Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Gnoman]

A knife to be used in a ‘fair fight’ was often designed to be intimidating and I assume that was to discourage the other guy from getting into an exchange of blows. A knife that was to be used to stab someone in the back on the other hand was designed to avoid the exchange of blows because you stabbed the other guy before he realized you had a knife.

There's another angle here - winning a fight where both sides have big, visible knives is much less likely to result in someone being labeled a back-stabber or dishonorable. There are many situations where that has a huge importance.

[gkathellar]

The connection is that with a ‘fighting knife’ you want a knife that discourages the exchange of blows in the first place. It’s not just the Bowie knife, historically there have been many knives for fighting that seem to be designed, at least in part, to look more intimidating than is functionally necessary. Which fits into the whole “you really don’t want to get into an exchange of blows” part of what you’re saying.

In addition to their size historical examples often had highly visible antler or bone handles with metal endcaps. Also the handguard was often made from brass or was silver plated adding to the highly visible intimidation factor. Stilettos on the other hand which were seen as a weapon of assassination often have plain black handles with an iron handguard.

A knife to be used in a ‘fair fight’ was often designed to be intimidating and I assume that was to discourage the other guy from getting into an exchange of blows. A knife that was to be used to stab someone in the back on the other hand was designed to avoid the exchange of blows because you stabbed the other guy before he realized you had a knife.

There is one other factor that comes to mind with respect to the "fair fight": the longer and sword-ier a knife or dagger becomes, the more plausible a sword-like defense becomes. Trying to parry with a bowie knife or the like isn't exactly a good idea, but with the long blade and relatively developed guard it's not as bad an idea as trying to do so with something smaller and less stylized. That's got some appeal in a dueling context.

[KineticDiplomat]

@ Yora:

While true that knife fights are a potentially bloody affair, that somewhat misses the point in relation to the modern tomahawk question. Because a tomahawk means you decided to bring your large-weapons-for-deliberately-killing-people which almost certainly means you brought a gun and think the other guy probably did too. At that point, there is no such thing as a "knife fight" where two men with close combat weapons fight each other blade to blade. There's only "shoot him", "oh crap, we're pressed so tight that is not practical, stab furiously while we clench" or "oh crap, my gun is jammed/out/broken/whatever, and none of my gun wielding friends are killing this guy so I need to desperately turn this into a wrestling match for stabbing." The relative merits of melee weapons versus each other become nigh irrelevant, it's melee vs gun. Hence there is a premium on a handy tool that fits on you easily, leaves room for all the other accoutrements of modern killing, and can be used for skill-less stabbing in the desperation wrestling match. Its not that the tomahawk isn't a better weapon to fight a knifeman with; its that by the time we're talking tomahawks, we're talking guns, which means you won't use the tomahawk.

The notable exception might be the trench shovel in WWI - though that is a bit overplayed, and even then, there's a large difference between early 20th bolt action rifles and what you'd be facing in close quarters today.

[Max_Killjoy]

@ Yora:

While true that knife fights are a potentially bloody affair, that somewhat misses the point in relation to the modern tomahawk question. Because a tomahawk means you decided to bring your large-weapons-for-deliberately-killing-people which almost certainly means you brought a gun and think the other guy probably did too. At that point, there is no such thing as a "knife fight" where two men with close combat weapons fight each other blade to blade. There's only "shoot him", "oh crap, we're pressed so tight that is not practical, stab furiously while we clench" or "oh crap, my gun is jammed/out/broken/whatever, and none of my gun wielding friends are killing this guy so I need to desperately turn this into a wrestling match for stabbing." The relative merits of melee weapons versus each other become nigh irrelevant, it's melee vs gun. Hence there is a premium on a handy tool that fits on you easily, leaves room for all the other accoutrements of modern killing, and can be used for skill-less stabbing in the desperation wrestling match. Its not that the tomahawk isn't a better weapon to fight a knifeman with; its that by the time we're talking tomahawks, we're talking guns, which means you won't use the tomahawk.

