I think an apt analogy from modern time would be this: Surely, you could fire a rocket propelled grenade from an RPG-7 at someone, and it would most certainly inflict heavy damage and kill that person, however, that's not what the RPG is fucking designed for.
Right, but for less than half the price you can buy a pistol or rifle and a box of bullets. They're going to be cheaper, lighter, easier to ready and aim, and it'll still get the job done. The whole point is about the right tool for the right job.
Spades, scythes, magical chickens and barstools. Realistically, I think a lot of people have been killed with pitchforks and small woodworking hatchets.
I would say that after a certain point in history it was an anti armour weapon. I would argue that it was more widespread early on due to it being such a natural improvement to the club. I would argue the purpose of the mace has evolved with time just like the sword and axe.
He doesn't realize that the mace will immediately stun and incapacitate anybody wearing a helmet, thus it is always a critical hit that immediately shifts the duel to the wielder's favor. Naive noob he is.
If I have no shield, in unnarmored combat, I'd take the spade over the mace :P I've read WW1 accounts that say they're actually pretty effective. (In WW1 they were used a lot for digging trenches and turns out they were pretty useful for fighting people in trenches too, apparently better than the bayonettes they had at the time).
Shovels would be even better, pointy. So, pro tip to anyone planing on fighting an unarmoured man and you don't have a sword handy and don't want to misuse your mace, buy a shovel. Or a spade.
I just found it was a little odd just how readily available that shovel was. I am not judging though. I keep stuff all over my house in strange places.
Jim Riven A shovel has a pointed tip but the flat bottom edge of a spade leaves you with two sharp points for swinging at people. If they wanted to stab someone then bayonets were readily available.
Yes, one-on-one without armour or shields I'd take the spade also! Better reach and the edge would do more damage to a person's body. Also more shaft to defend with.
this makes me think about improvised weapons. Mainly farm tool used as weapons. if it was a choice between a spade and a pitchfork. I would take the pitch fork.
This all comes down to the point of a weapon (no pun intended); a weapons in meant to transfer as much energy to a to as small a space as possible. Swords are better at condensing the energy, but armor spreads out the energy making swords less effective. Maces don't have that problem because they were always meant for transferring energy over a larger area. Unarmored humans are kind of soft, which makes us pretty good at absorbing energy over a relatively large area, but are very bad at absorbing energy in very small areas.
Thanks, I've been designing a tabletop role playing game and looking up a bunch of stuff on HEMA to make sure that each weapon actually has a fairly distinct and particular use. I'm working on maces tonight in particular, and like all blunt weapons, it's going to be primarily useful for armoured targets. Swords and such are nearly useless in this game against full plate, but butcher unarmoured targets, while the blunt weapons pierce armour very well but aren't really any better against an unarmoured target than one that's armoured. This is a short but fairly good explanation video distinguishing the two, even if you don't go into a lot of depth on the explicit reasons why, but it's not really needed to be. It's a nice "here is what it's good for and basically why" short video that goes along with pretty much everything else I've seen in regards to such, so thanks!
By extension: knives were not designed for armored conflict - yet it was a common tactic to knock a knight off his feet and stick a knife in his helmet slit to either kill him or force his surrender. Another example: neither blacksmith hammers nor copper hammers were designed for combat at all - yet they're remarkably effective against armored opponents when combined with a shield to get in close and striking at the limbs or head. The utility of a potential weapon is determined, not only by it's design, but by the creativity of it's user.
Speaking from experience both as someone who's smashed stools over people's heads and who's had stools smashed over my head, they don't do a lot of damage. I still agree with the video, just something I thought I'd bring up.
Although I did (Mostly) get your point in your previous videos, this was not only very clear and educating, but also quite funny. Great video, and really changed my perspective on this.
generally speaking south east asian blades (malay, philipino etc) tend to be less pointy or atleast less thrustcentric in construction. do you think this is because armor was never as developed as in europe? yes they did have some chain mail versions, but more commonly armor made from rattan or leather (yes actually leatherarmour)
Of all the blunt "weapons" you showed us, I would only consider the hammer and mace to be a weapon. Both are meant to be swung and would do more damage than the stool or a frying pan etc, since they are able to focus the energy on a small area. PS: I did not count the spade as it would be an edged weapon.
+edi Against an *unarmoured* person, the hammer (with the hammer end) and mace don't do any more (or scarcely more) damage than the stool or the claw hammer or anything like that. Against an *armoured* person, yes they do more damage, not because they have more force but because the other objects often can't *apply* their full force.
@@ahzekahriman5840 You're missing the point. Of course more leverage means a harder hit but the _design_ of the mace doesn't convey any major advantage unless you're striking metal armour. Forget the stool. Against a bare head, a spade does more damage than a mace. In armour, that's *not* true because the design of the mace becomes relevant.
@@Robert399 A spade does more damage to the head than the mace? That's a new one, and also not true. A spade or shovel isn't designed at all for killing. It's unwieldy, flat which disperses energy across it. The mace is a versatile tool not relegated to armored individuals. It's a stupid fallacy. The skull can be considered a form of armor, as it protects out brain. A baseball bat, which is a club which is closely related to the mace can kill a man with a single blow to the head. Now a baseball bat isn't designed for that purpose but it is well doccumented that it's far more effective than a shovel for killing people so much so that certain areas have placed some regulations on them (ex. can't have a bat with you without baseball equipment) but not shovels? You really should look into homicides performed with blunt weapons. Bats and personal weapons are high on the list. Outside of that I don't think I can argue with someone that thinks a tool designed for delivering crippling blows is less effective than a tool designed for moving dirt around with the least effort possible. Good day.
@@ahzekahriman5840 You keep avoiding the point with unnecessary details. If we really must discuss this, yes flanges convey _some_ benefit against flesh (it will break the skin and concentrate the blow into a moderately harder hit) but it's not that big a deal; it does *not* make it like a pickaxe. A flanged mace against flesh *just performs like a heavier blunt object* (like a baseball bat). *It is not in any way comparable to a cutting or piercing weapon* Against plate armour, it's a completely different picture. A full power baseball bat swing will do almost nothing (depending on where it hits, since you love quibbling so much) whereas a mace or a warhammer can cause injury. That concentration of force isn't just a nice bonus; it's outright required to have any effect. And no the skull is not like armour. You clearly don't understand the difference between living bone and dead bone. Do you think ever sword wound to the head is only skin-deep?
I've seen maces with 4, 6 and 8 flanges. I have two questions about that: 1. does the number of flanges make any kind of difference? 2. has there been an historical example of a 3 or 5 flanged mace?
I would look at it like this. The more flanges there are, the more chance to do damage without having to concentrate on exactly where you hit the opponent with a mace head. That leaves the wielder to focus on timing their swings and area placement properly.
@@wilhelmscream6834 well in that case wouldn't it have made more sense to instead of making vertical flanges, to make a horizontal "disc" flange? Since such horizontal protrusions existed in bronze maces, then if "alignment" were an issue, they'd have already known how to do that.
@@TheCaniblcat Fewer flanges = more concentrated force. It's like the way some spiky weapons are intimidating iron porcupines, but not as dangerous as the Pascal-approved versions.
I like how you keep your spade handy in the study/living room so that it's always ready for use at a moment's notice--exactly like me and my fire-hydrant wrench. What's sad is that I'm kidding.
Out of curiosity, were mace flanges ever sharpened or were they blunt? I imagine the sword would still be superior against unarmoured opponents, I'm just wondering what effect sharpening the flanges would have on the weapon in general. My guess is that it would it be a detriment against armour and improvement against unarmoured opponents but that's pure speculation as I've never handled a flanged mace before.
G'day Matt just wanted to say I'm a longtime fan and love all your videos. Hopefully people will understand the point you were trying to make finally. Also just wanted to ask if you know of any interesting accounts of flail usage in combat. I recall a source describing peasants using the farming tool in battle, but I'm not sure I've ever heard anything about the typical spiky ball on a chain flail. I've pretty much always enjoyed the appearance of them but to me they seem like a ridiculous weapon to use in a battle. Were they just an experiment or were they used successfully? Cheers for all the great videos and knowledge!
but if I could carry something for defense in the middle ages it probably would be a round, non-flanged mace (similar to that cold steel polish mace) and stiletto and a buckler. Mostly because the mace is affordable, sturdy, and with it not being flanged I could carry it without injury. If I have the opportunity to use it it will end the threat. If I am in a tighter space I could use a stiletto instead. And the buckler is probably the only protection I could afford and tote around with me.
So ... if you know about the armor environment you'll be facing, you can pick the specialized weapon. But if you don't know what kind of armor the enemy is going to show up in, shouldn't you bring the mace just in case?
