Just a guess - the stouter , diamond-shaped form of spear point (and thicker spear shafts) from the 15th century would be more useful in massed spear/pike formations where you have a press of armoured bodies on each side. Thinner spear shafts would be more prone to bending and snapping under all that combined weight, whilst the thinner points more likely to bend, roll or snap off below the collar. Heavier spears could more effectively play a role at fending off and keeping an enemy formation at distance from your own lines. For the same reason, the lack of side lugs or wings on spears could relate to formation fighting - these projections are likely to become snarled or entangled in a dense formation, either with the spears of your allies, or with the spears of your enemies.

@RichardGoth

2 жыл бұрын

excellent points... the "tangle factor" is why we don't see halberdiers in the front EDIT *middle* ranks of massed formations. (sorry for the sloppy writing I am aware halberdiers fought out front and acted as fire-fighters inside the pike square. Point is you don't see halberdiers standing several ranks deep like with pikemen)

@longleaf1217

2 жыл бұрын

seems like a good guess. makes sense to me. especially the tangle factor.

@GeeBarone

2 жыл бұрын

@@RichardGoth We do though, for a long time.

@attiliobarcados8178

2 жыл бұрын

I think we have to look into the modification of the bayonet . 17 inches to 6.

@aaftiyoDkcdicurak

2 жыл бұрын

Why use a large spear when you can use a smaller one? That is not what she said.

I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of Monday videos being more-or-less focused on theorizing about things that aren't well understood. You wouldn't have to stick to a rigid schedule or anything, lest it become a burden, just whenever you have a cool topic like today's. "Monday Musings", anyone?

@scholagladiatoria

2 жыл бұрын

I like it!

@Oldtanktapper

2 жыл бұрын

Good idea, you’ll get a good range of thoughts and contributions in the comments too. Might be a fruitful source of alternative ideas and theories.

@SuperOtter13

2 жыл бұрын

I like this idea as well

One reason to not have side projections near the heads of long weapons habitually stored heaped on wagons in transport or stacked upright in leanto collections in camp is that the projections would tend to get entangled when trying to distribute weapons quickly if a camp or casual formation is faced, for instance, with an unexpected cavalry charge. Whoever can get more quickly armed and in formation without delay or confusion has a decided advantage.

I think it's not only to deny overpenetration, but also increase the width of the wound, being more deadly.

@wimmer3324

2 жыл бұрын

It also makes the wound more difficult to stich up

@galois6569

2 жыл бұрын

A deeper wound is also more deadly.

@spaceduck1006

2 жыл бұрын

I think it's to make it more immediately deadly. Aside from pain there's very little to stop somebody who was ran through to charge up the shaft and kill that person. Stabbing someone in a swordfight is a very risky move because if you don't take them down immediately they can deliver a cut that might take you down immediately, all the while your weapon is obviously occupied. Also for where the gaps in the armor are it might be very hard to hit a vital artery if the blade you're using is narrow. But if you have a wider blade all you have to do is Nick it for to be a big problem. I think that's the bigger part of it not running all the way through the person would be hitting the armor they're wearing on the back. Because to run someone through entirely you have to go through 2 layers of armor. Those are just my thoughts.

@DETHMOKIL

2 жыл бұрын

why not do that during earlier contexts as well? More deadly is more deadly.

@juanmolinafernandez3983

2 жыл бұрын

@@DETHMOKIL well... It existed in early times, even ancient times, but there were also the other forms that shows in the video.

maybe it's for extraction: the wider flanges would strengthen that dimension and create a wider wound. It could assist you in trying to yank your spear out of your skewered target without bending the spear point.

@charlesghannoumlb2959

2 жыл бұрын

Good idea, if one comes ti think bout it extraction of the weapon

@edi9892

2 жыл бұрын

I would have sharpened the lower part of the blade as well so that it can cut in a pulling motion, but that would only make sense, if it penetrated all the way, or if you were fighting opponents where such cuts would make sense (not clad in mail)

@cupajoe7258

2 жыл бұрын

A cross bar is good for holding a dangerous animal at bay while they succumb to the wound you have created. A tapering blade increases the damage based on the momentum and follow through of the strike while also being easy to extract. I don't think most cross bar pole arms are particularly concerned with extraction, mostly just holding the target away from you, or in the case of pole arms also used to parry and entangle/disrupt the attacker. Lances that are used in a charge are probably throw away weapons and so nimbleness and efficiency of resources are more important than preventing over penetration which you aren't going to be able to do anyway.

@mousermind

2 жыл бұрын

You're going to have greater chances of bending your head on penetration than on removal. If it bends that easily you should use a better quality head.

@christopherrowley7506

2 жыл бұрын

@@mousermind I haven't speared many things, but I've used a knife plenty. Definitely when it gets stuck and you are wrenching on it is a danger time for bending the blade or tang. I could definitely see it being an issue with a spear, especially on horseback when you are charging past

the reason the spears might not have lugs or guards is that it makes it easier to thrust with. If there are lugs on the spear, it means the opponent has more surfaces to block the incoming stab with their own weapon or shield. With no lugs at all, the spear thrust could slip between or even along the side of, the opponent's blocking implement, and still make it through to their body.

@vytas5584

2 жыл бұрын

I wouldn’t want to have no lugs if all my enemies have lugs. I reckon you’d get messed up because they would have more control of the fight.

My guess: making it more versatile. Against less armored opponents (or horses), it does a wide wound and kills them quickly. Against tough armor, it doesn't get stuck as you say. Other poleweapons are already devastating against less armored foes, so they prioritize ease of penetration.

@Glimmlampe1982

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly my idea

@MrBottlecapBill

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly, everyone forgets the horses. One of the deadliest bits of a mounted rider. Able to crush you, kick you, smash into you and generally rag doll you without effort. Not just one at a time like the rider.......but many soldiers at once. You need to deal with those horses as well! Once the horse is finished, dealing with the rider isn't as tough. If you've never been run over by a horse (I have) trust me.......you're like a toddler when that thing hits you, it's not to be ignored.

@taxusbaccata3001

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. I am not a blacksmith, but I thought that maybe guards are also a bit harder to make. so why make something slightly more complicated if it's hindering your performance? I thinkt that there is not one massive reason but a combination of minor things that just made it more sensible to use in that certain environment.

