History UsefulNotes / HistoricalEuropeanMartialArts

Short-hafted weapons such as axes or maces could also be used at close quarters, and these had certain advantages over swords: axes can chop with a lot of force even if you let the blade get dull, and can be used for hooking an opponent's shield or weapon, while a mace can give a man a concussion through his helmet or break bones through mail armor more effectively than a sword could. On the other hand, a sword is much better to have in an unarmored or lightly armored fight. Most combatants in a medieval battle would be less than fully armored, and because of its sharpness a sword can wound any part of the body even with a relatively light touch, while an axe or mace is unlikely to inflict debilitating damage with a glancing blow. Indeed, despite the fact that blunt trauma can be quite gruesome, it isn't as efficient at killing as slicing or stabbing is, and unless a mace is being used against a person who's well-defended against edged weapons, its user would have been done better to use a blade. Furthermore, while each sword has a sweet spot which is most effective to cut with, the blade is sharp enough to inflict wounds along its entire length, while an axe or mace blow will do little damage if the relatively small area of the head isn't right on target, such as when a strike overshoots and the opponent is struck more with the shaft than with the head. A sword is much better for defensive purposes, too. It has a long blade to parry with, the crossguard helps to protect the hand, and it is easy to start, stop, and change the direction of a swing because most of the weight is concentrated toward the hand; an axe or mace has no built-in hand protection, has a smaller area upon which to catch a blow, and has most of its weight concentrated at the end, making it more awkward to use for warding off blows.

Short-hafted weapons such as axes or maces could also be used at close quarters, and these had certain advantages over swords: axes can chop with a lot of force even if you let the blade get dull, and can be used for hooking an opponent's shield or weapon, while a mace can give a man a concussion through his helmet or break bones through mail armor more effectively than a sword could. On the other hand, a sword is much better to have in an unarmored or lightly armored fight. Most combatants in a medieval battle would be less than fully armored, and because of its sharpness a sword can wound any part of the body even with a relatively light touch, while an axe or mace is unlikely to inflict debilitating damage with a glancing blow. Indeed, despite the fact that blunt trauma can be quite gruesome, it isn't as efficient at killing as slicing or stabbing is, and unless a mace is being used against a person who's well-defended against edged weapons, its user would have been better served by one of those. Furthermore, while each sword has a sweet spot which is most effective to cut with, the blade is sharp enough to inflict wounds along its entire length, while an axe or mace blow will do little damage if the relatively small area of the head isn't right on target, such as when a strike overshoots and the opponent is struck more with the shaft than with the head. A sword is much better for defensive purposes, too. It has a long blade to parry with, the crossguard helps to protect the hand, and it is easy to start, stop, and change the direction of a swing because most of the weight is concentrated toward the hand; an axe or mace has no built-in hand protection, has a smaller area upon which to catch a blow, and has most of its weight concentrated at the end, making it more awkward to use for warding off blows.

Short-hafted weapons such as axes or maces could also be used at close quarters, and these had certain advantages over swords: it does not require much skill to chop deep into someone's skull or ribcage using an axe--which you might flub using a sword if you don't have good technique and edge alignment--while a mace can give a man a concussion through his helmet or break bones under mail armor more effectively than a sword could. On the other hand, a sword is much better to have in an unarmored or lightly armored fight. Most combatants in a medieval battle would be less than fully armored, and because of its sharpness a sword can wound any part of the body even with a relatively light touch, while an axe or mace is unlikely to inflict debilitating damage with a glancing blow. Indeed, despite the fact that blunt trauma can be quite gruesome, it isn't as efficient at killing as slicing or stabbing is, and unless a mace is being used against a person who's well-defended against edged weapons, its user would have been better served by one of those. Furthermore, while each sword has a sweet spot which is most effective to cut with, the blade is sharp enough to inflict wounds along its entire length, while an axe or mace blow will do little damage if the relatively small area of the head isn't right on target, such as when a strike overshoots and the opponent is struck more with the shaft than with the head. A sword is much better for defensive purposes, too. It has a long blade to parry with, the crossguard helps to protect the hand, and it is easy to start, stop, and change the direction of a swing because most of the weight is concentrated toward the hand; an axe or mace has no built-in hand protection, has a smaller area upon which to catch a blow, and has most of its weight concentrated at the end, making it more awkward to use for warding off blows.