The notable exception might be the trench shovel in WWI - though that is a bit overplayed, and even then, there's a large difference between early 20th bolt action rifles and what you'd be facing in close quarters today.

The modern tomahawk strikes me as something like those shovels, in that they're a multi-use tool that will do serious damage to a person if used as a weapon, meaning you maybe don't have to carry a tool AND a melee weapon.

(I think someone already said similar.)

[Martin Greywolf]

That's amazing. Can you elaborate on the rules and how that sword lawyers them?

There was a limited amount fo stuff you could get away with, and like with most medieval things, this was based on custom and not written down anywhere. What is written down, usually in free cities privilege charter is something like "they will use swords and round shields, according to their ancient tradition".

This tradition was enforced by... well, it depends on time, place and nature of a duel, but very generally, two sides would both have their seconds, and these seconds would meet before the fight several times to hash out the rules. Even an inspection of weapons moments before a clash wasn't undheard of, and for a good reason. To quote Fiore again:

Spoiler: Flower of battle

Show

This poleaxe of mine is filled with a powder and is hollow and perforated. And this powder is so strongly corrosive that the moment it touches your eye, you will no longer be able to open it, and you may be permanently blinded.

I am the poleaxe, heavy, vicious and deadly. I deliver blows more powerful than any other hand-held weapon. If my first strike misses, then my poleaxe becomes risky to hold on to and is no more of any use to me. But if my first blow is powerfully made on target, then I can stop any other hand-held weapon. And if I am accompanied with good protective armor, then I can defend myself with any of the powerful striking guards of the sword.

My most noble lord, my Marquis, there are some vicious things shown in this book that you would never do. I show you them purely to aid your knowledge.



This is the powder that you use in the poleaxe drawn above. Take the sap of the spurge, and dry it in a warm oven to make a powder. Now take two ounces of this powder and one ounce of powder of fior d'preda, and mix them together. Now load this powder into the poleaxe shown above. You can do this with any good caustic powder, but you won’t find a better recipe than the one in this book.

The "My most noble lord, my Marquis, there are some vicious things shown in this book that you would never do" part is in there because that specific version of the book was comissioned as a diplomatic gift to Niccolò III d'Este, implying he would do some shady **** wasn't a good idea.

Clearly, any inspection would see you hanged if you showed up with the acid spray pollaxe, so alternatives were invented. This usually took a form of creating, for lack of a better term, sword-like object that looked like a sword, but certainly didn't handle as one. What it handled as varied, they were usually heavier, sometimes by a lot, the already mentioned one was a... tamer approach, merely adding some bits and bobs that made it especially good for fighting in armor.

For a... rather extreme approach, Fiore gives us an axe-sword:

Spoiler: Fiore again, the absolute mad lad

Show

This sword can be used as a sword or a poleaxe, and should not be sharpened from the guard down to one hand’s-width from the point. The point should be sharp and the sharp edge should be about a hand’s-width in length. The roundel below the hilt should be able to slide down the blade to a hand’s-width from the point and no further. The hilt needs to be strongly made with a heavy pommel with well-tempered spikes. The spikes should be well-tempered and sharp. The front of the sword should be as heavy as the back, and the weight should be from three and a half to five and a half pounds, depending on how big and strong the man is and how he chooses to be armed.

The pounds in text don't correspond to modern ones, the modern weight would be 1.5-2.5 kg (3.3-5.5 lbs).

Some more examples:

Spoiler: Lest you think only Italians were crazy, this is from Talhoffer's Thott codex, 1459

Show

Varieties of specialised dueling longswords / bastard-swords:
For the harness

Yet also for any armoured dueling

And versus pavises.



Some more varieties of specialised dueling longswords / bastard-swords:

Versus pavises

Twain “sword-horns” for armoured dueling



The three daggers for dueling – dagger in sheath replete with throwing-blades and a spike.

Yup, not even daggers are safe.

