Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Impact Weapons Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sun 25 Mar, 2007 7:44 pm    Post subject: Re: replying to the original topic         Reply with quote

Jack Yang wrote:
Why didn't Romans use impact weapons?
As mentioned earlier by some one else, the Romans fought in a shield-to-shield tank-like formation. In this formation, spears and short swords were used because of their thrusting abilities. Also, the Romans were famous for their sturdy scutum shields. The scutums allowed them to maneuver in the Testudo formation. In this formation, soldier would be pretty much invulnerable to impact weapons, since their shields would protect them from direct damage and their comrades behind them would provide them support to keep them from being "pushed over".


Unfortunately, the Romans did use impact weapons--I've mentioned the use of axes against elephants up there, and then there's also the baculus--the rod or stick used as a tool of punishment. Not to forget the (dubious) mention of Aurelian's Palestinian clubmen. What we have to remember here is that the Romans didn't always fight shoulder-to-shoulder in open battles, and there were some situations where their standard infantry tactics didn't work very well. Needless to say, they quickly adapted to tackle these situations.

The testudo, too, does not seem to have been a close-combat weapon. It's very useful for defending against relatively light missiles like arrows, javelins, and slingstones, but it's too rigid to be practical in close combat. Find a Roman reenactment group (or photographs of them) doing the testudo and you'll immediately see that even though it's largely impenetrable to missiles, it does not allow the men inside to strike back very effectively. Certainly not something that fits with the Romans' aggressive military doctrine. The consensus of the recent scholarship tend to lean towards the interpretation that the testudo was a formation resorted to in the approach to fortified sites, since it allowed the soldiers maximum protection up to the point where they began scaling the walls.

Another thing to note about the Romans and Greeks is that we must not become overly fixated on their body armor. Thse might have been less extensive than those of their medieval successors, but the Romans and Greeks also used much larger shields for their heavy infantry--effectively covering almost all the body parts not protected by the helmet or body armor. The exception would be against weapons capable of delivering hooking blows like the axe and (presumably) the falx.

Quote:
Think about it, hammers and maces are pretty easy to dodge compares to a much lighter sword,


Really? Most of the serious warhammers, axes, and maces I know of are quite light--well below four pounds. That means they weigh roughly the same as swords, only that this weight tends to be more concentrated at the head. And a properly-executed blow with a mace or hammer is no slower than a sword cut. Where they tend to be slower is in the recovery into the next attack, not in the attack itself.

I'd agree, however, with the opinion expressed elsewhere that the presence of limb armor might have been conducive to the use of concussion weapons like the mace and the warhammer since they allowed the user to deliver a powerful swing without exposing himself to stop-cuts or stop-thrusts to his weapon arm.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sun 25 Mar, 2007 9:29 pm    Post subject: Re: replying to the original topic         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Really? Most of the serious warhammers, axes, and maces I know of are quite light--well below four pounds. That means they weigh roughly the same as swords, only that this weight tends to be more concentrated at the head. And a properly-executed blow with a mace or hammer is no slower than a sword cut. Where they tend to be slower is in the recovery into the next attack, not in the attack itself.


Just an observation based only on playing with my A & A Iberian mace: Like you said it's not really heavy and with practice it feels lighter and faster than what one might assume. If held closer to the head there is a lost of power and reach but some recovery speed is gained in exchange. Also, even without a top spike one can thrust with the mace and recover as fast a sword, I think, using it more in battering ram fashion: Again speed gained at the expense of some power.

It might be useful to look at the mace as a very short polearm and a variety of secondary techniques as mentioned above might give more options than just bashing away.

Just curious about your thoughts Big Grin

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Mon 26 Mar, 2007 8:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I haven't tried thrusting techniques with maces, mostly because I don't have any good replica maces at hand--but, judging from my experience with batons in civil defense situations, I believe you're right in that a thrust can still be a useful kind of attack (even if not the optimum) for such weapons. I really ought to try it some time with a real good mace.
View user's profile Send private message
Jack Yang




Location: maryland
Joined: 24 Mar 2007

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Tue 27 Mar, 2007 9:53 am    Post subject: moo         Reply with quote