* '''The Pollaxe''': One of the few staff weapons to be associated more with the knightly class than the common soldier, the pollaxe was mainly designed to be used by men on foot in heavy armor against other other men on foot in heavy armor. The pollaxe is not simply a "pole-axe" or an axe on a pole. The etymology is disputed, and may in fact have something to do with the word "pole", but it is also said to mean "poll" as in "head" (as it still does when talking about horses), or to come from a time in the English language when "poll" meant what we call a hammer, and the word "hammer" meant what we would call the pick-end of a weapon. The head was usually modular and consisted of a small axe blade or pronged hammer head on one end, a hammer or beak on the other end, and short quadrangular spikes on the top and sides. The butt of the weapon was usually capped with a steel point so it could be used for thrusting as well. Most pollaxes were about five to six feet (1.52-1.82 meters) long overall, since reach isn't as important for men in full armor and it had to remain usable in a tight press. The shaft usually had two or four langets reaching about a third of the way down to protect the shaft from being severed, often with a disc-shaped hand guard where the langets stop.
** '''The Lucerne Hammer''': A long-shafted hammer weapon popular in Switzerland from the 15th-17th centuries, which is sometimes considered to be a type of pollaxe. The hammer head would have a bludgeoning face with three or four prongs on one side to help it bite into armor, a beak on the opposite side, and a spike on top. The shaft was usually about 7 feet (2.1 meters) long, a bit more than the average knightly pollaxe.

* '''The Pike''': An ''extremely'' long infantry spear, usually at least 16 feet (4.87 meters) in length. These are mainly associated with the mass battles of TheLateMiddleAges, UsefulNotes/TheRenaissance, and TheCavalierYears, since they allow a disciplined infantry block to present a bristling forest of points several ranks deep, but fencing masters also taught the use of the pike in individual combat, particularly for foot combat at the barriers in tournaments.

* '''The Rifle and Bayonet''': Not necessarily the first thing people think of when they hear the phrase "historic polearms", the musket or rifle did actually function as a kind of spear when fitted with a bayonet. In the early days of pike and shot, musketeers were obliged to either use the butts of their weapons as clubs, or to fight back with a sidearm such as a sword. Bayonets were catching on by the second half of the 17th century; the early ones were "plug" bayonets with a handle that was inserted into the barrel, meaning that you had to give up the ability to fire bullets in order to turn your musket into a spear. Around the turn of the 18th century, the problems of mounting "socket" bayonets that fit under the muzzle had been ironed out, and European armies quickly abandoned the pike and halberd in favor of equipping all of their troops with muskets and bayonets. Fencing and drill masters have been instructing soldiers in the ways of fighting with the bayonet ever since; despite its ever-smaller tactical role and many changes in the form and use of the bayonet over time, it is still issued and taught in the 21st century.

* '''The Lance''': A kind of heavy spear adapted to mounted use, usually at least 10-12 feet (3.04-3.66 meters) long, and the primary weapon of heavy cavalry. It was gripped in one hand near the butt end of the shaft and couched under the armpit before impact to prevent it from slipping back, in order to transfer as much of the force as possible into the enemy. The lance was used in the initial charge, but usually broke or became unwieldly once the melee was joined, in which the rider would discard it and draw a short weapon such as the sword or mace. In the Early and High Middle Ages there was not much difference between spears for use on foot and on horseback, except that the hoseman's lance could be a bit longer and heavier. By the 13th and 14th centuries they began to incorporate distinct features such as a disc-shaped flange made of wood or leather near the butt end called a "graper" which helped to brace the shaft against the armpit, and a funnel-shaped metal handguard called the vamplate. Starting in the 14th century it became more common for heavy cavalry to dismount and fight on foot, in which case the lance could be chopped down to a shorter length such as six feet and used in two hands as a spear. By the fifteenth century the wooden shaft of heavy lances had a tapered profile that got thicker near the butt end, and had an hourglass-shaped handgrip. In the late 14th century a lance arrest was added to the breastplate to brace the lance even better. From the mid-sixteenth century the lance had to compete with the wheelock, and after 1600 they were mostly discarded by cavalry in favor of sword and pistol.

