The best weapon that never was

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

From time to time, discussions about the efficiency of various edged weapons - in a pre-gunpowder battlefield setting - have started, both here and in r.s.f.

There is one type of weapon that I can not recall reading about in this context: the hayfork or dungfork.

Why is this so? If you think about it, a multi-bladed weapon should have several advantages over a single-bladed weapon. If you catch your opponent´s sword between the tines of your hayfork, he can not evade by circular motion, he must withdraw if he can not hit by immediate extension - in which case you should be able to hit him. Since you have several tines to hit with, it should be easy to hit a small target (as the arm) with at least one without precision aiming, and a large target (such as the chest) will be hit with several tines, shortening the time to hypovolemic shock. If the tines are sharpened, it will be difficult to grab them, unless the opponent has a chain-mail clad hand - in which case it would just as easy to grab the blade of a sword. If a glove is worn on the left hand (for a righty) and the hayfork is manouvered by the right hand, it is possible to use the left hand as a fulcrum in rotation movements or thrust the hayfork with the right hand and let it slide through the left. If the left hand is moved close to the grip, it should also be possible to use the hayfork as a slashing weapon. Since the hayfork has several tines, there is also a type movement which has no analogue for the sword: catching the opponent´s blade between two tines and twisting it so that the sword blade gets trapped between two tines, in which case one can do a lot - yanking the sword out of the opponent´s hand, twisting the interlocked weapons so that the tines hit the swordbearer, etc.

The hayfork, and even more so the dungfork, also have another advantage in a battlefield situation: they are very dirty, so if the fork-bearer is killed by a sword-bearer but the latter gets a small wound in the process, he may well die from sepsis. Hayforks and dungforks were common objects at the time, and the only modification - sharpening the tines - should be relatively easy to carry out by any soldier/farmer.

So why was the hayfork not used much more in battlefields before gunpowder? I must have overlooked some disadvantage, since the advantages seem so important and numerous. Can you point out the omission?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Swordsman]

Don't know - seems to make pretty good sense to me. I once had a character fight with a garden rake in my writing; your idea does make a lot of sense. The only thing I can think of is that the balance would be rather screwy; too end-heavy.

[DHCJr]

I would have to guess speed. If you think about Roman times and the gladiators. There was the use of the Trident. It was longer, had the multiple points, so why didn't everyone use one. I would say because of the extra weight they couldn't move it around fast enough. Probably the same reason the two handed sword did not get used much as time went on.

[MAIRIM]

I'd think it would have something to do with- oh, I dunno- the rules of battle, fighting fair...?
Haha..., silly people- didn't realize until later that fighting dirty's what wins... Bad history example: Am. Revolution, Am.s hid out in the shrubbery, and shot at the rows of red, but by then there was gun powder... sooo.... hummm... yeah, I guess in battle it's in part the pride of the parties involved sometimes more than the efficiency of the weapons... like: "Hey, we COULD nuke them?!".... "Nonono... we're too --[insert good attribute/character]-- for that"

[Dav3ey]

As far as the Roman gladiators went, they didn't have choices about weapons -- not only because they were slaves, but because there were specific sets of weapons and armor that were used. One was the trident combined with an entangling weapon (the net is what we know, but they also used lassos). Others were gladius (short sword) and small shield.

They are described here:

http://www.gladiatorschool.tv/romangladiators.htm

Not sure if this is exhaustive, but there was no "mixing and matching".

As far as the pitchfork itself goes, lots of farm tools were incorporated into the medieval armory. Certain hooked blades for cutting limbs off trees were used to unseat horsemen. Whether hammers and axes were originally weapons or tools is, I suppose, a question for archeologists, but their ubiquity on farms is undisputed. Also the flail was developed to thresh wheat. Evidently threshing someone's head is a good way to get them to do what you want.

Notably, the ability of the pitchfork to catch a weapon between the tines also allows it to be easily caught. Maybe a weakness there, no?

[Asmodean989]

One thing with forks is that you're going to lose a lot of control when you start getting the handle coated with sweat/blood/rain. It would end up acting like a simple spear with extra points. And while extra points give you the ability to hit more area easier, it also makes it easier to block. Shields and armor have always been common sights on a battlefield and typically weapons strove to either break or slip past these defenses. A fork is poor at both. Extra points distribute the force of a thrust over the extra points, so were a hard thrust with a single point might break a leather vest, 2 points may not. It's the same with shields, every point you add increases the chance that a shield will catch the fork.

[Durando]

All I remember about my last competition was there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident....

[fencerbill]

Growing up on a horse farm, I probably wore out both a hay fork and a manure fork.

A real problem with any that you see around today is that the tines are curved, not straight. Although if you are going to sharpen them, you could straighten them also.

