how long are Glaives? I saw a vid where a guy made a repro and said they were basically poleaxes/polehammers but more optimized for raping unarmored or lightly armored fags in battle while also being usable like a poleaxehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgvYezpHuRkI thought they were like halfpike/halberd/billhook sized or is this the halbert vs poleaxe thing where 2 weapons had similar heads but were used differently based on haft length and there was a longer glaive too? Cause I saw glaive heads with protrusions and those are basically the same thing as halberds/billhooks/insert any number of halfpikes with a stabbing part and hooking protrusion and by poleaxe vs halberd/halfpike I mean poleaxes would be shorter than a guy or about a man's height and halberds would be like slightly taller than a guy to like 9 feet long
Check museum listings. > https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/266899.5 feet. > https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-327159.2 feet> https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-32715~7.9 feet> https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-23529~8.5 feetThere's your answer. About 8-9.5 feet -- longer than any man's height.
>>65021318Medievals didn't bother autistically categorizing everything. Poleaxes for example, could be anything from navel-height to well taller than a man. It's the bit at the end that matters most.Voulges, so called glaives, are generally depicted as slightly taller than a man, and that's as far as historical evidence goes. There's not even proper descriptions of the weapon to be found.>>65021541The shafts aren't original and so the length of the weapon is wrong.Also those are all fauchards, not voulges. The hook at the back renders it a different type of weapon. Voulges / glaives / couteau de breche are simple blades on a stick and developed alongside the other.
>>65021551>The shafts aren't original and so the length of the weapon is wrong.What are you basing this on? There are TONS of weapons like this that still have their original shafts. > fauchards, not voulgesSplitting hairs. That's what literally every museum calls a glaive, and your question was "how long are glaives?"
>>65021551>Medievals didn't bother autistically categorizing everythingI get the impression that people greatly underestimate how much of all this finer classification of everything comes from more recent academics and RPG nerds
>>65021551>Poleaxes for example, could be anything from navel-height to well taller than a man.A poleaxe could even be a war hammer.
>>65021551Also that pic is literally retarded and you're brain-rotted if you take it seriously. > RED square existed in 1450, but muh GREEN square didn't exist until 1600!!!!
>>65021575>What are you basing this on? There are TONS of weapons like this that still have their original shafts.Every single Royal Armory weapon you posted has the following:>The shaft is of circular section and has been replaced>The shaft is of circular section and has been replaced.>The shaft is of circular section and has been replaced.And this is entirely the norm.>Splitting hairs. That's what literally every museum calls a glaive, and your question was "how long are glaives?"A glaive is a very generalist term that at its worst, in a historical context, is used much akin to the word "blade." Even in a more narrow context, anything from a naginata to a war scythe is a "glaive."The specific weapon depicted in OP would best be called a voulge, or couteau de breche, as it is called in the Metropolitan Museumhttps://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/26701Even though couteau de breche are generally seen as being "wider" than voulges, the similarities of their design and use overlap significantly.It's also not splitting hairs, because:>fauchards always have the hook/catch at the rear>fauchards are curvier>fauchard socket is centered on the shaft, instead of having a kitchen knife like shape>fauchards remained in use as ceremonial weapons and so have distinct history and meaning from voulges / CDB>voulges were demanded by ordnance of franc-archers and were traditionally an archers' weapon>voulges / CDB are depicted as such in historical art
>>65021575>and your question was "how long are glaives?"that guy isn't me/op
>>65021667Elmslie, is it you?
>>65021605The hook serves a purpose.
>>65021541It looks like with the shorter ones the half it about manheight and the extra length is from the head. like one is 8.5 feet but the head is about 2.5 feet so the haft was about 6 feet
Any sword with a curved blade OR a knuckle bow is a saber (Brits are wrong and gay).Any sword without either of those is a sword.
>>65024350Behold, a saber.
>>65024374Behold: another saber.
>>65024374If you ever touched a bread cutting knife this shit would terrify you
>>65025414thankyou. Now I want to make a flamberge breadknife for shits and giggles. >>65021725no.