Firstly, leverage. The strong (''starcke'') is the half of the sword closest to the hand, while the weak (''schwech'') is the half closest to the point. They are so named because of their relative strength in the bind. The farther away from your own hand you make contact, the less you will be able to exert leverage. If you bind against his weak with your strong and start to push his point aside, he will not be able to push you back no matter how physically strong he is. Conversely, if you bind against his strong with your weak and try with all your might, you will not be able to budge him an inch. Sometimes winning is as simple as realizing you have an advantage and pressing it. If you strike ''zornhau'' against your opponent's ''oberhau'' and feel that he's soft in the bind, you can simply thrust to his face from the bind in such a way that your strong will be against his weak. One technique for gaining leverage over an opponent who is trying to push you around is ''winden'', meaning "winding". That technique involves raising your hilt and twisting your blade without leaving the bind so that your strong has been brought to bear against his weak, leaving your point free to thrust at him. There are ways to counter winding, but we'll get to that later.

At the same time, you have to know how to deal with an opponent who's trying to push you around, either by pushing hard against you in an attempt to overwhelm your defense or by resisting your attack with a hard displacement. The axiom of Judo that you should use your opponent's strength against him is no less true in a sword fight. The weak of the sword may have less leverage, but it moves much faster than the strong and can be easily disengaged from the bind either by snapping back or making a small circle under your opponent's blade. In the former case, you can let your opponent's blade slide off your weak as you step to the side, harmlessly redirecting his attack past you and charging your sword with momentum for a counter strike, which he will be vulnerable to as he recovers from his over-committed attack. If you are trying to thrust at him from the bind and he is committed to displacing strongly, you can "change through" (''durchwechseln'') with your point, slipping out of the bind and thrusting the opening on the opposite side of his blade before he has time to get his sword back in motion. Over-committing in either attack or defense is something you should avoid, and that you should exploit if your opponent does it.

'''Halbschwert''', or "half-sword" where the off hand grasps the blade at the middle of its length while the dominant hand remains on the grip, is the primary method of using the sword in ''harnischfechten''. Four basic half-sword guards are used in Ringeck's version of Liechtenauer's ''harnischfechten'', which resemble the four guards of bloßfechten in purpose if not always in appearance. Unlike in ''bloßfechten'', where attacks are made with a passing step and there are right and left versions of each guard, the harnischfechten guards are only held on your dominant-hand side and you must keep the same foot forward as you advance and retreat.

* '''Fourth''': In this guard, the hilt is raised to the side of the chest near the armpit while the point is held forward. It is similar to ''Vom Tag'' in that, while not a cutting guard, it is the most aggressive of the four. In purpose it is like a mounted knight couching his lance in a braced position so that his whole body is behind the point. If your point finds a gap while working from one of the preceding three guards, you should transition into the fourth guard and push your opponent back mercilessly.

* '''Thrusting with the Half-Sword''': Half-swording shortens your reach compared to holding only the grip of the sword, but it has several benefits. Firstly, shortening one's reach is actually beneficial when fighting in very close quarters, as is often the case with armored foot combat. Secondly, half-swording gives you very precise control over your point so that you may accurately target the gaps in your opponent's armor. Thirdly, the forward grip provides more leverage, making it harder for your opponent to set aside your point. And finally, gripping your blade in the middle actually reduces the length of the area that flexes when you thrust, keeping the blade stiff as you thrust home. Unlike in ''bloßfechten'', where the four openings represent large areas of your opponent's body that can be harmed, your targets in ''harnischfechten'' are reduced to a few specific areas that are less protected by the armor:

** The buttocks, usually protected by mail breeches, the hem of the mail shirt, or a seperate skirt of mail. The advice about dealing with a skirt of mail or plate applies to this target as well.
** The back of the thighs and knee, which are usually uncovered by plate in order to allow the wearer to ride a horse; these parts could be protected by mail leggings, but very often the fabric hose beneath the leg armor were simply left exposed there. Some foot combat armors had cuisses that wrapped around the back of the thigh, but most of those were still open at the back of the knee.

