Glaive and Halberd - what's the difference? (read OP before you reply)

[Eric Diaz]

Yeas, I'm aware they are exactly identical and redundant. IMO we should have a single weapon called "polearm"... but that is NOT what I'm talking about.

I mean, what would the difference be in REAL LIFE, or FICTION? Both are heavy blades on a long stick. Maybe the halberd is better for duels/disarming/dismounting, while the halberd is good against big opponents AND dismounting?

Or something else?

[Blood of Gaea]

A halberd in real life has one or two pointy parts, and sometimes a bashy piece.

[Eric Diaz]

A halberd in real life has one or two pointy parts, and sometimes a bashy piece.

So... no slashing damage? :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

Yeas, I'm aware they are exactly identical and redundant. IMO we should have a single weapon called "polearm"... but that is NOT what I'm talking about.

I mean, what would the difference be in REAL LIFE, or FICTION? Both are heavy blades on a long stick. Maybe the halberd is better for duels/disarming/dismounting, while the halberd is good against big opponents AND dismounting?

Or something else?

An halberd has an ax head, a spear point, and a pike similar to the one on the back of a warhammer opposed to the axe.

It is a versatile weapon that could be used as well against metal-armor-wearing opponents than against people more lighty armored ones, both at short and medium range, and that was especially devastating against cavalry.

A glaive is a saber's blade with a really long handle. Sometime with a hook. As a result, it is going to be less effective than an halberd against mail or against plate, but you're still slamming an heavy piece of metal on top of a long lever in a rotative movement, so it's likely to still have an effect, especially when the enemy is on top of a horse. Otherwise it's like a long spear with the blade angled differently that can both stab and slash efficiently.

[Xolordo]

When i think of a Glaive I think more of a chinese stylized sword on the end of a pole. A halberd is more like and axe, I think of a long pole with a spear point that's accompanied by an axe head.

[Blood of Gaea]

So... no slashing damage? :smallbiggrin:
No, it always has a blade on the front, it just has extra bits a glaive doesn't.

Halberd:
https://www.coldsteel.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/480x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/8/9/89msg.jpg

Glaive:
https://www.freyhand.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/4//wpsg/wpsg_produktbilder/243/simon-larp-glefe-2.jpg

[thoroughlyS]

So... no slashing damage? :smallbiggrin:
It always has the axe head and spear tip; sometimes the reverse side is a hammer. Meanwhile, the glaive was usually just the blade. If it had a hook, it turned into the mythical glaive-guisarme. Honestly, I think the halberd was the better weapon, but I'm not sure which saw more use historically.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I noticed something about this while walking through the palace armoury in Valletta a couple of months ago. They have all the polearms arranged along a wall in chronological order of when they were made. In the photo below, it's oldest on the left, newest on the right. It looks to me like the older ones are more glaive-like, and the newer ones are more halberd-like (it's a little hard to tell, but they are). That was the impression I got, at least.

http://www.malta.com/media/en/attraction/culture/museum/the-palace-armoury/spears-and-cannons-in-the-palace-armoury-in-valletta.jpg

[Man_Over_Game]

A Halberd is a multitool on a stick. One part is good for punching or puncturing people in armor. Another part is used to cleave open unarmored targets. Another is to keep targets at bay. The whole head is a mess to try and reach past, so it's not like you can just bat it away.

A Glaive is strictly a slashing weapon, used for killing unarmored targets on horseback, or for killing those who cannot afford good armor. Because it's a sword/axe-on-a-stick, precision is not necessary and so it can be fairly lethal just by swinging blindly, which is good for horseback.

Most people will say that any weapon on a stick is superior. As history has shown, distance matters when killing people. For the weapon-on-a-stick category, most will say halberds are superior.

It's why when you imagine an oldschool warrior or guard, you usually imagine them with a halberd. They're so effective, not much else can compare, and they require less metal than a sword, so bonus!

[Unoriginal]

It always has the axe head and spear tip; sometimes the reverse side is a hammer. Meanwhile, the glaive was usually just the blade. If it had a hook, it turned into the mythical glaive-guisarme. Honestly, I think the halberd was the better weapon, but I'm not sure which saw more use historically.

Glaives what what your bring to fight a war.

Halberds are what you bring to win a war.


Joke aside, the halberd was the signature weapon of the Swiss mercenaries. That's a mark of success if anything.