Spoiler: Replica of Cracow "estoc", dated to 14-16th century, likely genuine

Show

Further reading here: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpd...-2015-0007.pdf

Of course, there are fakes out there too.

Spoiler: Lithuanian "estoc", dated to 15th or 19th century, almost certainly, it's the 19th century wallhanger

Show

Edit: Spelling and fixed year for Thott codex

[Vinyadan]

Would this belong to the category, assuming it's authentic? https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...4c950f3934.jpg https://www.catawiki.nl/l/16897555-longsword (old auction).

[ExLibrisMortis]

[brilliant stuff]

Thanks! It's amazing how tricky those duellists get. I mean, acid spray poleaxes are just nuts. I assume that most of these weapons are theoretical (as in: most of the time, the weapons agreed on are more standard), but there's a lot of potential to be screwed over if your second doesn't do their job properly...

Also, there's a hundred kinds of fantasy weapons that can now be justified as specialist duellists' weapons. I'm pretty sure D&D 3.5 has a holy water-dispensing morningstar somewhere...

[KineticDiplomat]

Well, maybe. But it'd be a rare situation you entered a room/trench/cave/bunker with a blade drawn. Because you're not suicidal. Unless you happen to run into some three feet away, you can't reach him. But he can shoot you. If you come in gun drawn and he's three feet away, you shoot him. If he's twelve feet away, you shoot him. If he tackles/knifes/whatevers you from a blind corner because he doesn't have a gun, you having a blade out isn't going to change the outcome. if it's not a blind corner, you shoot him. Plus chances are you have a semi-automatic/automatic weapon and a lot bullets in your magazine, which besides being useful tactically, is going to hang off a sling on your chest when you free your hands and generally get in the way of whatever kung-fu you were planning. As will the weight of other gear. So if you are using a melee weapon at all, it's going to involve drawing it in the moment in the vast majority of situations. A tomahawk does not draw easily, and requires you specifically stay an at least marginal hacking/slashing distance away to be useful. It is also, by dint of ergonomics, probably not in a super easy to reach place for this kind of situation.

Of course, you don't have to carry a melee weapon these days. While armies still issue bayonets, and you can find the odd anecdote about them being used, they spend most of their time banded in a single locked box with a one-time seal on it so that they can be inventoried easily. There are derogatory words for the type of person who carries around edged weapons thinking they are going to try to use them for killing.

[Mike_G]

Well, maybe. But it'd be a rare situation you entered a room/trench/cave/bunker with a blade drawn. Because you're not suicidal. Unless you happen to run into some three feet away, you can't reach him. But he can shoot you. If you come in gun drawn and he's three feet away, you shoot him. If he's twelve feet away, you shoot him. If he tackles/knifes/whatevers you from a blind corner because he doesn't have a gun, you having a blade out isn't going to change the outcome. if it's not a blind corner, you shoot him. Plus chances are you have a semi-automatic/automatic weapon and a lot bullets in your magazine, which besides being useful tactically, is going to hang off a sling on your chest when you free your hands and generally get in the way of whatever kung-fu you were planning. As will the weight of other gear. So if you are using a melee weapon at all, it's going to involve drawing it in the moment in the vast majority of situations. A tomahawk does not draw easily, and requires you specifically stay an at least marginal hacking/slashing distance away to be useful. It is also, by dint of ergonomics, probably not in a super easy to reach place for this kind of situation.

Of course, you don't have to carry a melee weapon these days. While armies still issue bayonets, and you can find the odd anecdote about them being used, they spend most of their time banded in a single locked box with a one-time seal on it so that they can be inventoried easily. There are derogatory words for the type of person who carries around edged weapons thinking they are going to try to use them for killing.

You are absolutely correct that melee weapons are very seldom used in modern combat. That said, there are some arguments for bayonets in urban warfare.

