how effective maces and warhammers were as weapons

[Mobiboros]

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.

Not really. I noted that part of damage potential is tied to the attack being used and that swords were more likely to grant a quick kill as even a glance blade on from a sword could be crippling whereas a glance from a mace may or may not be depending on how it glanced. Maces are devastating weapons and used to great effect against both armoured and unarmoured opponents. I only contend a sword is superior against unarmoured opponents whereas mace is superior vs armed when trying to kill.

A good glancing blow to the leg from a mace will incapacitate a man just as well as with a sword, though less permanently.

That's somewhat an oxymoronic statement. If it's a good blow, it's a good blow. You hit solid on the sweet spot. If you glanced off then you didn't get a good blow. There are degrees of glancing, but none would be a 'good blow'.

Because even big, thick muscles like the quadriceps aren't going to be happy when they're hit by a big mace or warhammer;

Ah, neither maces nor warhammers were 'big'. In fact ther were often rather small, having heads that only weighted 3-5lbs and were about the size of a fist. Big, top heavy weapons are clumsy and suitable only for Conan the Barbarian rejects.

the trauma will make them freeze up and go numb.

Not really. Having taken enough blunt trauma in my life playing various sports and being in the SCA, fencing, and some martial arts I can say that it takes very specific shots to make muscles go numb. It's not something you should count on in a weapons fight.

Also, a matter of philosophy. You shouldn't be looking to just incapacitate. Breaking a guys knee is great, but if he has a sword that doesn't stop him from wounding you in return. Optimally you want to get in, take the guy out completely, and get out without being touched.

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.

Which was part of my point. If you want a quick kill, a sword can do that against unarmoured opponents more often because every wound causes blood-loss.

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).

It's a different use weapon. As I already said, it's a weapon more effective agtainst an armoured opponent whereas a sword or other bladed weapon, is more effective against unarmoured opponents when you want a greater chance of a quick kill. Yes a mace is equally good against either one, but a sword is better against unarmoured.

[Elfdart]

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.

Medieval weapons? A lot of people don't know how to throw a decent punch. They think it's like the movies and wonder why a smaller policeman, bouncer or bartender kicks the shit out of them in about four seconds or less. The art of the Old Soup Bone (which involves a stance similar to what you describe) is not as common as it used to be.

I'm convinced that a lot of the fundamentals for any kind of hand-to-hand combat or self-defense are as old as the hills. Some people think punching, chopping and kicking are recent innovations, but I'm of the opinion that in the many thousands of years of human history, people not only tried but perfected many if not all of the techniques known as the Martial Arts. The Cro-Magnon who kicked, punched and gouged his enemy more efficiently had a better chance of survival -keeping in mind that there wasn't a specialized class of fighting men back then.

[Pablo Sanchez]

That's somewhat an oxymoronic statement. If it's a good blow, it's a good blow. You hit solid on the sweet spot. If you glanced off then you didn't get a good blow. There are degrees of glancing, but none would be a 'good blow'.

A semantic argument that quite fails to impress me. I was trying to distinguish between glancing blows that still deliver a significant impact, as opposed to blows of negligable impact. A miss is as good as a mile, but there's a million different ways to "barely" hit a person.

Ah, neither maces nor warhammers were 'big'. In fact ther were often rather small, having heads that only weighted 3-5lbs and were about the size of a fist. Big, top heavy weapons are clumsy and suitable only for Conan the Barbarian rejects.

Big is obviously a relative term, and I suppose I apologize for using the adjective carelessly.

Not really. Having taken enough blunt trauma in my life playing various sports and being in the SCA, fencing, and some martial arts I can say that it takes very specific shots to make muscles go numb. It's not something you should count on in a weapons fight.

Sports and mock combat don't bear very much resemblence to a realistic melee. You may have been wearing protective padding in conjunction with sparring weapons, and it isn't likely that any of the blows were delivered with vicious force and murderous intent.

Also, a matter of philosophy. You shouldn't be looking to just incapacitate. Breaking a guys knee is great, but if he has a sword that doesn't stop him from wounding you in return. Optimally you want to get in, take the guy out completely, and get out without being touched.

Well, this is a matter of little argument. Obviously it's better to strike a killing blow, but in an actual combat losing the use of one of your limbs is as good as being killed. A swordsman with a severe injury is still dangerous but he's probably not nearly as dangerous as he was before. A man with an immobilized leg, for example, isn't just unable to move around the field. He's also off-balance and is fighting both offensively and defensively at a severe handicap--probably not even one quarter as effective as before.

Moreover, it's not always possible to end the fight with one blow.

Which was part of my point. If you want a quick kill, a sword can do that against unarmoured opponents more often because every wound causes blood-loss.

Agreed.

It's a different use weapon. As I already said, it's a weapon more effective agtainst an armoured opponent whereas a sword or other bladed weapon, is more effective against unarmoured opponents when you want a greater chance of a quick kill. Yes a mace is equally good against either one, but a sword is better against unarmoured.

Aye.