Testing pollaxes vs. armor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 фев 2023
- Today we take a look at how late medieval poleaxes actually interact with armor. Drawing on period manuscripts and a couple of our highly accurate reproductions we examine how these weapons were used, how they were designed to exploit aspects of medieval armor design, and what damage they commonly did to that armor. We also discuss what kinds of poleax use might cause damage to your weapon that would have to be repaired after battle -- a very common scenario.
In this video I use our Knightly Pollaxe, a replica of a piece in the Wallace Collection that we were actually able to take a mold of back in the day, so it is a highly accurate reproduction, as well as our Burgundian Axe and our Bec de Corbyn, circa 1560.
Great video! I never realized that aspect of these weapons!
When Matt Easton did a video on tomahawks, I suggested that those with spikes on the end could be used in a similar way as shown here, except against unarmored targets and with the additional benefit of pain compliance.
Love that Bec-de-Corbin too.
One interesting thing I noticed with that Lucerne pattern hammer: When the beak was briefly demonstrated yanking on your breast plate, if your partner dipped his stance slightly, your forward momentum could've driven your shoulder hard into that leaf spear.
yep :-)
Great to see Ian get into the action!
I firmly believe in the quality of Arms and Armor.
That said, my infantry rifle took significantly more beating on the bayonet course than this poleaxe.
If a precision tool, magnetically inspected for micro-fractures, cappable of hitting a 5 inch group at 500 yards can survive similar abuse, with no damage, it's not too much to ask a pole hammer to do the same.
If the original in the Wallace collection was built the exact same, then it's simply a testament to the fact that not everything from the period was well engineered.
Love your stuff, and looking forward to the re-engineered version!
This illustrates a key point! what was it made more. Your rifle is designed for being in a battle environment for extended periods of time and must continue to operate a complex mechanical system throughout, also designed to have daily maintenance. A pollaxe of this style would be a high end piece for a well healed knightly probably meant for combat in the list in an arranged format and not necessarily considered to be used daily for weeks of heavy fighting. It can deal with that if you can maintain and adjust as needed but they would have a man for that. One of the points we feel a lot of scholars of medieval combat miss is the material science limitations of some of these weapons made from natural wood, wrought iron and wrought steel.
That seems fair, but your bayonet (very light compared to the poleaxe head) was fixed to a durable steel pipe (barrel, fixed to a durable metal receiver) and used for some stabbing and possibly striking actions and had bolted on reinforced synthetic furniture bashed against some targets (sand bags? maybe a helmet?). The poleaxe is a longer object with various thin metal parts that together weigh a fair bit attached to a long wooden pole. I submit that swinging that pole and hitting a hard target introduces a *lot* of momentum and subsequent shock that is not the same as an assault rifle on a bayonet course. The considerations taken for the rifle's durability are just simpler when it comes to stabbing and hitting things.
@@45calibermedic keep in mind a rifle is on average, significantly heavier than a polearm. 12 or 14 pound rifles are not at all rare especially a few decades ago, which means there is a great deal of very hard steel in a gun. Many modern guns which are lighter and use more polymer can be damaged seriously by using them as clubs. The L85 is a bad example because it had so many problems, but it was notorious for totally losing zero if struck hard. AR-15s are bad to use for butt strikes because bending the buffer tube which is housed in the butt will royally goof up the weapon.
I imagine fixing a slight bend in the metal is much easier than replacing cracked or broken wood shafts. A strategic, preferable, weak point of sorts.
Yes, though as the materials for these pieces in the langets and support pieces would have been iron as opposed steel most users would be aware of this and able to adjust things for minor issues on their own.
You earned a sub! Amazing production quality and super informative. I was looking for a video just like this for halberds haha! Very nice weapon as well dude
Glad you liked it.
Hah, what an opening shot! Expected Nathan the armourer and got Nathan the destroyer.
Excellent video! I always wondered about the purpose of those side projecting spikes but I suppose those can help slide into gaps or bite into mail too.
Also back of the knee is definitely effective! I suspect some of the historic spike tomahawks were used this way. Armor wasn’t really a thing in 18th century North America but spike tomahawks were quite popular. Many examples had downward curved spikes-to the extent that the point couldn’t percussively penetrate. I theorize they were used like meat hooks on sticks to pull down a standing opponent-hooking the knee joint would do the trick.
08:03 - "Wasn't perfectly straight"
Well if Todd's Workshop and Skallagrim's follow-up were any indication, that historically wouldn't have been a problem.
Pretty good analysis. Love the hooking 'points' 😛
I would have expected that the pollaxe received the damage it did in Skall’s video due to the type of wood used for the haft. Modern ash isn’t nearly as durable as it used to be (most modern woods aren’t). Kinda crazy to see that it was actually the steel that bent rather than the wood depressing
Yes modern wood is not the same than the majority of wood used in period, but we do strive to get the best we can. The deformation of wood is probably less an issue than the user details.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 out of curiosity, what are the benefits of ash compared to other wood’s available on the market? Would a hardwood such as maple (often used as guitar necks and bodies due to its strength) be too brittle as a haft material, making it less ideal for a combat situation?
Could you link the video in question of the bent axe?
Im very interested which youtuber managed to do it 😆
Here is a link to his response a couple of years ago to critic of the testing. We have a good relationship with him and do not fault were the materials have failed, our point is he may over estimate what the originals were designed for and how they would be used. We think the goal is to replicate the items as they were and not try to step beyond the achievable in period just to make a "super" weapon. this axe in the video is the same used in the vid. I bent it back to straight and we have been using it for training in armored combat.
ruclips.net/video/Fiy75mJ8w4s/видео.html
@@armsarmorinc.4153 aaaaah, yes. I remember now 😅
I remember thinking that the wood of the shaft must have been the culprit there.
It really didnt seem like a particularly hard hit at all...
While its true modern steel is vastly better than period steel, Id say our modern lumber isnt. In fact, it might be worse...
For example, Im having a very tough time procuring proper planks for VA round shield replica Im doing for myself.
Granted, an ordinary ash shaft shouldnt be as much of a problem, but the very nature of the tree growth, when and how it was processed and dried all play a part. And the modern way of doing it is crucially different than period. So maybe you just got a bad batch of handle material that time and thats what caused the problem.
Also, using 110% of your strength all the time isnt really a viable battle technique, so I agree that it shouldnt be a measure of the durability then.
Testing the limit perhaps, see what it takes for the thing to fail, but those kind of hits are certainly not usable in battle.
At least not safely...
❤😂
Dude the patronizing
😩 "promo sm"
Please please put on a helmet or something you are making me *VERY* nervous with that sharp spike near your eyes.