Lafayette, the baculus is a too for punishment, but was it ever used in battle?
as for the speed of impact weapons, we can classify impact weapons into two categories, the one handed ones, and two handed ones. For one handed impact weapons, I personally find them either very unwieldy or useless, since the whole point of impact weapons is to deliver a smashing blow, and it takes two hands (at least it takes me two hands...) to do that properly. For two handed impact weapons, although they may weight roughly the same as a two handed sword (and short swords are lighter than 2h swords, duh. but a typical zweihander weights about 3 or 4 pounds) , I think they are slower because most of their weight is in the striking end, and therefore takes more force to accelerate, if the same amount of force was put into a sword and a hammer, that sword would accelerate faster than the hammer.
Also, my original wording is 'the hammer is easier to dodge". Not only does hammers take longer to accelerate, but in order to bring out maximum power, you'll need to pull the hammer aside to prepare for the swing, that, is like telling your enemy "I'm attacking now, get ready!" With the sword, though, you can be tricky, since the sword is sharp and you don't have to put much force into it to hurt someone with it, you can attack your enemy from any angle, and you only need a relatively small amount of force to accelerate the weapon.
But that of course, is if you hold the hammer like a sword (with both hands at the end). If you put one hand closer to the hammer's head, you'll be able to swing it just as speedily as a sword, and perhaps with little or no less impact (since F=ma, and although you've lost your "crowbar effect", for lack of better terming, you gained acceleration), but the problem is, you'll have to step closer to your enemy if you want to reach him. sure, with a hammer, you can easily knock aside your enemy's sword and close up to him, but as you swing your second swing to crush his brain, he (if doesn't lose his footing) could step back and cut a gap into your arm (If you hold your hammer close to the tip, you'll have shorter range, and the fore grip would be very close to your opponent, making a great target for him).
Hammer thrusts (as I see it) is only useful for keep your opponent away from you, in case he has a shorter weapon and is trying to get close up, you can just push him away with a thrust that'll give him a nice chest ache or stomach ache, may be even a broken leg if you hit him in the right place, but in order to kill some one, I think you'll have to swing. Unless, of course, if you hit him in the face and knock him out Razz. That or if you are super man...

And I think we all agree now that it's harder to recover your weapon if you are using an impact weapon, unless if you decided to hold it close to the head (which would bring other disadvantages). So to me, that's why I like teh sharp 'n shinnies better, and all that might have to do with why people don't use hammers in duels. And as for in battle, well, we've discussed it enough... Razz and I would say more but i think this page is long enough....

I keep using the phrases "I think", "I believe", "as i see it" in this reply, 'cause i really think more than i do, lol, I've never had the chance to fight some one with a real hammer (luckily, 'cause I'm a sword's person), and in my sparring with my friends, we can only use pvc pipes padded with foam, which simulates only the shape of the weapon and not the weight...

and just to let yall know, I've just found the forum and I'm in love with it, I can't find any better place to blab about weapons and hear other people blab about weapons. =D
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Tue 27 Mar, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject: Re: moo         Reply with quote

Jack Yang wrote:
For one handed impact weapons, I personally find them either very unwieldy or useless, since the whole point of impact weapons is to deliver a smashing blow, and it takes two hands (at least it takes me two hands...) to do that properly.


Um, I beg to differ. Pick up a standard carpenters framing hammer some time. You don't think you could kill somebody with that pretty easily?

Now imagine galloping by on a horse and smashing somebody in the head with one. You don't think that would leave a dent?

The balance on bludgeons is different, but when you are talking about actual weapons as opposed to farm tools, in practice they aren't that much slower than a sword. Certainly not to the extent that a bad fighter with a sword would have an advantage over a good fighter with a war hammer. Now of course, something like a sledge hammer would be fairly useless in combat, but a real war hammer is basically a lot more like your standard carpenters hammer per above, only with a longer haft. The striking heads are not a whole lot heavier, if anything they may actually be lighter.

The biggest disadvantage of blunt weapons is that they require momentum to injure their target. With a sword you can chop like an axe OR you can slice.... you can thrust hard like a pool-que or you can jab gently right into the throat. Thus the sword is more flexible. Plus with a Western sword at any rate you do have that nice close to the hilt balance which makes changing momentum quicker ... IF you are an experienced fighter.

