how effective maces and warhammers were as weapons

[Zornhau]

No training manuals survive for mace etc. IMHO the principals are probably similar to dusak - much emphasis on timing and footwork, with blows coming from striking guards.

Yes, you'd see it coming, but you wouldn't know where it was going to land, or what the second intention was. Jabbing with a mace... might work, but you'd want to avoid extended guards since you'd be vulnerable to a beat action or a strike to extended target.

I don't see why you shouldn't parry - or more likely - deflect with mace. However, it's going to be less agile than a sword.

[Elfdart]

Jabbing with the mace (or any blunt weapon) would be similar to the way police often use their clubs. Instead of an overhand swing (which the person about to get whacked expects), it's a quick jab to the gut or face followed by a defensive position in case the "sucker punch" doesn't work. Repeat. I've seen the move demostrated by my grandfather with a cast iron flashlight. Against unarmored or lightly armored opponents this would speed things up. Surely fighting men of the past would have thought of such a simple and effective move if deputy sheriffs have used it for at least the last hundred years.

[Mobiboros]

Jabbing with the mace (or any blunt weapon) would be similar to the way police often use their clubs.

You can jab with a mace, and some had a small spike on the top, for just that. But it's not a very effective maneuvar with a mace. It's more an opportunistic attack if it's all that's available. Most police batons I've seen are generally just straight rods, or slightly wider at one end. Maces are much heavier at one end, and tip heavy weapons are hard to thrust with as they tend to pull downwards and lose accuracy or strain the wrist (which is why most thrusting sowrds are actually balanced to about a handspan in front of the guard much nearer the hilt.)

[Elfdart]

The old cast iron flashlights like sheriffs used to carry were kind of like the larger model steel Mag Lites used today, only much heavier. The "head" is larger and heavier. You don't need a spike to ruin the afternoon of someone who gets jabbed. Just a punch in the gut, since even the toughest assailant can't do much of anything the split second all the air goes out of his lungs.

[Mobiboros]

The old cast iron flashlights like sheriffs used to carry were kind of like the larger model steel Mag Lites used today, only much heavier. The "head" is larger and heavier. You don't need a spike to ruin the afternoon of someone who gets jabbed. Just a punch in the gut, since even the toughest assailant can't do much of anything the split second all the air goes out of his lungs.

No one is saying you can't jab. But it's far from the optimal use of a mace designed to crush armour. Especially against an armoured opponent.

If the guy is unarmoured, then a sword is a much better weapon for a quick dispatch as a jab with a sword is easily fatal.

[SCRawl]

The old cast iron flashlights like sheriffs used to carry were kind of like the larger model steel Mag Lites used today, only much heavier. The "head" is larger and heavier. You don't need a spike to ruin the afternoon of someone who gets jabbed. Just a punch in the gut, since even the toughest assailant can't do much of anything the split second all the air goes out of his lungs.

Aren't MagLites made of aluminum?

Anyways, with monotonous constancy, an edged weapon will always be preferable to a blunt weapon against an unarmoured opponent -- assuming you want to seriously injure or kill your opponent, that is.

[LadyTevar]

The old cast iron flashlights like sheriffs used to carry were kind of like the larger model steel Mag Lites used today, only much heavier. The "head" is larger and heavier. You don't need a spike to ruin the afternoon of someone who gets jabbed. Just a punch in the gut, since even the toughest assailant can't do much of anything the split second all the air goes out of his lungs.

Aren't MagLites made of aluminum?

Anyways, with monotonous constancy, an edged weapon will always be preferable to a blunt weapon against an unarmoured opponent -- assuming you want to seriously injure or kill your opponent, that is.

A blunt weapon, used properly, will break bones. An edged weapon will cut or pierce. The difference I see is when a person throws out his hands defensively, the blunt weapon is less likely to be deflected, and chances are the hand/wrist will shatter.

[Mobiboros]

A blunt weapon, used properly, will break bones. An edged weapon will cut or pierce. The difference I see is when a person throws out his hands defensively, the blunt weapon is less likely to be deflected, and chances are the hand/wrist will shatter.