>>65021318most infantry polearms were long, anything under 7 feet was borderline unusable in a spear/polearm formation, unless your intent was to get up close and personal like you would with a poleaxe>>65021551one funny thing about poleaxes is that its really honestly a very modern word, historical sources just called them axes and battle or war axesi dont know why at some point we started associating the word battle axe with those ridiculously oversized double edged one handed axes
>>65024350Straight Sabers happen to be a thing.
>>65024374Correct>>65024389Correct>>65030484Hence why I said Brits are wrong.
>>65030781>I'm sorry, I thought you were joking, not brain-damaged.
>>65031208NTA but I have a straight saber. It actually fights like a curved saber, not a proper straight sword.
>>65031356oh, absolutely. there are straight sabers, like the Patton.but saying _any_ sword with a curved blade is a saber, OR any sword with a knuckle bow? Well, that's up there in the "amateur trepanning" category of pretty fucking stupid statements.
>>65027804>most infantry polearms were long, anything under 7 feet was borderline unusable in a spear/polearm formation,from what I've seen, it looks like 2 kind of classes of Glaives. ones with hooks that were like halberd sized and used in a similar way to the other >half pike but with hooksweapons like halberds and glaives and a shorter version that was used by well armored guys out of formation to be like a body guard or to do other types of one on one fighting
>>65031356The patton "sabre", whatever patton or other americans may call it, doesn't handle like a normal sabre at all.
>>65032293Staff weapons vs. Polearms. People are sometimes confused the what we call a poleax, but it's staff length and you fight with it using quarterstaff techniques as a base. Staff weapons were the preferred type used by men-at-arms, as you indicate.>>65031490>"amateur trepanning"Fun times, fellow enjoyer.No, not every curved sword is a saber, nor ones with a knuckle bow. >>65032501No, it's not swishy like a cutting saber, it's a thrusting saber. It's not a rapier, Oakschott type, jian, sidesword or other sword. It is very much a cavalry saber, possibly the most advanced ever fielded. It handles like one, it's meant for horseback. The manual of arms for it covers ground fighting but it's meant for the saddle.
And... I meant to post this. Cool picket kit that was issued with the Patton saber, lashed to a government-issue saddle.
>>65035026do those all attach to the pin on the left?
>>65035051No, I think the cavalryman would carry a separate wooden handle to attach the tools onto. They might fit the picket pin in an emergency? The picket pin could be used as a horseshoe hammer and nail puller, too, IIRC.
Conceptually the USm1913 is cool, my favorite part is the no-seam cotton canvas around the scabbard. As far as execution goes I still fucking hate it, it isnt anything wholly unique, almost every major and minor power was centering on a design like this towards the end of the 19th century. >Experimental Prussian 1888 (iirc) wins for coolest look alone. Blade was too anemic and thin>French 1896>Swedish 1893>All the Dutch 1895+ series IIRC>Obligatory British 1908/12>Italian 1900/1909>Even some weird ones like a Chilean m1890 with a curved blade and tip fuller on the spine but unlike the French or Spanish is thick enough to not be weak, a canted bakelite type grip, and a French/Dutch style guard is cool as shit and my favorite of the era. General typology is a semi symmetric bowl guard, canted grip and/or thumb rest on back. Grip usually of a synthetic material. Straightish blade, weighted for thrust optimally but cutting as well. Everyone did their own interpretation of it. A Prussian 1888 w/ a Swede 1893 blade would be the winner hands down. In execution the Swede 1893 is the only one who can cut and thrust effectively, and is relatively light as well around 1100g to the 1200-1300+ weight of the others. But this kind of sword is not new at all, it's a cavalry broadsword/pallasch and it's centuries old. All the late 19th century did was revive the doctrine and re-approach from a different angle with then period advancements in blade designs and hilt shapes but fundamentally the same thing.>Picrel is the experimental German one, that guard is pure fucking sex to me.
>>65038781Pallasch are cutting swords, not thrusting swords.
>>65038805I'm not getting into semantic fights. Here is a Swedish 1773 Pallasch. Slightly hollow ground diamond shaped blade. Ergo, it can cut and thrust, with literal millimeters of shaping variance changing how it performs.
>>65038838Dangerously close to power leveling with this but substitute Sabre for any other broad sword term and there's so many exceptions to the rules they might as well not exist. >nothing is going to change that the Patton sabre sucks asshole and I will bust out the calipers, scale, and comparable swords I own to prove it if I need to