[BlackRose]

Glaives were perhaps most prominent in Japan. There they were known as "naginata" and were many samurai preferred weapon. In Europe there is not a whole lot of information on glaives but a big chunk of that is due to many weapons having rather different names back then to today, and difficulty in correctly identifying them. Geroge Silver, a 16th century writer on swordplay, discusses the glaive as an excellent 1v1 weapon but offers little discourse as to why. Most can assume it is because it has a smaller handle than most long pollarms like a halberd or pike (and thus can be maneuvered in tight spaces) but is still longer than something like a sword or axe. Many variations of glaives (often called by other names) had additional spikes or hooks for further shenanigans.

Halberds were common among men at arms and the typical foot soldier. They had long shafts with an axe head, a spear point, and often a reverse spike. They were often used for group tactics for chopping up lightly armored foes or keeping heavily armored foes at bay. The hook of the spike and the curve of the axe also made them excellent for tripping, or more commonly, pulling horsemen down from their steeds. In China their halberds were quite beautiful, with crescent shaped blades, sometimes even double sided.

Pollaxes are sometimes mistaken for halberds too but typically had some combination of smaller axe heads, a hammer, and a thick conical spike. More like glaives, they had shorter shafts (similar to a 5e quarterstaff) and we often used with similar techniques to a quarterstaff. They were the weapons of choice for armored knights in battle as they were far more effective against other armored units than typical bladed weapons

Edit: a guess as to why glaives were considered ideal 1v1. My own martial arts training has been limited to Hawaiian, South American, and Asian varieties, however I did have the pleasure of testing a replica halberd and glaive against pig carcasses (among other weapons). The halberd can cut in half like nothing but the head limits fancy angles of attack and feints. The glaive has a slimmer profile and allows for much easier attacks from surprising angles, corrected swings, and general maneuverability. The halberd can be swung in one direction for a feint, and then you can reverse the swing for the spike end, but it's difficult to change your grip to get an ideal swing. The large face of the axe simply prevents such movements. The glaive on the other hand, in addition to a shorter shafts also has a smaller head and can be twisted and angled more ideally.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Another point to bear in mind: it's pretty easy to improvise a glaive-like weapon out of farm tools (scythes, bill hooks, etc.), whereas a halberd is purpose-made for war. In real life, you don't always have the optimal weapon close to hand, and have to work with what you've got.

[JackPhoenix]

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-goasYP4DsZA/W6kopXgrFYI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/sHmiBiXEu0spfP6jtuWSEJ0Nhamrc6_1QCLcBGAs/s1600/pole_index.jpeg

Edit: except the ranseur isn't ranseur, it should look somewhat like trident with shorter side spikes. With the wide crossguard, what's described as ranseur looks more like boar spear.

https://www.outfit4events.com/runtime/cache/images/redesignProductFull/pef_1015.jpg

[Sigreid]

If you wanted a distinction in game, a very easy one would be to allow the person using the halberd to chose slashing or piercing damage for each attack. I mean, that is why it has both a chopping blade and the pointy bits.

[djreynolds]

It looks like glaive could stab but continue to slash, as it's blade curves.

Whereas the halberd is going to stab or chop. Probably better versus armored foe. But I would think it would tough to stab and then chop without significant repositioning.

No obviously a well trained user can do a lot with either weapon.

It would be interesting to see when they came into existence. Why the evolution?

[Unoriginal]

It would be interesting to see when they came into existence. Why the evolution?

Armors got better and cheaper, so did cavalry.

[djreynolds]

Armors got better and cheaper, so did cavalry.

So the halberd came after?

This is what was fascinating about 1st edition. The extensive weapons list

[Blood of Gaea]

This will should be helpful if you want a more in-depth view of halberds.


https://youtu.be/GsckeyktMS0

[Ganymede]

You guys, a glaive is a star-shaped weapon with five retractable blades that is used as a throwing weapon and can be controlled telekinetically.

What's funny is that the 1e Unearthed Arcana had a substantial, and nearly useless, appendix on the differences between various polearms.

[Unoriginal]

Gygax was a known polearm fan.

[Clistenes]

The Glaive slices like a sword, the Halberds chops like an axe.

The spear point/top spike of the Halberd would have better piercing power than the point of the Glaive.

The Halberd would be better against armor.

The Glaive has a longer cutting edge.

If the Halberd is a battle one, rather than one of the light, ceremonial ones, it would probably be a bit less agile than the Glaive, due to the mass distribution...

[EggKookoo]

You guys, a glaive is a star-shaped weapon with five retractable blades that is used as a throwing weapon and can be controlled telekinetically.

Wait wait wait. A klaive is an oversized sword carried by shapeshifters... in a world... of DARKNESS!