@a.d.9415

8 ай бұрын

​@taxusbaccata3001 A combination of factors relative to context is what I was thinking as well. The question is less about what benefits a wide spearhead offers. Rather, it is about the reasons that earlier spearmen didn't value those benefits the way their successors did. I suspect there are a number of benefits a wide spearhead offers that would be desirable in any century. But a wide spearhead would have to be extra heavy to withstand impacts against armour and such heavy spearheads would be clumsy when the spear is wielded in one-hand. But when the shield fell out of favour and both hands can leverage the spear around then the heavy head is sufficiently nimble. Benefits could include - prevention of overpenetration - increase in stopping/shoving power - increased tearing of mail - increased effectiveness against soft targets generally - increased effectiveness against horseflesh especially I wonder if late-medieval spearmen and pikemen engaged cavalry on different terms than their early medieval forebears, and had to stand their ground against cavalry. In which case, a weapon that can more effectively neutralize and 'dissuade' a horse would be much appreciated. Increased tearing of mail might have been especially useful in opening up and maximizing the very limited vulnerabilities of a man clad *mostly* in plate. Increased stopping/shoving power could be more successfully applied in two hands rather than one. Also it's possible that keeping the opponent at bay was a higher priority in the shieldless formations of the late medieval than it was for earlier medievals whose shields protected them from other fighters who managed to close in. A pikeblocks greatest defence against close weapons is found in not letting those threats close.

I think one thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of medieval soldiers weren't knights and weren't wearing full plate. Most people were wearing brigandines, mail and what not. I think that stout, triangular blade with the reinforced tip would do very well against that kind of armor while still providing a great deal of lethality (in terms of opening larger wounds) against opponents who were not knights or men at arms, and even against them, you only have to penetrate so deeply. I think the reason you see the more specialized narrow points on things like halberds and especially poleaxes, those are being wielded by the types of soldiers who are likely to contest the knights and men at arms.

Straight edges are considerably easier to sharpen than curved edges. So battlefield/individual weapon maintenance is considerably easier (more likely).

@bakters

2 жыл бұрын

" *Straight edges are considerably easier to sharpen* " Not really. It's easier to sharpen, if you hold the tool in your hands against a stationary sharpening stone. I seriously doubt you would sharpen a hafted spear this way. I bet you'd hold a (tiny) stone in your hand and slide it along the stationary edge. Then it's the same story, curved or straight. I often do it like that. No difference if it's a kitchen knife or an ax.

The corner of the blade looks like it could double as a point of percussion at a pinch, so you could potentially use it to focus the energy from a swing. It'd be more nimble and thrust-centric than the typical polearms of the time, but it'd still have some hitting power if needed, especially when combined with a heavy shaft. Most weapons are based on compromises to some degree.

@vytas5584

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t think there is any reason to use a spear like that. If you have time and space to swing it like an axe, you still wouldn’t

@jodycarter7308

Жыл бұрын

Was thinking of a slashing style of the scorpion (vs the mountain) in game of thrones

@andrewprahst2529

Жыл бұрын

@@vytas5584 Well, I've heard partisan lugs described as being used for percussion, but I do acknowledge that weapon was used in different contexts to a spear

As for the lugs and other projections on spears, I think one of the main reasons they were not that widely used is price, they're quite annoying for a blacksmith to make. Likely, overpenetration wasn't as big issue as we might think, not big enough to cause making lugs on all military spears. A simple leaf-shaped spearhead is quite easy to forge, pretty much shapes itself naturally as you draw the material. And it clearly was considered good enough for most of the history of metal spearhead usage. The massive rib on the later spearheads - that's a tougher one. It's again quite annoying to forge, so there would likely be a good reason to do it. Maybe to pry open the gaps in plate armor? The idea being that if the rib gets through a gap between overlapping plates and keeps it open during the piercing motion, there's less drag and less resistance for the blade itself, allowing it to hit nice and deep?

Starting by adressing how a spear penetrates and how thick and stiff the shaft is. Classic Matt Easton! ...and we love it.

I think that mass and versatility also play a role. With the wider, heavier point you can do some cuts in a pinch and you have more mass and stopping power. If you want to pierce a plate, mass is a factor and poleaxes and helberds already have way enough mass. This goes together with avoiding overpenetration.

@iDEATH

2 жыл бұрын

That's my thought as well. With that broad, diamond shaped spear head, especially if it's decently sharp at the edges, maybe it's the multi-role spear design? It seems like it might be a decent choice for when you either aren't sure what you might have to fight, or when you know you'll be fighting a mixed force. Maybe.

@Specter_1125

2 жыл бұрын

You’re really not going to pierce plate any meaningful amount with a spear regardless of your head, unless you’re using a lance from horseback.

@InSanic13

2 жыл бұрын

@@Specter_1125 Perhaps not a breastplate, but what about a brigandine?

@muninrob

2 жыл бұрын

@@Specter_1125 Awl pikes beg to differ.

@roalama1301

2 жыл бұрын

the mass would make it better as a club if you are hitting a helmet an armoured arm

If we concentrate on the reverse question for a second: "Why were earlier spear points so small?" - one factor you didn't mention was cost. Is that a possibility? I.e.: they would have liked to have bigger spears, and some did, but it was generally too costly?

@demoulius1529

2 жыл бұрын

Smaller spear tips means less metal required for each individual spear. So thats certainly possible. I think metalurgy also improved over time allowing acces to more (and cheaper) sources of iron allowing the bigger speartips more easily without draining the coffers.

@grindsaur

2 жыл бұрын

Demoulius: my point exactly. It is certainly still probable that this would only be one of several factors involved, I do believe that Matt is on to something with his point about over penetration too. Retaining a limited cutting capacity may very well also have played into it, and looking at the ‘corners’ of the chunky one I imagine it could also deliver a good whack, in a pinch.

@Tkoutlosh

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, in certain areas metal was pretty expensive, no metal helmets or shield bosses for common folks, so javelins and spears with small heads are cheaper and more accessible for those. But the second aspect would also be weight. Two handed spear used without shield is very rare in early medieval if it even was existing.. small spearhead makes it lighter and easier to wield. Also thin and sharp spearhead will be better against prevalent fabric armor, which sometimes could be way more effective than ppl think..

