was and very few people in the military actually carry pistols. In some countries pistols are, or were, exclusive to officers and were badge of rank more than anything.

Original artifact glock will be worth times more than an artifact AK, and the latter will have reconstructed wooden parts of incorrect size and assumed to be a stationary defensive weapon :D

@@AKRex "... but the themes were"

Isn't this kind of what we're doing with revolvers in the Old West already?

The wars of the roses. Where people in rose shaped armor would yell violent love poems at each other to creep the enemy away. If that didn’t work. Less effective things were used. Like sword tossing.

@@Morachnyion holy crap, that would actually terrify me. just dont toss me !

If I do. I won’t tell the elf.

Man of savage nature: Club

@@Hubert_Cumberdale_ Man of Refined Savagery: Mace

Context: Matt

@@notsoprogaming9789 Lloyd: Spandau

I still disagree. If it was true, halberdiers and pikemen would not carry swords as secondary weapon - why, your polearm is everything you will ever need? Observe the paintings of landsknechts, best soldiers of their time - their halberdiers, or their doppelsoldners with those threatening flamberges, all of them are carrying katzbalgers - short, cutting swords that did not even have a thrusting point. Why? Because there are situations, especially in tight battles where you have no space for elaborate technical kung fu, and you need a short weapon, not long. Or Romans - if polearms were so superior, why did not they fight with spears, and instead prefered the gladius? Sword had the highest skill ceiling, was the most technical and versatile of weapons, so that's why the treatises and manuals focused on them. I disagree that it was "a gentry's leisure time pleasure", soldiers risking their lives were always very practical, and preferred simple stuff that worked. If the focus was on sword, that means sword was important. On the other hand, there is a saying in Czech "začínat od píky - 'to start with the pike'" that means starting at the very bottom, lowest rung of some hierarchy. That's because pikemen (in 30 years war or later, presumably) were the most basic troops that received very little training. The common sense was to arm village militia and levies with pikes - expensive swords would be wasted on them. As a pikeman, you just need to know 1) how to stand straight in a line 2) how to hold the pike properly, or how to rest the other end against ground 3) how to not sht in your pants and run away. That was all. You fought in a formation, you advanced on command, you retreated on command. If things went south, you just died to any other type of troop in the field. That's why there is no "Treatise on the noble art of pike - how to stick while avoiding being stuck in return" - or if there is, it was not a common topic. Halberd is a different beast, there is some kungfu to be done with halberds or similar type of shorter, cutting polearms, but pikes and spears are simple weapons. All of them bow to the sword, however - the king of the cold steel weapons.

dammit Bill, stop messing about !

That's his masturbation helmet.

He always sits with his helmet but he only takes it out on special occasion

Don't be like that. It's excellent exercise for his neck muscles!

Matt is secretly Lord Buckethead.

allluckyseven hehe what?

Or a Goededag,...basically a club with a steel nasty bit on the end.

ThatDutchguy Which is also a can opener LOL

@@WastelandSeven Indeed,...or a concussion simulator xD.

That tickled

I have never seen anyone actually fight with a pole arm. Any source or information that you could point me to would be very much appreciated 👍

It's easier to apply video game logic and assume archers were the squishy DPS class

Almost? Most certainly they were. Not all of them of course and I'm sure the ratio of conscripts to pros changed with fortunes and the ebb and flow of power. Think how long it took for a Longbowman to train; they were specialists. Study of skeletons shows the affect of pulling very heavy bows in the attachment points of the tendons affecting the growth of the bones. Pole arms could be taught to the farmer who could then just go back to being a farmer until war season again.

You can certainly have some heavy defences if you don't need to move around that much. Like those steel hats sine crossbowmen had,quite heavy and a classic ranged infantry helmets

Armour was quite likely sourced from defeated enemies as well I would say. After a long and successful campaign a soldier would have had a lot more and better kit than he started with.

You joke, but Big Sword is effectively responsible for the existence of the messers.

Why polearms dominated the medieval battlefield? Simple answer: long shaft and good penetration ...