You could say they are overkill for unarmored targets. What I don't like is when someone claims they are worse against unarmored opponents than a sword is or even claiming they were never used for unarmored combat and you do just that in this video. That's flat out untrue, the mace is second to wooden clubs created before the first stone hammer, the stone axe was a stone hammer with a sharpened stone they all predate spears and only the mace was originally made as a weapon and still used when hammers, axes and spears were a thing. If it can do blunt force trauma through plate then someone that's unarmored will be done and dead rather than injured. Maces and hammers have a disadvantage to swords and that's reach, plus during the development of weapons there was the spear and all other polearms that had even more reach making swords a secondary weapon. Maces even though they are devastating against flesh even making swords look like a child's toy fell out of use because wielding one on a battlefield would put you at a disadvantage due simply to reach and that was even during the stone age. Once plate armor started to be the norm bladed weapons were just not effective against it and maces started to make a comeback and the Warhammer became a thing, reach is meaningless if you cannot harm your opponents but if you can turn their squishy innards into goo through plate armor with blunt force trauma, that's a whole new scenario. As for the damage to a person a simple stone mace does, it isn't simply breaking bones and bruising, it is shattering bones into thousands of pieces, head blows were always deadly even if the first blow wasn't(they are unconscious at that point and can be hit many times without being able to defend themselves), internal organs ruptured, ribs shattered and jammed into the heart or lungs. It was the go to deadly weapon for thousands of years across the globe only made obsolete because of the reach of the spear. A sword is more apt to wound instead of debilitating or killing blows. There are hundreds of skeletal remains found by archeologists that show sword wounds that were healed, and almost none that show mace wounds that healed and the person fought another day even though maces were in use for the majority of human history and swords only during the last ~4k years ~30k years compared to less than 5 and more survivors of the supposedly more dangerous weapon in the smaller number of years says that the sword is not more deadly than a mace. Take a sword cut across the face and you can survive, mace and you have no face because your skull is not but fragments, across the jaw? sword cut can heal, mace? no jaw left to heal, all seen in archeological findings. As for the spade compared to the hammer, sorry but the hammer will be more deadly with a head blow because it is far more localized, that's why Warhammers were a thing and not warspades. Personally I would prefer to be run through with a sword in the stomach or chest even than hit with a medieval mace in the same spot with the same kill desire. One people survive from, the other people rarely do because internal squishy bits are gooified and if there's bones... those puncture gooified internals.
Thank you..some of these kids act like swords are the end-all-be-all of HEMA, there's a reason why we use swords to show/do martial arts now and not maces..can't really pad against a giant metal ball beating you into submission or an elongated spike puncturing your entire torso.
2 years late to the conversation. Matt, My Great-Grandfather used a modified mace in hand to hand engagements in WW1. We still have it. I suppose aside from the helmet the usual opposition wasn't armored. Also the indigenous people here used clubs to kill largely unarmoured opponents. I suppose we're talking in the context of fighting during a particular period?
The Schiavonna can be used easily against light or even medium armored people. Only heavy plate is an obstacle for it, but what else do you have war hammers and stuff like that for? ^^
never really seen this addressed too effectively in rpgs. In GURPS maces do more damage but have no multiplier past the armor. But so do axes and the difference isn't staggering.
In GURPS, the higher base damage does make them more likely to get through armour, whereas swords get to multiply more damage against unarmoured opponents, so it kinda works there. There are other systems where anti-armour weapons get to ignore a few points of armour. But D&D-derivatives are notoriously bad at handling this. But reality is far more complex. Today I was at an archery demo where someone explained how arrow heads evolved to deal with various different kinds of armour. Different kinda of armour require different kinds of properties from arrow heads to pierce them, so every arrow head is designed with different armour in mind. A pointy arrow may be great against mail, but terrible against layered linen. A broad, slicing head is great against layered lined but crap against mail. Armours had different layers so the metal would blunt the slicing sides of the arrow so the linen would be able to stop it. The final bodkin arrow that did everything was so heavy it needed a much more powerful bow to launch it. It was very interesting, but I doubt anyone will ever want to model that in an RPG.
Martijn Vos Speaking of: I game with a gun bunny who gets upset that a 9mm, .38. and .45 all get treated the same in many games. He will go on for hours about the perceived error. Our GM got tired & said that in the middle ages there were probably sword bunnies, then he asked me to help him prove his point. So I did a short bit about how the Spatha, Arming Sword, & Viking sword all got the same exact treatment. He stopped me & said I had proved the point. Said gun bunny didn't get it.
it does make a difference but unless you're updating the dice every +3, the difference between an axe and a mace is 1 point of damage. It's the best I've seen as far as that. I think riddle of steel has very good mechanics but I haven't played it yet.
Would it be possible to give some examples of armor and weapons that actually were damaged in historical combat? I think that would be the coolest thing ever. Then again, there may not be any surviving specimens, thanks to recycling, repair, and good ol' destructive rust. If you are aware of examples (either in text or surviving pieces), I'd really love to hear them!
I agree. Such percussive weapons are meant for dealing with armor. Now, if you happen to have one in your hand and are presented with an unarmored adversary, of course your just going to bash them with it instead of going for a different weapon. But thats just due to simple expedience, not preferance. So many people don't seem to get the fact that despite whatever opponent your faced with in battle, your first choice of weapon is the one already in your hand. Irregardless of whether its the optimal weapon, simply because it'd be much more time consuming to switch. You could well be killed in the time it takes to change weapons, provided you even have another.
What about Warhammer's that have a piercing beak in the back and thrust point at the top? You can stab and pierce while also breaking unarmored bones, I could be reaching too far.
The heavier one that makes contact properly. Both the flanges and the spikes are designed to keep the weapon from skidding off the armor, thus transferring kinetic energy to the armor and the person behind it. The design itself doesn't matter all that much, but arguably, the spiked mace is more dangerous for the user than the flanged mace. (imagine carrying it on your belt, unarmored, tripping and falling on it. The flanged one would hurt, but the spikey one would poke).
It does a lot of the time. However, not typically without denting the hell out of it and piercing holes in it with the mace flange tips. Maces mangle armor and can also pierce it to the point where it's cutting the armor wearer. The real damage with a mace is internal to the person inside the armor. For example, one good hit to the head with a mace and it wouldn't matter much regarding the helmet padding. It can knock the brain around enough to kill someone or at least incapacitate them. There's a reason they broke out the maces, warhammers and polearms against platemail wearers back then.
What would the accessibility of the crotch on medieval plate armour (like that of The Mountain)? Would it be possible to place a good whack to the balls with a made, providing you got past shield, spear, and sword?
A lot of medieval plate armour was designed for horseback fighting, so the groin area was often noticably unprotected by plate, since you didnt really need it. That said you would generally be still facing at least one layer of mail and padding, which I dont think would protect you well from a solid blow from a mace, but might do the job for glancing blows. Armour made with foot combat in mind on the other hand generally have some sort of plate protection for the groin area. English men-at-arms in the early 15th century generally have long faulds (plate armour skirt made of steel hoops that would collapse as the wearer bend his waist) in addition to their skirt of mail and padding, and I dare say that any mace blow would have hard time getting noticable effect through all those layers. You could get a luck shot from underneath, but thats highly unlikely. Armour made with ONLY foot combat in mind generally have excellent groin protection. Look up Henry VIII foot combat armour made for the tournament at the Field of Cloth of Gold. Notice the rigid skirt of plate (called a 'tonlet) that circumvent his waist to nearly the kneel level. It would be almost impossible to hit the king's groin in that contraption, which I think was the goal. Of course, it would be impossible for him to sit down while wearing it either, so this armour was impractical for anything but a highly ritualistic tourney combat.
Of course a mace or hammer is designed to be specialized against armor But it can still kill an unarmored man in one hit in the head (or ribcage if you damage the hearth)
Designed... not designed. It's very hard to differentiate, especially if we are not narrowing timeframe AND types of warhammers we are talking about. In XVII c. Poland obuch (kind of a small warhammer with long, metal handle, used as a walking cane) and chekan (different hear, more like an ice- axe) were very common costume accessory by people by no means walking about in armor AND- at the same time- those were weapons so deadly in brawls, that law was constituted, prohibiting not only usage of those weapons against anybody but enemy AND during the war, but even carrying them about, punishable by fine of pound of silver (!). Those were almost as popular as sabre and used on XVII c. battlefields (as well as in domestic skirmishes) against all kinds of opponents usually armored with soft armors- Tatars, Cossacks, Turks, Russians... so as much I love your videos, this one rubs me wrong way.
But sir, you're on the great internets. Here you can explain yourself until you're blue in the face and repeatedly receive the same inhumanly stupid comments. I am not saying that you should give up. Your videos are fantastic, but reiterating points once they are already made is like plowing the ocean. No matter how many times you do it, it remains the same. Some of your viewers get it on the first go, they are your audience. the rest are beyond rational reach.
