how effective maces and warhammers were as weapons

[LadyTevar]

90% of RPGs have no basis in the real world. D&D is one of the worst.

[Simmon]

Two-handers are very heavy. You would be required to use gravity to your advantage to get some force in your swing. That means you would have a very limited way of attacking and/or defending, making you an easy target for a faster opponent with a smaller weapon. That's excluding the intimidation factor- a mediocre soldier would think twice before engaging a guy with a two meter sword of doom.

Two-handers could be used against mounted enemies, but polearms were much more effective, as they keep the cavalry away. Mass polearm formations were very effective: see the Greek Planx.

[Mobiboros]

Two-handers are very heavy.

If by "very" you mean usually between 4-6lbs. Okay. That's not really very heavy. It's at the high end for a sword, but I wouldn't call it very heavy.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

You would be required to use gravity to your advantage to get some force in your swing.

No, you wouldn't. This would be a useless weapon if you required gravity to make it worthwhile. Weapons have to fulfill to purposes: Functionality, cost effectiveness. Swords are not cheap. You don't waste large amounts of precious steel in forging crap.

That means you would have a very limited way of attacking and/or defending, making you an easy target for a faster opponent with a smaller weapon.

Having seen demonstrations on 2 hander swordfight, 'limited' is not a word I'd use to describe it. They are properly wielded almost like a quarterstaff, and become very effective and quick weapons.

Two-handers could be used against mounted enemies, but polearms were much more effective, as they keep the cavalry away. Mass polearm formations were very effective: see the Greek Planx.

Greek formations were specifically spear and shield formations. The spears were generally 8ft wood shafts which were very lightweight with bronze-heads and wielded one handed over the shields. 2 handed swords were never really designed to be anti-cavalry weapons, they could be used as such, but you'd really rather not be running towards an armoured, mounted knight who likely has a lance or spear.

[Batman]

Well said, Mobiboros.

[Simmon]

Thank you for the link and clear-ups.

Does anyone know how long is the average battlefield life expectancy of a forward (closest to the opposing army) medieval soldier was? Dosen't seem like alot, considering the way war was fought.

Pike formations and such were specificaly designed to combat heavy cavalry, before that cavalry was the dominatig force, able to crush infrantry with sheer weight.

Yes, two handers take alot of metal and time to make, that's why the mainstream soldiers had spears. Cheaper.

There was a show on Discovery Channel about how an expert taught a rugby team to be a fairly competent pike formation in a matter of days.
However, knights had to train for a lifetime to perfect their handling of swords. It was much easier to educate commoners in use of a pointy stick than to train a knight. That, plus firearms, and knights are out of business.
Must have been frustrating for the knights.

[Elheru Aran]

Actually, disease was the primary killer back then. Battles tended to be rather long-winded, but casualties weren't too bad; it was the wounded who tended to drop off like flies afterwards.

Example: in the Battle of Agincourt, the heaviest casualties were on the French side, who lost a good ten percent of their men; five to eight thousand out of twelve thousand to fifty thousand (numbers vary widely; contemporary accounts were none too reliable, unfortunately for us).

The Battle of Crecy, on the other hand, had about 6,000 to 20,000 killed and wounded... the latter number is rather amusingly excessive, given that the highest estimate of the French forces is 40,000... however, as the lower is 30,000, even six thousand is about 20% losses.

An earlier fight, the Battle of Tours, in which Charles Martel drove back the Muslims, had roughly 1500 casualties out of 15 to 75 thousand men on the French side (that damned historicial difficulty with noting exact numbers again). Of course, that number is perhaps a mite difficult to believe, as we also get a number for the Moors of 60,000-400,000...

But I am no expert and merely getting these numbers off Wikipedia, so take that with a grain of salt

[wolveraptor]

Two-handers could be used against mounted enemies, but polearms were much more effective, as they keep the cavalry away. Mass polearm formations were very effective: see the Greek Planx.

Please, it's a phalanx. That typo was so bad it hurt.