1st Theory: 1-handed vs. 2-handed. Halberds were 2-handed, and many "winged spears" were more effective 2-handed to control enemy pikes and polearms. With both hands, the wielder can rotate the weapon to use the projections effectively. But if a weapon is wielded in one hand, large projections would be a liability because it's more difficult to rotate, and one hand gives less leverage and grip strength if it did get caught in an opponent's weapon. 2nd Theory: why diamond head over narrow head with small lugs? Perhaps a triangle is easier to pull out of a target than a spike; spike needs to be pulled straight back, while a triangle has a somewhat wider range of directions for pulling out. Especially from horseback, when it's an even bigger problem to have your weapon caught. And again, 1-handed might also prefer this wider range of angles to remove. 3rd Theory: But what if this head was sometimes used 2-handed? Personal preference for how in penetrates and can be removed from a target?

@adambielen8996

2 жыл бұрын

I really like that 2nd theory. Although all of them are good.

Hello. Just a few thoughts here. Broad spearheads as a replacement for lugs: If this broader shape is intended to replace lugs, I maybe see a few advantages. Since the "stop" occurs further away from the spearhead's socket, it might be easier to pull the spear out of the target without losing the head, or snapping the shaft at the interface spearhead/socket ? Perhaps it is also easier for a blacksmith to forge a broader spearhead, as opposed to a narrow one + lugs ? Broad spearheads and near-misses: I get your point about the broader shape being able to push back armored soldiers in case of near misses. Perhaps it also makes the sides of the spearhead more likely to cut an enemy if he flinches to avoid the thrust? If the sides are rigid enough, perhaps it increases the viability of the spear as a concussive weapon (a strike on the side of the helmet with the flange of this bigger spearhead might be able to cause concussion, or stun)? Aesthetics: This is a matter of personal preference, but I really like this kind of broad spearheads more. They look more impressive and nasty, and I guess having hundred of them shining over your army might affect morale on your side and the enemy's. If we can't see a rational explaination, perhaps it is about fashion ?

It's possibly a combination of several things you mentioned. First, I wouldn't push aside durability so quickly. If you break the halberd's spike, it's bad, but you can still use the remaining lateral blade and spike to fight. If you break the spear's spike, what are you going to do? Bash them with the shaft? At the very least, the reinforced core is definitely for durability and rigidity (even if it doesn't penetrate, it's going to give a good shock instead of bending). Next, damage versatility. Purely piercing is great to get through armour gaps or mail, extremely lethal if you happen to hit an organ, but composite weapons (halberd, battle axe...) are also able to deal massive, reliable damage to soft targets thanks to their blade. A spear that's purely a spike doesn't have that, so adding the triangular blades provides a similar -albeit weaker- option without sacrificing penetration too much. This also works for near-misses where the blade may cut without the spike actually connecting, cutting while pulling the spear back... Not a lot of damage potential, but better than nothing. Finally, preventing over-penetration. This is needed against the aforementioned soft targets, and is an advantage that could have helped this type of point stand above others in the "natural selection" process. If it's good enough, don't bother adding lugs that are not worth the additional effort, even if they do a better job.

To be more damaging to targets without armor or just padded armor? In addition to what you said about overpenetration.

With respect to the overpenetration issue, the diamond shape mihgt also play into this. If the edges are straight and parallel with the trust, then they only cut a wound (Or hole in a non-living thing) that is the thickness of the blade. This means that as its drawn out, the sides of the hole are creating friction on the blade the whole length. If the blade is triaangular, then as the blade moves out, only the widest point has that issue and for the narrower section the sides of the hole pull away from the blade as the blade retracts. This is the same theory used in tapered cartridges in firearms - tapering means less movement before the case is free of the chamber. But maybe I'm wrong. Just a theory

My thoughts have been wandering down a tangent during the last couple of spear videos. It's regarding what in modern terms would be called a mobility kill. Blowing the tracks of a tank or jamming its turret for example. Is there any evidence this happened in plate armour? I'm thinking dents that stop articulation from working, hindering the opponents ability to move freely - maybe even a shallow hole that doesn't injure the person, but the metal buckles and hinders movement? I have seen Tods videos with warbow vs plate, but they shoot at area I would expect to be best protected (thickest) whereas a person wielding a hand weapon might target areas with more weakness? Or was it not done, because one might as well target even weaker spots with the same risk? I hope someone can enlighten me as I do not have the practical experience with weapons to give a reasoned guess.

As you pointed out in your previous video, the cross section of the winged spear is almost square. I would argue that the winged spear is more like a rondel dagger than the leaf spear is. I feel it's important not to underestimate the cutting and hacking aspects of a spear. If spears were only thrusting weapons most spears in history would just be very sturdy spikes on a pole. But they're almost always bladed weapons. So clearly the ability to cut and hack is an important, if secondary, aspect of the spear. I believe the winged spear is an attempt to put a rondel-like spike on a pole, while still giving the soldier the ability to hack and slash when needed.

Great video as always Matt!

Hey Matt! Super interesting video as always. My theory for the shape is as follows (some/many of these points have been mentioned in other comments but here goes), a combination of: 1. Stoutness of the structure likely played a role, as you have pointed out, the likelyhood of the spearhead striking harder surfaces in the era of armor is higher than in previous times. 2. Cost of manufacture has likely gone down with better metallurgy, thus the "cheap spear" could afford more steel in it than earlier. 3. The impact of the wound. That diamond shape head will inflict a more severe and debilitating wound when it hits. There is also a lot more mass behind the thrusts, as you pointed out in the previous video about the sturdier shafts being used. This in my eyes ties in with the era or armor in a way, as mentioned before that many of the hits in the battlefield would not do basically anything (because hitting armor), so it would be logical to make an army's basic infantry inflict as much damage as reasonably possible when a hit actually connects. Going along with this a bit further, I have come across in archaeology that quite a few remains from battlefields show a very prominent presence of penetrative facial wounds. This would tie in with what you have discussed in previous videos about armor and usage of helmets and opting for better vision. Thus the face becomes an area that gets hit and maybe this sort of a spearhead partially evolved to make these hits as gruesome as possible? 4. Edge alignment. This one is ever present in your channel, for good reason! What if this sort of a spearhead makes it easier to align the triangular shape to gaps in armor on the fly? And going further with this train of thought, what if the rigid spine of the spearhead partially aimed to either widen the gaps in armor/helmets or even get stuck in them on purpose? These spears were used in formation battle and getting a momentary "lock" on an individual opponent could give your fellows at arms small windows of joint attack. Of course I did not go at all into actual development of the medicine and surgery during medieval times, where I have read articles regarding how possibly wounds and body as a whole were viewed in European culture at the time. This would of course have affected the way battlefield weaponry and harming your opponent/enemy was seen, at least to some extent. But it is a very large topic to tackle in itself, never to mention how it would tie in with weapon development, if at all.