If you kick in a door, there's a chance you will meet an enemy right there, and while shooting him would be my first choice, weapons do malfunction, and you won't have time to clear a malfunction before he can ruin your day. If your weapon is already pointed at him, and you have a bayonet fixed, a quick jab is probably your fastest option. And if makes it less likely that somebody will try to grab your rifle by the barrel if you do come around a corner or through a doorway.

It's also intimidating. If you have a fixed bayonet, it may make people on the edge of attacking you decide not to. Like a crowd of civillians who might be annoyed at an occupying force, and might want the stuff in that convoy you're guarding.

[Vinyadan]

It's also intimidating. If you have a fixed bayonet, it may make people on the edge of attacking you decide not to. Like a crowd of civillians who might be annoyed at an occupying force, and might want the stuff in that convoy you're guarding.

That's something I have thought about the Queen's Guards. There are a lot of opinions about whether they are allowed to use the guns or even have the ammo to shoot, but they definitely have at least a knife, which I guess is also a way to protect the guards themselves. Which is good, since they are very visible and very symbolic.
I actually wonder if guards that use a sword (like in France or Italy) enjoy that kind of deterrence. Even if they were sharp, people aren't very aware of what they can do -- not to say anything about halberds!

[AdAstra]

You are absolutely correct that melee weapons are very seldom used in modern combat. That said, there are some arguments for bayonets in urban warfare.

If you kick in a door, there's a chance you will meet an enemy right there, and while shooting him would be my first choice, weapons do malfunction, and you won't have time to clear a malfunction before he can ruin your day. If your weapon is already pointed at him, and you have a bayonet fixed, a quick jab is probably your fastest option. And if makes it less likely that somebody will try to grab your rifle by the barrel if you do come around a corner or through a doorway.

It's also intimidating. If you have a fixed bayonet, it may make people on the edge of attacking you decide not to. Like a crowd of civillians who might be annoyed at an occupying force, and might want the stuff in that convoy you're guarding.

The bayonet also has value in that most military bayonets are also knives, which are good for all kinds of things besides turning people's insides into their outsides. Prying, poking, prodding, the works. Opening packages and cutting cables or fabric are things you'll have an easier time with if you have a sharp object. Some designs can even be paired with their scabbards to make some lackluster wire cutters. Of course, you could always carry a regular knife, but a modern bayonet is less of an attachment to your rifle as it is a regular knife you can put on your gun to poke things from further away.

[Martin Greywolf]

Would this belong to the category, assuming it's authentic? https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...4c950f3934.jpg https://www.catawiki.nl/l/16897555-longsword (old auction).

Almost certainly, it looks like the moveable rondel on the blade type from Fiore, wouldn't be surprised if rondel was lost due to rusting off. If you have any more info on that sword, please send it my way, these kinds of swords are seen pretty rarely.

but there's a lot of potential to be screwed over if your second doesn't do their job properly...

You're barely even scratching the surface of possible shenanigans there. Imagine a town where, according to law, your second can only be a citizen, if you yourself are a foreigner, well, maybe your second will not look at things too closely.

And then there's the most giving fruit of them all, sabotage. Your second can be bribed, blackmailed or threatened into keeping his mouth shut, especially by his social superiors.

Let's also not forget that not all judicial duels are necessarily to the death, so you could surviva and then sue (bring your grievances to a judge, there are usually no lawyers involved) your second for doing a bad job of it. Hell, you could do that even if you win, if you are displeased enough.

The possibilities for a gaming session are endless.

[jayem]

The bayonet also has value in that most military bayonets are also knives, which are good for all kinds of things besides turning people's insides into their outsides. ... is a regular knife you can put on your gun to poke things from further away.

And of course the people that need regular big knife work, are the people on the frontier and either part timing as robbers or fending them off.

Plus I'd imagine it's easier to defend with, not quite parry, but close approaches. In most cases their benefit to killing you is less than the injury they will get.
And even where things are to the death, the slash on the arm is also pushing their blade away and weakening them. Whereas going all in risks M.A.D.

