how effective maces and warhammers were as weapons

[Shortie]

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.

Shields I'll give you, but even studded\reinforced leather wasn't everywhere. Even leaving out the forces who didn't want heavy armour, not everyone was in an organised army, or got equipment from the state if they are, or were rich enough to afford it.

[Eleas]

Shields I'll give you, but even studded\reinforced leather wasn't everywhere. Even leaving out the forces who didn't want heavy armour, not everyone was in an organised army, or got equipment from the state if they are, or were rich enough to afford it.

I've seen little credible evidence that studded leather armor even existed. Boiled leather armor, yes, but why would the studs afford any significant protection, especially studs of a comparatively soft material like bronze?

[wolveraptor]

Either way, unarmored combat techniques would still be negated by the presence of even wooden shields and leather armor. Without those things, a rapier would be far more usable in military situations.

The weapons of the time were bronze as well, so it wasn't as if bronze was a softer material. Studs were present on even Roman shields, so at least some civilizations thought them useful.

[Shortie]

Either way, unarmored combat techniques would still be negated by the presence of even wooden shields and leather armor. Without those things, a rapier would be far more usable in military situations.

But the thing is that it's not a simple two-state choice. Maces weren't that common in history, and even easy to produce clubs tended to be replaced by spears and thrusting swords (not to mention slashing swords and axes). I figure there's a reason for that.

Leather won't do that much to slow down a longsword for example, and it should have a better reach than a mace. I'm not sure that a shield is especially better against either. Maces really came into their own against very heavy body-armour, whereas shields tended to be dealt with by longer-reach weapons.

A rapier OTOH was indeed specialised for killing off unprotected foes, but that's the point, it's very different to any real military sword.

[Shortie]

Forgot to add:

Besides, shields can get lost and broken, and once a shieldwall is broken they become a lot less useful. Like most armour, most shields can't cover everywhere.

(Is it me, or can I edit sometimes and not others? Or am I confusing forums?)

[Eleas]

The weapons of the time were bronze as well, so it wasn't as if bronze was a softer material. Studs were present on even Roman shields, so at least some civilizations thought them useful.

Yes. Studs were, indeed, quite useful for preventing sword strokes from sliding off the shield, to make them cut deep enough into the shield to stick. The notion of this being in any way, shape or form a desirable quality in armor baffles me completely. Studs are sometimes known as "nails", which are on occasion right useful for making additional protection stick to shields. None of these benefits apply to armor.

Way you're talking, it sounds as if you're thinking the studs would somehow increase the overall durability of the armor. That's not gonna happen, as the durability of armor is largely dependent on its weakest link. The only effect of such studs would be a weakening of the overall structure, as well as serving to turn a glancing blow into a severe one.

[Master of Ossus]

Yes. Studs were, indeed, quite useful for preventing sword strokes from sliding off the shield, to make them cut deep enough into the shield to stick. The notion of this being in any way, shape or form a desirable quality in armor baffles me completely.

If a weapon is stuck in your shield, it cannot be pulled out and used to deliver a follow up blow, giving you time to engage your enemy while they are incapable of responding. Wood was generally preferred around the outside of shields in some eras specifically because metal would not hold an enemy's weapon.

Way you're talking, it sounds as if you're thinking the studs would somehow increase the overall durability of the armor. That's not gonna happen, as the durability of armor is largely dependent on its weakest link. The only effect of such studs would be a weakening of the overall structure, as well as serving to turn a glancing blow into a severe one.

Studs during the age of bronze may well have served to increase durability because bronze was so soft it could only be made into short thrusting weapons without a slashing component. A hit to one of the studs would probably help to dampen the force of the blow and thus help protect the softer parts of the armor/shield.

[Eleas]

If a weapon is stuck in your shield, it cannot be pulled out and used to deliver a follow up blow, giving you time to engage your enemy while they are incapable of responding. Wood was generally preferred around the outside of shields in some eras specifically because metal would not hold an enemy's weapon.

...uh, yeah, hence the reason why I said just that. Studs were good for shields, and bad for armor. See?

Studs during the age of bronze may well have served to increase durability because bronze was so soft it could only be made into short thrusting weapons without a slashing component. A hit to one of the studs would probably help to dampen the force of the blow and thus help protect the softer parts of the armor/shield.