He is incorrect though. Archeological remains show that blunt force trauma is more deadly than a sword by the shear amount of skeletal remains that show healed blade wounds and so few mace wounds that healed even though maces were the first weapon humans used after the wooden club 10's of thousands of years before the bronze age when swords started to become mainstream and more than flint chips glued to a stick that was meant to wound. Archeological evidence proves him wrong even in the remains from the middle ages where so few blunt force wounds healed while healed blade wounds were not an uncommon find. I love a good longsword far more than any weapon but it isn't as deadly as a stone mace and nowhere near as deadly as a mace from the middle ages that not only could cause deadly blunt force trauma but rend the flesh worse than lions claws could do.
JETWTF That's not the point. The point is a sword is better against an unarmored opponent. Period. More damage =/= better. You could smash someone with a fucking cement brick and do more damage than a mace. You could shoot a rocket at someone and it would do a lot more damage than a rifle would.
Its not about damage is about how efficient the weapon is. As Arlindo said, a RPG will do tons more damage but it doesn't make it better weapon against a human. A mace is difficult to parry with, short ranged, unbalanced and not as versatile. A sword is quick, have better reach, balanced and very Versatile in both cut and stab. A mace will struggle to land a hit and not get hit themselves fighting a sword.
Suggestions. - The pros and cons of a flail. Both one-handed and two-handed (Hussite wars etc.) - Why would knights use one-handed maces and warhammers fighting on foot when a better choice was available, like a pollaxe or bec de corbin? - Shorter weapons are generally at an advantage in some scenarios. (Gladius) - Attack speed vs. attack frequency and the ridiculous use of a sledgehammer in a fight (Troy: Ajax vs Hector)
One thing that always keeps me wondering is that if a mordhau with a longsword is as effective as blunt weapons like maces or hammers. Does anyone know?
John Clements really hurt a Sparring partner with one while pulling it, so I could see it being effective. Re-enactors have found it does a good job when using simulators.
***** Yeah, I realise that now. Specialised percussion weapons are all about concentrating force and stopping the weapon from sliding off, because of course that's exactly what the armour's trying to make happen.
A long-handled pointed spade has some versatility and might catch your opponent off guard if you gain some skill in adapting it martially, but the mace is a military weapon where the shovel is a tool. Kind of like comparing a machete to a sword. It can be adapted, but it's really made for some other purpose. Hope that gave you a good chuckle at least.
I'd say the mace has a higher intimidation factor than say a sword, even a glancing blow from a mace would mangle, rip, shatter anything it comes in contact with (with decent amount of energy).
I hope I'm not causing trouble, but would it be more accurate to say that swords are for attacking unarmored parts of an adversary as opposed to unarmored people. An opponent wearing torso armor and a simple helm is probably still more vulnerable to a sword than a mace since the neck and limbs would be exposed - do you agree? Also, I wonder about the customs of warfare at that period. Taking prisoners for ransom was a big part of warfare. A blunt weapon can disable someone without dealing a fatal wound whereas a sword point pushed through a mailed armpit will still likely be fatal. How much of this aspect do you think played a part?
Simply put, if your in armor, use a mace. you kill other armored opponents and un-armored opponents, if you use a sword you will have trouble with the former. maces there for are better. not to mention, simple and easy to use, no need for extreme amounts of training, no need for edge alignment, barely any need for maintenance.
scholagladiatoria For better frame of reference. When you say "Armored" (I know you mention plate a lot). Are you referring mostly to opponents that are dressed primarily in Steel Plate Armor (and perhaps Linothorax)? Do you consider Combat Able Clothing, covered in Maille (with maybe a Helmet) to be close enough to being unarmored. That it can be fairly grouped with everyday attire? Or do you think that these things were for their time (before plate got really popular) all they needed to be, in order to be considered Armored against the Weapons they would have faced?
Gilberto Dorneles da Rocha I understand that a Sword cut wont effect Maille much. But, I had seen in a documentary on European Armor that Swords were not always able to pierce Maille as well (but eventually sword design caught up and longer more narrow tips started being made). Also I had read somewhere that it effected eastern butted Maille (until they went with round rivets and larger Links) a lot more because Links separated easier against more popular large curved Swords. There seems to be a lot of back and forth. It was as a lot of the info I have looked at suggests 'an arms race'. My curiosity is about what the hindsight on it should be. Did Maille ultimately prove to leave one no better armored in the big picture, than regular Clothing did; Should those things be considered in the same class; And, when we are talking about Armor here, are we only referring to various forms of Plate?
Jack Rizzio its nice post you made lots of good info in it. May I suggest as being terminology nazi this article: www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html :) otherwise I have no complaints :)
More specifically you could also say Ring Maille > Rod Riveted Ring Maille (early euro -late eastern)> Wedge Riveted Ring Maille (late euro) > Butted Ring Maille (early easrtern)...And there is even the weirder stuff like Scale Maille (which seems to have been every where in 100 different forms at one point or another). Chain Maille can be considered kind of thing. But, really only in the instance of 2 on 1 for actual chains which you can secure clothing with or jewelry. I actually make Maille. Started off with butted round ring (which I think is mostly modern as a lot of rings were flattened in old butted Maille from what i can tell from pictures). But, when I recently managed to finally piece together and build my setup: i42.photobucket.com/albums/e345/TheHelleri/MyMailleSetup1_zps066d4fb2.jpg Is started in on Wedge Riveted Ring Maille: i42.photobucket.com/albums/e345/TheHelleri/MyMailleSample1_zpsb9fb7284.jpg Even tried my hand at cold forging small plates for gauntlets (didn't work out so well): i42.photobucket.com/albums/e345/TheHelleri/MyGaunletPlates1_zpse2930379.jpg I know a little bit about Maille. The question is about it's overall relevance to what is discussed here. Are we Just talking Plate when we talk about being armored; unless otherwise specified?
Jack Rizzio Well said. BTW A friend of mine got to test a horsehair padded gambeseon soaked in wine to stiffen it made by a KSCA. A hauberk was placed over the top and tied into place. He was then hit with an SCA sword at various levels until it became uncomfortable. He reported it took to a "level 9" before he became discomforted by the blow
Swords also have murder strokes and half swording which makes them a bit more effective against armor, not to the same extent as maces but swords do have reasonable options
I think most battles were or are not fought one on one. It's usually a pile of men with a mix of weapons. A war hammer or hook bill spear to pull the shield down and spear men to stick it in. There is liitle efficiency to a mass of people smashing into each other.
If you replaced the steel mace head with say a big ball of pretty dense rubber, you could simulate the effects of using a mace. So it's not technologically impossible to simulate bludgeoning weapons in HEMA. Is your point more than it's historically improbable & hence counter productive for the HEMA system? Sorry if you said this & I missed it./
Since it's a percussion weapon replacing the head with some different material will not really reduce the force of the impact. So your simulated bludgeoning weapon would still be a bludgeoning weapon. Unless you remove the weight that is and at that point it ceases to be a mace and becomes a stick ;)
@@TheAsj97What if it had a small but heavy weight at the top, though covered with a big cushioning layer to match the actual thickness? It may not work with maces since they're supposed to be thin and small, but I think a sparring kanabo could be made this way.
I may have missed this in one of your other videos so, apologies if I did. Weren't there types of maces used by early police or constables specifically because they were less likely to kill or permanently cripple people? I mean that choice alone should make the point.
well, maybe the truncheon. I saw some pictures of some objects that looked more like table legs than anything else. It description said they were used by the town guard to quell large public disturbances. I thought that they were just big wood maces.
I'm assuming that the spade user is an avid gardener and the stool user has a long history of sitting on backless sitting instruments, though not in any professional sense.
well doesn't tell if they have spent a lot of time using either as a weapon. if two random people picked them up with 0 fighting experience and the exact same speed, strength, and agility, it then comes down to who gets lucky. because the spade is the same as a shorter type of Halberd in the way you could use it. and the stool is like a fusion of a buckler and a club with 3 handles so it can easily be switched between hands giving you more options so it would be an interesting fight though funny to any random observer.
Dan B the stool does less damage if it hits, it moves slower and it has far less reach. also, a spade has a way better grip. i'd bet my money on the spade user.
What about "Nadziak" and "Obuszek" - popular among nobles in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from XVI to XVII and at case of Obuszek to XVIIIc.80-100 cm long mostly in form of walking cane. You may now this as Horseman's pick and Obuszek is civil version with more curved spike (at some point using Nadziak or Horseman's pick was banned for the civilians).
A mace still makes for a formidable weapon against an u armoured person. Far superior to a slow unwieldy bar stool that would put huge amounts of stress on the wrist etc. Not ideal but still acceptably effective.
From the point of view of home defense, a sword will get blood all over the floor. A mace, unless it has spikes or sharp flanges, can kill without making a mess.
I'm sorry, I dont like to judge people when it comes to their style but I am curious about your beard there. What are you trying to achieve there? A strip of long hair along the cheeks? Because as it stands I dont think it looks too good. Cheers
I don't understand, how could that simple maces could hurt someone who is wearing heavy metal plate armor?? I think normal sword would do the job very well because sharp weapons always have better lethality than blunt weapon. But if someone have better logical scientific explanation then please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks in advance.
