By Georg von Frundsberg
January 5, 2004
Introduction
This article has been put together to give some direction as to what possible revisions one might consider for the halberd for the 7th revision of in the game of Warhammer. Our focus of time and place for the spear & the halberd is that of the Empire and Bretonnian Warhammer gaming armies as made by GW. The Bretonnian models represent the French and English forces in the middle ages, and the Empire army models represent the forces of Holy Roman Empire, which were Austrian/Germanic forces, during the Renaissance.
In this investigation of spear and halberd I could find no direct numerical comparisons between the spear and the halberd as to effectiveness. There was no smoking gun as it were saying for example that the halberd was 2 times more effective than the spear. There was; however, a certain amount of writing that would indicate how the halberd was similar to the spear, and how it was different.
Before starting this project I knew what was essentially the halberd evolved somewhat differently in England than in Germany. For example in England the “bill” was the popular form of the halberd. But this was only beginning, I found that staff arms came in many forms, and were only used by certain people at certain times. There also appears to have been many specialized variants of weapons, so one has to be quite careful in making general statements. Also certain weapons would be used differently on horse than they would be on foot.
For example a European knight, while on horse would often use a smaller, lighter and more elegant variant of what he would use on the ground. Usually a knight would not use two hands to wield a weapon on horse, even though there were some weapons like the long sword, which could be used with one or two hands; however, this weapon would normally be used with both hands on foot. From my reading I saw no indication of European knights ever using halberds, but they did have pole weapons made specifically for them for them to use while on foot. One might ask what about battle axes for example. Are these not a type of pole weapon, well that is a point and in another article I might be able to cover it.
One needs to remember, though, at the beginning of the 14th century the prime weapons of the ‘noble’ knights were the lance and the sword. Using a halberd would have been beneath them. The halberd was intended for the lowly foot soldier. From what I have read, the halberd and its relatives replaced the ‘classic’ spear as a prime weapon for advanced infantry from 1300 to 1500 in the major European forces. Also in this time specialized variants of the spear were evolving. One of the best known ones is the lance for the knight, and for the infantry there was the pike. But for game comparisons the Empire models on foot are currently using the ‘classic’ spear and the halberd, so this is what we need to compare.
European Evolution of the Spear & Halberd in the 13th and 14th Centuries
When reading about the halberd I found out that it came in slightly different forms under different names, but they were mostly made with a long wooden pole and a cutting blade. How was the spear used in medieval Europe, and what was it like? In the book Medieval Warfare by Terence Wise we get some indication.
“The spear was a major infantry weapon during the fourteenth century, used rather like a bayonet during a charge, or to form a hedge of points. The shaft was about 5 ft. long, topped by a 12 in. head, 2-3 in. wide at the base, with a strong rib running up the middle of the blade on each side.” Medieval Warfare (pg 81) (c1976), Terence Wise, OSPREY
He also goes on to say why the halberd and the bill would replace the spear.
“By about 1300 it had become obvious that to overcome heavily armoured knights a more effective infantry staff weapon was required; a long-handled weapon which could be used for stabbing, or for a heavy cleaving blow capable of breaking through plate armour.” Medieval Warfare (pg 81) (c1976), Terence Wise, OSPREY
Mr. Wise then points to a proliferation of specialization in staff weapons.
“This brought about a combination of the infantry spear and the axe to develop a whole range of infantry staff weapons.” Medieval Warfare (pg 81) (c1976), Terence Wise, OSPREY
One of the main places the halberd appears to have originated was Switzerland.
“The halberd first appeared in Switzerland during the thirteenth century under the name of voulge, which was nothing more than a heavy, 12 in.-long rectangular cleaving blade on a 7-ft. pole,” Medieval Warfare(pg 82) (c1976), Terence Wise, OSPREY
The following text shows that the bill in England started out as an agricultural implement that was later adapted for battle. The author goes on to say how the bill became the main infantry weapon of the English.
“Agricultural bill-hooks on long hafts were used in the fourteenth century, but from the beginning of the fifteenth century it is noticeable that organised bodies of infantry formerly referred to as spearmen are now termed bill men.” Medieval Warfare(pg 81) (c1976), Terence Wise, OSPREY
In summary I think one could generally say that for the top European infantry (note I am not talking about knights on foot) the halberd or a variant replaced the ‘classic’ spear as their main weapon from the 14th to 15th centuries.
What was the Halberd and how dangerous was it?
In general the halberd was an infantry staff weapon held in both hands, and used in Europe starting at some time in the 1400 century. It was generally made with a wooden staff from 6 to 7 ft in length with a chopping blade attached near the top and usually with spike. What was effectively a halberd came in a number of different forms in Europe.