[hamishspence]

Wait wait wait. A klaive is an oversized sword carried by shapeshifters... in a world... of DARKNESS!

Dark Eldar Incubi actually, in a grimdark world 40,000 years in the future :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

If the Halberd is a battle one, rather than one of the light, ceremonial ones, it would probably be a bit less agile than the Glaive, due to the mass distribution...

Not really less "agile", but fighting with it is less "flowing". An halberd requires you to stop and reposition more than the glaive, which is easier to reposition without stopping, but it's not an handicap, only a different fighting style.

[Clistenes]

Not really less "agile", but fighting with it is less "flowing". An halberd requires you to stop and reposition more than the glaive, which is easier to reposition without stopping, but it's not an handicap, only a different fighting style.

I was thinking on the weight. Historical battle halberds made to defeat armor look quite heavy, and the center of gravity would be closer to the end of the pole. The glaive would be ineffective against armor other than a gambeson, anyways, so there is no point in making it heavy. And the center of gravity would be further down the pole.

[mer.c]

Wow, learned a lot from this thread!

Could someone explain to me the difference between slashing (sword/glaive) and chopping (axe/halberd)?

[EggKookoo]

Could someone explain to me the difference between slashing (sword/glaive) and chopping (axe/halberd)?

Do you mean as damage types in D&D? Damage types only really matter to resistance, vulnerability, and immunity. If you don't have any of those to a certain damage type, damage is damage is damage.

In terms of how they'd relate to reality, I suppose slashing is the sliding or drawing of a sharp edge across the target. D5e doesn't have chopping damage but it has piercing, which is basically a puncturing or thrusting/penetrating kind of damage. Really, swords do both, but for mechanics purposes the game applies the damage type it thinks you'd most likely use. Thus, shortswords do piercing but longswords do slashing. But then axes do slashing I guess because it's a wide blade edge that most simulates a slashing cut?

[mer.c]

Sorry; wasn’t clear on that. I’m talking real-world, since chopping damage isn’t a thing in-game.

That’s a good explanation though. I’d thought of slashing more like chopping, but drawing the blade across a surface instead of the more straight in-and-out makes a lot of sense to me.

[Tanarii]

the Halberds chops like an axe.
The video linked above made a pretty solid-sounding argument that this is not really the case. Or at least not in any way resembling the normal chopping motion of axes. Do you have a reference you're basing this on, or just that it has an axe-like head on the top? (ie I'm looking for something to refute the guys logic based on the shape of the given axe-like head on top and its use in formations.)

[EggKookoo]

Sorry; wasn’t clear on that. I’m talking real-world, since chopping damage isn’t a thing in-game.

That’s a good explanation though. I’d thought of slashing more like chopping, but drawing the blade across a surface instead of the more straight in-and-out makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm mostly just interpreting things myself. I guess you could relate them to the shape/type of wound. Slashing makes long lacerations while piercing makes more like holes. It would explain why an axe is slashing even though the way you hit with it is more akin to a chop or "swing-poke." Meaning the impact is perpendicular to the surface the way piercing is, as opposed to more tangential like a drawing cut. At the same time, I'm sure there was plenty of "chopping" going on with longswords, too.

[Unoriginal]

I was thinking on the weight. Historical battle halberds made to defeat armor look quite heavy, and the center of gravity would be closer to the end of the pole. The glaive would be ineffective against armor other than a gambeson, anyways, so there is no point in making it heavy. And the center of gravity would be further down the pole.

A weapon couldn't be as heavy as you're implying. An halberd is heavier than say, a regular axe, but not impractically so, and it'd have been made to be balanced.

The weapon-makers knew what they were doing, for the most part. Though there are still horrifically unpractical weapons out here.

[EggKookoo]

This will should be helpful if you want a more in-depth view of halberds.


https://youtu.be/GsckeyktMS0

Watching his part (closer to the end) where he describes the back-chopping motion makes me think halberds should have a property where, if you miss with your attack, you can somehow try to recover from that by hooking your target and either pulling it closer or knocking it prone. Probably too powerful as a basic property of the weapon but as a feat or something...

[jdolch]

Since we just had a similar thread i'll just copy paste

for Glaive vs Halberd it's shortsword on a stick vs axe on a stick.

A Halberd is not "an axe on a stick" Its basically a Spear with additional Tools.
The sidetools most often were some combination of 1. an Axe-like head 2. a Hook and 3. a Spike in lots of Combinations. For example: The Spike could be integrated with the Hook, the Axe or both. And the Hook-Function could also be integrated with the Spike, the Axe or Both.