In truth an edged weapon is unlikely to be deflected if the person is swinging at you. More than likely if you throw out your hands to deflect a bastard sword you're going to lose fingers, the hand or at the least incur severe wounds to the hands/arms. A thrust is a different story. You can use your hands/arms to parry a thrust by swatting the side of the blade. This, hoever, takes a lot of training to get right.

[SCRawl]

Anyways, with monotonous constancy, an edged weapon will always be preferable to a blunt weapon against an unarmoured opponent -- assuming you want to seriously injure or kill your opponent, that is.

A blunt weapon, used properly, will break bones. An edged weapon will cut or pierce. The difference I see is when a person throws out his hands defensively, the blunt weapon is less likely to be deflected, and chances are the hand/wrist will shatter.

Such a blunt weapon of bone-breaking properties will also be rather heavy, yes? I assume that you're referring to the mace or hammer as opposed to, say, the staff. Heavy also implies slow, which would give the unarmoured victim a better chance for evasion.

Given the choice, I'd rather have my arm broken than severed. I can recover from a broken arm, but I really can't recover from losing most of my blood. This is, in my opinion, the big reason for preferring an edged weapon -- a relatively minor wound can still be fatal if it's in the right place.

(Keep in mind that I'm a non-combatant, and certainly don't post from personal experience.)

[wolveraptor]

Of course, unarmored combat is completely irrelavent to military tactics, and so you'll never find ancient army commanders making that argument.

[Elfdart]

Such a blunt weapon of bone-breaking properties will also be rather heavy, yes? I assume that you're referring to the mace or hammer as opposed to, say, the staff. Heavy also implies slow, which would give the unarmoured victim a better chance for evasion.

Not really. Most maces, clubs, hammers, war picks and war axes actually used in combat weigh around 3 pounds -about the same as most swords. Most of these weapons were roughly the same size as the tomohawks used by the various Iroquois fighters. The giant weapons seen in Frazetta paintings are purely fanciful.

As for damage, it's a case of six of one and a half dozen of the other. Smashing someone's kneecap with a hammer or shattering his shin with a mace renders him just as unable to walk as cutting a gaping leg wound with a blade. Blunt trauma to the face or gut also leaves him at the mercy of his assailant since someone who is dazed from a blow to the head or doubled over gasping for air is 100% screwed.

[Mobiboros]

Not really. Most maces, clubs, hammers, war picks and war axes actually used in combat weigh around 3 pounds -about the same as most swords.
Most of these weapons were roughly the same size as the tomohawks used by the various Iroquois fighters.

the difference being a 3lb sword was roughly 3-5ft long. A rapier with a 42" blade, 8 inches of handle and a swept hilt only weighs ~2lbs. So while they weight the same, the mace has a /much/ shorter reach. It also balances differently. A mace is all tip weight, a sword towards the handle. This gives the sword a much faster recovery time. The size of the sword also allows for parries, which a mace is less than ideal for because of the top weight.

As for damage, it's a case of six of one and a half dozen of the other. Smashing someone's kneecap with a hammer or shattering his shin with a mace renders him just as unable to walk as cutting a gaping leg wound with a blade.

That would be true. If it was that easy. A mace has what, a 1.5ft reach? You are dangerouly, one might almost say suicidally exposed if you are making shin shots with something so small. Also, again something rounded, like a leg you run a much higher incidence of only getting shots that glance off muscle, which is painful but won't make a man incapable of fighting. A quick wound with a sword to the knee, back of knee, or inner thigh wil often not only render a person incapable of fighting but be fatal if you sever the femoral artery.

Blunt trauma to the face or gut also leaves him at the mercy of his assailant since someone who is dazed from a blow to the head or doubled over gasping for air is 100% screwed.

Again, true, but less of a guarantee of a quick kill. I've personally seen friends of mine take a baseball bat, full swing to the head, shrug it off and procees to put the person through a wall sheetrock drywall) . The same kind of swing with a bastard sword would have take the head clean off at the jawline.

[Batman]

Not really. Most maces, clubs, hammers, war picks and war axes actually used in combat weigh around 3 pounds -about the same as most swords.
Most of these weapons were roughly the same size as the tomohawks used by the various Iroquois fighters.

the difference being a 3lb sword was roughly 3-5ft long. A rapier with a 42" blade, 8 inches of handle and a swept hilt only weighs ~2lbs. So while they weight the same, the mace has a /much/ shorter reach. It also balances differently. A mace is all tip weight, a sword towards the handle. This gives the sword a much faster recovery time. The size of the sword also allows for parries, which a mace is less than ideal for because of the top weight.