To equate the function of shields with the function of armor is ill advised. Shields were used in a very different fashion from armor; active use of a shield gives you many options armor wouldn't. Should the shield need protection, studs would be of more use as nails holding it together; otherwise you could cap the edges of the shield with bronze (bronze-shod, in other woods).

As for armor, gigantic bronze studs might make a statistical difference, but not a real one; such armor would have to be far heavier than regular bronze plate to make any difference. It would thus cost far more, and be far less useful, if it could be created at all.

I reiterate: there are no known examples of studded leather armor, but for a vase painting subjected to dubious interpretation. There is no evidence for studded leather armor. There is finally no good reason for that configuration.

[wolveraptor]

Shortie: I don't disagree on any of the points you brought up. The entire point of my original post was to say what you said in the last line.

Short swords were useful when shield walls were broken, and there was little space. A mace simply doesn't have room in those situations. However, a long, thin rapier with won't fare extremely well either.

[LadyTevar]

Forgot to add:

Besides, shields can get lost and broken, and once a shieldwall is broken they become a lot less useful. Like most armour, most shields can't cover everywhere.

(Is it me, or can I edit sometimes and not others? Or am I confusing forums?)

Shortie, you've got things all wrong.

First, the mace was far more common than you think. It was a 'commoner's weapon' for the most part, so it didn't get shown in the fancy tapestries like the sword. Face it, the sword is a romantic weapon, wielded by the noblity who could afford paying a blacksmith for a good one. It was far 'sexier' to show a sword in tapestries and paintings than a humble mace.

Second... a shield is never useless. Even when a shieldwall breaks, warriors can regroup as a smaller wall, or they can use the shield to rush the opponent and attempt to pin him so someone else can kill him. Against a polearm, a smart shield-man can get in so close the polearm is useless, as Pablo mentioned. Even sword and shield can get tied up this way, forcing the fighter to swing wildly at his opponent's back in attempts to get a solid hit.

Now, you were partly right when you said not everyone was rich enough to own armor. Partly, I say, because the feudal lords were expected to keep a supply of arms and armorment on hand in order to supply his superior with a certain number of troops in time of war. While the individual pikeman may not have had armor, his lord would have something that could roughly fit him.

Now, Eleas, Studded Leather did exist, and was used by the Romans as part of the Centurian's armor. Take a good look at the 'skirt' they wear to protect their hips and thighs, and you'll find it's leather straps with studs of brass.

Some 'studded leather' is actually the outside of a scale or banded mail armor. The scales or bands of leather or soft metal are covered with a layer of leather, and the visible 'studs' are what hold the scales in place. Studs on a shield were one part functional, holding the leather cover to the wooden board, and one part decorative. The Scottish Targe, that large circular shield that's such a popular wall decoration, is one example of this. Vikings are also believed to have used studs as decoration on armor and weaponhilts.

[LadyTevar]

Shortie: I don't disagree on any of the points you brought up. The entire point of my original post was to say what you said in the last line.

Short swords were useful when shield walls were broken, and there was little space. A mace simply doesn't have room in those situations. However, a long, thin rapier with won't fare extremely well either.

Actually, Wolvie, the Roman Gladius was so useful because it was perfectly shaped for use WITHIN a shieldwall. The stabbing tip allowed the Roman soldier to jab the gladius between the linked shields, unlike the barbarian's longer swords, maces, and axes that needed room to swing in order to deal maximum damage.

[Adrian Laguna]

The gladius weapon designed specifically for fighting in the tight formations with large shields that the Romans were known for. Using the shields to cover themselves, the Romans would close-in, bash the enemy with the shield and then stab them. The sharp gladius would easily create deep wounds on enemy soldiers, and it was pretty good at penetrating the armours available at the time. As the Roman Empire declined, you begin seeing larger swords, which indicate the adoption of looser formations.

[wolveraptor]

Wouldn't spears have been better for tight formations? With a gladius, you have to stick your arm out beyond the protection of the wall; to me, that's just asking to be an amputee.

[Master of Ossus]

As for armor, gigantic bronze studs might make a statistical difference, but not a real one; such armor would have to be far heavier than regular bronze plate to make any difference. It would thus cost far more, and be far less useful, if it could be created at all.

