Halberts(Billhooks) with pavese shields?

[Panzerechse]

I am following your progress and watched the presentation of battles in game. And as the headline stated....have you really put some early type of halberd into the hands of paveseshield holders? I mean, both items are kind of special....the halberd is an anti knight/allrounder combinated weapon (pike + hook + axeblade), that can be used effectively only two handed and only by infantry(horsemen with european halberds are japanese anime ♥♥♥♥). And pavese shields were actually big towershields to carry around, deploy them(in german they are called "Setzschilde", shield to be placed) and hide behind them (for ranged units for example). Even if you use it like a roman legion soldier with his towershield, remember, that the romans had accordingly to the shield´s size and clumsines very short swords for very close combat. Maybe you should put some limits into your troop equipment tool and exclude certain items with each other?

[Slavic Magic]

I guess I can strip away some polearms from the pavisie units. However for that I need some more convincing - like a historical account, experimental archeology testimony, anything valid.

Here are my arguments however:

Pavise + spear reference (Chroniques de France ou de St Denis):
https://imgur.com/a/zMIapNw

Reenactor reference Pavise+Polearm that I used:
https://imgur.com/a/HeIWv59

More reenactors of pavise usage in melee combat:
https://imgur.com/a/RaeR9vB
https://imgur.com/a/9dYnQPh

[Panzerechse]

I watched your source pictures. This is what I saw:

- Medieval bookpaintings were not technical drawings, or simply said exact to the point. And, most important....spears are not halberds. Spears are balanced and could be used with large shields. A halberd at the other hand has his heavy parts at the tip....use it one handed and you will have problems keeping the tip up and raised. Unless you have the arm muscles of Arnold Schwarzenegger. On picture four you can see re-enactors using light shortspears, which is acceptable, because it looks manageable for a soldier.

- Then pictures are deceiving. Look closer at the second picture. You see re-enactors with pavese shields and halberds, I see re-enactors with pavese shields and swords and some with halberds alone, holding them two handed. The angle of view of the photographer makes it look like some of the shieldbearers have halberds in their hands. What you see is just a mixed infantry unit with different equipment settings. There is even a crossbow with them...

As I mentioned before, halberds are early combinated weapons of our oxidental history. They were the bane of knights in the hand of common people, that made a new era of war possible (look for the success of the swiss army against burgundean knights, followed by swiss and german mercenaries becoming the main bulk of later armies) and to thrust the pike tip, to hack and cut with the ace blade and to hook and drag down a knight from his horse you need to operate this weapon two handed. Always. Shields were not part of it.

PS: I just asked in internet "can people fight with halberd and shield?" The answer was right away "yes, but suboptimal...and so not a phenomen in history." --->
https://www.quora.com/Can-halberdiers-in-the-past-use-their-weapons-with-shields

This is the only picture I could find about a halberdier with a shield on his back, but I am pretty sure he carries it for the case, that he is forced to fight with his second weapon, the sword (polearms can crack on impact of something fast and heavy).
----->
https://www.pinterest.com.au/christinacasira/swiss-halberdier/

[Slavic Magic]

Alright I see your point, but why do we call all polearms halberds? There are so many. Actually what I added to ML so far is Bills, Glaives, Spears, Poleaxes, and Bardiches, no Halberds yet. A Bill or Guisarme seems way more reasonable to use with a shield than a Poleaxe or a Halberd to me.

[Panzerechse]

Let me differ it for you.

Combined weapons made as polearms with heavy part at the tip of the weapon are: bills, glaives, poleaxes, halberds and bardiches - short said, any polearm, that includes hacking
and hooking too to the usual poking something into someone.

Spears....are spears. They are balanced with the tip not heavier then the rest of the weapon. That is why you can use it one handed unto a certain length. A pike is the red line...two handed or if set up and rear end stuck into earth, then you can use a sidearm (saw that on an illustration of a baroque pikeneer)

Verdict: Give your game warriors spears with shields and let them handle bill, glaive, poleaxe, halberds and bardiches two handed. Maybe, if you can code that, give them the afore mentioned fightning stance of the baroque pikeneer with a sword or knife/dagger as a sidearm. ----> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/298785756511386203/
And add the pike to the twohanders too.
Maybe you can fix the rule about spears like that: any spear double the size of a man is a twohander.


I also recommend using the medieval, not so ornamental halberds.

https://www.wulflund.de/waffen/axt-schlagwaffen/swiss-halberd-15th-century-authentic-replica.html/

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

There’s been discussions on whether or not those equipped with polearms actually used them with shields in melee combined. As yes there is plenty of artwork which shows those with polearms holding shields as well.

One of the theories is they were just carrying shields before they engaged in melee. Which is personally the theory I subscribe to. Dropping the shield before engaging then picking it up later.