Don't forget that with the introduction of the cross bow, plate armor became almost antiquated, as the bolts could pretty much punch through it. However, you're still not going to send melee troops onto the field unarmored, so shields became more popular, especially since your could bend them so they might deflect the light but extremely fast bolt.

[Mobiboros]

However, knights had to train for a lifetime to perfect their handling of swords. It was much easier to educate commoners in use of a pointy stick than to train a knight.

That's because, contrary to popular belief, swords are not easy to use intuitive weapons. Swinging a sword is not like swinging a club. It involves the coordination of fingers, wrist, elbow, shoulder, torso and hip motions as well as foot placement. Same with a rapier thrust. It takes quite a while to achieve even competency with a sword, let alone to be good with one.

The expense in training a man with a sword was also very high. It was a dedicated lifestyle in many cases. It's much easier to give a peasant a few days of training with a spear and let them be peasants until you needed to conscript them.

[wolveraptor]

Maces are easy that way too, I've read. You just need to be buff, and you can pretty much handle a mace. It's just a club, after all.

[Elfdart]

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?

The weights for weapons and other items in (A)D&D were deliberately skewed to account for bulk. That way a player can't say "My fighter can carry 210 pounds and longswords only weigh 3 pounds -so I'll carry seventy of them!"

Swords and bows were wanked out because those were the weapons most PCs wanted anyway. Other silly weapon and armor rules (e.g. clerics with maces) were simply for game balance.

[General Zod]

Maces are easy that way too, I've read. You just need to be buff, and you can pretty much handle a mace. It's just a club, after all.

Depending on the mace, some aren't even that much heavier than your typical sword. They were just much more top heavy than swords are.

[Elfdart]

I've seen guys use two-handers as they were meant to be used (which is to say NOT as they appear in FRPGs or bad movies) and they are not slow or awkward. The motions aren't like fencing at all. It's more a cross between quarterstaff, spear and rifle with bayonet -plus other moves unique to the weapon.

[Elfdart]

Maces are easy that way too, I've read. You just need to be buff, and you can pretty much handle a mace. It's just a club, after all.

Depending on the mace, some aren't even that much heavier than your typical sword. They were just much more top heavy than swords are.

My uncle has a replica of the type of mace used in Iran in the 1300s. It's light, nimble and almost feels like an extension of your arm when you swing it. Also, you don't have to swing it. You can fuck someone up severely by thrusting it as well, as any cop who has ever used a billyclub could tell you.

[Mobiboros]

The motions aren't like fencing at all.

No, not at all like rapier. However, my point was that both require a great amount of skill to use. Movies often depict 2 handers like large clubs and rapiers like sharp wires. Neither is an accurate depcition of the weapon.

It's more a cross between quarterstaff, spear and rifle with bayonet -plus other moves unique to the weapon.

Exactly. They are subtle and complex weapons. Not big clubs of steel like movies show.

[CaptainChewbacca]

There was a show on Discovery Channel about how an expert taught a rugby team to be a fairly competent pike formation in a matter of days.
However, knights had to train for a lifetime to perfect their handling of swords. It was much easier to educate commoners in use of a pointy stick than to train a knight. That, plus firearms, and knights are out of business.
Must have been frustrating for the knights.

That was on "Conquests" on the History Channel. Best show ever.

[Elfdart]

No, Weapons That Made Britain on History International is the best.

[Cykeisme]

This is kind of silly, but does anyone know if there are any movies that depict correct portrayal and utilization of medieval weapons?

[Zornhau]

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.

For actually striking, the body goes behind the blow. The blade would probably go through, if it didnt turn/glance. It's very hard to get the right angle to avoid that unless you stick to downright blows, hence a lot of armoured swordfights starting like this:



They end up like this, swords "halfsword" like spears.

[Zornhau]

Whoops, messed up the image tags!

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.

For actually striking, the body goes behind the blow. The blade would probably go through, if it didnt turn/glance. It's very hard to get the right angle to avoid that unless you stick to downright blows, hence a lot of armoured swordfights starting like this:



They end up like this, swords "halfsword" like spears.