An analogy of a shaped demolition charge or anti tank round being used on a ground trooper standing in an open field. Yes it will hurt but it was not designed for that. Though I did hear something about some law enforcement back in the middle ages wore maces instead of swords.
Great review, thanks a lot! One argument though for hammers, maces, etc.: if I had the choice of bringing a weapon that is most effective against unarmored people (sword) vs. a weapon that is most effective against armored and as well as - to some extent - unarmored people (hammers & maces), well guess what I'm gonna be packing at the time! I would therefore label the sword "nice-to-have" and a hammer/mace as "absolutely necessary if you wanna win the battle". The sword was, first and foremost, a symbol of nobility and a way to keep unarmored peasants in check, but it wasn't the weapon that won wars after 1400 onwards (that honor would rather go to the spear or the halbert). And again: never underestimate the "propaganda"-effect of a sword and why it is so prominent in literature: it's a symbol of Christianity, which was a huuuge factor in medieval times, since you didn't only place emphasis on weaponry and effectiveness, but also on the "holy assistance" of a higher power! I mean, they also prayed before each fight - hardly something that improves your effectiveness
I think praying may very well have helped. Not by casting divine powers on your soldiers, ofc, but raising morale and other helpful psychological stuff may very well be achieved by prayers (and also by other means, ofc).
I agree with you, plus maces were extremely easy and cheap to produce. Not to mention, easy to repair. The head on your mace is never going to break in the same way a sword could simply snap from misuse. Even if the shaft of the mace breaks, finding another piece of wood wouldn't have been that hard. Could likely have even used a shovel handle (lol) and sawed it down
I think what people mean is if you're going to fight both unarmored and armored people and can only take one weapon then the mace would be better because you can cause damage to both. Maybe. Also are "polemaces" a thing? I mean if you can do it with a hammer why not with a mace? Put a pointy bit on the top and even better, a... spearmace? uh, would that work?
It's called a Poleaxe. What you're describing is called a Goedendag (used at the Battle of the Golden Spurs). They had their place, The goedendag never achieved the popularity of the polehammer, bec de corbin, or poleaxe. armour.com/polearms.html armour.com/custom935.html
If you hit someone in three head with a modern 120mm APFSDS projectile using it as a club, they're gonna get hurt. But perhaps it has users other than as a hand club for use against infantry?
Flanged maces usually have localized areas that are brought to small striking points for maximum damage, unlike an object such as a stool or a work hammer. They are effectively better at killing human beings than an improvised weapon such as a stool etc. because of this. Think of a hammer head vs a mace flange with a protruding point, which do you think would cause more damage for its mass? Yep, you got it, the mace, even though a hammer would also be relatively devastating to a human skull as well. Not to mention that maces were used as early as the bronze age; an era when armor was a rarity.
i agree, i think comparing a stool to a mace is a bit disingenuous. One is used as an impromptu weapon in a bar fight, and the other is made especially for killing. In addition, a mace is balanced to be swung and allow for follow-up strikes, not to mention keeping one hand free so you can use a shield or grapple. Swinging a stool will leave you wide open, and will likely break.
But you see, there is a thing you are forgetting. Maces and war hammers can also do a lot of damage, even if the person isn't wearing armor. You would think that would be obvious.
I'm sorry, I was trying to pack as much sarcasm as i could, my apologies if i missed the mark. I was just amused that the point you were making in the video needed further clarification.
Ahh but it's almost impossible to pack sarcasm into the written form, it does not convey tone very well and as such makes it very unlikely that someone who isn't the writer will pick it up. Unless of course you end it with something like (Sarcasm).
scholagladiatoria Yes, and I stand by my point above. If you confine yourself to the metal-rich areas of the world under social conditions and styles of warfare which encouraged swords you are correct. The sword is a better weapon for fighting an unarmored person. Impact weapons are better for armored opponents. But you have inadvertently ignored whole continents full of maces, clubs and so on which were designed for use against unarmored people. You can say that it's only because they didn't have swords or couldn't carry swords. This does not negate their existence or history.
Well if I had to fight an unarmorured person to death I would much rather have a flanged mace than nothing, I would also much rather have a frying pan than just my bare hands, hell even a brick would be better than nothing. Which is the point he is trying to make. Then again, there are percussion weapons designed to fight unarmored opponents. The modern collapsable baton is a prime example. It is longer than a flanged mace because reach is good, it is lighter than a flanged mace bacause you don't need as much force and you can swing it faster. Also, you don't need flanges, they are designed to catch in the armour so that the force of the blow is delivered to the armor and not just glancing off to the side. And although they are not designed for that, hitting someone repeadetly with a flanged mace will cause bleeding wounds wich may leed to blood loss and infection.
Can't agree with you. A mace is simply an upgraded wooden club with a metal head on it. Wooden clubs were specifically designed for use against unarmored people. The mace simply transitioned to use against armor because it was as efficient against armor as it was against non armored people. Think about it. If you hit both an armored and an unarmored person in exactly the same spot, you're going to cause about the same amount of damage. The mace was not suddenly invented just to fight against armor.
Yes, but what he’s trying to say is a person wielding the much lighter and faster sword would be able to deal with an unarmored person much more effectively than a person with a mace. And if neither have armor in the fight it’s much more likely the man with the sword will win. But an armored person with a mace vs an unarmored person with a sword, the armored opponent is more likely to win but more due to his armor than his mace. Basically the mace does less damage than a sword with a bonus against armor, but it’s still a lethal weapon all round.
"Never bring a stool to a spade fight."
-what I learned today
I think an apt analogy from modern time would be this:
Surely, you could fire a rocket propelled grenade from an RPG-7 at someone, and it would most certainly inflict heavy damage and kill that person, however, that's not what the RPG is fucking designed for.
+Vlad Muscalagiu You dude, made me chuckle and made my day
Right, but for less than half the price you can buy a pistol or rifle and a box of bullets. They're going to be cheaper, lighter, easier to ready and aim, and it'll still get the job done.
The whole point is about the right tool for the right job.
And also, an RPG can kill you at short range.
Vlad Muscalagiu what about a rocket propelled mace? 😂
@@luffyplasticman4371 see it's the rocket propelled pommels I'm more worried about
A lethal two-handed war-shovel... I could dig it.
To put it bluntly, your remark was sharp and edgy. Good point, though.
Like in day of defeat for pc. Good ol war shovel
Actually, the chinese monks have invented one.
ua-cam.com/video/8VjUzhtiU8Y/v-deo.html
the legend of Shovel Knight
What's the distal taper like on that bar stool? Has it been service sharpened?
I heard Cold Stool ships their warstools battle-ready.
Contradictory Nature I now want to see Lynn Thompson take down a dead pig with one.
Currently in tears over this chain.
Eagerly waiting for a spade fencing video.
Spades, scythes, magical chickens and barstools.
Realistically, I think a lot of people have been killed with pitchforks and small woodworking hatchets.
+MediumTim, Paulus Hector Mair included a section for fighting with scythes in his Fechtbuch.
I would say that after a certain point in history it was an anti armour weapon. I would argue that it was more widespread early on due to it being such a natural improvement to the club. I would argue the purpose of the mace has evolved with time just like the sword and axe.
He doesn't realize that the mace will immediately stun and incapacitate anybody wearing a helmet, thus it is always a critical hit that immediately shifts the duel to the wielder's favor. Naive noob he is.
I actually have a hammer within arm's reach but who the hell has a spade nearby while indoors?
If I have no shield, in unnarmored combat, I'd take the spade over the mace :P I've read WW1 accounts that say they're actually pretty effective. (In WW1 they were used a lot for digging trenches and turns out they were pretty useful for fighting people in trenches too, apparently better than the bayonettes they had at the time).
Shovels would be even better, pointy.
So, pro tip to anyone planing on fighting an unarmoured man and you don't have a sword handy and don't want to misuse your mace, buy a shovel.
Or a spade.
I just found it was a little odd just how readily available that shovel was. I am not judging though. I keep stuff all over my house in strange places.
Jim Riven A shovel has a pointed tip but the flat bottom edge of a spade leaves you with two sharp points for swinging at people. If they wanted to stab someone then bayonets were readily available.
Yes, one-on-one without armour or shields I'd take the spade also! Better reach and the edge would do more damage to a person's body. Also more shaft to defend with.
this makes me think about improvised weapons. Mainly farm tool used as weapons. if it was a choice between a spade and a pitchfork. I would take the pitch fork.
This all comes down to the point of a weapon (no pun intended); a weapons in meant to transfer as much energy to a to as small a space as possible. Swords are better at condensing the energy, but armor spreads out the energy making swords less effective. Maces don't have that problem because they were always meant for transferring energy over a larger area. Unarmored humans are kind of soft, which makes us pretty good at absorbing energy over a relatively large area, but are very bad at absorbing energy in very small areas.