The issue is actually using that polearm in a single hand while also holding a shield. You’ve suddenly got a very front heavy weapon being held in one hand. You can’t swing it to make use of the bladed edge with any effectiveness. So you can only use it to stab. But you have to hold it closer to the ballads due to the weight which reduces your reach. Which is also what they are doing in those photos of the reenactors.

At that point you might as well just use a cheaper and more effective spear.

The brilliance of a two handed polearm is that you can use it in a formation, you can use it in single combat and even defend yourself against multiple opponents and you can make cavalry very worried about going for you and your comrades.

Using it with a shield negates these. You end up with a worse spear.

[Panzerechse]

Just some amused remarks. :-))

"One of the theories is they were just carrying shields before they engaged in melee. Which is personally the theory I subscribe to. Dropping the shield before engaging then picking it up later."

The question is....in the chaos of a melee, how do you pick up a shield later? :P

"As yes there is plenty of artwork which shows those with polearms holding shields as well." Yes, artwork....most of it should get points for creativity, but not for realism. ^^

[Nox]

The clearest argument here is one of common sense. Imagine holding a polearm in one hand. think of the strength and leverage you could apply.

The only available attack you would have would be a spearing attack, with a tip-heavy weapon. Something that would be much better accomplished with a balanced spear which could be couched at the balance point allowing for maneuverability.

Bills, Duck-bills, halberds all had complex martial roles in that they were designed to also control the opponent out of striking range. They were used to hold at bay and to hook.

Granted, the pavise in some cases could be put into place and used as a temporary merlon. I think I have knowledge of this but I don't see obvious clear historical reinforcement. I can imagine scenarios where your polearm troops emplaced pavises when they set up for defense but that's really a conceit.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Originally posted by Panzerechse:

Just some amused remarks. :-))

"One of the theories is they were just carrying shields before they engaged in melee. Which is personally the theory I subscribe to. Dropping the shield before engaging then picking it up later."

The question is....in the chaos of a melee, how do you pick up a shield later? :P

"As yes there is plenty of artwork which shows those with polearms holding shields as well." Yes, artwork....most of it should get points for creativity, but not for realism. ^^

You’d pick it up after the melee. Not during it. Can be after the battle as well.

Those wielding polearms especially earlier on didn’t have the best armour. So they were very vulnerable to missile weapons. Walking around with a shield before you engage simply means a lot more of you and your friends are still able to fight by the time you do engage in melee. You then pick your shield up after the battle is over.

As for the Artwork you can’t rule it out. Not to mention multiple different artists have all depicted the same thing. People with halberd, glaives, bills, etc also holding a shield. From multiple different time periods. Either they’re all just making it up (while the rest of the artwork makes relative sense) or people actually carried shields in some capacity.


However that doesn’t mean I’m in favour of them fighting with shields or even having shields at all in the context of the game. Would be far easier just to have them as a shieldless unit.

[Panzerechse]

Well, my remarks were "half" serious. :))
I keep myself to german military "celebrities", who said, that war is chaos. And there is no plan, only events, that will make plans impossible. So, maybe taking a shield along with a polearm into battle is good, but is it a sure thing? ^^

I also have here my books in the shelf, with many artwork exactly from that period of equipment we talk about(mainly the war of the hussites in czechoslovakia, which would be the closest to the game´s historical setting). And I see nowhere in these artworks someone using a tip heavy polearm along with a shield. If we keep in mind, that we are talking about a topic of life or death, I am sure that no one did this combination, because it would risk his survival in battle....the reason why we don´t see it so far in the artwork of that era.

And that is why I consider nowadays "shield with halberd soldier" artwork fantasy....and ridicule these a little bit. I mean, if you are bold enough, you could overwhelm such a true warrior with a wet bolt of woolcloak and a tomato knife. Just throw it over his halberd tip, push it aside, grab his shield and stab him viciously into multiple weak spots. :))

Even more I was confronted in online fantasy games with teenagers, that were firm defenders of the "the bigger, the deadlier" weapon theory, which is also a result of artwork and games, that sport insanly big weapons and weaponheads in combination with other unpractible stuff....items you would not even lift from the ground, fight longer then 10 minutes with or will not have any effect, when someone is literally breathing into your face while attacking you. A good example for this are halberds from the game Darksouls.


Finally I want to add, that I appreciate the work of the designer of this game and also value opposite oppinions. So far we have a constructive discussion with some elements of amusement. At least for me. :P

[Oubley]

Originally posted by Panzerechse:

I am following your progress and watched the presentation of battles in game. And as the headline stated....have you really put some early type of halberd into the hands of paveseshield holders? I mean, both items are kind of special....the halberd is an anti knight/allrounder combinated weapon (pike + hook + axeblade), that can be used effectively only two handed and only by infantry(horsemen with european halberds are japanese anime ♥♥♥♥). And pavese shields were actually big towershields to carry around, deploy them(in german they are called "Setzschilde", shield to be placed) and hide behind them (for ranged units for example). Even if you use it like a roman legion soldier with his towershield, remember, that the romans had accordingly to the shield´s size and clumsines very short swords for very close combat. Maybe you should put some limits into your troop equipment tool and exclude certain items with each other?

i thought it looked cool regardless historical accuracy. To be fair there was a thing called tower shields that romans used arguably not that long before "medieval" and I say arguably because people going to argue what a long time is, but from a practical standpoint there is historical use of larger shields other then sticking them in the ground. From my understanding a viking raider shield wasn't exactly small. I could be wrong but I thought those norman/french long kite like shields were rather large too.