With the curves, you wouldn't just push them, you would have to guide them so that the curves wouldn't just slide the points off to the side. This would probably mean you would need both hands for best effect, as opposed to the gladiators use of trident and net.

A modern fork doesn't have great balance and is not very aerodynamic, both aspects making it more difficult to use as a throwing weapon.

I would think that the multiple tines and length of a fork would have a peculiar advantage in the scenario of multiple poorly armed serfs against better armed soldiers. The pitchfork could be effective in tangling up the weapon of the soldier while someone else closed and used a knife or axe.

[parrythis]

As a person who currently lives on a horse farm and has frequent opportunity to use hayforks, I will second most of what Fencerbill said.

Note that hayforks do have several tines - some more than others. If you hit something dead-on with the hayfork, the force is distributed more or less evenly over all of the tines that hit your target. Let's say you have a hayfork with 6 tines. Each tine will carry 1/6 of the force you apply.

Another issue is that the hayfork is only a point weapon. You cannot slash with it. If I were going to actually go onto the battlefield and had a choice of weapons, I would choose something that could hack, slash, cut, maim, and do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible.

Yes the tines can be sharp - and no laughing here about the time I skewered my foot right through my rubber boot - but for the most part hayforks are designed to penetrate things like hay and manure that yield easily to the penetrating tines. The human body with ribs and bones and, in battle, armor, would make a hayfork a bad choice, unless your enemy is armed with hayforks also.

[dcmdale]

The only time that I ever tried to use a hayfork as a weapon, I was rather disappointed: I had no penetration on the coon and was left facing a nasty set of teeth. I didn't have the occasion to sharpen the tines before the event, however.

I think that in common folklore we often envision peasant revolts as involving farmers with hayforks, I have no sense of whether that is historical though. As between a hayfork and something that is purpose-built, like a pike, I would probably lean toward the dedicated weapon.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

The only time that I ever tried to use a hayfork as a weapon, I was rather disappointed: I had no penetration on the coon and was left facing a nasty set of teeth.

Dear God I hope this is short for raccoon.

[Philistine]

While not particularly common, there were military adaptations of pitchforks. Wiki Article with picture.

--Philistine

[Villadsen]

My view on a multi blade, or pronged weapon, in a battle field situation would be that of frustration. The amount of friction per prong when they penetrate a person would leave you a sitting duck as you tried to yank it out. A thinner single blade can pierce and be withdrawn via a kick or sharp backward pull.

Another thought, the halberd probably formed from the peasants pitchfork.

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by Villadsen

My view on a multi blade, or pronged weapon, in a battle field situation would be that of frustration. The amount of friction per prong when they penetrate a person would leave you a sitting duck as you tried to yank it out. A thinner single blade can pierce and be withdrawn via a kick or sharp backward pull.

Another thought, the halberd probably formed from the peasants pitchfork.

No, the Halbred was a result ofcombining a Bill Hook (probably used fro pruning trees, etc) and long nhandled axes.

[Inquartata]

The sai was used by Japanese police to disarm sword-bearing samurai. But it was considerably shorter than a pitchfork.

Anyway, Peter, most of the things you see as advantages are also disadvantages. Catch a sword between the tines? Nice idea, but the swordsman can as easily control your fork as you his sword. And he can grab the shaft of your weapon with impunity, while you cannot do the same with a sharp sword blade. When he frees his weapon---and he will, holding it is very difficult---the only thing you will then be able to do is drop yours and run, as he controls the point(s) of yours and still has his at his disposal. And if he cuts through the haft? Now you have---a stick.


Swordcatchers and swordbreakers exist, but they did not become widespread, because they seldom work as intended. A little experimentation will show you why. It's an idea that is appealing in theory but does not work out so well in practice.

As Parrythis pointed out, forks are also thrust-only weapons. As an epeeist I can understand why you do not see this as a drawback , but really, it is. A sword can cut, and I mean chop, not slash---which can be a crucial distinction when the opponent is armoured. A cut can break bones and pulp flesh through mail or textile armours. So can a bill or halberd or axe. A thrusting weapon can only hope to penetrate, and after all that's what most armour was best at preventing.

Superior weapons are soon adopted. Witness the crossbow, which spread even despite church censure. Witness the halberd. That the fork did not attain common use is I think mute testimony to its failings in the ultimate practical laboratory...

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

The ultimate weapon that was never used?

Giant Ninja Stars.

[Inquartata]

Ran afoul of the problem of finding giant soldiers to throw them.

[piste off]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The sai was used by Japanese police to disarm sword-bearing samurai. But it was considerably shorter than a pitchfork.

In other words, a sai is just a sai.

Rick

[jeff]

and a kris is just a kris

[Capt. Slo-mo]

....As tines go by.......