how effective maces and warhammers were as weapons

[Lord Revan]

ok how effective/common were Warhammers or other maces as weapons during the pre firearm era?

[Edi]

Pretty effective. They work by transferring kinetic energy and momentum to the target instead of cutting like swords. That results obviously in crushing type injuries and broken bones. They were arguably more effective against heavy armor than many swords, because a blade can only cut material softer and weaker than itself with effectiveness, but the transfer of force from blunt weapons is not similarly affected. Hit an armored man in the arm with a hammer and even if the hammer does not necessarily dent the armor badly, it can break the arm inside because the strength of the blow must be absorbed somewhere.

Hopefully that explanation helps somewhat.

Edi

[LaCroix]

They were very effective. And therefore very popular.

You could protect yourself from cutting and piercing weapon by using plate mail or chainmail. But you can't shield yourself from momentum.

Maces an warhammers were denting/braking armor, making it immobile if a joint is affected, also, the pure momentum breaks bones even inside a plate-mail. Even the best shielded knight could be pounded to submisson . Also, they were less prone to waepon failure as a sword, because of being a lots sturdier by default.

Shield-arms were broken due to the impact.

Chain-equipped flails were especially famous for their impact.

Quick link
http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/SRM/arms.htm

[wilfulton]

IIRC, some of the more common weapons of the medieval era were in fact clubs, operating off this very principal. The development of full plate armor in the 1400's severely reduced the effectiveness of the sword as a weapon, and hence more and more soldiers adopted the mace or the warhammer as an armor defeating weapon. They ranged from one handed variants carried by men on horseback to big, two handed weapons carried by footmen. They could be used to either crush a knight's armor, or break the legs of his horse, pretty much putting him down for the count.

[Master of Ossus]

They were significantly more effective for dealing with enemy knights than swords, but less effective for killing lightly or completely unarmored troops.

[wolveraptor]

They might have been prohibitive in constricted conditions; swinging a flail in a tight mountain pass would've produced significant friendly fire.

[Shortie]

They might have been prohibitive in constricted conditions; swinging a flail in a tight mountain pass would've produced significant friendly fire.

Random quote:
"A morningstar was a proper villainous weapon. It gave the concept of one's personal space some real authority."
- Miles Vorkosigan, The Warrior's Apprentice

That said, flails and morningstars have always seemed pretty insane weapons to me. A poleaxe or similar would seem more controllable and more multi-purpose, if less intimidating.

[General Zod]

They might have been prohibitive in constricted conditions; swinging a flail in a tight mountain pass would've produced significant friendly fire.

Random quote:
"A morningstar was a proper villainous weapon. It gave the concept of one's personal space some real authority."
- Miles Vorkosigan, The Warrior's Apprentice

That said, flails and morningstars have always seemed pretty insane weapons to me. A poleaxe or similar would seem more controllable and more multi-purpose, if less intimidating.

The problem with poleaxes though, is they aren't really as feasible for close range combat or mounted combat. Since they typically require a deal of space to use properly.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The best anti-armour, hand-held weapon was probably the flanged mace. Basically, it combined the weight and momentum of a mace with the piercing power of a war-pick. No matter which way you swung it, you were pretty much guaranteed to hit the opponent with just one or two of the pointed tips, which meant that *all* the momentum behind your swing was focused on those one or two points, guaranteeing either pierced or dented armour, and most likely some broken bones.

[LadyTevar]

IIRC, in England archeologists excavated a Viking gravesite. When the skeleton was analyzed, they discovered that the left hipbone had been shattered by a blow so powerful that shards of the hip were embedded in the shoulder and collar bones on the opposite side of the body.

It was their opinion that he was hit by a 'mass weapon' like a mace or hammer, which his opponent had swung down then up in a circular or U-shaped motion.

I'm sure someone more trained in the martial arts could name that particular manuver. I've seen it used quite often in SCA battles with padded weapons, and I've seen it leave some livid bruises on those who didn't have enough padding on the hip, buttock, or thighs.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I'm sure someone more trained in the martial arts could name that particular manuver.

While in weapons training, we just called it a 'V-swipe'.

[Lord Revan]

ok so they were effective against armored slow opponent, not so effective against lightly armored (or unarmored) opponent, did I get it right?

[Stark]

As far as I know their only drawback is their weight. You're limited in how you can move it effciently: you don't want to be constantly braking and accelerating all that mass, so circular motions predominate. I imagine this makes them relatively predictable weapons (unlike something light like a rapier or spear) as well as fatiguing for unskilled users.

Against unarmoured targets, the massive internal bleeding and bone-breaking would cause wounds beyond the power of medieval 'medicine'. Cuts are relatively easy, deep thrusts are hard, but having your ribs broken and organs rearranged will be almost impossible to treat.

[Trytostaydead]

Wasn't there a show where they put some kind of hardened jelly in a suit of armor then hit it with one of those weapons and watched the sheer force it had on the jelly inside?