The Spearhead can be used as a normal spear, for example to thrust or to protect against a charging Horse.
The Axe can be used to chop. (The long Hand giving high angular Momentum, similar to a Poleaxe)
The Spike can be used to penetrate Armor. (Similar to the Raven's beak, the angular Momentum being far superior to the simple thrust of a Pike)
The Hook can be used to pull enemies (off of horses for example).

All in all it a vastly superior weapon on the battlefield, compared to both the Spear/Pike, which can only be used to great effect in large Formations (similar to an ancient phalanx) and the Sword which was actually more of a ceremonial sidearm than an actual first choice battle weapon.

Concerning the Glaive: It is almost comically inadequate. It doesn't function as a Pike because it is not pointy enough, while sharing all the drawbacks. Namely being easily parry-able.

Considering in D&D you don't fight in Formations, I'd say If you want to play a "historically effective" warrior, Polearm Master with a Halberd and a (Long-)Sword as Sidearm is very close to Optimal. Sadly D&D doesn't correctly simulate the AC of Full Plate Armor, which in actual history made Shields superfluous, because it was nigh un-penetratable under normal circumstances.

One thing to keep in mind though is that these polearms came in all sorts of configurations. They are classified on an ex-post facto basis. So back in the day you just made what you think would work. It is only in hindsight that we classify them as halberd, glaive, poleaxe, bardiche, pike etc. and the transition between categories can be quite the gray area. This by the way is the case with many weapons. See for example the Oakeshott Typology for Double Edged Swords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakeshott_typology) or the Elmslie Typology for Single-Edged Swords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGCjglSr_Mo)

[Ganders]

My short glib answer, suitable only for D&D, is that the difference is in the pole -- the type of wood used. One is for general poking and pulling, the other is for chopping. When I RP a halberd I act like a soldier in a phalanx, keeping the point pointed toward my enemy and jabbing to keep the enemy(s) at bay. When I RP a glaive I take up much more space -- raising it over my head and bringing it down hard, or swinging it side to side to keep the enemy(s) at bay.

As you've noticed in this thread, real life polearms are a complicated topic. There are so many lengths, weights, materials, wielders, countries, and centuries involved that there are no clear answers even if you narrow your interest to medieval times. I've found it an interesting topic since Unearthed Arcana, but really we don't need to answer everything. All I really need as a 5e GM is a short answer prepared for the player who notices that two lines of the weapons table are identical, and a short answer for a shopkeeper to give to a PC who asks the question.

First of all, I contend that Glaive and Halberd are *not* the only polearms, those are just categories -- all those ranseurs, bec de corbin, bardiches, spetums, etc DO still exist in 5e, they're just lumped into one line on the table, and players are free to reflavor their personal polearm however they like. That's just how 5e rolls, it's meant to be customized and expanded upon: the magic items list is also merely a representative sampling, not a complete list; the spell lists are a representative sample, not a complete list of every spell that ever existed. Nobody really thinks that there's no such thing as barley, or rye, or alfalfa, just because Wheat is the only grain listed on the Trade Goods table. It's not set in stone that only crossbows and heavy weapons can have feats: there *could* be a 'scimitar expert' feat or a 'warhammer expert' feat or whatever. And so on.

As for my actual answer: wood has grains. Every piece of wood is strong to impacts and flexes with the grain and weaker to impacts against the grain. A halberd's pole is like a thick broom handle, or a spear's shaft: it's round and designed for poking things and pulling on things, good for stuff like pole vaulting with it or bracing against a charge but if you try to use it like a club it will break just like a broom handle would. A glaive's handle, though, is more like an axe handle or a wooden baseball bat, designed for swinging and chopping -- as long as you keep the grain oriented in the right direction. Much like an axe, as long as you swing it blade forward it's very strong, but if you bang it against something sideways it's likely to break.

[Knaight]

It always has the axe head and spear tip; sometimes the reverse side is a hammer. Meanwhile, the glaive was usually just the blade. If it had a hook, it turned into the mythical glaive-guisarme. Honestly, I think the halberd was the better weapon, but I'm not sure which saw more use historically.

The halberd. One of the major uses of them was to season pike blocks, where you have mostly pikes with the occasional halberd (though early pike blocks were pretty close to halberd blocks sometimes), and pike blocks without enough halberds in them tended to start showing real weaknesses.

That said there are some real advantages to glaives, especially those with a good point. If you're not fighting against much armor (so, more a 10th century battlefield than a 15th) it's generally faster and capable of serious cuts with significantly less motion to build up speed. Both are solid weapons even in a duel, but the glaive is arguably significantly better.