[Clistenes]

Almost certainly, it looks like the moveable rondel on the blade type from Fiore, wouldn't be surprised if rondel was lost due to rusting off. If you have any more info on that sword, please send it my way, these kinds of swords are seen pretty rarely.



You're barely even scratching the surface of possible shenanigans there. Imagine a town where, according to law, your second can only be a citizen, if you yourself are a foreigner, well, maybe your second will not look at things too closely.

And then there's the most giving fruit of them all, sabotage. Your second can be bribed, blackmailed or threatened into keeping his mouth shut, especially by his social superiors.

Let's also not forget that not all judicial duels are necessarily to the death, so you could surviva and then sue (bring your grievances to a judge, there are usually no lawyers involved) your second for doing a bad job of it. Hell, you could do that even if you win, if you are displeased enough.

The possibilities for a gaming session are endless.

In medieval Spain you could hire a professional duelist to fight your judicial duels for you. Kings and lords kept mercenary duelists called barrāz who, in addition to fighting judicial duels as champions for their masters, would challenge enemy knights to singular duel before battle in order to raise the troop's moral and demoralize the enemy's.

[Thiel]

The bayonet also has value in that most military bayonets are also knives, which are good for all kinds of things besides turning people's insides into their outsides. Prying, poking, prodding, the works. Opening packages and cutting cables or fabric are things you'll have an easier time with if you have a sharp object. Some designs can even be paired with their scabbards to make some lackluster wire cutters. Of course, you could always carry a regular knife, but a modern bayonet is less of an attachment to your rifle as it is a regular knife you can put on your gun to poke things from further away.

Even so it's a very large knife, overly so for most jobs. Most of the soldiers I know carry their own folding knife or multitool instead

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The funniest thing about military knives is that they can be identified by a single, very important feature. Some of them can be mounted as bayonets, but not all. Some of them have a paint coating for stealth, but not all. But almost all military knives have some sort of feature designed to be used as a bottle opener. The logic here is that if it's easy to do with your knife, you won't use the metal parts of your gun for that job. And those parts are kind of important. So you see a large fixed blade (that is: non-folding) knife with a bottle opener on it (it might require close inspection to find, there are some weird designs), that's a military knife.

[Brother Oni]

You're barely even scratching the surface of possible shenanigans there. Imagine a town where, according to law, your second can only be a citizen, if you yourself are a foreigner, well, maybe your second will not look at things too closely.

And then there's the most giving fruit of them all, sabotage. Your second can be bribed, blackmailed or threatened into keeping his mouth shut, especially by his social superiors.

Let's also not forget that not all judicial duels are necessarily to the death, so you could surviva and then sue (bring your grievances to a judge, there are usually no lawyers involved) your second for doing a bad job of it. Hell, you could do that even if you win, if you are displeased enough.

The possibilities for a gaming session are endless.

I get the feeling that this where the weird techniques show up as well - I cannot think of any other reason how 'ending someone rightly' could have come about.

For those unaware, 'ending someone rightly' is a slight mis-translation of a description of a technique (should be 'quickly' rather than 'rightly') in the 15th Century Gladiatoria, where you unscrew the pommel of your sword, throw it at your opponent's head as a distraction, then charge in to finish him.

Talhoffer has something similar in his 1459 manuscript, in the scenario of a man armed with a dagger versus one with a spear. The dagger wielder should throw his hat at the spearman, then throw his dagger at the chest while the spearman is distracted/sight is obscured by the hat.

[Vinyadan]

Almost certainly, it looks like the moveable rondel on the blade type from Fiore, wouldn't be surprised if rondel was lost due to rusting off. If you have any more info on that sword, please send it my way, these kinds of swords are seen pretty rarely.