If it were just lances, I would have gone with the idea that there is so much force behind the hit, that the shape isn't all that important. Either the lancehead penetrates and basically kills the target or the armor holds and the target is thrown to the ground. That huge amount of force also necessitates a much more robust head in case the armor _does_ hold. Of course, that won't work with hand-held weapons, since the force of those is nowhere near that of a charging horseman. Hm, could it be that for those it was kind of a fashion thing? The mounted knight used that kind of lance(head), so the foot soldiers started to use it too?

I love Matt’s ability to do exactly the same topic twice yet make it a totally different video

I'm in love with the title. Thank you

Ewart Oakeshott said... "A spear is a spear whether it is of the middle Bronze Age or the nineteenth century; there is little room for variation and the same shapes of spearhead crop up in every age and in every land." However, I don't necessarily agree with that. I tend to agree with Matt when he emphasizes the differences between spears of different ages. I happen to own the "Norseman Spear" by Arms & Armor, USA. Even though the name markets it as a Viking Age spear, its size and blade geometry are much more in line with a Late Medieval spear. Her head is fairly narrow, but her blade is like 13 mm. thick at the base, and has a beautifully rendered midrib that maintains thickness all the way to a needle-like point. Her shaft is also considerably thicker than that of most Viking Age originals, at about 1.5 inches. I named her "Jaffa". She looks exactly like the ones that you see in the finer editions of the mid-15th century German "Gladiatoria" treatise.

@scholagladiatoria I believe the spear tip did not include lateral projections during it's evolution because of it's greater potential as a throwing weapon. Because when throwing your weapon you put yourself at great risk to remain potentially defenseless, you would want to deliver as much destructive power as possible when throwing the spear. The tip wants to deliver a stabbing wound as wide as possible, and also wants to remain stuck after penetration. Regarding the risk, I can imagine a multitude of scenarios where it would still be more beneficial to throw the spear and resort to a backup plan. Like having a backup weapon sword or dagger or another spear nearby, the spear you're wielding becoming (close to) broken, disabling a horse in a favorable moment, dispatching quickly of one of the adversaries in an ambush scenario, and many many more. Without any history background, because of how easy spears can be made compared to all other weapons, I would imagine medieval military scenarios or military establishments having spears more than any other weapon, available at every corner, in barrels or other storing solutions, and be ready to be equipped by many soldiers in a short time.

Having fought with and against winged spears, they make it easier to catch with a weapon or shield edge.

Just curious if men were armored would it have made more sense to target their horses? If so the larger stouter spear head may have been more debilitating.

@dirtpoorchris

2 жыл бұрын

Sure a horse is easier to target. But also worth like 20 years of a peasants work.

@ftdefiance1

2 жыл бұрын

@@dirtpoorchris if I am say French do I care about an English horse? I asked because one reason the U.S. military liked big bore revolvers is they could kill a horse

@dirtpoorchris

2 жыл бұрын

@@ftdefiance1 I mean shooting the Calvary is definitely effective and better than letting it gallop upon you. But if your side was definately winning you might switch to "capture mode" and tell your equipment boys to run mancatchers to the troops.

@jintsuubest9331

2 жыл бұрын

Unless you can move horse off course, you now spent your main weapon on the horse, and enemy will have all the time in the world to spent their main weapon on you.

@ftdefiance1

2 жыл бұрын

@@jintsuubest9331 perhaps but an armored combatant thrown from his horse isn't going anywhere soon and I as Infantry will have... friends

@scholagladiatoria Just been watching some martial arts that use spears (while writing fanfiction) and it occurred to me that the other reason for the thicker spear point may be for slashing/bludgeoning moves when you're making space. Especially with a shorter spear that is only around the same height as you are. I would imagine that it's a technique for dealing with a shield user by bringing the spear around to force additional space.

I am just glad to hear that your shaft will get some love in a future video

Stopping power definately makes sense. I imagine it was mainly to make the spear-head less likely to be heavily damaged from fighting against heavily armored people. Judgeing by the 2 variants you show here, the later design seems to be better to break open mail links, and the higher weight could give it more momentum in the thrust to do so. Maybe they wanted a Bodkin kind of spearhead, that's also less likely to bend and get too badly damaged from heavy thrusts. I think the main reason could really be because the old spear-heads got damaged too often and too badly, which increases the costs and talkes longer to fix, if you have many of them to fix. You would be ready for battle earlier and it would also reduce the cost of potentially having to make new spearheads, instead of fixing the not too badly damaged ones. And the later, borader design could also inflict a bigger wound if it would sink into an unarmored, or less armored opponent. Interesting question. It could very well be, that time and ressources became more important later on, since everyone seemed to use much more iron to make all the armor. I certainly would take cost-effectiveness into account, and eventually readyness for battle.

Maybe it has to do with durability after all. The thing is: If you repeatedly 'miss the gap', so you hit hard armor, with the tip of a halberd or a pollaxe, it might bend or break or blunten to a degree that it's no longer really useful. But you still have a weapon! You still have a large pole with an axehead or a hammer. If your speartip breaks, you just have a stick. So you reinforce your main weapon because without it you have nothing. If your spike is just one part of a combination weapon, you might optimize it for one purpose and risk a higher failure rate because it's still a useful weapon after the spike fails.

Hey Matt, I 100% agree with your assertions about the head profile. I actually made a similar comment on the spike video.

You’re idea for the design seems pretty solid, and makes sense, as you can make it more durable, I’m guessing faster and easier to make then making lugs you now have to weld on, or try to draw out of the head, to stop over pen, plus adds possible control means if of gets stuck in their gear. So for a little more material than just what’s needed to make it stronger, you get 2 more functions out of it, with less time to make, and easier. I’d be down for more vids like this one.

My theory would be that as armor improved and shields decreased in use, space between combats increased. Spears were then able to be used with lateral blows not just thrusts. It might also explain why the shafts also seem to have become thicker. I don't imagine even in armor it would be very pleasant to have your opponent beating on you with a big metal tipped stick.

Matt another awesome video! Quickly I was recently watching a Spanish medieval period piece and was wondering could you or maybe Todd do something on the weapons of Spain? Again great video!