By the end of the 12th century and the beginning of the 13th, we see the first references in chronicles to the practice of fencing outside of the landed warrior aristocracy. There began to be men of lower nobility or common birth who made a living off their skills, either by starting their own schools to teach pupils or by fighting on behalf of others as [[CombatByChampion hired champions]] in judicial duels. Suspicious nobles and city governments viewed these individuals as unsavory troublemakers or even criminals, and repeatedly tried to crack down on schools for spreading knowledge of fencing among those who were considered liable to abuse it, but the fact that these bans against unlicensed schools were repeatedly renewed implies that they were broken very often. The weapon combination that they were teaching was sword and buckler, and it is probably no coincidence that the first manual that can actually be used to reconstruct medieval fighting, Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33, deals with this subject.

** ''Halbschwerten'' used to be a prohibited technique in the SCA heavy combat until it was noted to be a perfectly historical style. ''[[BilingualBonus Mordhau]]'' is still, [[CaptainObvious though]].

* ThrowingYourSwordAlwaysWorks: [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTC_1HRgbuo Although the practicality of this technique is far more situational in real life than what the trope name would imply]]. While a sword ''could'' be thrown as a spear - and more easily than it would appear - it falls short of viability by virtue of the user losing their main weapon upon throwing it, in addition to the low velocity of the sword being easy to deflect at longer distances. At best, this would be a DesperationAttack with an RangedEmergencyWeapon, especially when facing against a ranged combatant.

* ThrowingYourSwordAlwaysWorks: [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTC_1HRgbuo Although the practicality of this technique is far more situational in real life than what the trope name would imply]]. While a sword ''could'' be thrown as a spear - and more easily than it would appear - it falls short of viability by virtue of the user losing their main weapon upon throwing it, in addition to the low velocity of the sword being easy to deflect at longer distances. At best, this would be a DesperationAttack with an EmergencyRangedWeapon, especially when facing against a ranged combatant.

[[quoteright:349:https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/350px_codicon_394a_13r.jpg]]

''Destreza'' was based on reason, geometry, and the body's natural movement. In contrast to what they perceived as the strained and unnatural low stances of the Italians, Spanish fencers held the body upright, starting with the feet close together in a relaxed but balanced posture. The sword arm was held fully extended in a straight line, with the point presented to the opponent to deter him from attacking recklessly. The fencer moved with deliberate but natural steps in the manner of walking, sometimes taking larger steps but never using a deep extended lunge in the manner of Italians. A significant principle of destreza was non-linear footwork, which also contrasted with the relatively linear Italian rapier fight. Directly advancing toward the opponent was considered dangerous and risky for the student. Instead, they were taught to make movements towards the left or right to gain a more favorable angle of attack. Distance was important; the ideal distance was to be as close as possible but to still be able to attack.

* '''The lunge'''. The main attacking move in the 17th century systems is the lunge, which is essentially a deep advancing step where the back leg straightens and the back foot remains on the ground while the front foot shoots forward to give the swordsman as much reach as possible. Agrippa's early lunge is a bit more conservative, while the 17th century systems had a deep extended lunge. It's a bit different from the 19th century classical fencing lunge with the smallsword or foil, where you shoot the lead foot very far forward, sink very low with the lead knee no further ahead than the ankle, and keep your back very upright. The 17th century rapier lunge does not put the foot quite so far forward, and instead rolls the knee over the foot somewhat to get that reach while leaning the body forward at the same time. The purpose of stopping the foot before the knee is to make recovery quicker, since the foot is slower to move than the body, and the less time the foot spends in midair the better. Leaning your body forward reduces your recovery time a bit, but many fencers considered that an acceptable price to pay for the extra reach. It is important to be careful and properly train your leg muscles so that you do not develop knee trouble, and if you want to stay on the safe side you should at least not let your knee pass ahead of your toes.