I don't really have more, it was the result of an exceptionally lucky Google search. I can deep-link the other images:
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...edbf69ed53.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...d2140efe21.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...d956ae4d13.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...407d2a4a48.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...b804263e7e.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...0c68ebc1cf.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...976cc2b6ca.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...8943f576dd.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...e44ce2b208.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...4169c50020.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...3054e1e894.jpg

And here is the accompanying description:

Spoiler

Show

Zwitsers-Duits tweehandig harnas stekend zwaard .140 cm lang. Periode 1380-1450

Land van herkomst:	Zwitserland
Type wapen:	Geweer (Meer kavels)
Staat:	Goed
Periode:	Vóór 16e eeuw

Het ontbreken van een aanzienlijke bescherming van romp en ledematen leidt tot het gebruik van een grote hoeveelheid snij- en snijtechnieken naast stoten. Deze technieken kunnen bijna onmiddellijk fataal of invaliderend zijn, omdat een stuwkracht op de schedel, het hart of het grote bloedvat massaal trauma zou veroorzaken. Evenzo kunnen sterke aanvallen door huid en bot snijden en effectief ledematen amputeren. De handen en onderarmen zijn een frequente doelwit van een aantal bezuinigingen en plakjes in een defensieve of aanvalsmanoeuvre, die zowel dienen om een ​​tegenstander uit te schakelen en de zwaardvechter en zijn wapen op een lijn te brengen voor de volgende aanval. Gecertificeerde systemen van vechten met het langzwaard bestonden uit de latere 14e eeuw, met een verscheidenheid aan stijlen en docenten die elk een enigszins andere kijk op de kunst hebben. Hans Talhoffer, een Duitse vechtmeester uit het midden van de 15e eeuw, is waarschijnlijk de meest prominente, met behulp van een breed scala aan bewegingen, waarvan de meeste resulteren in worstelen. Het langzwaard was een snel, effectief en veelzijdig wapen dat in staat was tot dodelijke stoten, plakjes en bezuinigingen. Het lemmet werd over het algemeen met beide handen op het gevest gebruikt, een die dicht bij of op de pommel rust. Het wapen kan met één hand worden vastgehouden tijdens ontwapenings- of grijptechnieken. In een afbeelding van een duel, kunnen individuen gezien worden met scherp gepunteerde longswords in de ene hand, terwijl de andere hand open staat om het grote duellerende schild te manipuleren.
Voorbeeld van gebruik met twee handen versus halfzwaard, daterend van ca. 1418
Gecodificeerde systemen om met het langzwaard te vechten, bestonden uit de latere 14e eeuw, met een verscheidenheid aan stijlen en leraren die elk een iets andere kijk op de kunst gaven. Hans Talhoffer, een Duitse vechtmeester uit het midden van de 15e eeuw, is waarschijnlijk de meest prominente, met behulp van een breed scala aan bewegingen, waarvan de meeste resulteren in worstelen. Het langzwaard was een snel, effectief en veelzijdig wapen dat in staat was tot dodelijke stoten, plakjes en sneden. Het blad werd over het algemeen met beide handen op het gevest gebruikt, een die dicht bij of op de pommel rust. Het wapen kan met één hand worden vastgehouden tijdens ontwapenings- of grijptechnieken. In een afbeelding van een duel, kunnen individuen gezien worden met scherp gepunteerde longswords in de ene hand, terwijl de andere hand open staat om het grote duellerende schild te manipuleren.

De verkoop, aankoop en het bezit van wapens zijn onderworpen aan nationale wetten en voorschriften. Zorg ervoor dat je bekend bent met de wet- en regelgeving van je land VOORDAT je een bod uitbrengt. De verkoop van wapens aan personen onder de leeftijd van 18 is verboden. Door een bod te plaatsen, verklaar je dat je 18 jaar of ouder bent en dat je hebt geverifieerd dat je legaal dergelijke objecten in je land mag kopen.

[AdAstra]

Even so it's a very large knife, overly so for most jobs. Most of the soldiers I know carry their own folding knife or multitool instead

It's certainly no utility knife, but from a military logistics perspective it still serves the function while having other functions that are considered necessary (far less so now, but there are enough modern examples of successful bayonet charges to be worth making bucketloads of cutlery, not to mention ceremonial and guard duties). Probably cheaper than the average multitool to make and issue, too.