Your idea seems sound. My thought would be versatility. They are good at penetrating a bit (but not too far) into armor but would also be much more effective against lightly armored targets, by making a bigger wound. So to me, it is the best of both worlds. Armor penetration and damage potential. They are not as specialized at either armored (like pole axes) or unarmed (swords) and so would make a good weapon for the rank and fill, that could be expected to fight both, where (I would think) knights where better used against other knights and so used more specialized anti armor weapons.

@DGFTardin

2 жыл бұрын

My thoughts exactly. Maybe killing horses more quickly was a consideration on all this.

Thank you for not having a three-minute ad in this one

Besides all the funny dirty jokes its actually and interesting thing to think about. There are so many parallels with modern weapons. Weapons for hunting are used differently and can often be heavier or more damaging. Fighting weapons really are often different since the goals are different. We forget that in war killing is never the primary goal winning is. The other thing with hunting is that usually for large animals you are trying to only kill a single animal. Its usually possible to recover your weapon and it can be common to see weapons either more less durable than the military equivalent based off of cost and replacement issues. I like the idea of a Monday idea and something to follow. Have you ever thought about some sort of message forum or something. You have enough followers you could probably crowd sorce some interesting research.

It's not my field but a few speculative thoughts come to mind: the cruciform cross-section running all the way to the socket gives the broader head much more longitudinal stiffness and strength than the narrow head you showed; the wider angle of the broad head not only limits penetration but might also make extraction a lot easier; and (assuming that either of these could actually penetrate plate) while the first half to three-quarters of an inch of the point are like a squarish-section punch, the two widening edges could convert initial penetration into a shearing/cutting effect that might curl or crack the armour inward (as happens when you open a can of food with a small kitchen knife). In short, I've worked a lot with tools and metal but have no idea of the actual answer. It would be great to see what happens when these are used against armour.

It's a good question. In modern hunting wider head = heavier bleeding & it has more mass. Could have something to do w/ it. Besides that it could have to do w/ hitting horses w/ it. They have heavier bodies & bones of higher density.

love the title!

+scholagladiatoria *I've seen arrow broadheads for hunting, and broad and thin points were common on hunting spears.* Armor needed narrow and tough spearheads, up to the tricorn lancehead (direct ancestor of the most common blade form of the 18th-Century socket bayonet).

The lack of lugs/blades could be simply so they could store more in a smaller volume. Then when they get to where they are going they just need to attach the head to the shaft/pole. It would be much easier to carry unattached heads in a wagon with the shafts/poles which might be pulling a secondary use as tent poles. Which is easier to carry? A wider and thicker head without any projections, or the longer narrower head with projections which stick out several inches. And how many of each would you be able to carry in a quartermaster's wagon?

Love all the phallic suggestions

I think the bigger point was to keep the point from breaking when the plate armor was struck. Hitting a solid plate could snap a thin blade if any angular force was placed on the blade by the strike.

Thanks for all the comments experimental archaeologists! Matt brings up a lot of important questions and I enjoyed most of your answers.

I thought about this a few years ago. Pondering plate armor and wanting to keep your spear after a blow. In my view I kind of watched the evolution of the spear change with the armor of the times. Thank you so much for this video. I am happy to see that I was on the right track

11:04 I think having protrusions on the sides, would make it easier to block a thrust with a sword or shield. It would be hard to block a pole coming straight at you, but having things coming out of the sides would give you more area to catch it

Could it have something to do with the types of tactics employed? Perhaps the broader spearheads were adopted as a counter to armored footmen, while the narrower, spike like heads were meant to counter cavalry (or vice versa). Just throwing ideas out there!

Thanks for the video 👍🏻 If I had to pick I'll still go with the small one

Hi Matt, could you talk about the evolution of medieval maces? I’m very interested in the types of maces.

My theory is that it has to do with massed warfare, and the infliction of casualties. The wounds that are inflicted by a narrow spear are (at least in theory) more easily sutured and stitched than a full wound inflicted by a broad spear. I think that the flanges along the flat of the spearhead strongly indicate to me (in my armchair theorizing) that the wound produced by the weapon was a high priority. These aren't for killing especially armored opponents, they are for killing other mass infantry who, for the most part (probably), don't have as much armor. The majority of them probably have at most (relatively) gambesons, a helmet, and a mail shirt. This broader design doubles as both an intimidation tactic, and also as boast of prestige. If you look at both spearheads you showed in this video side by side, would it not be fair to say that to the common man's eye of the time the broader spear would be more impressive? I am going to skirt over the durability argument as you did, and focus on the raw wounding potential. Human beings are amazingly enduring creatures sometimes, and being able to inflict lasting casualties upon an enemy army is not as easy as it might sound, particularly if they have skilled surgeons with good medical practices. I will point to the English king (who I unfortunately forget the name of) that was shot in the head with an arrow, and survived because his doctor was able to remove the arrowhead and close the wound. Sometimes humans go down easy, sometimes we simply refuse to die. The more grievous the wound, the higher the likelihood that the wound leads to an outright lasting casualty for the enemy army. As for the prestige part, there is almost certainly going to be a significantly higher expense associated with the broad spearhead by sheer nature of how much more metal is involved in forging it. This would naturally act as a boast of sorts for the nation that could afford to fully equip its standing forces with such weapons, as the costs would compound exponentially. You can take this to mean either the nation, or noble house, that can afford such weapons on a wide scale have access to either a lot of the source material and the skilled labor required to work it; or simply that they are wealthy enough to afford purchasing the more expensive option on the market, and are connected enough to supply their soldiers with it reliably.

My best guess is that a narrow head gets stuck in mail more easily. In dark ages it was still rare so people didn't worry about it much yet, but later on mail was much more common. On a thrown spear that was even desirable so the heads remained small, and horseback lances were often single use so it was more important to get the most bang from that one hit.

One small point/question. Could lugs be more expensive and/or easier to break than the larger spear head? Looking at them I would expect this to be true.

I thought maybe they're anticavalry, as horses are large and fleshy and less frequently armoured and spears are the standard way of countering them; having a wider spear would mean larger wounds against horses as well as more stopping power, whereas a thinner spike would be better for fighting against armour

@lightdampsweetenough2065

2 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the opposite... Large spear blade and/or lugs might not be super fun against horses..

I have a few ideas besides durability. 1. Larger wound channel. 2. Versatility, more effective against unarmoured foes than a narrow tip. 3. The lugs could prevent over penatration but they could get in the way of leveraging a spear side to side to remove it when stuck. So a wider head helps with over penatration without compromising extraction. Lugs could also get in the way in a lot of other ways.