The spade is the mightiest of all medieval weapons confirmed
The mace, hammer and Bec De Corbin\Poleaxe are better against armor than the spade
But the spade is better in unarmored fighting
Thanks, I've been designing a tabletop role playing game and looking up a bunch of stuff on HEMA to make sure that each weapon actually has a fairly distinct and particular use. I'm working on maces tonight in particular, and like all blunt weapons, it's going to be primarily useful for armoured targets. Swords and such are nearly useless in this game against full plate, but butcher unarmoured targets, while the blunt weapons pierce armour very well but aren't really any better against an unarmoured target than one that's armoured.
This is a short but fairly good explanation video distinguishing the two, even if you don't go into a lot of depth on the explicit reasons why, but it's not really needed to be. It's a nice "here is what it's good for and basically why" short video that goes along with pretty much everything else I've seen in regards to such, so thanks!
By extension: knives were not designed for armored conflict - yet it was a common tactic to knock a knight off his feet and stick a knife in his helmet slit to either kill him or force his surrender. Another example: neither blacksmith hammers nor copper hammers were designed for combat at all - yet they're remarkably effective against armored opponents when combined with a shield to get in close and striking at the limbs or head. The utility of a potential weapon is determined, not only by it's design, but by the creativity of it's user.
Speaking from experience both as someone who's smashed stools over people's heads and who's had stools smashed over my head, they don't do a lot of damage. I still agree with the video, just something I thought I'd bring up.
Lol i'm glad you're ok
I'll pay fifty cents for some context for both of those incidents
Although I did (Mostly) get your point in your previous videos, this was not only very clear and educating, but also quite funny. Great video, and really changed my perspective on this.
I never knew stools were designed for armoured combat.
Have you ever seen an armoured knight in a bar brawl?
I think, a stool would break in armored fighting
generally speaking south east asian blades (malay, philipino etc) tend to be less pointy or atleast less thrustcentric in construction. do you think this is because armor was never as developed as in europe? yes they did have some chain mail versions, but more commonly armor made from rattan or leather (yes actually leatherarmour)
Would you want to wear European plate armor in the heat of S.E.A? During summer it could go up to 35 to 40C.
@@hobojoe5697 It could get up to 40C in medieval Europe too.
@@Mike-uk2oq but the humidity is vastly different.
Love that "why do I even have to spell this out" expression.
Of all the blunt "weapons" you showed us, I would only consider the hammer and mace to be a weapon. Both are meant to be swung and would do more damage than the stool or a frying pan etc, since they are able to focus the energy on a small area.
PS: I did not count the spade as it would be an edged weapon.
+edi Against an *unarmoured* person, the hammer (with the hammer end) and mace don't do any more (or scarcely more) damage than the stool or the claw hammer or anything like that. Against an *armoured* person, yes they do more damage, not because they have more force but because the other objects often can't *apply* their full force.
@@Robert399 This comment is asinine. I'd rather be hit with a stool than a hammer. Leverage is everything here.
@@ahzekahriman5840 You're missing the point. Of course more leverage means a harder hit but the _design_ of the mace doesn't convey any major advantage unless you're striking metal armour. Forget the stool. Against a bare head, a spade does more damage than a mace. In armour, that's *not* true because the design of the mace becomes relevant.
@@Robert399 A spade does more damage to the head than the mace? That's a new one, and also not true. A spade or shovel isn't designed at all for killing. It's unwieldy, flat which disperses energy across it. The mace is a versatile tool not relegated to armored individuals.
It's a stupid fallacy. The skull can be considered a form of armor, as it protects out brain. A baseball bat, which is a club which is closely related to the mace can kill a man with a single blow to the head.
Now a baseball bat isn't designed for that purpose but it is well doccumented that it's far more effective than a shovel for killing people so much so that certain areas have placed some regulations on them (ex. can't have a bat with you without baseball equipment) but not shovels?
You really should look into homicides performed with blunt weapons. Bats and personal weapons are high on the list.
Outside of that I don't think I can argue with someone that thinks a tool designed for delivering crippling blows is less effective than a tool designed for moving dirt around with the least effort possible. Good day.
@@ahzekahriman5840 You keep avoiding the point with unnecessary details. If we really must discuss this, yes flanges convey _some_ benefit against flesh (it will break the skin and concentrate the blow into a moderately harder hit) but it's not that big a deal; it does *not* make it like a pickaxe. A flanged mace against flesh *just performs like a heavier blunt object* (like a baseball bat). *It is not in any way comparable to a cutting or piercing weapon*
Against plate armour, it's a completely different picture. A full power baseball bat swing will do almost nothing (depending on where it hits, since you love quibbling so much) whereas a mace or a warhammer can cause injury. That concentration of force isn't just a nice bonus; it's outright required to have any effect.
And no the skull is not like armour. You clearly don't understand the difference between living bone and dead bone. Do you think ever sword wound to the head is only skin-deep?
So, an estoc video coming up? I'm really waiting for that one.
I've seen maces with 4, 6 and 8 flanges.
I have two questions about that:
1. does the number of flanges make any kind of difference?
2. has there been an historical example of a 3 or 5 flanged mace?
More area to hit I think akai have no clue and just wanted to talk.
I would look at it like this. The more flanges there are, the more chance to do damage without having to concentrate on exactly where you hit the opponent with a mace head. That leaves the wielder to focus on timing their swings and area placement properly.
@@wilhelmscream6834 well in that case wouldn't it have made more sense to instead of making vertical flanges, to make a horizontal "disc" flange? Since such horizontal protrusions existed in bronze maces, then if "alignment" were an issue, they'd have already known how to do that.
@@TheCaniblcat Fewer flanges = more concentrated force. It's like the way some spiky weapons are intimidating iron porcupines, but not as dangerous as the Pascal-approved versions.
If it only has 2 or 1 flanges it’s an axe 😃
I hope you do make that video about estocs that you mentioned.
I'd really appreciate hearing what you have to say about them. :)
I like how you keep your spade handy in the study/living room so that it's always ready for use at a moment's notice--exactly like me and my fire-hydrant wrench.
What's sad is that I'm kidding.
@scholagladitoria can you make recommendations where to buy maces and Spear for practical use and not for ceremonia purposel?
hey, great videos :) . I was wondering where are maces centered?
Out of curiosity, were mace flanges ever sharpened or were they blunt? I imagine the sword would still be superior against unarmoured opponents, I'm just wondering what effect sharpening the flanges would have on the weapon in general. My guess is that it would it be a detriment against armour and improvement against unarmoured opponents but that's pure speculation as I've never handled a flanged mace before.
An off topic question, but were spiked hand axes used? Spike used like a pick against plate and axe head used against light, unarmored foes?
...and so Axes are in that middle-ground, designed for dealing with both unarmored+armored...but not as good as specialized weapons in either usage.
Pretty much yeah
Axes are very underated. They work quite well in either case
Do you keep those tools really in your living room, or did you prepare them in advance?^^
Where did you get that mace? I need one .
Are maces and hammers plate specific or would they be used against mail and softer armors like a gambeson?
G'day Matt just wanted to say I'm a longtime fan and love all your videos. Hopefully people will understand the point you were trying to make finally.
Also just wanted to ask if you know of any interesting accounts of flail usage in combat. I recall a source describing peasants using the farming tool in battle, but I'm not sure I've ever heard anything about the typical spiky ball on a chain flail. I've pretty much always enjoyed the appearance of them but to me they seem like a ridiculous weapon to use in a battle. Were they just an experiment or were they used successfully?
Cheers for all the great videos and knowledge!
Have you heard of the Hussite War Flail?
Okay, but do morningstar spikes pentrate in the body? Thus causing more damage to an unarmored person?
but if I could carry something for defense in the middle ages it probably would be a round, non-flanged mace (similar to that cold steel polish mace) and stiletto and a buckler. Mostly because the mace is affordable, sturdy, and with it not being flanged I could carry it without injury. If I have the opportunity to use it it will end the threat. If I am in a tighter space I could use a stiletto instead. And the buckler is probably the only protection I could afford and tote around with me.
So ... if you know about the armor environment you'll be facing, you can pick the specialized weapon. But if you don't know what kind of armor the enemy is going to show up in, shouldn't you bring the mace just in case?
What I was thinking. It'd kinda suck ripping through a couple guys with a sword and then a two legged tank shows up for you to deal with.
Excuse me but ancient Egyptians used maces and they were known for being lightly armored.
You could say they are overkill for unarmored targets. What I don't like is when someone claims they are worse against unarmored opponents than a sword is or even claiming they were never used for unarmored combat and you do just that in this video. That's flat out untrue, the mace is second to wooden clubs created before the first stone hammer, the stone axe was a stone hammer with a sharpened stone they all predate spears and only the mace was originally made as a weapon and still used when hammers, axes and spears were a thing. If it can do blunt force trauma through plate then someone that's unarmored will be done and dead rather than injured. Maces and hammers have a disadvantage to swords and that's reach, plus during the development of weapons there was the spear and all other polearms that had even more reach making swords a secondary weapon. Maces even though they are devastating against flesh even making swords look like a child's toy fell out of use because wielding one on a battlefield would put you at a disadvantage due simply to reach and that was even during the stone age. Once plate armor started to be the norm bladed weapons were just not effective against it and maces started to make a comeback and the Warhammer became a thing, reach is meaningless if you cannot harm your opponents but if you can turn their squishy innards into goo through plate armor with blunt force trauma, that's a whole new scenario.