* '''The lunge'''. The main attacking move in the 17th century systems is the lunge, which is essentially a deep advancing step where the back leg straightens and the back foot remains on the ground while the front foot shoots forward to give the swordsman as much reach as possible. Agrippa's early lunge is a bit more conservative, while the 17th century systems had a deep extended lunge. It's a bit different from the 19th century classical fencing lunge with the smallsword or foil, where you put the foot farther forward, sink very low with the knee no further ahead than the foot, and keep the body very upright. The 17th century rapier lunge does not put the foot quite so far forward, and instead rolls the knee over the foot somewhat to get that reach while leaning the body forward at the same time. The purpose is to make recovery quicker, since the foot is slower to move than the body, and the less time the foot spends in midair the better. Rolling the knee forward can cause injury for people who do not give themselves the right kind of conditioning, so be careful.

* ''The Smallsword:'' A small, nimble sword used almost exclusively for thrusting which eventually replaced the rapier and was popular from about 1650-1800. Their straight, symmetrical blades were shorter than those of rapiers at about 33"-36" (84-92 cm) long, and they could weigh as little as 500 g or 1 lb, with most weighing no more than 1000 g or 2 lb. Compared to the rapier's highly protective complex hilt, the smallsword had a simple shell guard supported by two small hilt arms, a single up-turned quillon, and a knuckle bow. Unlike the rapier which was held with the index finger wrapped around the ricasso, a smallsword was usually gripped with the thumb and index finger pinching the quillon block. The blade was made with a triangular or sometimes quadrangular cross-section and usually hollow-ground to be as stiff and light as possible, a feature that is still seen on modern sport fencing swords. The "cholichmarde" was a blade style with a thickened forte that concentrated the blade's mass where parrying was likely to occur. The modern fencing foil is descended from practice versions of the smallsword.

* ''The Messer:'' A type of great knife or short sword that was popular in 15th and 16th century Germany with a slightly curved single-edged blade. They were typically 75 cm (30 inches long) and weighed between 900 and 1200 g (2-2.5 lb). The hilt had a simple cross-guard with a small side protrusion called the ''"nagel"'' (which means "nail") to provide some minimal protection for the hand, while the handle consisted of two bone or wooden panels riveted to the flat, full-profile tang and was capped with a small pommel that was flush with the rest of the grip. They were wielded alone or with a buckler.

* ''The Two-Handed Sword:'' The largest of the European sword types which ranged about 140-170 cm (55-67 in.) in total length and weighed 5-7 lb. Their straight, double-edged blades were about 100-130cm (40-50") long and often featured a ricasso with parrying hooks at the base, while their hilts were usually very large and featured grip lengths and cross-guard widths of about 45 cm (18 in) each on large examples. Because of its size it could only be practically wielded on foot using two hands. It was favored by elite mercenaries and bodyguards, as well as anyone facing multiple opponents. German Landsknecht mercenaries used the biggest versions, which were called ''"Zweihander"'' (two-hander) and weighed 7-8 lbs. The famous Scottish claymore is also an example of this type.

* ''The Messer:'' A type of great knife or short sword that was popular in 15th and 16th century Germany with a slightly curved single-edged blade. They were typically 75 cm (30 inches long) and weighed between 900 and 1200 g (2-2.5 lb). The hilt had a simple cross-guard with a small side protrusion called the ''"nagel"'' (which means "nail") to provide some minimal protection for the hand, while the handle consisted of two bone or wooden panels riveted to the flat tang and was capped with a small pommel. They were wielded alone or with a buckler.

** The ''messer'' is also sometimes confused with the "falchion," a similar weapon which was in use across Europe from the 11th century on.