Matt Easton is in the scabbard of Big Spadroon

Long weapon good!

Make Polearms great again!

Also the phrase "to learn something from the pike on" (meaning "learn something from the button up")

Please tag me here if you find a good video on this

Yes please

or a flamethrower

I think swords and pistols are just more relatable, so the stories and discourse and writing comes up in abundance for them. The common man is much more likely to have some experience with/need of a small weapon or sidearm than an ACTUAL big ol' weapon of war. It also just looks better on movie posters etc, in a visual-presentation sort of way. A pistol makes a cool accessory for the actor, but a big gun will instead dominate the scene and the presentation.

The sword was fetishized because other tools were available to the commoners and had other non-war usage. Also keep in mind armor diminished the importance of swords.. Oh for personal defense a sword is great, if a brigand happens upon you on a lonely road etc. BUt in war, there are entirely different logistics and mechanisms at work. A battle is not a bunch of one on one duels to the death. IT's about momentum.

@Aint Jack That's neat, thanks for sharing the Korean angle.

I think the hero image is more associated with the "hard to use weapons" or the ones that offers more risk or even things as close as possible to unarmed fights. Thats why the fight between the protagonist vs vilain its fought pretty much in melee range even in movies about modern times. People don't usually like fights where one does shot others at distance while taking cover (its only acceptable for killing the vilain unworthly "minions"). Fighting at distance may make you look weak or coward. Its human primitive nature that matters more in the end.

@@RyuFireheart sure thing, everything to be more appealing to the public. I for one would like a movie where they fight with guns the way its supposed to be, with covers and tatics, but i dont see it happening in the near future, at the moment what i like to watch are the real footage of soldiers with helmet cams.

It's literally impossible to make a safe steel polearm because they were that dangerous You'd need to make them out of rubber which eliminates the accuracy of weight

most sieges were only camping around a city or a castle waiting for the besiegeds to run out of food, siege assaults weren't much common beacuse the high casualties they demanded

I think the real point is that people didn't learn a preferred fighting style like we do in RPGs. They learned warfare, which included proficiency in a lot of different equipment needed for many different scenarios one might encounter in war. There were specialties, but they would be much broader, such as archer (which would need to know how to use hand weapons), footman and cavalry.

you are right in everthing you said except that sieges werent assaults, as represented in movies.. but just alot of logistics and waiting. But when it came to assaults, yeah short weapons and shields rulled ...

also i would add that bows and crossbows were also very effective in your scenario...

@@fabiovarra3698 All-out assaults were relatively rare. Skirmishes and sallies during sieges were not.

"Brexalibur?"

@@fuferito I don't want the generations to come thinking Boris had the first thing to do with this.

@@bBlaF, Not exactly the heroic profile, I'm guessing.

"DO, IF IT WILL NOT STAND!"

Hamlet act 1 scene 1

In Dark Souls 1 spears were so OP that they had to nerf them for later games.

@@taekatanahu635 right though I have seen some spears be used effectively as long as they avoid being parried.

Haha, da bist du nicht alleine :D

I’m german!

Philip Zahn Probably depended on their background. I’m sure a fairly wealthy-ish man at arms would have very good training. Since that is their job after all I would imagine.

Swiss regulars very much, Irish farmers not so much

It will depend on who we talk about. Man at arms will have fairly good training. I gess poeple with halberds poleaxe or polehammer would have training. But were i would doubt on any training is for pique man, lances vouges, and bardiches.

Commoner "Arrow fodder", untrained and thrown at the enemy.

There were Trayned Bands of volunteers in most larger towns (drawing their strength from the town and surrounding rural parishes) and they would get a couple of days a month, to train together.

Tinman 18 Yes.

Yes indeed; it's not until the ring bayonet that pikes finally go away (and the Swedes kept them into the 1720s).