As for the damage to a person a simple stone mace does, it isn't simply breaking bones and bruising, it is shattering bones into thousands of pieces, head blows were always deadly even if the first blow wasn't(they are unconscious at that point and can be hit many times without being able to defend themselves), internal organs ruptured, ribs shattered and jammed into the heart or lungs. It was the go to deadly weapon for thousands of years across the globe only made obsolete because of the reach of the spear. A sword is more apt to wound instead of debilitating or killing blows. There are hundreds of skeletal remains found by archeologists that show sword wounds that were healed, and almost none that show mace wounds that healed and the person fought another day even though maces were in use for the majority of human history and swords only during the last ~4k years ~30k years compared to less than 5 and more survivors of the supposedly more dangerous weapon in the smaller number of years says that the sword is not more deadly than a mace. Take a sword cut across the face and you can survive, mace and you have no face because your skull is not but fragments, across the jaw? sword cut can heal, mace? no jaw left to heal, all seen in archeological findings.
As for the spade compared to the hammer, sorry but the hammer will be more deadly with a head blow because it is far more localized, that's why Warhammers were a thing and not warspades.
Personally I would prefer to be run through with a sword in the stomach or chest even than hit with a medieval mace in the same spot with the same kill desire. One people survive from, the other people rarely do because internal squishy bits are gooified and if there's bones... those puncture gooified internals.
Thank you..some of these kids act like swords are the end-all-be-all of HEMA, there's a reason why we use swords to show/do martial arts now and not maces..can't really pad against a giant metal ball beating you into submission or an elongated spike puncturing your entire torso.
It seems obvious but well said.
I wonder what a war spade would look like tho.
2 years late to the conversation. Matt, My Great-Grandfather used a modified mace in hand to hand engagements in WW1. We still have it. I suppose aside from the helmet the usual opposition wasn't armored. Also the indigenous people here used clubs to kill largely unarmoured opponents. I suppose we're talking in the context of fighting during a particular period?
The Schiavonna can be used easily against light or even medium armored people. Only heavy plate is an obstacle for it, but what else do you have war hammers and stuff like that for? ^^
The Dark Souls fan in me got a little giddy when you mentioned talking about the estoc. I would love to hear about what it actually was IRL.
A cavalry thrusting sword, similar to koncerz, which hussars used when their lance broke
Scholaglad, the real Shovel Knight!
Looking forward to watch your video about swords designed to fight armored opponents
The pre-mutton chops are amazing, make them bigger!
never really seen this addressed too effectively in rpgs. In GURPS maces do more damage but have no multiplier past the armor. But so do axes and the difference isn't staggering.
In GURPS, the higher base damage does make them more likely to get through armour, whereas swords get to multiply more damage against unarmoured opponents, so it kinda works there. There are other systems where anti-armour weapons get to ignore a few points of armour. But D&D-derivatives are notoriously bad at handling this.
But reality is far more complex. Today I was at an archery demo where someone explained how arrow heads evolved to deal with various different kinds of armour. Different kinda of armour require different kinds of properties from arrow heads to pierce them, so every arrow head is designed with different armour in mind. A pointy arrow may be great against mail, but terrible against layered linen. A broad, slicing head is great against layered lined but crap against mail. Armours had different layers so the metal would blunt the slicing sides of the arrow so the linen would be able to stop it. The final bodkin arrow that did everything was so heavy it needed a much more powerful bow to launch it.
It was very interesting, but I doubt anyone will ever want to model that in an RPG.
Martijn Vos Speaking of: I game with a gun bunny who gets upset that a 9mm, .38. and .45 all get treated the same in many games. He will go on for hours about the perceived error. Our GM got tired & said that in the middle ages there were probably sword bunnies, then he asked me to help him prove his point. So I did a short bit about how the Spatha, Arming Sword, & Viking sword all got the same exact treatment. He stopped me & said I had proved the point.
Said gun bunny didn't get it.
it does make a difference but unless you're updating the dice every +3, the difference between an axe and a mace is 1 point of damage. It's the best I've seen as far as that.
I think riddle of steel has very good mechanics but I haven't played it yet.
Would it be possible to give some examples of armor and weapons that actually were damaged in historical combat? I think that would be the coolest thing ever. Then again, there may not be any surviving specimens, thanks to recycling, repair, and good ol' destructive rust. If you are aware of examples (either in text or surviving pieces), I'd really love to hear them!
I agree. Such percussive weapons are meant for dealing with armor. Now, if you happen to have one in your hand and are presented with an unarmored adversary, of course your just going to bash them with it instead of going for a different weapon. But thats just due to simple expedience, not preferance. So many people don't seem to get the fact that despite whatever opponent your faced with in battle, your first choice of weapon is the one already in your hand. Irregardless of whether its the optimal weapon, simply because it'd be much more time consuming to switch. You could well be killed in the time it takes to change weapons, provided you even have another.
What about Warhammer's that have a piercing beak in the back and thrust point at the top? You can stab and pierce while also breaking unarmored bones, I could be reaching too far.
I have a question.
Which one is more effective in armored combat?
Flanged Mace
or
Mace with Spikes that is so called 'Morning Star'
The heavier one that makes contact properly.
Both the flanges and the spikes are designed to keep the weapon from skidding off the armor, thus transferring kinetic energy to the armor and the person behind it.
The design itself doesn't matter all that much, but arguably, the spiked mace is more dangerous for the user than the flanged mace. (imagine carrying it on your belt, unarmored, tripping and falling on it. The flanged one would hurt, but the spikey one would poke).
@@Kain987 I see, thank you.
I have a problem with that stool. Where is the support between the legs
do you think armour could deflect some blows from a mace?
It does a lot of the time. However, not typically without denting the hell out of it and piercing holes in it with the mace flange tips. Maces mangle armor and can also pierce it to the point where it's cutting the armor wearer. The real damage with a mace is internal to the person inside the armor. For example, one good hit to the head with a mace and it wouldn't matter much regarding the helmet padding. It can knock the brain around enough to kill someone or at least incapacitate them. There's a reason they broke out the maces, warhammers and polearms against platemail wearers back then.
What would the accessibility of the crotch on medieval plate armour (like that of The Mountain)? Would it be possible to place a good whack to the balls with a made, providing you got past shield, spear, and sword?
*mace
A lot of full plate amour sets had metal codpieces, basically a metal cup that that protected you privates
A lot of medieval plate armour was designed for horseback fighting, so the groin area was often noticably unprotected by plate, since you didnt really need it. That said you would generally be still facing at least one layer of mail and padding, which I dont think would protect you well from a solid blow from a mace, but might do the job for glancing blows.
Armour made with foot combat in mind on the other hand generally have some sort of plate protection for the groin area. English men-at-arms in the early 15th century generally have long faulds (plate armour skirt made of steel hoops that would collapse as the wearer bend his waist) in addition to their skirt of mail and padding, and I dare say that any mace blow would have hard time getting noticable effect through all those layers. You could get a luck shot from underneath, but thats highly unlikely.
Armour made with ONLY foot combat in mind generally have excellent groin protection. Look up Henry VIII foot combat armour made for the tournament at the Field of Cloth of Gold. Notice the rigid skirt of plate (called a 'tonlet) that circumvent his waist to nearly the kneel level. It would be almost impossible to hit the king's groin in that contraption, which I think was the goal. Of course, it would be impossible for him to sit down while wearing it either, so this armour was impractical for anything but a highly ritualistic tourney combat.
How were morningstars used? They were much pointier thanyour typical mace.. were they used in a similar manner, using the points to bite into armor?
yes. And you do mean one-handed ones right?
Amazing. Funny. Informative. Well done, man. o/
Of course a mace or hammer is designed to be specialized against armor
But it can still kill an unarmored man in one hit in the head (or ribcage if you damage the hearth)
Designed... not designed. It's very hard to differentiate, especially if we are not narrowing timeframe AND types of warhammers we are talking about. In XVII c. Poland obuch (kind of a small warhammer with long, metal handle, used as a walking cane) and chekan (different hear, more like an ice- axe) were very common costume accessory by people by no means walking about in armor AND- at the same time- those were weapons so deadly in brawls, that law was constituted, prohibiting not only usage of those weapons against anybody but enemy AND during the war, but even carrying them about, punishable by fine of pound of silver (!). Those were almost as popular as sabre and used on XVII c. battlefields (as well as in domestic skirmishes) against all kinds of opponents usually armored with soft armors- Tatars, Cossacks, Turks, Russians... so as much I love your videos, this one rubs me wrong way.