What are you talking about? Brigandine armor was adopted in a wide variety of areas and climates because of the ease of manufacture, effectiveness, and cost:benefit.

I reiterate: there are no known examples of studded leather armor, but for a vase painting subjected to dubious interpretation. There is no evidence for studded leather armor. There is finally no good reason for that configuration.

Brigandine armor is KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED. We even have records detailing how to make the stuff. Is that not what we're talking about, here? Metal bits attached to leather to make it stronger and better as armor?

[Knife]

Wouldn't spears have been better for tight formations? With a gladius, you have to stick your arm out beyond the protection of the wall; to me, that's just asking to be an amputee.

Yes and no. For better penetration, you need a heavier spear, which is heavy *duh* and not as percise. Romans used a very large shield, with the Galdius.

As far as arm reach, when one shield wall is pushing up against the other shield wall, the target is closer than arms reach. They'd stab the enemy and the hilt of the sword would be roughly equal to where the shield is.

You can make a case for deeper formations bringing spears to bear at this moment and be correct. However, the Romans use Pilum and usually threw them at ~10 or ~15 meters and thinned the enemy formation and/or make the front shields dudes shieldless.

[Elheru Aran]

Just a note: I think Eleas may be thinking of plain cloth or leather with studs in it, which would in fact be rather useless. Brigandine is quite different, being a shirt or vest lined with armour; the studs are all you see of the armour on the outside.

[Master of Ossus]

Just a note: I think Eleas may be thinking of plain cloth or leather with studs in it, which would in fact be rather useless. Brigandine is quite different, being a shirt or vest lined with armour; the studs are all you see of the armour on the outside.

That makes sense, then.

[tharkûn]

Wouldn't spears have been better for tight formations? With a gladius, you have to stick your arm out beyond the protection of the wall; to me, that's just asking to be an amputee.

Spears can be wieled overhanded or overhanded. Overhanded requires you to move slowly and with economy, one man rushing across the field holding an 8ft spear aloft will tire quickly. Further this limits the height of your shield - too high/wide and you can strike over the wall or in small gaps.

Underhanded spears have their own difficulties. Yes you can be far more mobile and yes you can get away to taller shields. The problem comes than as you pack bodies in the formation becomes increasingly less mobile as lateral movement requires the next guy to unbrace his spear and time the move precisely.

Lastly with spears you either are in danger of having trouble in the press, which is why spearmen often carried a short sword, or wasting manpower by stacking the formation too deep if the enemy doesn't press. Likewise spears being broken or irretriveably impaled on a body were constant threats.

The gladius was favored because it is was extremely quick and efficient and an utter workhorce. In any event anyone in a position to cut off my arm either is out of range striking, in wich case a I'd wait for him to close or the shield wall to move forward; or he's close enough that the guy next to me can gut him when he opens up to make the strike.

[Eleas]

Just a note: I think Eleas may be thinking of plain cloth or leather with studs in it, which would in fact be rather useless. Brigandine is quite different, being a shirt or vest lined with armour; the studs are all you see of the armour on the outside.

Yep, that was indeed my impression. I now realize Master of Orion meant something altogether different. The confusion stems, I guess, from how to properly define the term and the fact that brigandine looks pretty similar to studded leather -- however, as you say, it's quite different in function to the "medieval biker leather" some believe to have existed.

[Mobiboros]

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.

That actually does have much to do with it. I did note that people can be trained to roll with a blow. I noted in a few places that "rounded" targets are harder to get a clean solid hit on. A target in motion is all the harder to get a solid shot on.

To use the SCA as an example (My wife, and most of my friends do heavy list. I, and the rest do rapier). It's very hard to learn to get a solid shot with a rounded weapon on a moving human target. Very often a blunt weapon will glance off a target. However, as you noted. A solid hit can be devastating. My wife has come home with purple-black bruises from shots to unarmoured areas.

I never said a mace (and other blunt weapons) was a poor weapon. I said they are just generally less effective than bladed weapons against unarmoured targets. Against armoured targets you want the mass of the blunt to crush through it (Or a pick-type weapon).

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.