* '''Grip:''' The handle of the sword, constructed around the tang of the blade. Generally a wooden core was fitted over the tang and wrapped in cord or leather to provide a better gripping surface and appearance. Some swords such as the German messer and Italian cinquaedea had more knife-like handles, consisting of a slab tang sandwiched between two bone or wooden panels.

Spanish masters maintained that cuts (both ''tajos'', forehanded cuts and reveses, backhanded cuts) could be just as useful as thrusts (''estocadas'') depending on the situation. There was a strong focus on ''movimiento natural'', or attacks from above to below, and on leverage, with the blade of a sword being divided into up to 12 sections, not just the forte and the foible used by Italian and German schools. The ''atajo'' was a specific technique for applying leverage on an opponent's weapon, stopping him from raising his weapon without touching the blade above. The word "''atajo''" later passed into the Spanish language as a way of “to interrupt” or “take a short-cut”, due to its purpose of impeding an opponent's attack.

** '''Strong:''' The part of the blade closest to the cross guard where one can bind against an opponent strongly, i.e. "using strength against weakness". In longsword the blade is generally divided into strong and weak, but rapier masters sometimes divided the sword into three, four, or even five parts based on their role. The Spanish even went so far as to divide the blade into sections labelled from 1 (nearest the point) to 10 or 12, due to the principle of leverage used for atajo.
** '''Weak:''' The part of the blade closest to the point. A student should aim to hit his opponent with the weak because it has more reach and contains the "center or percussion" ([=CoP=]) or "sweet spot" where the blade doesn't vibrate when it strikes the target. In a bind one cannot oppose strongly with the weak against an opponent's pressure, which is where "using weakness against strength" comes into play.

* ''The Basket-Hilted Broad Sword and Back Sword:'' The backsword was a single-handed sword with a broad, straight (or slightly curved) single-edged blade, fitted with a basket hilt that fully protected the hand. These and their double-edged basket-hilted cousins were sometimes called broadswords to distinguish them from rapiers; the use of "broadsword" to refer to the arming sword is an anachronism. These were especially favored in the British Isles from the 17th century onward and found enduring popularity with the highland Scots. Other countries had their own basket-hilts, such as the Italian Schiavona.

A sword was harder to make than an axe or a spear, particularly during the Early Middle Ages when steel-making and bladesmithing were far from exact sciences and had a significant whiff of magic about them: swords were rare enough that only rich and powerful warriors could afford them, and they tended to be luxurious objects with pattern-welded blades and bejeweled hilts. Old stories like ''Literature/{{Beowulf}}'' spoke of swords with magical powers, which had [[NamedWeapon names]] and a [[EmpathicWeapon mind of their own]]. Even from the High Middle Ages onward, during which swords affordable to commoners were relatively numerous and accessible, all swords retained something of that old prestige thanks to the sword's continuing association with the warrior class, and with Christian heroes such as [[Literature/TheSongOfRoland Roland]] and Myth/KingArthur. They were less disposable and more long-lived than shields, as well as wooden-hafted weapons like the spear or axe, and could be personalized in all kinds of ways by those who had money to spend.

The sword's combat role is to be a weapon that prepares you for a wide variety of situations, and which stays at your side until you need it. Opposing lines of battle usually met each other with spears and other polearms, while knightly cavalry used the lance. These weapons had greater reach than a sword, had significant armor penetration ability, and were well-suited to formation fighting. Nevertheless, anyone who could get their hands on one would have also worn a sword into battle. Soon after the melee was joined, wooden spear shafts would be broken, the amount of space between the fighters would have shrunk enough that any intact pole weapons would be harder to wield, and neat lines of battle could turn into a chaotic mess. A shorter weapon like a sword could be brought to bear more easily in these conditions, and replace a primary weapon that was broken or no longer useful. Therefore, even though the sword was a secondary weapon, it was actually used for quite a lot of the fighting in many a long battle, making the often-used comparison of the medieval soldier's sword to a modern soldier's pistol a little bit flawed.