As a metalsmith and engraver, I think that the geometry of the tip is very important in overcoming especialy metal armour. Aside from durability in the thicc of a melee, denying overpenetration and wider wounds (thus better stopping power?), I think we also need to look at th very tip of the blade here. With diamond shape spear you would have a better geometry on the first and critical milimeters. It makes it easier to sharpen, and much more stiffer, thanks to the thick central spine. The first centimeter of the tip is very much like in poleaxes, roughly square and robust, ending with a very fine point. The smaller heads on the other hand tend to have curvy geometry, and while looking slimer on the first glance, they might have less sharp angles of attack on the first centimeter of the blade, the one which really matters. When we combine it with thinnes of smaller heads that can bend and break, I think that larger heads are accualy better for fithing knight in full plate harness. I mean, if I were to fight for my life, I would pick the smaller head for fancier aiming, hoping to put the fine blade though the gap. But then again I am terrible at this, and so perhaps were a lot of levied troops. So the bigger head I think is far superior at just thrusting and yeeting the opponent really hard again and again, hoping for the best. No finese, just brutal melee combat.

interesting expose. I think the narrow head has several advantages: cost, amount of raw material to make, effectiveness in use, time to make. Under cost we can also add that the cost of replacing a smaller blade would mean one could afford more of them. Probably also easier for the local farrier to produce given that a local farrier's main business was probably horse shoes, rater than weaponry or maille. The broader head, coming in as you noted with plate armor, suggests a certain fashion sense "But DaaaAD (aka M'Lord) everybody else (aka everybody who is ANYBODY) has one! Remember the pointy shoes... fashion. Do you take the Toyota or the Lamborghini? the plow horse or the destier? or as Jane Austin would put it of a fashionable display by monied young man "He has his own Barouche!" (and presumably the ladies swoon).

Your thicker spear head has a similar profile to a type XV sword blade (tapering diamond with a stout central ridge). What advantages does that offer over a spike? I suppose that, like a thrust-centric sword, it gives you a bit of draw cutting capability. Preventing overpenetration may be a concern, but one would think that adding some sort of cross or disc guard to a smaller spear head would be easier. Maybe it gives the spear more stopping power against a charging horse (bigger blade = bigger hole)?

Matt, is there any evidence around the quality or availability of the metals changing as the spear points changed? I'm wondering if the larger point with a lot more metal in it was just not that economical when smaller heads were more prevalent and saving resources for many more spears? I could see why you would want the larger tip though to massively increase the chances of a stab hitting organs and put people down faster. One for you and Tod to try: stabbing armour with narrow and wide spears. See if there's a durability or use issue with one over the other. In arrow terms, your bodkin is closer to the narrow tip for armour and the wider tip more like your broadheads for attacking flesh. Is there anything about them being deployed as different purpose units? Fatter spears Vs less armoured units/angry civilians and thinner spears for plate wearing units?

It might be an evolution in massed unit tactics among rank and file troops? Perhaps combat used to be more about finding vulnerable gaps in armor to exploit with slender weapons. Perhaps later on, it became less about outright killing, and more about driving enemy lines back and potentially disordering their ranks. Perhaps it was found that a massed unit with low to moderate training could get more results in this strategy by no longer waiting for openings to exploit and just jab as much as they can against any exposed surface, heavy armored or not. The reinforced structure of the spear seems to me a clear response to other spearheads getting bent or broken from being hard used like in the "jab at everything" strategy I just described. A halberd or poleaxe has as an alternative method of attack so it can get away with a less reinforced spike. More skilled soldiers who can more consistently hit gaps in armor might still gravitate to slender spearheads and be allowed to do so since enemy casualties are always welcome regardless of your broader tactical goals. Additional reason: It looks cool. I doubt medieval people were less vulnerable to the trappings of tacticool than we are today. Modern combat is littered with examples of weapons that, while functional, are not totally streamlined for peak battlefield performance. The decision matrix might not have gone further than. "Big spear looks scary! Small spear for wimps!"

Splitting links? Possibly also to provide penetrative power to plates, so a hit to the torso, that might have a basic plate over it, could penetrate where the earlier spear points buckled.

I also thought it might be to reduce over penetration. And, it does it in a way that also increases wounding if it *does* penetrate. Note that the weapons that have pure penetration spikes also generally have axe blades suitable for cutting anyone in just a gambeson. It's possible that this type of spear was expected to encounter less armored foes. Or perhaps something about its method of employment, or the type of troop who carried it, was considered unsuited to precision hunting for armor gaps like a pure spike. All of this could make a compromise design spear point appealing.

I think the ferrule (?) is the key: the larger head's ferrule looks like it uses a shaft 3x the size of the other, and will be many times stiffer and stronger, and potentially much longer, so well-suited for defense against horses (a line of pikes), or other largely stationary position. A larger shaft could also have bolt-on guards without sacrificing too much strength. It also looks cool.

In addition to protecting against over-penetration, the additional size/weight may have also allowed them to be used for more of a percussive effect, like a mace or war hammer. Just a thought.

My interpretation is durability. When armour was mostly maille, spearheads could be narrow piercing points with less worry, but when the maille target is 2+m away and hidden between steel plates that will do a number on your thin spear, you want something that will withstand a miss. As far as spikes on pollaxes etc. are concerned, the spike would not be the default answer to plate, rather, the hammer/axe/beak would be the primary disabler and the spike a finisher, so perhaps lethality and penetration was more valuable in that context.

Interesting that you mention the complexity of shafts, right at the end. Could it be that earlier spear heads were smaller and narrower, not so much to increase penetration, but to lessen the force imparted to the shaft by the shock of a quicker stop? Perhaps by the later period the understanding of the strength of wood, and the resistance in various planes to different forces, allowed for them to be produced with the strength to withstand greater forces. Additionally, perhaps the reason for small heads on renaissance pikes was the necessity for economical, mass production of vast quantities for large standing armies? Not just the obvious consideration of the cost of metal in the head, but also the need for more sophisticated shafts?

I believe it would depend on your armor, intended targets, over penetration, availability of materials, and amount of money you can dedicate to a spear would be determining factors.

I thnik it's probably a complex answer: overpenetration may have played a role. However, lugs make it easier to block a thrust, as has been mentioned - lugs on combat weapons are usually hooky or sharp. However, i would also add that a spear is not just for cutting, you can also fence and even strike with it. A broader head gives it not only some cutting power, but also a bit of (limited) hooking ability, which you wouldn't have on a "rondel" type tip. To support this theory, I would point out (no pun intended) that most of the polearms with long, slender tips - the Ahlspiess aside - also have separate edges and points for chopping and hooking.