[Blood of Gaea]

Sorry; wasn’t clear on that. I’m talking real-world, since chopping damage isn’t a thing in-game.

That’s a good explanation though. I’d thought of slashing more like chopping, but drawing the blade across a surface instead of the more straight in-and-out makes a lot of sense to me.
Another useful video:

https://youtu.be/wy_TbFD87Es


Watching his part (closer to the end) where he describes the back-chopping motion makes me think halberds should have a property where, if you miss with your attack, you can somehow try to recover from that by hooking your target and either pulling it closer or knocking it prone. Probably too powerful as a basic property of the weapon but as a feat or something...
If you really wanted to, you could probably rework the Polearm Master feat bonus attack into a shove.

[Clistenes]

The halberd. One of the major uses of them was to season pike blocks, where you have mostly pikes with the occasional halberd (though early pike blocks were pretty close to halberd blocks sometimes), and pike blocks without enough halberds in them tended to start showing real weaknesses.

That said there are some real advantages to glaives, especially those with a good point. If you're not fighting against much armor (so, more a 10th century battlefield than a 15th) it's generally faster and capable of serious cuts with significantly less motion to build up speed. Both are solid weapons even in a duel, but the glaive is arguably significantly better.

The Spanish Tercios had some archas, which are simple glaives (a long butcher's knife on top of a pole, basically); they were employed mostly by elite bodyguards for VIPs. Makes sense, since you don't send men in full armor to sneak close and assassinate a high ranking individual, you send somebody as inconspicuous and harmless-looking as possible...

Also, archas seem to have been popular in old Burgundy, and the Spanish Habsburgs were descended from Philip the Handsome, Duke of Burgundy, who founded the Burgundian Royal Guard, made up of archa users...

[djreynolds]

From what I've seen. A halberd user on a battlefield is sometimes flanking the enemy.
The long spears have set for a charge, and once they have engaged the infantry or slowed the charge of the cavalry, the halberd can get to the flanks of the horse with the shorter halberd and stab or swing to dismount.

The odd thing of DnD not captured in 5E, is an axe had greater damage for critical hits whereas a sword had a greater threat to land a critical hit.

So yes an axe and sword are slashing, but an axes properties are more in line with a pick.

It is focused chop slamming down onto the head or shoulders or torso, but actually needs to be more precise then the sword slash does because axe has a smaller blade surface than the sword.


What an awesome thread

[The Jack]

You guys, a glaive is a star-shaped weapon with five retractable blades that is used as a throwing weapon and can be controlled telekinetically.

What's funny is that the 1e Unearthed Arcana had a substantial, and nearly useless, appendix on the differences between various polearms.


Wait wait wait. A klaive is an oversized sword carried by shapeshifters... in a world... of DARKNESS!


Dark Eldar Incubi actually, in a grimdark world 40,000 years in the future :smallbiggrin:
I really like where this went.

[TrueFullmetal]

Lol, you compared a halberd to a halberd.

[Umberhulk]

Lots of interesting discussion here. I think the OP’s point was that in D&D 5e the halberd and glaive are identical in all ways. Probably an oversight.

[JackPhoenix]

Lots of interesting discussion here. I think the OP’s point was that in D&D 5e the halberd and glaive are identical in all ways. Probably an oversight.

Not interesting enough to justify thread necromancy.

[The Jack]

I think there's some good info here and some bad info here


You can use Glaives to stab. You're more likely to use glaives to stab than you are to slash (or at the very least, you're going to be thrusting a lot)

Polearm subtypes are relatively imprecise and tend to overlap a bit. I could say that generally Glaives are more balanced and are better anti-personal rather than anti armour, but it's not always true. There are fat glaives and narrow glaives, Lean halberds and arguably-poleaxe halberds.

Re Samurai:
The samurai used 'Yari' more than 'naginata', but while Naginatas are simple glaives, The term 'Yari' encompases not just simple spears. Yari design included side spikes, sickle blades and mild hooks.

http://www.ninpo.org/IMAGES/weapons/yari.gif
Many options aren't pictured here, but I will point out that 'yari' don't encompase every european polearm design. They've got no billhooks or poleaxes, They never used heavy lances... But they certainly incorporated the sickles and such into their fighting systems. They did differentiate different yari types with names (Su Yari, Omi yari, Kusari Yari...)

[Umberhulk]

Not interesting enough to justify thread necromancy.

Thank you for correcting my bad behavior. You must be moderator or a paladin or something.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread necromancy is disfavoured here.