I fail to find the part where people actually deny that.

As for damage, it's a case of six of one and a half dozen of the other. Smashing someone's kneecap with a hammer or shattering his shin with a mace renders him just as unable to walk as cutting a gaping leg wound with a blade.

That would be true. If it was that easy. A mace has what, a 1.5ft reach? You are dangerouly, one might almost say suicidally exposed if you are making shin shots with something so small. Also, again something rounded, like a leg you run a much higher incidence of only getting shots that glance off muscle, which is painful but won't make a man incapable of fighting. A quick wound with a sword to the knee, back of knee, or inner thigh wil often not only render a person incapable of fighting but be fatal if you sever the femoral artery.

Which has what exactly to do with the damage potential of edged as opposed to blunt weapons?

Blunt trauma to the face or gut also leaves him at the mercy of his assailant since someone who is dazed from a blow to the head or doubled over gasping for air is 100% screwed.

Again, true, but less of a guarantee of a quick kill. I've personally seen friends of mine take a baseball bat, full swing to the head, shrug it off and procees to put the person through a wall sheetrock drywall.

And I say you're either lying or delusional. A hit like that will either kill or forever incapacitate.
BTW, what is sheetrock? This sounds rather 'Teen Titans' Robin to me.

[Mobiboros]

I fail to find the part where people actually deny that.

SCRawl had mentioned them being slow, this was denied.
I was noting that while 3lbs isn't exactly heavy, it's not a light weapon either and it's concentrated in a much smaller area than a sword. Which, as a consequence will tend to make it a comparatively slower weapon on the recovery.

Which has what exactly to do with the damage potential of edged as opposed to blunt weapons?

Because in a fight "damage potential" is also determined by what you are attacking. Maces are less likely to inflict a crippling wound on a rounded padded target in motion than a sword is because of how damage is dealt. Swords have a much greater potential for every strike to inflict a crippling wound because it severs instead of bruises.

And I say you're either lying or delusional. A hit like that will either kill or forever incapacitate.

And yet, neither one. The guy swinging the bat wasn't a baseball player, and my friend has been boxing for many years. You learn how to roll with a hit. Blunt trauma is often easier to shrug off, at least in the short term, than piercing or slicing.

BTW, what is sheetrock? This sounds rather 'Teen Titans' Robin to me.

Plasterboard? Drywall? Sometiems called gypsum-board? It's what the standardly use to cover interior walls in the united states. It's roughly 5/8" plaster sheated in a layer of cardboard.

[SCRawl]

Blunt trauma to the face or gut also leaves him at the mercy of his assailant since someone who is dazed from a blow to the head or doubled over gasping for air is 100% screwed.

Again, true, but less of a guarantee of a quick kill. I've personally seen friends of mine take a baseball bat, full swing to the head, shrug it off and procees to put the person through a wall sheetrock drywall . The same kind of swing with a bastard sword would have take the head clean off at the jawline.

You and your friends lead a much more interesting life than I do.

[Eleas]

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?

European medieval style weaponry, such as maces and swords, have long been treated in a most unfair fashion by armchair historians and pundits worldwide. They've been called slow, crude, bludgeoning weapons with no grace and technique. As I recall it, this idea was propounded by 18th century rapier fencers and stylists fancying their own art the so-called "pinnacle" of a proud tradition, a scientific form of fighting born as a reaction to the brutal, uncouth "primitivism" of medieval warfare. And thus, to support this view, figures supplied in these derisive anecdotes were inflated.

Modern RPGs are usually given more realistic figures -- the creators of games such as Eon and Västmark, for example, put their questions of that nature before a real sword smith, and I expect I'll see similar attention to detail in the future.

[Shortie]

Of course, unarmored combat is completely irrelavent to military tactics, and so you'll never find ancient army commanders making that argument.

Not necessarily. Through history most warriors have been lucky to have anything better than leather. Even when they've got some it rarely provided good coverage. Rome & the late medieval period are very much the exceptions.