Very interesting. We defintely need a test..

The ridge along the spine of the spear head indicates a need for strength/rigidity, to me; the socket is large, for a thick shaft; so, either a two-handed weapon or a pike. I'm guessing more along the lines of a pike for the type of head Matt was showing. Although pikes are regularly considered "anti-personnel weapons" they were firstly used primarily as "anti-cavalry" weapons, where the thick shaft & a rigid head would be useful in penetrating horses and/or riders (the momentum of the horse's charge providing the energy). In the pike's "anti-personnel" heyday (15th-17th centuries) they were literally held straight out & used to push at the enemy's pike formation, where a strong, stout head was better than a slim, fragile head. As the 17th century entered the 18th century pikemen reverted to an "anti-cavalry" role, defending musketeers from enemy cavalry attacks, until their tightly packed formations became too vulnerable to musketry. Period art is interesting, in that it frequently shows pikes with short, broad heads amongst a crowd of apparently narrow heads. My theory is that the artists are depicting the usual use of the pike with the blade held parallel to the ground, where its impact against armour could see it slide up or down into gaps in the armour &, if nothing else, the impact could temporarily incapacitate the recipient, or slide sideways & cut through straps & fittings (&, maybe, flesh). My 2 cents.

mmmm i love hearing you talk about spears and shafts and stiffness and thickness, makes me feel overcome with elation

My theory is broader/thicker tips are heavier and therefore have more momentum and therefore more energy for penetrating into Armour. If the Spearman pushes the spear with a certain speed by running and moving his arms the tip has a fixed constant velocity. Formula is momentum = mass x speed. If the mass is heavier by the spear tip being heavier then the more heavy (fatter/broader tip) then the more momentum. Basically the momentum is an indication of the energy of the spear tip so the more momentum then the more energy is transferred to the target when the spear makes contact. Think what happens when you move a thin light stick of say 0.5 kilogram at say 4 meters per second into a target and then a 2.5 kilogram heavy stick also at 4 meters per second into the same target. Compare and it's obvious the heavy spear tip moving at the same penetrating will do more damage. The fat/broad spear tip is tapered so the more momentum/energy is directed to the point of impact. This theory makes physical and mathematical sense to me.

I'm making a comic book and even though its partly 4th wall breaking satire and fantasy, I want the fighting and war elements, to be as realistic as possible. I had no idea just how much thought went into arms and armor and their design. You're channel and similar ones, have helped a huge amount in teaching me about all this stuff; stuff that I've been fascinated with since I was a kid, but apparently knew little about! So tyvm, for all the free lessons, entertainment and penetration jokes

Could also open up the gap in armour perhaps, either fouling its movement and function or allowing an easier follow up strike into flesh.

A thought I had in relation to why there are so many types of spearhead found could have a similar mentality to why there are so many barrel lengths on AR platform rifles of today-perhaps there were minutia of use that they were trying to maximize (obviously, at the expense of other qualities) for specific purposes?

Thinking about the spear as used in the context of regimental combat those nice robust edges the wedged spearhead presents appear to be rather well suited for offending the hands and fingers of the enemy spearmen. With chopping and pushing actions I could see those edges contributing to many debilitating wounds to hands which in turn would limit the enemies fighting abilities and their spirit, contributing to panic and routing which is a far more achievable and worthwhile goal than just killing every single enemy by overcoming their armor directly. If the foot turn and run whatever armored knights are among them may be left unsupported and easily dealt with.

The broad type of spear with a diamond shaped cross section rips apart the rings of mail when pushed inside. A few stabs with a head like that will compromise mail armor.

I just wondered that Katars have a shape similar to that broad spearhead. How were they used against armor? Another idea I had was if you could get a hold with the speartip between two plates you would be able to twist the spear and the shape of the head would act as a lever to widen the gap, distort the armor, maybe jam it in that place (taht would work better with a katar though because of the shape of the hilt). Regarding lugs: as mentioned before they are not as easily manufactured as a spear of this shape and tend to be made of a different piece of iron/steel that has to be fixed to the head somehow. Therefor the lugs wil have a tendency of snapping off if not made by superior craftsmanship.

Love the thoughts monday idea

Thank you for emphasizing "we just don't know." It's so tiresome to see people insist on history when we lack definitive evidence (which is the most common case). Your theory sounds good to me. Just one alternative thought -- how about agility and shifts in philosophy of use? Do the heads weigh differently? If the trend of that moment and place is to use a spear more acrobatically as in an eastern MA, then a lighter head sounds preferable, perhaps? Just throwing it out there.

My first thought was overpenetration as well. I think it has to do with durability as well, even if you argue that is does not. People would wear more- and better armor, correct? So it is reasonable to assume that spears would more often and more easily get damaged in combat. In the case of a halberd, it is not a major issue, because even if the spearhead breaks or bends, you've still got a perfectly viable weapon. However, if you're wielding a normal spear, you need it to survive the duration of a battle against better-armored opponents than in previous periods.

Just wanted to start commenting "maybe stopping power" when you said it. Hunting spears like the "Saufeder" (Boar Spear) would be used against animals that when wounded or cornered would attack you, so you want to stop them and keep them away from you. Without the wings a wild boar might just keep going at you not caring about impaling itself more deeply and hurt or kill you before it dies. Less dangerous game that won't attack you on the other hand you can just pierce through without issues. Might the same be true in battle? I can imagine that without armour, an opponent would rather retreat then attack when getting stabbed with a spear. A fully armoured knight on the other hand might be rushing forward much more recklessly because he feels a lot safer, so when you manage to stab him you will want to still keep him away (or push him to the ground). And in case of a cavalry attack, they could not stop even if they wanted, so instead of having the spear go through him and him riding you down despite being impaled, you would want to possibly push him off his horse at spear's length.

@dragoscoco2173

2 жыл бұрын

You mention the cavalry charge. There would be quite a difference between a spear stuck into your target that continues to rush forward and a spear that just penetrates and goes on. I assume cavalry charges where done in one line as if there was a second one it would get impaled into the first lines stuck spears.

they've always given me the impression that they are used for puncturing armor, rather than exploiting weak points like your standard spear head. the shape provides the extra durability needed to withstand the abuse of direct steel contact, the mass means there is better transfer of energy which makes it easier to keep the enemy at a distance, and I also think the over penetration point is very important when you're actually trying to puncture armor.