Axes and maces were weapons of war, meant for use by men wearing armor or at least using a shield, but nobody carried around an axe or a mace to defend himself with in his street clothes because such weapons couldn't match the number of ways a sword could be used to butcher an unarmored man, and were not self-sufficient in both attack and defense the way a sword was. A spear or similar polearm might beat a sword in an unarmored fight using reach--at least provided it wasn't in some narrow allyway or indoors where the spear would be too long--but nobody carried a spear for civilian self-defense either because they were treated as military weapons and their dimensions made them too cumbersome to carry about one's business. A sword in its scabbard could be worn comfortably at the hip on the same belt as one's purse and dagger. A self-defense weapon is only worthy of the name if you have it with you when you need it, and if your enemies surprise you on the road or in the street, your sword is a better weapon that your spear or your battleaxe if for no other reason than it's the one you happen to ''have''. It also goes nicely with the small shield called a buckler, which unlike a full-size shield is small enough to wear on a belt with your sword. If the sword was so well-suited to unarmored combat, it may seem strange that it was also worn by men in full armor who expected to fight their social and military equals, but it was good for a man in armor have a tool for cutting down the less protected foot soldiers, and even a mounted knight would be in trouble if his unarmored horse was wounded or if his reins were cut by his opponent's sword. Techniques using the point could pierce the gaps in armor, strikes with the pommel could have a mace-like concussive effect, and the sword could be used as a lever to wrestle an enemy to the ground. The sword may not have been specifically suited for every challenge, but as a JackOfAllStats the sword was so useful that there was little reason not to carry one.

By the end of the 12th century and the beginning of the 13th, we see the first references to the practice of fencing outside of the landed warrior aristocracy. There began to be men of lower nobility or common birth who made a living off their skills, either by starting their own schools to teach pupils or by fighting on behalf of others as [[CombatByChampion hired champions]] in judicial duels. Suspicious nobles and city governments viewed these individuals as unsavory troublemakers or even criminals, and repeatedly tried to crack down on schools for spreading knowledge of fencing among those who were considered liable to abuse it, but the fact that these bans against unlicensed schools were repeatedly renewed implies that they were broken very often. The weapon combination that they were teaching was sword and buckler, and it is probably no coincidence that the first manual that can actually be used to reconstruct medieval fighting, Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33, deals with this subject.

* '''The Rifle and Bayonet''': Not necessarily the first thing people think of when they hear the phrase "historic polearms", the musket or rifle did actually function as a kind of spear when fitted with a bayonet. In the early days of pike and shot, musketeers were obliged to either use the butts of their weapons as clubs, or to fight back with a sidearm such as a sword. Bayonets were catching on by the second half of the 17th century; the early ones were "plug" bayonets with a handle that was inserted into the barrel, meaning that you had to give up the ability to fire bullets in order to turn your musket into a spear. Around the turn of the 18th century, the problems of mounting "socket" bayonets that fit under the muzzle had been ironed out, and European armies quickly abandoned the pike and halberd in favor of equipping all of their troops with bayonets. Fencing and drill masters have been instructing soldiers in the ways of fighting with the bayonet ever since; despite its ever-smaller tactical role and many changes in the form and use of the bayonet over time, it is still issued and taught in the 21st century.