[Flagg]

Given the choice, I'd rather have my arm broken than severed. I can recover from a broken arm, but I really can't recover from losing most of my blood. This is, in my opinion, the big reason for preferring an edged weapon -- a relatively minor wound can still be fatal if it's in the right place.

At the time the 2 were very often one and the same. If the bone failed to knit, or the tissue damage became infected you would lose the appendage, if you were lucky enough to find someone to cut it off for you that is.

[Knife]

Given the choice, I'd rather have my arm broken than severed. I can recover from a broken arm, but I really can't recover from losing most of my blood. This is, in my opinion, the big reason for preferring an edged weapon -- a relatively minor wound can still be fatal if it's in the right place.

At the time the 2 were very often one and the same. If the bone failed to knit, or the tissue damage became infected you would lose the appendage, if you were lucky enough to find someone to cut it off for you that is.

Let alone the problem of a compound fracture.

[Flagg]

Given the choice, I'd rather have my arm broken than severed. I can recover from a broken arm, but I really can't recover from losing most of my blood. This is, in my opinion, the big reason for preferring an edged weapon -- a relatively minor wound can still be fatal if it's in the right place.

At the time the 2 were very often one and the same. If the bone failed to knit, or the tissue damage became infected you would lose the appendage, if you were lucky enough to find someone to cut it off for you that is.

Let alone the problem of a compound fracture.

That almost goes without saying. And if you were a regular soldier you would be extremely lucky to be picked up and taken to a doctor in time for it to be amputated before massive infections set in.

[Elfdart]

Mobiboros, are you sure you're not confusing a baseball bat and say, a wet spaghetti noodle?

[SCRawl]

At the time the 2 were very often one and the same. If the bone failed to knit, or the tissue damage became infected you would lose the appendage, if you were lucky enough to find someone to cut it off for you that is.

Let alone the problem of a compound fracture.

That almost goes without saying. And if you were a regular soldier you would be extremely lucky to be picked up and taken to a doctor in time for it to be amputated before massive infections set in.

Oh, I'm not trying to poo-poo the effectiveness of a heavy, blunt weapon vs. unprotected flesh and bone. Far from it. My point is that, given the choice in a fight for my life between, say, a sword and a mace, I'll take the sword, thank you very much. If I were to be going up against a knight in plate armour, I might as well take the sword and kill myself quickly, though the mace would of course be more effective against that type of armour.

[LadyTevar]

And I say you're either lying or delusional. A hit like that will either kill or forever incapacitate.

And yet, neither one. The guy swinging the bat wasn't a baseball player, and my friend has been boxing for many years. You learn how to roll with a hit. Blunt trauma is often easier to shrug off, at least in the short term, than piercing or slicing.

I'm not a baseball player either, but I've swung a wooden baseball bat hard enough to break it when it collided with a metal pole. Of course, maybe your friend was hit by an aluminium bat?

The fact that your friend was a boxer might have more to do with it, however. Someone who's used to getting punched in the head would deal with it better.

OT: Yes, swords are more balanced than maces and hammers, because they're a totally different weapon-type. "Mass Weapons" do damage because of the weight in the tip, due to the momentum of the swing. Larger mass weapons, such as halberds, also add torque to the blow; this is why SCA combat rules limit their swings to no more than 90*. Smaller mass weapons, like maces, axes, and hammers, are shown to be more deadly by their larger 'kill targets' in SCA combat. Hit a man's leg or hip with a sword, he's lost use of the leg but can still fight from his knees. Hit the hip with a mass weapon, and the man is down, dead from a crushed pelvis or worse.

I've seen an SCA sparring contest between halberds. One gentle, now a Knight, held the halbard close to his chest as he brought his back foot forward, swinging his body a full 180*. His opponent, a good friend of mine, was knocked off his feet. The sparring was halted as they thought my friend was hurt, but the wind was just knocked out of him and he got up laughing after a while.
If they had not been so well-armored, that blow would have cracked his ribs and possibly caused internal bleeding. Even with foam & ducttape padding the halberd, knocking a 6'6, 200# athlete off his feet took a good amount of kinetic energy. Had the halberd been a 'live weapon', my friend may not have gotten up at all.