[MalsvirT]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but, are there historical or pre-historical examples of polearms made without wooden shafts? How effective would such weapons be?

[Brother Oni]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but, are there historical or pre-historical examples of polearms made without wooden shafts? How effective would such weapons be?

Pre-historic, the closest I can find are mentions of 'bone harpoons' made from mastodon rib bones, but it's unclear whether it's just the head, or the whole thing. These would be for hunting rather than warfare though.

In terms of later weapons, Mughal India liked their all metal weapons. They had a number of all steel spears of varying lengths, mostly used by infantry:

Spoiler: ~18th Century all steel sang

Show

Link

Spoiler: 18th -19th Century steel and silver sang at the New York Met Museum

Show

Link

The NY Met sang is 92.25" (234.3 cm) long with a width of 0.75" (1.9 cm) and weighs 5.53 lbs (2508.9 g). In comparison, a wooden haft spear of the same approximately length should weigh about half that (1 - 2 kg), depending on wood type.

This would put the steel sang as heavier to use, but more durable. The weight might be a handling issue for such a short two-handed spear, since without a reach advantage, it needs to be quick.
Vibration may also be an issue, since the steel haft would transmit weapon-on-weapon impacts more easily to the user.

In comparison, a wooden spear of the same weight would both be longer (~9ft range) and significantly cheaper.

[Thiel]

It's certainly no utility knife, but from a military logistics perspective it still serves the function while having other functions that are considered necessary (far less so now, but there are enough modern examples of successful bayonet charges to be worth making bucketloads of cutlery, not to mention ceremonial and guard duties). Probably cheaper than the average multitool to make and issue, too.

Many militaries issue folding knives as well as bayonets. The Danish army issued a Swizz army knife

[Pauly]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but, are there historical or pre-historical examples of polearms made without wooden shafts? How effective would such weapons be?

As far as I’m aware bine (whale bone ans mammoth bone usually) was used for making spearheads, but not whole spears.

Leaving aside the practical aspects of making a weapon with a non-wood alternative, wood has a number of significant advantages:
- it is abundant - it literally grows on trees.
- it is cheap
- it is easy to work with
Even desert and mountain cultures with few trees had little difficulty in equipping entire armies with spears. So even if there was a practical alternate material there are manu economic/manufacturing issues pushing people to use wood.

[Martin Greywolf]

In medieval Spain you could hire a professional duelist to fight your judicial duels for you. Kings and lords kept mercenary duelists called barrāz who, in addition to fighting judicial duels as champions for their masters, would challenge enemy knights to singular duel before battle in order to raise the troop's moral and demoralize the enemy's.

This was more of a pan-European trend, with varied legality across time and place. HRE had it mostly banned, Hungary allowed it sometimes, according to custom, I have no idea about Italy.

For those unaware, 'ending someone rightly' is a slight mis-translation of a description of a technique (should be 'quickly' rather than 'rightly') in the 15th Century Gladiatoria, where you unscrew the pommel of your sword, throw it at your opponent's head as a distraction, then charge in to finish him.

Talhoffer has something similar in his 1459 manuscript, in the scenario of a man armed with a dagger versus one with a spear. The dagger wielder should throw his hat at the spearman, then throw his dagger at the chest while the spearman is distracted/sight is obscured by the hat.

I really don't understand why this whole pommel throw is so divisive. Sure, it's a neat meme, but that aside, it's clearly meant as a surprise move. You find some of them recorded over the time, as you mentioned. I recall some rapier treatise that told you to hold a handkerchief in your left hand, go into the stance and then jerk it around, and at the same time, when your opponents' eyes are tracking moving cloth, lunge.

And there is no shortage of depictions of judicial duels with discarded, probably thrown, weapons.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but, are there historical or pre-historical examples of polearms made without wooden shafts? How effective would such weapons be?