Would a mace be a good sidearm for a man-at-arms?
Floyd Keim III Yes.
Floyd Keim III Yes, because he's armored and would face up against other armored man-at-arms
But sir, you're on the great internets. Here you can explain yourself until you're blue in the face and repeatedly receive the same inhumanly stupid comments. I am not saying that you should give up. Your videos are fantastic, but reiterating points once they are already made is like plowing the ocean. No matter how many times you do it, it remains the same.
Some of your viewers get it on the first go, they are your audience. the rest are beyond rational reach.
He is incorrect though. Archeological remains show that blunt force trauma is more deadly than a sword by the shear amount of skeletal remains that show healed blade wounds and so few mace wounds that healed even though maces were the first weapon humans used after the wooden club 10's of thousands of years before the bronze age when swords started to become mainstream and more than flint chips glued to a stick that was meant to wound. Archeological evidence proves him wrong even in the remains from the middle ages where so few blunt force wounds healed while healed blade wounds were not an uncommon find. I love a good longsword far more than any weapon but it isn't as deadly as a stone mace and nowhere near as deadly as a mace from the middle ages that not only could cause deadly blunt force trauma but rend the flesh worse than lions claws could do.
JETWTF
That's not the point. The point is a sword is better against an unarmored opponent. Period. More damage =/= better.
You could smash someone with a fucking cement brick and do more damage than a mace. You could shoot a rocket at someone and it would do a lot more damage than a rifle would.
Its not about damage is about how efficient the weapon is. As Arlindo said, a RPG will do tons more damage but it doesn't make it better weapon against a human.
A mace is difficult to parry with, short ranged, unbalanced and not as versatile. A sword is quick, have better reach, balanced and very Versatile in both cut and stab. A mace will struggle to land a hit and not get hit themselves fighting a sword.
Suggestions.
- The pros and cons of a flail. Both one-handed and two-handed (Hussite wars etc.)
- Why would knights use one-handed maces and warhammers fighting on foot when a better choice was available, like a pollaxe or bec de corbin?
- Shorter weapons are generally at an advantage in some scenarios. (Gladius)
- Attack speed vs. attack frequency and the ridiculous use of a sledgehammer in a fight (Troy: Ajax vs Hector)
why one handed maces? good side arm :)
@@vittocrazi Exactly. Good backup weapon. "A mace just in case."
One thing that always keeps me wondering is that if a mordhau with a longsword is as effective as blunt weapons like maces or hammers. Does anyone know?
John Clements really hurt a Sparring partner with one while pulling it, so I could see it being effective. Re-enactors have found it does a good job when using simulators.
Aspie Sean Bloody longswords! What can't a longsword do, other than picking one's nose?
Punishthefalse It doesn't do so well when they have archers. ;)
Against an opponent in armour, does a mace do anything particularly special that the spade or whatever doesn't?
+Robert R, I would presume that it's easier to aim/control, and the flanges help it to stay on target more effectively.
***** Yeah, I realise that now. Specialised percussion weapons are all about concentrating force and stopping the weapon from sliding off, because of course that's exactly what the armour's trying to make happen.
A long-handled pointed spade has some versatility and might catch your opponent off guard if you gain some skill in adapting it martially, but the mace is a military weapon where the shovel is a tool. Kind of like comparing a machete to a sword. It can be adapted, but it's really made for some other purpose. Hope that gave you a good chuckle at least.
It delivers more force because it's specifically made to do so. spades cut well, but don't really outperform maces in brute force.
I'd say the mace has a higher intimidation factor than say a sword, even a glancing blow from a mace would mangle, rip, shatter anything it comes in contact with (with decent amount of energy).
What's a spade?
I hope I'm not causing trouble, but would it be more accurate to say that swords are for attacking unarmored parts of an adversary as opposed to unarmored people. An opponent wearing torso armor and a simple helm is probably still more vulnerable to a sword than a mace since the neck and limbs would be exposed - do you agree?
Also, I wonder about the customs of warfare at that period. Taking prisoners for ransom was a big part of warfare. A blunt weapon can disable someone without dealing a fatal wound whereas a sword point pushed through a mailed armpit will still likely be fatal. How much of this aspect do you think played a part?
Simply put, if your in armor, use a mace. you kill other armored opponents and un-armored opponents, if you use a sword you will have trouble with the former. maces there for are better. not to mention, simple and easy to use, no need for extreme amounts of training, no need for edge alignment, barely any need for maintenance.
scholagladiatoria
For better frame of reference. When you say "Armored" (I know you mention plate a lot). Are you referring mostly to opponents that are dressed primarily in Steel Plate Armor (and perhaps Linothorax)?
Do you consider Combat Able Clothing, covered in Maille (with maybe a Helmet) to be close enough to being unarmored. That it can be fairly grouped with everyday attire?
Or do you think that these things were for their time (before plate got really popular) all they needed to be, in order to be considered Armored against the Weapons they would have faced?
Gilberto Dorneles da Rocha
I understand that a Sword cut wont effect Maille much. But, I had seen in a documentary on European Armor that Swords were not always able to pierce Maille as well (but eventually sword design caught up and longer more narrow tips started being made).
Also I had read somewhere that it effected eastern butted Maille (until they went with round rivets and larger Links) a lot more because Links separated easier against more popular large curved Swords.
There seems to be a lot of back and forth. It was as a lot of the info I have looked at suggests 'an arms race'.
My curiosity is about what the hindsight on it should be. Did Maille ultimately prove to leave one no better armored in the big picture, than regular Clothing did; Should those things be considered in the same class; And, when we are talking about Armor here, are we only referring to various forms of Plate?
Jack Rizzio its nice post you made lots of good info in it.
May I suggest as being terminology nazi this article:
www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
:) otherwise I have no complaints :)
More specifically you could also say Ring Maille > Rod Riveted Ring Maille (early euro -late eastern)> Wedge Riveted Ring Maille (late euro) > Butted Ring Maille (early easrtern)...And there is even the weirder stuff like Scale Maille (which seems to have been every where in 100 different forms at one point or another). Chain Maille can be considered kind of thing. But, really only in the instance of 2 on 1 for actual chains which you can secure clothing with or jewelry.
I actually make Maille. Started off with butted round ring (which I think is mostly modern as a lot of rings were flattened in old butted Maille from what i can tell from pictures). But, when I recently managed to finally piece together and build my setup: i42.photobucket.com/albums/e345/TheHelleri/MyMailleSetup1_zps066d4fb2.jpg
Is started in on Wedge Riveted Ring Maille: i42.photobucket.com/albums/e345/TheHelleri/MyMailleSample1_zpsb9fb7284.jpg
Even tried my hand at cold forging small plates for gauntlets (didn't work out so well): i42.photobucket.com/albums/e345/TheHelleri/MyGaunletPlates1_zpse2930379.jpg
I know a little bit about Maille. The question is about it's overall relevance to what is discussed here. Are we Just talking Plate when we talk about being armored; unless otherwise specified?
Jack Rizzio Well said. BTW A friend of mine got to test a horsehair padded gambeseon soaked in wine to stiffen it made by a KSCA. A hauberk was placed over the top and tied into place. He was then hit with an SCA sword at various levels until it became uncomfortable. He reported it took to a "level 9" before he became discomforted by the blow
Aspie Sean so he got hit with a bit of cane wrapped in duct tape and reported that "level 9" was uncomfortable?
and this tests the gambeson how?
What about the mace designs from the east?
Swords also have murder strokes and half swording which makes them a bit more effective against armor, not to the same extent as maces but swords do have reasonable options
Could it break a king-sized bed?
Why do maces have rings around their shafts?
Thanks for sharing .
I think most battles were or are not fought one on one. It's usually a pile of men with a mix of weapons. A war hammer or hook bill spear to pull the shield down and spear men to stick it in. There is liitle efficiency to a mass of people smashing into each other.
If you replaced the steel mace head with say a big ball of pretty dense rubber, you could simulate the effects of using a mace. So it's not technologically impossible to simulate bludgeoning weapons in HEMA. Is your point more than it's historically improbable & hence counter productive for the HEMA system?
Sorry if you said this & I missed it./
Since it's a percussion weapon replacing the head with some different material will not really reduce the force of the impact. So your simulated bludgeoning weapon would still be a bludgeoning weapon. Unless you remove the weight that is and at that point it ceases to be a mace and becomes a stick ;)
Now I'm just imagining two ultra-serious, geared up HEMA fighters sparring and using big yellow-and-blue NERF maces.
You can't simulate the weight and the point of balance
@@TheAsj97What if it had a small but heavy weight at the top, though covered with a big cushioning layer to match the actual thickness? It may not work with maces since they're supposed to be thin and small, but I think a sparring kanabo could be made this way.
Maces aren't meant for unarmored combat but they're damn good for cracking skulls.