Anti-plate armor arrow heads also had the cross-tips to peel away the plate in four sections around the tip.

When did triangular spear tips come? I know them from pikes and post-medieval/early modern lances, but did they exist before as well?

Might the wedge shape of the broader spear help to open up a gap between armour plates for another weapon to exploit?

I think it relates to technique and weapon set. Using spears to push away the enemy is very useful. If you need to kill them, everyone has a rondel dagger, knock them down and advance, the back row can kill them. However, I also think prisoners might have been more valuable in this period so it could very well be that the spikes on polearms were considered a secondary weapon with the primary weapons, including spears intended to wound but not necessarily kill the enemy. So you get good defensive stopping power and large numbers of prisoners.

My guess is that it's designed to deal with cavalry charges. The much wider wound may be more effective at stopping a horse. Why not have lugs? Because you're bracing the spear against the ground. This means that the charging horse will impose its full momentum and weight into the spear. The lugs would at best break off. More likely the lugs will make the spear head permanently stuck. With the "thicc" spear head, you can at least pull out what's left of the spear (assuming the shaft breaks ... maybe if you're lucky the spear survived).

I used to read a lot of bow hunting magazines although I've only been out a few times myself and that spear in your left hand looks a lot like a compound bow broadhead used for hunting elk. A common problem with elk is that the shoulder blade can easily stop a broadhead, and often break it too. These broadheads are not intended to be disposable items: they often have removable blades that can be resharpened, in fact. Of course a diamond cross-section broadhead may not get you through the thickest part but it will help your chances anywhere else. So, my conclusion is durability and ability to punch through hard, flat targets, which, unlike maille or ribs, you can't slip between and must go through.

I wouldn’t discount the durability difference too much. It’s easily possible that the spears with the sturdy mid rib are designed for foot soldiers - and that their weapon head had to withstand hacking blocks etc from other foot soldiers. For the pole axe etc with the thin spike, I think it’s likely that the spike didn’t have to withstand hacking blocks due to the way it’s used. Ie: the spear is mostly held with the tip forward and arms bent ready for a thrust, so the spear head takes direct lateral impacts from enemy weapons a LOT. The pole axe is mostly held tip upward and ready for a downswing, or butt forward and ready for a swing, so the spike wouldn’t be hit laterally by the enemy unless they timed their block really really well. Additionally, I think that you have to make durability a huge design priority for a spear. Because if the blade is bent or snaps you now only have a stick. And since it’s much thinner than a quarter staff, it’s not a very good weapon for armorers fighting - even against just gambesons. However, for a pole axe, you can afford to optimize the thrusting performance at the expense of durability because if the blinker snaps, you still have the axe and beak available and both are good weapons of war.

I think durability may still be a pressing concern. The other polearms you mention with thinner piercing blades have other useful surfaces, so a halberd or pollaxe with a broken stabbing point is considerably less useless than a spear with a broken tip. The diamond cross section makes me think of that consideration, as well. I think the overall purpose behind that spear design is a compromise between penetration ability, reducing overpenetration, making the only live surface of the weapon durable and not allowing a foe surfaces that can be used to manipulate the weapon at their end where they have leverage on a weapon that might be used one handed. That diamond cross section with reinforcement in the width dimension allows a point that doesn't broaden out nearly as much as the finer leaf shaped blade, so I think it may actually penetrate surprisingly decently in comparison. The more diamond shaped *frontal* cross-section is a necessary compromise for that. Once you've got that profile, you've got a lot of material in the spear head. Because this is the only way this weapon can do damage, if the target isn't heavily armored, you'd prefer something that leaves a wider wound channel. The breadth of the point as more of it penetrates allows a sort of compromise, where a more lightly armored target that doesn't offer much resistance will suffer a larger wound. That way, no matter what you stab, you've never really got an outright wrong weapon. Also, I think the similarly angled rear of the spear point makes some sense in case the spear head goes all the way in, at least it's angled to help you pull it out somewhat, where a less gradual rear taper might cause issues and lugs might get tangled up in some looser fabrics like surcoats. The lack of lugs makes sense if this is to be considered a weapon that will be used against human opposition with a strong possibility of being used one handed. Lugs on the pointy end of the stick mean that any binding is done at a severe disadvantage to the wielder of the spear. I feel like it is probably less disadvantageous for a fighter who may well have a shield (and thus one hand on the spear) and armor to deal with the consequences of an enemy getting past them with those than trying to bind with lugs like a polearm wielder who has two hands on the shaft for leverage and can choke up might. I think the end result is that this thing is a really versatile weapon, allowing for something strong and pointed enough to strike an armored target that won't overpenetrate against a target that offers less resistance but instead will just leave a huge wound channel. As a single weapon, it doesn't seem to have any targets that it would ever noticeably be a very wrong choice against unless you are relying on it for defensive parrying (which is why I think later weapons got lugs as their wielders lost shields and armor)

One word: trauma. Wider spearhead will cut through more tissue than a narrower one. Due to two reasons. The obvious one, is that the wound channel will be wider. The other reason is less obvious, but due to its width, it must stretch the tissue further in order to penetrate, so it will more likely *cut* through veins and arteries instead of pushing them out of the way. Basically, the same reason why boar spears have wider heads (boar lances notwithstanding).

I guess a big point is also ease of manufacture. Making a winged spear is more difficult as youd need to forgeweld those lugs on or youd have to cut them out and bend them out of a bigger piece of metal, where as a normal spear you just need to hammer down a piece of metal. Would make sense if you take into consideration that during the later middle ages and renesaince the sheer amount of munition grade spears required went up significantly.

Two thoughts: 1. In the earlier period referred to its more likely that the spear was wielded with a shield and therefore would need to be light enough wield with one hand. 2. Could there be a greater chance that the spearheads in the earlier period were either dual purpose, or were javelins and therefore more optimized for throwing?

Another possibility is to combine preventing over penetration with both impact mass to pierce plate armour and simultaneously create as big or gaping of a wound as possible with the least amount of effort. Like with a broad head hunting spear for boar or bear hunting, this would lead to more rapid bleed out resulting in a more effective incapacitating of your opponent, which by the way is obviously also safer for you the wielder.

Wider wound channel increases likelihood of disabling or killing the target in one blow. Also the wider point looks heavier, changes in weight distribution could provide advantages in certain techniques, like knocking an opponents point off center while keeping yours on line.