If the other armoured bloke merely has a mace, then he's got to get past my first strike. I don't fancy his chances.

However, in the press, I'm in trouble. We'll probably end up wrestling, with my cross pinning his wrist while I fumble for my dagger.

[Mobiboros]

For actually striking, the body goes behind the blow.

As I already said. A swordstroke is a much more complex move than swinging a club. It involves an entire body mechanic behind it.

The blade would probably go through, if it didnt turn/glance. It's very hard to get the right angle to avoid that unless you stick to downright blows, hence a lot of armoured swordfights starting like this:

Which would leave you incredibly vulnerable if you only repeated one move over and over again. Hence, why a 2 hander isn't particularly good against plate armour. It's not specifically bad, but most swords are simply not designed to cleave through armour.

That picture depicts both the high and low wards. Realistically neither one is going to go for a cleaving blow from those stances. 2 hander on 2 hander combat in plate often comes down to who can knock the other guy down, or pin the guy down so you can find a gap in the armour.

They end up like this, swords "halfsword" like spears.

Kind of like spears crossed with quarterstaves. Yes.

If the other armoured bloke merely has a mace, then he's got to get past my first strike. I don't fancy his chances.

Nor do I, if he only has a mace. The mace is better for defeating the armour but it has little to no defence against the sword and it's only a matter of time before the swordsman knocks the mace guy down. However, maces were often used with a shield, and mace+shield is a devastating style.

However, in the press, I'm in trouble. We'll probably end up wrestling, with my cross pinning his wrist while I fumble for my dagger.

Possible, but you'd likely be better off breaking his wrist in the pin, putting a twist into the quillions and pulling the guy to the ground. Then use your misericord to stab into his eyeslits or under the arm.

[Zornhau]

Yep. That pretty much sums it up, from where I'm standing too. I salute your knowledge of and feel for the Knightly Art.

If two handed swords were the ultimate weapon, then knights would have favoured them over poleaxes.

Just one niggly point. In the later 15th century, it's not clear that knights did as a rule carry shields. A shield wouldn't be much good against a poleaxe, unless it were big and combersome. Better to have a free hand.

[Mobiboros]

Just one niggly point. In the later 15th century, it's not clear that knights did as a rule carry shields. A shield wouldn't be much good against a poleaxe, unless it were big and combersome. Better to have a free hand.

That's true. Shields had started to fall by the wayside by then allowing the knight a freehand to grapple or use his hand-and-a-half/2-handed sword with more proficiency.

[Knife]

I could be wrong; but I would assume a warhammer or a mace would have less ability for defense than a sword. Especially one that is heavy enough to fuck up a guy in plate armor. Same with Axemen too.

[Elheru Aran]

I could be wrong; but I would assume a warhammer or a mace would have less ability for defense than a sword. Especially one that is heavy enough to fuck up a guy in plate armor. Same with Axemen too.

There's a reason many of these weapons had long hafts... not only did it give the wielder some significant leverage to propel the head of the weapon very quickly, it also meant they could use the shaft somewhat like a staff.

Also, it's pretty difficult to defend yourself with a sword without a fair amount of training... while parrying with a mace/axe haft isn't too difficult, being pretty basic.

[Knife]

I could be wrong; but I would assume a warhammer or a mace would have less ability for defense than a sword. Especially one that is heavy enough to fuck up a guy in plate armor. Same with Axemen too.

There's a reason many of these weapons had long hafts... not only did it give the wielder some significant leverage to propel the head of the weapon very quickly, it also meant they could use the shaft somewhat like a staff.

Also, it's pretty difficult to defend yourself with a sword without a fair amount of training... while parrying with a mace/axe haft isn't too difficult, being pretty basic.

While I assume there was a 'style' or a structured fighting technique for a mace/hammer/axe, I was just picturing a guy in full swing with an axe/hammer/mace to get full effect on an armored dude.

While I'm sure that going in and the first thing you do is make a bid old telegraphed swing would have been suicide, and that jabs would be more economical, the point of the weapons is to deliever the momentum and KE to the target. The more the better, so you'd be pretty exposed in that moment.