Not really, India has some with hollow or wood-filled metal poles, but aside from that, it's just not practical. At least not for conventional polearms - you have things like montante, zhanmadao and nagamaki, swords so large they are basically polearms.

One of the chief problems is that, unless you have personal experinece, you likely vastly underestimate just how heavy it would be if the pole was made of solid metal. I was unfortunate enough to wave around a bad reproduction of a flanged mace with solid steel pole, and wow, was that just not useable. Make it a meter long, and you'd have to be Monkey King to be able to use it.

[D&D_Fan]

Ceramics for use in Arms and Armor?
I have heard they can be used to line bulletproof vests, presumably because it absorbs shock when it shatters.

Since it it is also sharp, it can be used for weapons I assume. Probably not bludgeoning, since it would shatter do to its brittle nature. Since it can be sharp like glass, it should be good at piercing and slashing.

If any of these statements are wrong, and you know the truth please respond.

[tyckspoon]

Ceramics for use in Arms and Armor?
I have heard they can be used to line bulletproof vests, presumably because it absorbs shock when it shatters.

Since it it is also sharp, it can be used for weapons I assume. Probably not bludgeoning, since it would shatter do to its brittle nature. Since it can be sharp like glass, it should be good at piercing and slashing.

If any of these statements are wrong, and you know the truth please respond.

Extrapolating from ceramic kitchen knives, which do indeed take a lovely edge but can be chipped or broken from trying to force them through a decently solid bone.. you'd really only want to do this in a culture that had little to no usage of protective equipment or even other metal weapons. A ceramic blade edge will slice up flesh nicely, but any impact on something it can't immediately cut is liable to damage the edge, and you can't functionally repair, remake, or re-sharpen them without going to complete destruction and trying to reuse the base materials. Which may or may not even be a thing you can do, depending on what your ceramic is actually made of and what the production process entails.

[jayem]

Extrapolating from ceramic kitchen knives...

And it should be noted that these 'ceramics' aren't the same as wedgewood's ceramics or your flower pot.
They are crafted for specific features. The body armour ones are Silocon-Carbide

[Pauly]

Ceramic knives are banned in professional kitchens. If they drop they shatter and break you get a bunch of sharp ceramic shards flying around the kitchen which can easily end in someones food. And they are so brittle that the risk of breakage is too high to allow them into that environment.
Ceramic knives all have blunted points because a sharp pointed tip creates a focal point of stress. So if you made a ceramic knife with a pointy tip it would snap off almost immediately.

Even if you could fix their brittleness problem, they have another problem as a weapon. They are insanely light and have no mass to transfer energy in a blow

[DrewID]

Ceramics for use in Arms and Armor?
I have heard they can be used to line bulletproof vests, presumably because it absorbs shock when it shatters.

Since it it is also sharp, it can be used for weapons I assume. Probably not bludgeoning, since it would shatter do to its brittle nature. Since it can be sharp like glass, it should be good at piercing and slashing.

If any of these statements are wrong, and you know the truth please respond.

This is essentially what the Macuahuitl, an obsidian edged "sword" used in Mesoamerica, is an attempt to do on a larger scale. On a smaller scale, you have obsidian knives (not all that different from flint knives, except sharper and likely more brittle). The Macuahuitl was a wooden weapon, shaped not unlike a sword, with razor sharp pieces of obsidian (a volcanic glass) set along the edge: reports say that they could decapitate a man or even a horse with a single cut. However, "obsidian blades of the type used on the macuahuitl tended to shatter on impact with other obsidian blades, steel swords or plate armour. Obsidian blades also have difficulty penetrating European mail."

I would think any ceramic battle-blade would have much the same problems.

DrewID

[Vinyadan]

About obsidian, apparently early iron age Greece was still using it to make arrows. It's notable, because mainland Greece shouldn't have natural deposits of it, so it had to be imported.

Later on it was still used to make mirrors (there are obsidian mirrors from Anatolia dating around 6,000 BC).