[wolveraptor]

Not necessarily. Through history most warriors have been lucky to have anything better than leather. Even when they've got some it rarely provided good coverage. Rome & the late medieval period are very much the exceptions.

Name one ancient army worth anything that had neither shields nor armor. There are none. Even Sargon the Akkadian, first Emperor in the world, used leather studded with bronze, and wooden studded shields. No way in hell that's the same thing as unarmored combat with a sword against a mace. In such situations a mace would still be better than a longsword, though at the time, maces probably hadn't been developed to the point that they could crush shields, so spears and short swords (like the Romans) may have done better.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The fact that your friend was a boxer might have more to do with it, however. Someone who's used to getting punched in the head would deal with it better.

Not really, a vicious both-hands blow to the head from a weapon like a regulation baseball bat will put you down even if you're Mike goddam Tyson. Even a regular joe has enough arm strength to break bones and at least give a bad concussion. In any case the victim would be in no position at all to fight back.

It comes down to a few possibilities. A huge disparity in size and strength between the two people could account for it--like a 90 pound weakling from the old Charles Atlas adverts trying to hit Charles Atlas himself. Or maybe "full force hit" is a misnomer in this case. It's a fairly common to get in too close to the target, so that you strike with the part of the bat near your hands and all your leverage and force is wasted--the sweet spot applies to hitting heads as well as baseballs. This is even more common because when you come at a person with a blunt instrument, the best thing for them to do is to clinch with you ASAP so you can't get a solid hit in, and this is really very common since people likely to be smacking others with blunt instruments can't be expected to know all the ins-and-outs of fighting tactics.

Since we're charitable people I'll just guess that Mobiboros's memory has been much exaggerated; things are always more impressive in your recollection than they were in real life. Maybe some guy ran up to his friend and bopped him with a not-too-hard one hand glancing blow to the head.

Meanwhile, Mobi's assertion that anybody could survive a full blow from a mace is a bit laughable and I'm surprised anyone let him get away with it. People in the modern era often don't understand the absolutely grievous amount of damage that results from the proper application of medieval melee weaponry; I guess Hollywood has a lot of blame. Even newer, grittier films tend to take the easy way out on the gore and have things like people getting cut with swords and just falling down, and maybe getting pierced by swords and arrows but soldiering on by force of will. Braveheart may have been the most daring in this respect, with claymores cleaving limbs off, maces putting four-inch dents in skulls, people disembowelled by spears, battlefields slick with brains and blood and intestines--that's real.

To give the mace its due, it has a reach of a meter (give or take a bit, equal to most swords) and a proper solid blow will shatter whatever bone it hits, period, armor or no (if you block with a shield it'll hurt your arm like hell but not so much worse). Even if you take a somewhat weaker blow to the limbs or body that fails to break anything, the muscle it struck is going to be dead to you for hours and you'll have a terrific bruise if you're lucky enough to survive. If it hits you on the head you're proper fucked, even if it was glancing, because you're just not going to recover from that in time to avoid the next blow.

But it would be true to say that a sword is more effective against unarmored folks. A good cut-and-thrust sword is lethal along the whole length of the blade so it has more options on the offense and can be balanced better for followup strokes (simple physics--the way that the mace carries its weight nearer the tip both grants it terrific power and makes it harded to recover from a strike). The disadvantages of the sword is that its effectiveness declines precipitously against armor, it's rather more expensive than a mace or axe or polearm, and it requires rather more training to use effectively.

As an aside... I also enjoy the Conquest show, but I remember one incident of medieval weapons I didn't like as much. It was the one about the Anglo-Saxon Huscarls and their big two-handed axes--the staff on the show doubted the effectiveness of axes against sword and shield, so the host gave a demo where he went axe against another guy's sword and shield and proceeded to wail on the poor guy with repeated blows, forcing him to continually give ground. There were two problems I saw with this segment, first that the host didn't actually give the guy any time to prepare, it was a sudden leap directly into combat (you might say "man up and deal", but obviously the guy wasn't ready and had no reason to expect the host to attack right away), second that there was an obvious out that the guy didn't take, either from inexperience or because he was surprised. If he had bullrushed the host and smashed him with the shield instead of staggering back, the host would have been wide open and dead as a doornail.