* '''The Halberd''': A multipurpose infantry weapon about eight feet (2.43 meters) long, with a head consisting of an axe blade on one side, a spike on top, and a fluke or spike on the other side. They are mainly distinguished from the pollaxe by tending to be longer, having a head with a larger cutting edge forged in one piece and attached by socket rather than the modular construction of the pollaxe head, and being designed more to be used by lightly armored foot soldiers as opposed to heavily armored knights. Strongly associated with the Swiss but used throughout Europe, they were an important weapon to round out pike formations.
* '''The Pollaxe''': One of the few staff weapons to be associated more with the knightly class than the common man, the pollaxe was mainly designed to be used by men on foot in heavy armor against other dismounted men in armor. The pollaxe is not simply a pole-axe or an axe on a pole. The etymology is disputed, and may in fact have something to do with the word "pole", but it is also said to mean "poll" as in "head" (as it still does when talking about horses), or to come from a time in the English language when "poll" meant what we call a hammer, and the word "hammer" meant what we would call the pick-end of a weapon. The head was usually modular and consisted of a small axe blade or pronged hammer head on one end, a hammer or beak on the other end, and short quadrangular spikes on the top and sides. The butt of the weapon was usually capped with a steel point so it could be used for thrusting as well. Most pollaxes were about five to six feet (1.52-1.82 meters) long overall, since reach isn't as important for men in full armor and it had to remain usable in a tight press. The shaft usually had two or four langets about a third of the way down to protect the shaft from being severed, often with a disc-shaped hand guard at that point.
** '''The Lucerne Hammer''': A long-shafted hammer weapon popular in Switzerland from the 15th-17th centuries, sometimes considered to be a type of pollaxe. The hammer head would have a bludgeoning face with three or four prongs on one side to help it bite into armor, a beak on the opposite side, and a spike on top. The shaft was usually about 7 feet (2.1 meters) long, a bit more than the average knightly pollaxe.

* '''The Spear''': A round pole of ash wood mounted with a leaf-shaped steel point on the business end, this is a simple but effective weapon that should never be underestimated. It can be used either on foot or on horseback, against an armored or unarmored opponent, and wielded either in one hand together with a shield or with two hands by itself. Spears mostly fall into one of two length categories. A long spear is about eight to ten feet (2.43-3.04 meters) long, while a short spear measures about six feet (1.82 meters). The long spear offers splendid reach, helping the wilder to keep the enemy at a distance while probing for a gap in their defense. The short spear on the other hand is more useful for fighting in heavy armor, since a long weapon becomes a liability at the close ranges that armored fighting tends to involve. While a regular spear cannot chop, hammer, or hook like the fancier polearms described below, there's nothing handier for the thrust. You can manipulate the point very easily because it's not loaded down with extra bits of metal. Don't think of it as BoringButPractical; think of it as SimpleYetAwesome.

For all the glamour of swords, giving every man a BladeOnAStick and relentlessly drilling some basic moves and maneuvers into them is the quickest way to turn a bunch of volunteers or conscripts into an army. Staff weapons weren't disdained by the professionals either, and many manuals deem it necessary to expound upon their proper use. The technique of the pollaxe, for instance, is of equal or nearly equal sophistication compared to the sword. Ash was usually the favored wood for the shaft, since it is both strong and springy, but other hardwoods were used as well. Dedicated thrusting staff weapons tended to have shafts with a round cross section, while those for chopping or hammering tended to have a square or octagonal cross section to help the wielder keep the edge aligned properly. Contrary to popular belief, a hardwood shaft can block repeated hits from an edged weapon without being chopped in two. This does tend to wear it down over time, however, and some polearms address this by having tongues or straps of metal called langets that run some distance down from the weapon's head. Here are some of the ones that appear in fencing manuals:

* ''The Arming Sword:'' the classic straight double-edged medieval knightly sword, designed for use in one hand, and a direct descendant of the Roman spatha and Viking-era swords. They were seldom more than 90 cm or 3 ft in total length, and most weighed about 1200 g or 2.5 lb. Arming swords were typically not wielded alone, and instead were more commonly wielded as:

* ''The Saber:'' A single-handed sword mostly associated with military use and cavalry in particular, introduced into Western Europe during the 17th century by Hungarian and Polish cavalry. The most familiar type had a curved single-edged blade and a knuckle bow or basket guard. However, there were also straight bladed and double-edged sabers as well as a variety of guards. Polish or Hungarian examples might have a thumb ring and a cross-guard with langets at the base of the blade. During the Napoleonic wars there was a furious debate over whether sabers designed for the cut or the thrust were more deadly in battle, with much ink spilled on the subject. The naval cutlass was essentially a short heavy saber, adapted to the close-quarters fighting of a boarding action. A style known as the hangar was also a short, but lighter, usually issued to troops for whom it was a secondary weapon, such as artillerymen.