Who would win in a fight?

Depends on the skill of the duelists.

>>2749982
Depends on numerous factors but the halberd is the more useful battlefield weapon

>>2749983
both are novices

>>2749988
Halberd

>>2749992
why's that?

>>2750017
Two handers take significantly more skill to use effectively in a duel.

At its basics Halberds can be used as a spear, holds a reach advantage, and boasts an axe head for additional offensive options. You can do damage with it with greater ease.

>>2750029
so then why ever bother with a two-handed sword?

>>2750033
Preference, probably more effective against an armoured opponent

>>2750033
A E S T H E T I C S

>>2749982
One on one, the sword is the better weapon. However, polearm formations are far more conducive to armies full of veterans, because most of the skill involved is in formation drills, which can be done in peacetime.

Polearm units are stronger against heavy cavalry, but worse against light cavalry, because they're less mobile. Once you force a pike unit into a square, they're not going anywhere for the rest of the battle. They can still be useful if they're defending guns or bows, but far less effective than if those same guns were arranged in a line.

>>2750042
>However, polearm formations are far more conducive to armies full of veterans
Not sure how I managed to write that, that's pretty much the opposite of what I meant. Polearms are far better for peacetime or conscript armies, as they allow for deeper formations that can prevent the front ranks from breaking. Swords require a veteran core, because only the front 2-3 ranks can use their weapons. There's no sense in going deeper that that if those people aren't going to get a chance to fight, so the people in the front are able to back out and run if they're green.

>>2750033
>so then why ever bother with a two-handed sword?

Not that anon but two-handed swords can be used for different things depending on the specific type, time period, and location. These uses can be for clearing away polearms in formation when you're talking swords like the montante or for dueling if you're talking German longsword.
>Two handers take significantly more skill to use effectively in a duel.

I also disagree with this statement the anon you're replying to made, at least in the context of dueling. A polearm has a lower training threshold for effectiveness in combat but not necessarily in single combat and the advantages of a polearm over something like a longsword doesn't come from the level of skill needed to wield effectively but in how the weapons can be used in the hands of a skilled fighter.

>>2749982
The text says that they fulfilled different roles on the battlefield.

>tfw I like both but you can't use one and have the other as a secondary weapon

>>2749982
me on the left

>>2750033
Exactly

>>2750033
To remove pike and halbermen

>>2750029
>reach advantage
When will this meme die? Reach isn't an inherent advantage, it's just a thing that changes the way the combatants fight. A guy with a spear isn't more likely to win against a guy with a dagger.

Reach is still a big deal though, because a difference in reach increases the stakes. You can have a friendly bout with spears or rapiers or longswords or even daggers, as long as both sides have similar weapons. But when you pair a spear against a dagger, the only way for the guy with the dagger to have a chance is a precisely-timed rush to close the distance, followed by latching on and stabbing the shit out of the other guy before he can step back and fuck your shit. There's no way both parties walk away after that.

>>2752343
How is a guy with a spear not have an advantage against a guy with a dagger? Anyone can poke you with a spear before you are in stabbing range

>>2749982
Halberd assuming it's just a duel on an open field between two equally skilled opponents, or a clash of otherwise equal forces in a similar situation. The sword COULD win but it would not be as easy. You'd have to break the shaft of the polearm without getting killed or successfully trap and redirect the polearm while closing distance to cement an advantage and at that point you are inherently talking about being a more skilled fighter than the halberdier is, and in the latter case you'd be better off with a smaller sword anyway.

Of course, a skilled fighter is more valuable than a tactically superior weapon regardless, and the sword has applications other than fighting halberdiers that a halberd might not. There's other factors that could sway it one way or another too, like how they're armoured.

File: 1488420003801.jpg (31KB, 388x532px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 388x532px

>>2752343
>A guy with a spear isn't more likely to win against a guy with a dagger

kek

sword would be better against lightly armored infantry or within open formations that allow for more movement, like a flanking force. halberd would be better against heavily armored infantry and cavalry in formation situations. 1v1 the longsword user would probably have to half sword to parry blows from the heavier halberd which would reduce the reach more, basically the halberd has the advantage even then, though in a tight space half swording would give the longsword an advantage that the halberd can't match, if you can wrestle a guy into a grapple I'd rather have the sword so I can shove it into a weak point with more leverage whereas the halberd user doesn't have many options in the grapple, he needs a wide arc for his swings and open ground to make use of his thrust.

>>2752343
I don't understand your post.

You say reach advantage is a meme and then specifically describe the benefits of a reach advantage.

>The only way for the guy with the dagger to win is a precisely timed rush

Which is fucking hard to do without getting fucking stabbed. Why? You can see it coming from a joke away and I can hit you where you can't hit me.