There is also lightweight division of maces, which are even lighter and faster than swords. These maces also have some more advantages over swords.
That spade looks pretty mean. You should do a review.
Wouldn’t mace be a great weapon to knock out a shield out of someone’s hand?
I may have missed this in one of your other videos so, apologies if I did.
Weren't there types of maces used by early police or constables specifically because they were less likely to kill or permanently cripple people? I mean that choice alone should make the point.
Do you mean the truncheon or billy club?
well, maybe the truncheon. I saw some pictures of some objects that looked more like table legs than anything else. It description said they were used by the town guard to quell large public disturbances. I thought that they were just big wood maces.
Juan Gonzalez Thats a good description of truncheons & nightsticks.
what about trench clubs during ww1? were they just used 'cause they were cheaper to make than a sword?
Almost all of them were improvised in the trench weapons.
lol, that room fascinates me, the range of items always within arms reach.
Stool vs Spade, what would win?
depends what are the skill levels of the people using them? have they specialized styles for their chosen "weapon"?
I'm assuming that the spade user is an avid gardener and the stool user has a long history of sitting on backless sitting instruments, though not in any professional sense.
well doesn't tell if they have spent a lot of time using either as a weapon. if two random people picked them up with 0 fighting experience and the exact same speed, strength, and agility, it then comes down to who gets lucky. because the spade is the same as a shorter type of Halberd in the way you could use it. and the stool is like a fusion of a buckler and a club with 3 handles so it can easily be switched between hands giving you more options so it would be an interesting fight though funny to any random observer.
Dan B
the stool does less damage if it hits, it moves slower and it has far less reach. also, a spade has a way better grip. i'd bet my money on the spade user.
The stool was a good example. The hammer was a good reinforcement of the point. The spade had me laughing for a fair few minutes.
What about "Nadziak" and "Obuszek" - popular among nobles in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from XVI to XVII and at case of Obuszek to XVIIIc.80-100 cm long mostly in form of walking cane. You may now this as Horseman's pick and Obuszek is civil version with more curved spike (at some point using Nadziak or Horseman's pick was banned for the civilians).
In the trenches maces were used on both armored and unarmored.
A mace still makes for a formidable weapon against an u armoured person. Far superior to a slow unwieldy bar stool that would put huge amounts of stress on the wrist etc. Not ideal but still acceptably effective.
From the point of view of home defense, a sword will get blood all over the floor. A mace, unless it has spikes or sharp flanges, can kill without making a mess.
I'm sorry, I dont like to judge people when it comes to their style but I am curious about your beard there. What are you trying to achieve there? A strip of long hair along the cheeks? Because as it stands I dont think it looks too good. Cheers
Shields are considered armors, right?
I don't understand, how could that simple maces could hurt someone who is wearing heavy metal plate armor?? I think normal sword would do the job very well because sharp weapons always have better lethality than blunt weapon. But if someone have better logical scientific explanation then please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks in advance.
An analogy of a shaped demolition charge or anti tank round being used on a ground trooper standing in an open field. Yes it will hurt but it was not designed for that. Though I did hear something about some law enforcement back in the middle ages wore maces instead of swords.
Great review, thanks a lot!
One argument though for hammers, maces, etc.: if I had the choice of bringing a weapon that is most effective against unarmored people (sword) vs. a weapon that is most effective against armored and as well as - to some extent - unarmored people (hammers & maces), well guess what I'm gonna be packing at the time!
I would therefore label the sword "nice-to-have" and a hammer/mace as "absolutely necessary if you wanna win the battle". The sword was, first and foremost, a symbol of nobility and a way to keep unarmored peasants in check, but it wasn't the weapon that won wars after 1400 onwards (that honor would rather go to the spear or the halbert).
And again: never underestimate the "propaganda"-effect of a sword and why it is so prominent in literature: it's a symbol of Christianity, which was a huuuge factor in medieval times, since you didn't only place emphasis on weaponry and effectiveness, but also on the "holy assistance" of a higher power!
I mean, they also prayed before each fight - hardly something that improves your effectiveness
I think praying may very well have helped. Not by casting divine powers on your soldiers, ofc, but raising morale and other helpful psychological stuff may very well be achieved by prayers (and also by other means, ofc).
I agree with you, plus maces were extremely easy and cheap to produce. Not to mention, easy to repair. The head on your mace is never going to break in the same way a sword could simply snap from misuse. Even if the shaft of the mace breaks, finding another piece of wood wouldn't have been that hard. Could likely have even used a shovel handle (lol) and sawed it down
The only time I could think it would be used against unarmored people would be on horseback.
Deus Cornelio Filio Geroldi or if you’d randomly stumble across a lightly to no armor opponent on the battle field while on foot.
N Hosto I meant that would be rather common like a charge against some unarmored group, but I see your point.
can u do a video about flails?
I think what people mean is if you're going to fight both unarmored and armored people and can only take one weapon then the mace would be better because you can cause damage to both. Maybe.
Also are "polemaces" a thing? I mean if you can do it with a hammer why not with a mace? Put a pointy bit on the top and even better, a... spearmace? uh, would that work?
It's called a Poleaxe. What you're describing is called a Goedendag (used at the Battle of the Golden Spurs). They had their place, The goedendag never achieved the popularity of the polehammer, bec de corbin, or poleaxe.
armour.com/polearms.html
armour.com/custom935.html
I feel like there's no way that stool punches through full plate as well as the mace does tho. I mean comparisons aside. It has minimal penetration. 😁
If you hit someone in three head with a modern 120mm APFSDS projectile using it as a club, they're gonna get hurt. But perhaps it has users other than as a hand club for use against infantry?
Very nice, nere thought about it
Well put.
Flanged maces usually have localized areas that are brought to small striking points for maximum damage, unlike an object such as a stool or a work hammer. They are effectively better at killing human beings than an improvised weapon such as a stool etc. because of this. Think of a hammer head vs a mace flange with a protruding point, which do you think would cause more damage for its mass? Yep, you got it, the mace, even though a hammer would also be relatively devastating to a human skull as well. Not to mention that maces were used as early as the bronze age; an era when armor was a rarity.
i agree, i think comparing a stool to a mace is a bit disingenuous. One is used as an impromptu weapon in a bar fight, and the other is made especially for killing. In addition, a mace is balanced to be swung and allow for follow-up strikes, not to mention keeping one hand free so you can use a shield or grapple. Swinging a stool will leave you wide open, and will likely break.
But you see, there is a thing you are forgetting.
Maces and war hammers can also do a lot of damage, even if the person isn't wearing armor.
You would think that would be obvious.
Did you watch this video? :-)
I'm sorry, I was trying to pack as much sarcasm as i could, my apologies if i missed the mark. I was just amused that the point you were making in the video needed further clarification.
Ahh but it's almost impossible to pack sarcasm into the written form, it does not convey tone very well and as such makes it very unlikely that someone who isn't the writer will pick it up. Unless of course you end it with something like (Sarcasm).
Yes, I was contemplating just not posting anything, or putting a Kappa on the end, but Kappa inst really a youtube thing.
scholagladiatoria Yes, and I stand by my point above. If you confine yourself to the metal-rich areas of the world under social conditions and styles of warfare which encouraged swords you are correct. The sword is a better weapon for fighting an unarmored person. Impact weapons are better for armored opponents.
But you have inadvertently ignored whole continents full of maces, clubs and so on which were designed for use against unarmored people. You can say that it's only because they didn't have swords or couldn't carry swords. This does not negate their existence or history.
Well if I had to fight an unarmorured person to death I would much rather have a flanged mace than nothing, I would also much rather have a frying pan than just my bare hands, hell even a brick would be better than nothing. Which is the point he is trying to make. Then again, there are percussion weapons designed to fight unarmored opponents. The modern collapsable baton is a prime example. It is longer than a flanged mace because reach is good, it is lighter than a flanged mace bacause you don't need as much force and you can swing it faster. Also, you don't need flanges, they are designed to catch in the armour so that the force of the blow is delivered to the armor and not just glancing off to the side. And although they are not designed for that, hitting someone repeadetly with a flanged mace will cause bleeding wounds wich may leed to blood loss and infection.
Can't agree with you. A mace is simply an upgraded wooden club with a metal head on it. Wooden clubs were specifically designed for use against unarmored people. The mace simply transitioned to use against armor because it was as efficient against armor as it was against non armored people. Think about it. If you hit both an armored and an unarmored person in exactly the same spot, you're going to cause about the same amount of damage. The mace was not suddenly invented just to fight against armor.
Yes, but what he’s trying to say is a person wielding the much lighter and faster sword would be able to deal with an unarmored person much more effectively than a person with a mace. And if neither have armor in the fight it’s much more likely the man with the sword will win.
But an armored person with a mace vs an unarmored person with a sword, the armored opponent is more likely to win but more due to his armor than his mace.
Basically the mace does less damage than a sword with a bonus against armor, but it’s still a lethal weapon all round.