| Author |
Message |
|
Christopher Finneman
Location: Sartell Minnesota Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 159
|
 Posted: Mon 17 Dec, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: Windlass german mace |
 |
|
Hello there.
I have read the review on the german mace made by windlass.
I just have a few questions about it.
First off how durable you all think this is due to the weight being fairly low?. And I know the shaft is hollow but whats the thickness of the walls. If I end up buying this I dont want it to bend or break due to the shaft being to thin.
Any info would be appreciated.
Thanks
Christopher
Proudly it stands until the worlds end. The victorious banner of love.
|
|
    |
 |
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That was my mace. I would guess--and it's only a guess--that the Windlass's relatively low weight is due to thinner haft walls. I'm not sure that original maces would necessarily have been significantly more durable, though. I would expect the welded modern construction to be stronger than historical brazed construction. While I would expect the Windlass mace to fail (bend) in the haft, I'd expect a medieval mace to fail (break) at the brazing of the flanges. Again, that's pure speculation on my part. Maybe our resident metallurgists can clarify that. IIRC, I have seen at least one original mace with a bent haft. Who knows how many bent mace hafts have been straightened in modern times?
Based on some contemporary artwork I saw recently, I think this mace, given its weight and length, might fit a bit better in the second quarter of the 15th c.
Bill Grandy owns this mace now. If he has used it he might be able to give us some idea how durable it feels to him when used against various targets.
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
 |
|
|
Kjell Magnusson
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: | | I would expect the welded modern construction to be stronger than historical brazed construction. While I would expect the Windlass mace to fail (bend) in the haft, I'd expect a medieval mace to fail (break) at the brazing of the flanges. Again, that's pure speculation on my part. Maybe our resident metallurgists can clarify that. |
From what I've heard, brazing can stand up very well to welding in a modern setting (the latter being very rough on the base material, which can cause a number of problems). The advantages to welding were, from what I can recall, mostly economical. I won't try any guesses though to what extent this translates to older times.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree that a number of modern high performance things still utilize brazing. Several rocket engine nozzles for example. Once the brazing process is proven for a relatively similar geometry and application, repeatability is pretty good.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 24 Dec, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure how this one compares in thickness to historical, but I've run across a number of historical specimens with hollow hafts. So that type of construction is historical, though the execution (ie thickness of the tube) could be less than so... 
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Peter G.
Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Dec, 2007 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
IIRC most original metal maces had hollow hafts-afaik a hollow shaft is more stable then a massive shaft-doesn´t bend that easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic