Opinions on the bec de corbin

A bec de corbin, a lucerne hammer, and a pollaxe are all names for the same thing. Pollaxes don't necessarily have to have an axe, and the poll doesn't refer to pole but rather probably to a hammerhead. So they can have any assortment of spikes, axeheads, and hammers. And they're all awesome weapons, very well suited to dealing with late medieval armor.

Looks about close to some of the ones I've seen.

Attached: poleaxe2.png (811x321, 71K)

wow,

You guys have just enlightened me! What is this? What is its origins and evolution?

I love it.

this post is hurting my eyes

well then fuckyourself for me appreciating a thread, u cunt.

gotcha ho- its a poleaxe- no need to reply.

In the later medieval period, armor became better and better. Mail was beefed up with metal plates, and then eventually surpassed by plate armor. Having a shield became less of a requirement to stay alive, and so two handed weapons became more prevalent. Especially important in order to defeat heavier plate armor. This is one solution. A big fucking hammer on a long pole, swung with both hands. The long spikes aren't for poking through armor. It's to catch on curved armor surfaces, allowing for more of the force to be imparted without wasting energy by skidding off.

Lowkey my favorite

every western european polearm is the same shit and the names are all made up

Imagine how awkward it would be to watch two fully armored knights swinging these monstrosities at each other trying to crown the other guy first.

Baise ton armure.

Not really awkward at all. The way they hold, deflect, strike is pretty straight forward.

If you could have afforded that type of armor then, you likely had a horse and weren't needing that sort of pole arm. England was a really divided country of vying factions trying to constantly genocide one another. Most pole arms were for trying to dismount horsemen. It's sort of like ancient greek warfare, the objective wasn't two hoplite armies trying to wipe one another out in some epic last stand against the persians in 300. They'd clash and try to stab the leaders to death. The difference is the leaders would be on horses. You drag the guy off his horse and kill him then everyone decides to give up the fight and go home till the next soccer hooligan event to genocide one another again. Except it'd be stuff like which church instead of soccer. ect.

>If you could have afforded that type of armor then, you likely had a horse and weren't needing that sort of pole arm.
Nigger, that shit was used more than the sword itself. No matter how rich, how high up you were. If you were a knight, you used that shit. It crushed, it chop, it stabbed, it did a lot. A sword is nice, but a sword wont crush bone, puncture steel plate, etc unlike poleaxes did. The only difference is your weapon would be all fancy up, to show off how high up and rich you were. Go do some research. Before posting a blog post that shows how fucking dumb you are.

The poleaxe was popularized during the waning days of heavy cavalry, when knightly charges were still effective but a knight was also required to be proficient on foot as well. In England in particular, hand to hand combat between knights supported by fucking huge waves of archers was the general rule You can see this in their tactics during the Hundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses. Their armor developed particularly to better be used on foot. You can read Dr. Toby Capwell's books on English armor for that subject. And in the hands of all these guys, polearms.

Plutôt "nique ton armure", ou "baiseur d'armure" à la limite.

Lucerne roughly translates to "Fuck you. Fuck your armor, fuck your horse, fuck your years of military experience".

>tfw your plate armor and horse are by far your most valuable worldly possessions and they're instantly negated by some peasant with basically a steel club

Attached: 1504933351231.png (657x527, 168K)

No shit everything was used more than swords. Swords are side arms. It's not a primary weapon, it's like a pistol is in modern times. It really never ceases to amaze me how someone flips out over something I say about this stuff that's totally uncontroversial. OFC pole axe's were common this isn't an axe though buddy. Like I was saying, most armies only went into most battles to try and capture particular nobles. If you were well off enough to afford decent armor and weren't just given it as a part of a retinue chances are you were one of the guys they were trying to capture and you wouldn't be using one of these to fend people off. You'd be using a horse and mostly staying out of the fray.
There weren't many knights. That's a peerage system. You're talking about retinue that fought with the knights. Besides when most people talk about actual poleaxes the English used, usually they mean something with an axe head or a billhook.

Should have paid for that mercenary to send in your place.

Pretty sure he was talking about the formatting.

Wasn't the early form of soccer basically kicking a ball from one church to another?

>Swords are side arms.
Zweihander says "Guten tag"

Christ what a cringey post.

>it's like a pistol is in modern times.
Not on the battlefield no. The difference in usage and efficiency between a poleaxe and a sword is vastly slimer than between an assault rifle and a pistol.
Yes it's a sideam but it doesn't mean it's an inferior weapon. It's slightly inferior in most fighting scenario and still better in many such as castle storming for instance. Whereas pistols in the military are now pretty much useless, they aren't trained or expected to be used to any sort of degree compared to the sword in medieval and early renaissance times.

Christ what a cringey post.

This is untrue. The sword is the primary arm for cavalry throughout e.g the Napoleonic wars. Stop watching retards on youtube

you have to go back

Shut up retard.

You're retarded as fuck, it shows your knowledge comes from jack.

not a gun so gay

Jow Forums - Weapons
Bec de corbin are weapons.

Attached: Whose plumes are stupid now.png (582x600, 743K)

It's Jow Forums - Weapons, not Jow Forums - Guns you moron

Actually french for "Crow's Beak" as in, " Once I'm done with you you're going to get real familiar with Crow Beaks".