Ironically most of western heavy cavalry neglected the lances in favor of pistols and sabers, with only a few units in each army dedicated to lances. The only exception is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Mike Rodrigues Although not heavy cavalry, the likes of Stratioti mercenaries also generally replaces their light lances/spears with pistols and rifles since the 16th century. (while keeping swords) Ming cavalry in general also tended to favor armored horse archers with shorter cutting weapons (as opposed to being lancers). Heavier ones often wielded glaives, lighter ones also functioned as dragoons primarily armed with sabres

Quite true. Spears are a simpler form of polearm. Polearms indeed dominated every battlefield across all cultures until around the time of revolvers and machine guns, when pike blocks were no longer workable.

@Harvey Dustin not very accurate, the iberic peninsula was mayorly muslim in the ,8th, 9th and 10th centuries but even then u had cristian and muslim powers there. Even if it had veen completly muslim what were those musim "weapons" u are talking about?

Sharpen pointy stick will always do lots of damage regardless of time.

Better leverage and power. Not necessarily easy to repair though. If you crack your halberd shaft, you can't just get a blacksmith to hammer it into shape again.

that's the essence of war: take a sharp stick and make a lot of holes ;)

@@TheChiconspiracy You just swap out the shaft. That's where "cheap" comes in

oiSnowy hehe nice

Its a nice idea but the final Bill is always painful.

voice of raisin boi

You just don't draw the head of the weapon to your back and sides very often is all, can still stab in in a number of ways, draw cut, pull using spikes or do swings from above, really though most polearms are 90% thrusting weapons in formations. Things like poleaxes though carried by knights that you might want to need a little room for are weapons for professional men at arms and knights, so they'll know how to and know to have a looser formation and provide more space for each other.

@Karol Jeske or you can always do a downward cut to the head or torso, you don't need much space for that. And you can always go for their legs, hook em', stab em', cut em'.

@@GeneralAdvance I recon that the "poleaxe family" weapons were also handled in such way that you wouldn't swing in the full length of it - rather, like a double bladed oar, which would conserve some room.

Like people have said, I believe most of the polearms vere used as a thrusting and hooking weapon, and hooking was very effective, when you had a staby bro beside you. I think chopping was mostly an anti-armor action, cause thrusting and draw-cuts worked perfect for unarmored.

@@jordansblabbering6303 mash'em, boil'em, stick'em in a stew...

I was thinking a bit along the same line. Some considered cavalry the queen of the battlefield in medieval times so maybe polearms were used as a counter-mesure

@@etiennesauve3386 To charge disciplined quality infantry armed with spears, pikes or poleweapons was extremely costly(suicidal) & stupid. Most horses would refuse to charge home against a "hedge"" of points. Cavalry would usually wait for archers, crossbows, handguns, their own melee infantry or artilliary to begin to break up the units moral & formation & then charge into any gaps formed. The classic medival knights charging home with lances couched was principly for dealing with other cavalry, infantry without pole weapons(swordsmen, archers etc), or already broken & fleeing troops.

​@@2bingtim You are totally right but the thing is how frequent were those disciplined quality infantry present on medieval battlefield. If I recall correctly, the armies of the times were the collection of the retenues of the various lords present in the battle plus maybe a few mercenary bands but not all of them were like the swiss pikemen and I think their uniqueness is one of the reason they gather such fame. I also wonder to what extend medieval infantry was trained to fight in formations. I am under the impression that it only became generalized in the army of the renaissance. I would assume that most baron did not maintain such unit as they might be quite expensive. Dukes and counts could surely have the possibility to field such units but my guess is that they would still be few in number. As such, I wonder about the impact of those units on the larger battlefield as cavalry deterrent as they surely could have been avoided and isolated. Finally, If we look at the attittude of french knight at azincourt, it really looks like infantry was looked down upon by knights and would charge them without afterthought with the result that we know. Also what about the reach of the knights with their lances? did you need extra long pikes to be effective or was the regular spear long enough?

Get off the comments

@@stolzerpfalzer768 It's "out of" not "off." Jetzt verpiss dich

Galaxy 7 Nails no it’s not. Learn some English or why did you reply in german? We don’t talk german here!!!

@@stolzerpfalzer768 Sorry? I dont understand.