There are pictures of several mass weapons, including gotentag's and a two handed, agriculturaly derived flail in the Albums:
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/thumbnails.ph...amp;page=6

SLOphile: Sword Like Object Lover - anyone who prefers fanciful or fantastic weapons to "historic reporductions". This can be for a variety of reasons, budget, useage, or astheics. Not meant to be perjorative, some people just can't figure why you'd pay a grand for a sword that isn't shaped like a dragon wing, and doesn't even have any cool faux gems on it.

the so-called Morgenstern Group? Ummm could you expound a bit?

Ellis, you mentioned the Flax, which I at first assumed you had mispelled Falx, but by total happenstance I ran into the term whilst killing time on Wikipedia. They define it thusly:

Quote:

This article is about a type improvised medieval weapon. For the similarly named ancient weapon, see falx. A flax was the name given to the improvised pole arm, derived from the agricultural tool used to gather flax. This consisted of a metal head mounted on a 7-8 foot long pole. The head had a serrated edge much like a saw along one side, topped by a broad flat hook. The reverse sported a simple spike. Much like a bill, this head was made of a single piece of tooled metal rather than many pieces later fixed together. While not designed as a weapon of war, the poorer classes of Europe used all manner of tools to defend themselves during war in the middle ages. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax_%28weapon%29"

Now I generally take anything in an open source encyclopedia with a pound of salt (look at the article history on "battle axe", it's scary) but this sounds like an entirely different weapon, not just a misunderstanding. That said, I can't find any other references to a "flax" as an improvised flail. Wassup wit dat? Which were you referring to? Is the Wiki correct, or is this another sounds-good-on-paper weapon?

I was refeing to the falx... Just mispelled it...

:lol: Hehe, just curious. Insanely curious, one might say. ;)

I just had to post this. Its a relatively new offering from by-the-sword.com. I rather like it, though I'm dubious to the durability of the thing, if is hickory or ash it might be OK, but the price is unconscionable. :D

---

 Attachment: 19.77 KB

yah, I saw that thing a few weeks ago. I wouldn't mind owning it, maybe it could help clear out the 2" layer of ice coating our driveway :p

I would prefer a good Estwing with a knurled face, myself. Major flaw i would think would be the handle-one good wallop and its broken. Any handtool can be a weapon, depending on how hard you try or how desperate you are.

In the Boydell and Brewer "Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour" there is a chapter 12 entitled "Close Combat Weapons in the Early Abbasid Period: Maces and Axes".
The maces described therein were very heavy and often wielded with one hand, there being cited a particular warrior regarded as being exceptionally strong, who having lost his right arm trained himself to use an extremely heavy mace with his left hand.
These weapons are described as being useful only when fully committed to one devastating blow.
One example given describes how, missing his man, one such blow succeeded in killing the horse by breaking it's back with the force of the blow on the crupper.
Rod.

It seems like a hammer/mallet would be more of a dueling type weapon. It was useful for getting one blow but in an all out battle you would be slaughtered after one swing. In "Medieval Combat" a medieval fighting manual originally Hans Talhoffer there are large wooden maces used for duels. Maybe these evolved from large wooden mallets? Probably not, but maybe.

Just wanted to add: the two handed falx was the weapon of the RICHEST, not of the poorest. And while romans didn't adopt it, we have numerous coins of romans showing off captured falxes to the emperor. And it was effective enough to force roman legions to adopt the manica, and possibly upper leg protection, as it could puncture the scutum. Or get behind it and cut the shield hand. Even after this improvement, capturing Dacia was a HARD WAR. Of course, the falx-wielding fighters only came to play after the formations have been broken, as it's ineffective against a shield wall.

BTW, explain me something. What is exotic? To me, a katar is exotic, just as the pesh-kabz, or the black-sea yataghan, not to mention the keris, as they are NOT used in Europe. But they were used for centuries... and not for decoration, but for killing. You know, if something doesn't work - you stop using it. Especially when you have such a huge variety of weapons like in India. Oh, mentioning India. Some of these "exotic" weapons were used by Sikh people. Who could defend themselfes against moghul invasion quite well, and in a later revolt, they gave a hard time to even the English.

A halberdier or billman has the advatage of a blade and usually a top spike. With that you wouldnt need such a hard blow to do damage. A mallet has no blade or spike so you can't cut or stab, you need the brute force of the swing to cause damage. A harder swing can mean less control especially if you miss. Also billman and halberdiers were often used in ranks. A lone billman amidst many swordmen would be easily slaughtered. All a swordsman has to do is push the shaft away with his shield and step in with his sword.

Good point about the archers, but isn't that only a last resort? For the common soldier a sword is much better.

-James

A bill or or helbard isn't that heavy. The heads are not very large. They do, however, have reach. A sledge hammer style malet does not have more reach than a sword, however. Also, what is refered to as heavy presumably varied as much back in the day as it does now; there was a rather long thread about this not long ago. As did the tales of weapons and their effects.

On what I call Exotic weaponry, I take it to mean weapons that have seen little use, but has a novel use or appearance. As such, the Katar would not be a exotic weapon, as it has been used quite extensively.
The statement is really aimed more at RPGs than anything else: In games, all things exotic are given rules that make them better than a "standard" weapon.
It is also more a reminder than a rule; A weapon design will have disadvantages as well as advantages, and it's usefulness is the product of these.

so, let's see:

Mallet
Pros:
-Hits hard.

Cons:
-Short for a twohanded weapon.
-Sluggish, slow
-Heavy to carry.
-No cutting edge.
-No possibility to stab, even blunt.


As a curious side note, the romans and byzantines used a throwing sledgehammer as a cavalry weapon; It was carried in a holster on the saddle, and hurled at foes. Presumably developed by troops tired of their throwing axes failing to hit edge first...

Archers in the Hundred Years War and Wars of the Roses are typically shown with falchions or what appear to my inexperienced eye to be type XV swords. In earlier times Welsh knifemen appear on some lists of array as a separate category from archers.
But it is quite likely that in the free companies a much wider choice of weapons and equipment might be available. Roughly contemporary illustrations tend to show quite uniformly equipped archers such as one might expect to find in a well financed and provided affinity.
In the free companies, it seems to me that there might be a far greater likelihood of improvisation in equipment, much of it "liberated".
I have no doubt that a mallet or maul would be used if there was nothing else to hand, but as the weapon of choice I think it a fanciful view of the "stout yeoman" so beloved of the romantic writers in the period of Imperial expansion, perpetuated in such as the Olivier "Henry V" at Agincourt as a patriotic theme.
Rod.

It could also be that the word mallet had a different meaning to the writers of the time. A five foot long warhammer with a top spike could in deed be a efficient weapon.
But I have difficulties seeing the large wooden sledgehammers being preferable. Especially with a 5 ft shaft. You do of course have the gotentag, wich is a long cub with a top spike, but the hammer design would be even more unbalanced...

This manual you mention, Ben, does it have a full description of the weapon?

There is much talk about mauls or mallets but I have yet to see an artefact or a contemporary illustration of such an item in the hands of an archer on the battlefield.
No doubt mallets were employed to drive in stakes and so would be to hand, but given that an archer of the 15thC might have a sword or falchion and buckler as standard equipment, it seems to me that the maul or mallet would be employed only if nothing else were to hand.
Rod.

PS. Who is Henry Barrett?