[wautd]

Isn't another drawback their short range on average? (compared to most swords and spears)

[Zornhau]

Maces and warhammers are military melee weapons. As somebody else pointed out, they obviously did the job, else people would have carried something else!

However, much medieval combat occurred in non-military settings, e.g. street fights and courtroom brawls. In such circumstances, you would be insane to carry mace, since the other chap would have a dagger - faster, with almost the same reach - or a longsword.

Oh, and...

Poleaxes: Talhoffer shows system for closeup fighting with poleaxes. They're not just stand-off and pound weapons

That up-and-under blow: It's just an Unterhau. Judging from TV, Archaeologists usually underestimate the ability of a trained martial artist to put his/her body into a blow. Thus I would ignore anything they said about how particular wounds were made. Anyway, if shattered pelvis corpse guy was Viking-era, surely an axeblow caused the damage.

[wolveraptor]

ok so they were effective against armored slow opponent, not so effective against lightly armored (or unarmored) opponent, did I get it right?

Not ineffective against light armor, just unnecessary. They'd would be tired and slow when trying to maneuver against lightly armored swordsmen, but should you trap them against some sort of wall, and force a head-to-head confrontation, I would place my bets on heavily armored mace-wielders, even against light troops.

[Zornhau]

I'd argue that maces etc are less effective against lightly armoured foes because of what those foes will be trying to do to you: hitting you longer weapons, such as a bill or a longsword, from as far off as possible.

Maces are for knightly horse melees and dismounted presses. God forbid you're ever stuck with just a mace in open space against a knight with a poleaxe, or against a billman.

[LadyTevar]

ok so they were effective against armored slow opponent, not so effective against lightly armored (or unarmored) opponent, did I get it right?

They worked on anyone, hon. Take a baseball bat to an unarmored opponent, it worked the same way. It just worked better than a sword on an armored opponent, crushing damage vs slashing/cutting

[SCRawl]

If you're an "old school" (i.e. first edition rules) AD&Der like me, and you want a good impression of how well a given weapon worked against a particular type of armour, then look no further than the weapon vs. AC adjustment table. It implies that, among other things, the two-handed sword is pretty much a killer against any type of armour. I don't insist that it's entirely accurate on all counts, but it's a good rule of thumb.

[Mobiboros]

If you're an "old school" (i.e. first edition rules) AD&Der like me, and you want a good impression of how well a given weapon worked against a particular type of armour, then look no further than the weapon vs. AC adjustment table. It implies that, among other things, the two-handed sword is pretty much a killer against any type of armour. I don't insist that it's entirely accurate on all counts, but it's a good rule of thumb.

Why would a 2 handed sword be particularly good against plate armour? It's not terribly heavy, and the weight is distributed along 4-6 feet of sword with more towards the handle rather than the striking surfaces. Which means you lose out on the advantages a mace, hammer or pick has against the armour. It's also larger, which means more room needed to bring the wepon to bear or recover it from a strike.

AD&D is actually a very poor rule of thumb. Weren't they the ones that had most of the weapons weighing way more than their real counterparts?

[Master of Ossus]

Why would a 2 handed sword be particularly good against plate armour? It's not terribly heavy, and the weight is distributed along 4-6 feet of sword with more towards the handle rather than the striking surfaces. Which means you lose out on the advantages a mace, hammer or pick has against the armour. It's also larger, which means more room needed to bring the wepon to bear or recover it from a strike.

AD&D is actually a very poor rule of thumb. Weren't they the ones that had most of the weapons weighing way more than their real counterparts?

A two-handed sword was effective for killing horses, which made it effective against knights. Even for an armored knight, being thrown from a horse in the middle of a battle can ruin your whole day.

Virtually all RPG's have ridiculously heavy weapons.

[Batman]

A two-handed sword was effective for killing horses, which made it effective against knights. Even for an armored knight, being thrown from a horse in the middle of a battle can ruin your whole day.

That's certainly one way to look at it.
I think we can safely agree that AD&D uses a more...direct approach, which I rather assume sparked Mobiboros' comment.

Virtually all RPG's have ridiculously heavy weapons.

I noticed that, too. Has anybody ever found out why? Is it simply ignorance on part of the designers or is there a method to that?

[Mobiboros]

A two-handed sword was effective for killing horses, which made it effective against knights. Even for an armored knight, being thrown from a horse in the middle of a battle can ruin your whole day.

Which is true, but horses weren't mentioned. Armour was. That's why I questioned how effective it would really be against plate armour. It goes without saying that a large sword would be good for cleaving a horses legs out from under it, but that doesn't make it an effective anti-armour weapon.

Virtually all RPG's have ridiculously heavy weapons.

That's true. Stems from people who've never seen one in person, let alone held one, making up rules for the weapons.

[SirNitram]

The main advantage a two-hander would have over plate armour is, well, it's two handed. You can work up a ridiculous level of torque with something like that. But a two-handed blunt weapon would deliver the same amount of assbeating. Perhaps more.