Guy Francis Laking posits that the guisarme was "a weapon of such death-dealing power that early in the Xlllth century an agitation against its use in legitimate warfare was actively supported." What does this mean?

by ultimate_frosbee

What made this weapon so effective, especially considering the dizzying array of other comparable pole weapons in pre-modern Europe?
Why would simple battlefield effectiveness be be a consideration for 'banning' it, and how would this process be enacted?

What would be considered 'legitimate' warfare?

DanKensington

Ah, them Victorians. You'll understand why after a good read. As always, if anyone else would like to address themselves to Laking's claim here, please don't hesitate to do so! More posts are always welcome.

While we wait for new material, OP, u/WARitter has a thorough examination of the Guisarme and the specific claim Laking makes.