I'd guess the guy was like 120, my friend is like 190.

Or maybe "full force hit" is a misnomer in this case.

I should have said a full wind up. Dude pulled from behind his shoulder in the swing, more than 180degrees. As I already noted though, it's hard to get a clean, solid shot. Which, was my point, which I said in my post. It's not as assured a quick kill with a blunt instrument because you're less likely to get a clean, solid shot.

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.

Where did I say anyone could survive a full blow from a mace? I said that you are less guaranteed a quick kill with a blunt weapon because it's harder to get the kinds of solid shots necessary to cause that kind of damage.

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.

All of which, pretty much is exactly what I said all along.

[Eleas]

Now, Eleas, Studded Leather did exist, and was used by the Romans as part of the Centurian's armor. Take a good look at the 'skirt' they wear to protect their hips and thighs, and you'll find it's leather straps with studs of brass.

Odd. How I missed your post, I don't know; my apologies, in any case. Having looked upon the centurion armor, I stand corrected. It does look like the studs in that configuration were used mainly to lend the straps added weight and bulk, which would not be of use on the shirt proper.

Some 'studded leather' is actually the outside of a scale or banded mail armor. The scales or bands of leather or soft metal are covered with a layer of leather, and the visible 'studs' are what hold the scales in place.

Yes, I agree. I did not intend to dispute the effectiveness of brigantine style armor or variants thereof.

[Zornhau]

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 .... (Z:nice example snipped for brevity)

Good points about the jabbing.

However, as I understand it, the action is almost similar when jabbing or striking:

1. Stand left foot forward, about 30 deg onto target, legs bent (ie a more open version of the classic fencing stance), weapon held at rear shoulder.
2. Punch as if elastic connects the mace head to the target.
As the arm straightens, the mace head swings along whatever line you chose.
3. When you feel the drag, pivot forward so that your body is behind the blow.
Right foot and weapon should land simultaneously.
4. Splat.

If you don't believe me, try it with a hammer or any other head-heavy item.

[Elfdart]

That's about it, though the one time I've seen the billyclub used in anger was a police officer starting to raise his nightstick (like for an overhand swing), but instead suddenly swing up, hitting the punk in the solar plexus. The positioning of the feet was about what you describe, assuming a left-handed attacker.

[Zornhau]

Thanks. A lot of talk about medieval weapons comes from people who've no idea how to strike properly, or what a difference that can make.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I should have said a full wind up. Dude pulled from behind his shoulder in the swing, more than 180degrees. As I already noted though, it's hard to get a clean, solid shot. Which, was my point, which I said in my post. It's not as assured a quick kill with a blunt instrument because you're less likely to get a clean, solid shot.

The big difference is in training. Somebody who really knows how to use a club or a mace will know what distance he needs to keep from his enemy, how to strike accurately and effectively, and how to avoid leaving himself open to counterattack. As with any weapon, proficiency is key.

There did I say anyone could survive a full blow from a mace? I said that you are less guaranteed a quick kill with a blunt weapon because it's harder to get the kinds of solid shots necessary to cause that kind of damage.

You didn't say precisely that one could survive a blow from a mace, but you did deride the damage potential of a mace as being less than from a sword, which simply isn't true.

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.

A good glancing blow to the leg from a mace will incapacitate a man just as well as with a sword, though less permanently. Because even big, thick muscles like the quadriceps aren't going to be happy when they're hit by a big mace or warhammer; the trauma will make them freeze up and go numb. In terms of immediate immobility this is every bit as bad as getting sliced with a sword, but in the long term contusions and blunt force trauma of that milder range can be recovered from, while a severed hamstring is something you'll carry with you.

Unless you were talking about a truly light glancing blow, in which case you are correct that it wouldn't be incapacitating. But, by the same token, an equivalent cut by a sword would leave only shallow lacerations.

My point is that a mace is no less lethal and damaging than an equivalent sword, and no less versatile. The difference is that a sword has versatility in action (you can do all kinds of things like half-swording, switching ends and striking with the pommel, cutting and thrusting with fairly equal lethality, etc. etc.) while a mace or warhammer has versatility in choice of targets (you can kill a man in armor nearly as easily as you kill a man in his birthday suit).