Other than cost, was there any advantage a spear had over a poleaxe?

>>1654224
Well if we're going to apply some common sense here, I'm guessing it was less heavier (as it didn't have as much metal on top) and therefore better at what it does, which is penetration, at a faster rate than a halberd.

Anyone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, I'm just jabbing this question for the sake of answering his question.

>>1654224
spears a longer, a pole axe requires more room between people to be used to its maximum advantage. In terms of concentration of force the spear is superior.

except for shock actions and allowing a small group to hold back a larger one the spear holds more advantages for formation combat

File: download.png (3KB, 299x169px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 299x169px

>>1654253
What kind of combat would someone want a poleaxe or halberd over a spear? I'm not a weapons expert, but it looks like OP's picture would thrust a lot slower than an average spear

>>1654291

in smaller formations, against irregular infantry, against cavalry and armored enemies

>>1654291
Poleaxes are far better for dealing with armor, especially if you have armor yourself.

>>1654253
I don't think you've seen how a poleaxe is used.

>>1655852
I have, no reason to think I am wrong.

>>1654224
more manoeuvrable

>>1654224
>>1654291
A poleaxe and its sither the halberd iare impact weapons and good against even heavy armour, also you can use thrusts, strikes, hooking and even drawcuts alike, which helps with defeating armor.

They started as popular weapons when plate came up and faded out of use when plate did the same, possibly for the reason that one was made to defeat the other.

File: image.gif (992KB, 398x356px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 398x356px

>>1656058
>mfw spear shills are still forcing this dead meme

>>1657839
you like to explain where I am wrong?

File: the supreme gentleman strikes back.jpg (88KB, 834x551px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 834x551px

>>1654224
Generally it was longer.

You can only stab with it which is either an advantage or disadvantage depending on the situation

You can use it in a fighter formation than when swinging a poleaxe around

You can use it with a shield

All of those factors combined make the spear a better weapon for most soldiers throughout history.

File: late-greek-hoplites.jpg (70KB, 471x600px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 471x600px

>>1657941
Tighter formation/Close formation*

>>1657917
Where is there room to explain where you're wrong? You've written maybe 3 sentences with the conclusion "I'm right deal with it." Your entire approach to the conversation is wrong

If Poleaxes were better then bayonets would be developed as axe fittings.

Spears
>Cheap.
>Longer reach. (6-8ft) for medieval period.
>Easier to use for untrained men.
>Fast attacks from high to low, require less energy to use due to smaller movements.
>Good in compact formations.

Halberd
>Better armor piercing capability
>More versatility (Thrust, hook, slash, bash)
>Good range (5-6ft)
>Good in mixed formation, compliments a short weapon.

Those are the advantages i can think of for each.

>>1657948
Franky I dont even know what I wrote that you disagree with. Let alone why

>>1657917
Poleaxes are considerably shorter than spears, typically not held at the base-they're used like staffs-and often used primarily as a grappling aid.

They work FAR better in cramped conditions, as they're routinely used at biting range. Even if you are referring solely to dense formations, it's a much handier weapon for the press, and if the lines are standing off, can be used to hook, thrust, and chop with literally no horizontal movement if you so wish.

In other words-You're wrong.

>>1657980
Halberds would readily reach up to 8 feet.

You're thinking of the poleaxe, which is a shorter weapon, used by men in armor to kill men in armor.

>>1659752
I said that spears are longer, and they are, I mentioned, somewhat poorly I admit, that the poleaxe could allow a small group of practitioners to hold back a larger force. and this is particularly true in cramped areas like fortifications.

While the weapon can do all you say in formation, its still hindered in that you can used horizontal movements, and none of those techniques make up for the length advantage of the pike squares they went against.

>>1659937
Can't use

>>1659937
Poleaxes didn't go up against pike squares.
You're thinking of halberds now.
Again, you do not actually understand the subject.

>>1659998
your right I was thinking of halberds sorry

>>1654224

Lighter, more nimble, longer (generally)

Poleaxes were generally pretty short.

>>1657941

How did that knife go straight through that breastplate?

>>1660008
It happens.

>>1660017
That's a shirt.

>>1660021

Upon closer inspection, yes it is. I'm just blind.