J'suis bilingue. Tu connais c'est quoi une blague, non?

Cringe what a christian post.

You are not a gun and therefore gay

Stop taking the Lord's name in vain
There is nothing more cringe than western fedora atheists and western gay new age pagans larpers compulsively rage posting that the 2000 year old bedrock of Western Civilization has aherents

Sorry, I'm google only.

No, that's a halberd.

No it wasn't. Especially not in Napoleon's Army. Their primary weapon was a pistol or carbine. In practically every army at that time. Do you really think a professional army would waste time trying to run people down with a sword that has little to no reach instead of actually using a projectile weapon? That would have been a complete backslide in most war development if they just used swords as their primary weapon. You do realize even when cavalry was in full plate guys would shove guns onto anything they could like shields or even walking sticks right?

dude their pistols and "carbines" had one shot. Dragoons had pistols but that's 2 shots, then u gotta chop away. Read up, then post.

Yeah one or two shots, really. You do realize by the napoleonic era America had been colonized for nearly 200 years. Do you hear a lot about sword cavalry charges then as a primary tactic?
Even the germans did the same tactic, ride up shoot a volley, pull back. Maybe Polish Hussars were the only ones still doing cavalry charges with lances or swords as a side arm after their other weapons broke at that point, and the poles already had war wagons with cross bows and firearms as a practically standard tactic by that time.
The sword was always a backup weapon. It's always been a backup weapon in an organized battle just about everywhere in history except maybe in places with peasant revolts and that's just because they didn't have any other weapon.

I really have no idea. I heard something about games involving kicking around severed heads in the Americas. Always just assumed it may have something to do with that.

btw dude just so you know how non-sensical that sounds. That's like saying American Cavalry during the civil wars primary arm was a sword. Sure they did sword charges. Sure guns typically only had one or two shots. Generally their main weapon wasn't the sword. That's basically plan B. Do you really think anyone in history would have considered sword charges at volley fire formations of hand cannons/ arquebus, tercios/ pike and shot formations. Then hope to win a melee after? That just makes no sense guy. The napoleonic era was about when armies were dumping spear/pike/halbard men in favor of bayonettes (to double as spears) and more guns for better volley fire. Cavalry wasn't really anymore different.

>The change from cavalry being reliant on firearms, to shock-capable close combat cavalry reliant mainly on the sword was often attributed to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in the 1620s and 1630s.[5]
>In the later 17th century, the cuirassier lost his limb armour and subsequently employed only the cuirass (breastplate and backplate), and sometimes a helmet. By this time, the sword was the primary weapon of the cuirassier, pistols being relegated to a secondary function.
10 seconds on wikipedia. Napoleonic cavalry (cuirassiers and hussars... though obviously not lancers) fought with swords, in melee, because having a shootout with infantry was folly at that time.

T'es tsi pas quebecois toi ?

:)

Attached: Registre.jpg (674x666, 82K)

If you spent more than 10 seconds on wikipedia you'd know they were referencing fucking demi lancers that wore almost entirely full plate. Their battle field tactics were sword charge as a primary thing. You're talking about bourgeois kinda people. They don't do shit unless they fucking have to and then talk about it endlessly afterward as if it were some kind of virtue. Obviously most people know hussar tends to mean light cavalry. Meaning they couldn't afford demi lancer equipment in but used the same strategy (weapons) obviously the tactics wasn't a cavalry charge. If they were charging swords in every fight you never would of fucking heard about them because they'd all be fucking dead by now. European armies were small. In the hundreds. Not even thousands like the Americas conflicts. It'd have been impossible to equip them all. You're talking about centralized guilds building the armor for each person. It's not like fucking walmart you walk down to the store and order it. It's made in batches, and the person is a retainer for a feudal lord. They want to know who is buying what, they don't want peasants just walking in to buy armor from the walmart of armor places to throw a revolt without running in there to genocide the entire population of males and rape the women. It was made in batches and they were retained as staff by the knight classes so they knew what was being made where. They didn't want their opposition to get an upper hand and throw some terrorist attack genocide on the village over night. Fucking hell are you ever coddled. Go back to posting about how people are retarded instead of actually saying retarded things at this rate mate.

>Their battle field tactics were sword charge as a primary thing
werent, I'm drunk and you're ignorant. Demi lancers wore 3/4ths plate. They started making less than full plate because they weren't charging in there with swords, the move to swords as a back up and hussars was because melee was less likely, since their primary arm wasn't a lance or sword. It was a carbine and pistols.

Pretty much this, lances are for charges, and would stocked and supplied at a given point if it was expected to be necessary in the cases of the later hussar units (like the polish winged mofos), but mostly cavalry at that point in history was harrassing enemy formations like tercios, which were nigh unassailable by charge anyway, swords were simply sidearms taht are light/compact enough to be carried at all times, which is why they were typically present at all. it'd be pretty fuckin stupid to not have guns when fighting guys with guns, even if you haveve a horse and they dont.

For me it's one of the more evocative battles in history, fought in basically a bog No archery because the weather nullified it, in a snowstorm using swords and Warhammers with both sides declaring no prisoners before commencing and 25000 dead. Just the image of the xnow falling while fighters hack at each other en mass. It's pure /k but it happened.