One of the main variants was the bill in England. One of the big questions we want to look at was how dangerous was it in comparison to the classic spear? Looking at the halberd one can see that it is dangerous both in forward and reverse movement, where the infantry spear would only dangerous in forward movement The other thing was with its hooked features it would appear to be able to catch riders and enemy at a distance, and possibly block blows. Finally it had a potential chopping action that the spear would be relatively poor at. Did the halberd have all the features of the spear that was not thrown?
The halberd appeared to have most of the features of the ‘classic spear’ spear. It was as long and it usually had a sharp point at the end. The one difference I might note that could be a disadvantage under some circumstances was that it had to be heavier then a spear, so it would normally be used with two hands. The following texts give some more description of the halberd.
“The halberd, almost the national symbol of the Swiss, was a weapon six feet long, having a heavy head that ended in a point; it had an axe-blade on one side of the head and on the other a hook to pull a rider out of the saddle or catch the reins of a charging horse.” The Evening of Chivalry (pg 45) (c 1972) by John Swettenham, Canadian War Museum
“The halberd was a pike 6 to 10 feet in length, with a heavy axe head, an opposing (sometimes curved) spike or hook, and a spike or spearhead at the top. Its use was revived by the Swiss in the early fourteenth century. It could cleave through helmet and armor, sever a sword blade, or fell a horse with a blow. It could also be used as a short pike, and, finally, the hook could be used to drag mounted men off their horses.” THE EVOLUTION OF WEAPONS AND WARFARE (pg 85) (c1980) by Colonel Trevor N. Dupuy, U.S. Army, Ret.
From these texts it would appear that the halberd would have all the features of the spear and more. For one it was more effective against the knight on horse. But how did it compare to the axe, which it was similar to as well?
How Much Damage Could the Halberd Inflict?
With the long shaft length and the axe head there would appear to be no reason for it not to permit a similar striking force to that of a two handed Norman battle axe. Here is what the authors had to say...
“At close quarters the halberd, able to cleave armour far more effectively than sword or lance, was murderous, and there are many records of , helms cloven completely through; skulls of knights have been excavated and some of them were split down to the teeth.” The Evening of Chivalry (pg 45) (c 1972) by John Swettenham, Canadian War Museum
The following is a description of a Swiss infantry pike force by Trevor Dupuy.
“The principal auxiliary weapon of the phalanx was the halberd, which had an older and perhaps equal claim to being the national weapon and had dominated some of the early battles with the Austrians. This was probably the most lethal individual weapon in the whole medieval arsenal.” THE EVOLUTION OF WEAPONS AND WARFARE (pg 85) (c1980) by Colonel Trevor N. Dupuy, U.S. Army, Ret.
Finally here is what Mr. Wise said.
“The weapon was capable of delivering a blow of great force and even the heaviest armour was not always proof against it.” Medieval Warfare (pg 82) (c1976), Terence Wise, OSPREY
From these texts would indeed appear that the halberd could permit a blow comparable to that of a great weapon.
What were the limitations of the halberd?
Were there limitations to the halberd, and what happened to its use over time? The following text by John Swettemham gives some indication.
“Although the halberd had proved effective against horsemen halted by terrain, the problem of dealing with cavalry in open country still remained. The Swiss proved that they had solved it at Laupen (1339) when three of their columns on an open plain, unsupported by horsemen of any kind, stood against and routed an army rich in cavalry and supported by all arms. This time their chief weapon was the pike.” The Evening of Chivalry (pg 47) (c 1972) by John Swettenham
One reason I might argue for this was that the lance of the knight on horse had grown to 14 ft in length by this time, so neither the classic spear nor the halberd would have the reach to strike first against cavalry armed with lances.
Finally from this and other texts I should point out that infantry still used the halberd after the 18 to 20 ft pike was introduced. It was used to support the flanks of the pike, and halberds or similar weapons became the prime weapons for elite guards in many European countries. Also because the pike required much more training the English for example continued mainly to supply billmen for their forces during Henry VIII’s reign.
What Does This All Mean For the Game of Warhammer?
Here are some thoughts. In a defensive mode I cannot see why halberd-men could not fight in two rows like spear. On this issue I was told that possibly in Hero Quest or some earlier version of WH the halberd-men could fight in two rows. If this could be confirmed it would be useful to know. One could possibly argue for some bonus against cavalry, but would not like to say what at the moment. One could argue for boosting the strength bonus to +2 due to the plentiful evidence. There is not a strong argument for it to strike last, but I may argue for making it -1 to hit, or -1 to weapon skill, if it was to be given the +2 strength bonus. One might argue for a +1 defense due to the points on the halberd catching a sword blade, but I would have to look into this a bit more. One might ague a first strike against sword on foot, similar to spear in Mordhiem, but this would have to be applied to spear as well and may be considered a fairly major change.
In conclusion I think that, although underestimating the halberd a bit, allowing the halberd men to fight in two rows with +1strength, and costing one or two points more then a spearman may be the least controversial recommendation at present, but I could possibly see going for a bit more if there was support for it.