The battles looked cool for work in progress, looking forward to release.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Pavise shields come in all sorts of sizes. Some are so massive and heavy that you didn’t have any hope of using the thing one handed as a shield. You carried it on your back and used it as mobile cover. While other Pavise shields using exactly the same design were smaller and lighter. Able to be used with a 1 handed weapon while also still being able to be staked into the ground.

And yeah other shields such as kite or round shields are larger than people think.

[Slavic Magic]

I thought that a bill is much more a thrusting weapon than eg. a poleaxe. After reading your arguments I can just leave spears as one handed weapons, no problem.

As for removing the pavise for melee entirely, I don't agree there, like others said - there are so many types, and a heater would just look wrong for this type of unit. I myself used a small pavise for all the mocap we've done and it was just fine. So I would like to keep it, unless the community insists otherwise.

[Mr. Wiggles]

If you really want the game to look somewhat accurate do not look at re-enactors' equipment. They are not trustworthy in this regard, at all.

The small pavises look fine and cool, imo. But perhaps the bigger versions were mostly used by crossbowmen as cover from incoming missiles?

[Mr. Wiggles]

Originally posted by Nox:

The clearest argument here is one of common sense. Imagine holding a polearm in one hand. think of the strength and leverage you could apply.

The only available attack you would have would be a spearing attack, with a tip-heavy weapon. Something that would be much better accomplished with a balanced spear which could be couched at the balance point allowing for maneuverability.

Bills, Duck-bills, halberds all had complex martial roles in that they were designed to also control the opponent out of striking range. They were used to hold at bay and to hook.

Granted, the pavise in some cases could be put into place and used as a temporary merlon. I think I have knowledge of this but I don't see obvious clear historical reinforcement. I can imagine scenarios where your polearm troops emplaced pavises when they set up for defense but that's really a conceit.

I agree with this, polearms handled single-handedly are a big no-no.

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

There’s been discussions on whether or not those equipped with polearms actually used them with shields in melee combined. As yes there is plenty of artwork which shows those with polearms holding shields as well.

One of the theories is they were just carrying shields before they engaged in melee. Which is personally the theory I subscribe to. Dropping the shield before engaging then picking it up later.

The issue is actually using that polearm in a single hand while also holding a shield. You’ve suddenly got a very front heavy weapon being held in one hand. You can’t swing it to make use of the bladed edge with any effectiveness. So you can only use it to stab. But you have to hold it closer to the ballads due to the weight which reduces your reach. Which is also what they are doing in those photos of the reenactors.

At that point you might as well just use a cheaper and more effective spear.

The brilliance of a two handed polearm is that you can use it in a formation, you can use it in single combat and even defend yourself against multiple opponents and you can make cavalry very worried about going for you and your comrades.

Using it with a shield negates these. You end up with a worse spear.

I think your idea of medieval warfare is too totalwar-esque...
They mostly fought in separated regiments and in tight formations, to avoid to turn the fight into a brawl.
Missile troops formed the avant-garde, skirmishing with the enemy and once the armies came into contact they used to drop their bows and join the frail.
I think these regiments were composed of men at arms armed with a heterogenous assortment of weapons, you did not have "swordsmen" or "billmen".

I know for sure that the tuscan city states' militias were organized in regiments based on the Guild the men at arms belonged to, not on the equipment at their disposal.

[Panzerechse]

I second, the shields are ok. Sorry, if I made myself misunderstood in that case, Slavic Magic. It was the combination with a halberd type polearm, that troubled me.


"I thought that a bill is much more a thrusting weapon than eg. a poleaxe."

<--- Don´t forget, Slavic Magic....a bill is tip heavy. Too unbalanced for one handed fighting.


"I know for sure that the tuscan city states' militias were organized in regiments based on the Guild the men at arms belonged to, not on the equipment at their disposal."

<--- This is also some interesting detail. Cities often defended sections of their wallring with a guild each section. That is why sometimes whole bastions of a city are named after a profession. In general we could differ four types of troops by their social standing:

rural militia, urban militia, feudal troops and mercenaries.

Common sense should then define their equipment.


Additionally there is also a group of weapons, that could be described as improvised. The peasants of the big peasant uprisings in germany for example had a nice collection of farming equipment, that was made war ready. For a example a scythe....just give it to the blacksmith of the village to hammer it straight..voilá, a warscythe!