In my sparring experiences (in which we use realistically wieghted and balanced sparring weapons) maces and axes are in their own way almost as effective as swords. Your hands tend to be a bit more vulnerable due to the lack of a cross (though you might have a roundel) and you are limited in your options if you let the momentum drop, say in a bind.

J

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Tue 27 Mar, 2007 7:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jack-
Impact weapons don't need to be 'cocked back' further than swords. Because swords are used, primarily, from a position with the sword back. The most basic stance for longsword, known as vom Tag, is with the sword held above your head and tilted back.

Check out the fecthbuchs such as at the ARMA site,
or Bill Grandy's article on myArmoury.

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 9:33 am    Post subject: Re: moo         Reply with quote

Jack Yang wrote:
Lafayette, the baculus is a too for punishment, but was it ever used in battle?


Not exactly, but I brought it up to counter the baseless assertion that the Romans never used impact weapons in battle.

Quote:
as for the speed of impact weapons, we can classify impact weapons into two categories, the one handed ones, and two handed ones. For one handed impact weapons, I personally find them either very unwieldy or useless, since the whole point of impact weapons is to deliver a smashing blow, and it takes two hands (at least it takes me two hands...) to do that properly.


Well, one-handed impact weapons will feel heavy to untrained people, but then so would swords or spears or any other kind of weapon. The other possibility is that you simply haven't been lucky enough to lay your hands on a good museum or reproduction mace, since there are many, many bad reproductions out there that are much heavier than they should be.

Quote:
For two handed impact weapons, although they may weight roughly the same as a two handed sword (and short swords are lighter than 2h swords, duh. but a typical zweihander weights about 3 or 4 pounds) , I think they are slower because most of their weight is in the striking end, and therefore takes more force to accelerate, if the same amount of force was put into a sword and a hammer, that sword would accelerate faster than the hammer.


But is the difference large enough to be significant in a fight? I'm afraid not. Just ask the people here who have had plenty of free-play experience, and they'll tell you that a two-handed warhammer or poleaxe in the hands of a good fighter is not markedly slower than a sword or spear.

Quote:
Also, my original wording is 'the hammer is easier to dodge". Not only does hammers take longer to accelerate, but in order to bring out maximum power, you'll need to pull the hammer aside to prepare for the swing, that, is like telling your enemy "I'm attacking now, get ready!" With the sword, though, you can be tricky, since the sword is sharp and you don't have to put much force into it to hurt someone with it, you can attack your enemy from any angle, and you only need a relatively small amount of force to accelerate the weapon.
But that of course, is if you hold the hammer like a sword (with both hands at the end). If you put one hand closer to the hammer's head, you'll be able to swing it just as speedily as a sword, and perhaps with little or no less impact (since F=ma, and although you've lost your "crowbar effect", for lack of better terming, you gained acceleration), but the problem is, you'll have to step closer to your enemy if you want to reach him. sure, with a hammer, you can easily knock aside your enemy's sword and close up to him, but as you swing your second swing to crush his brain, he (if doesn't lose his footing) could step back and cut a gap into your arm (If you hold your hammer close to the tip, you'll have shorter range, and the fore grip would be very close to your opponent, making a great target for him).
Hammer thrusts (as I see it) is only useful for keep your opponent away from you, in case he has a shorter weapon and is trying to get close up, you can just push him away with a thrust that'll give him a nice chest ache or stomach ache, may be even a broken leg if you hit him in the right place, but in order to kill some one, I think you'll have to swing. Unless, of course, if you hit him in the face and knock him out Razz. That or if you are super man...


This assumes that there is only one method of attacking with a hammer or mace--that is, with a roundhouse swing. Jean and Steven have explained this in great detail, although I think I need to add that in order to launch a proper chopping blow with a sword, you'll have to start in or transition through a guard where the sword is pointing wide and backwards. In the German longsword tradition this can either be the Vom Tag or the tail guard.

Another important thing is that from a Vom Tag-like position, you'll immediately see that the pommel of the sword is in the perfect position for launching a sudden strike against an enemy who is expecting a longer-range attack from the blade. The same applies to two-handed warhammers and poleaxes--their butts can give nasty, unexpected blows against the enemy's head or hands.

Last but not least: remember that in fighting there are at least two kinds of measure: distant (Zufechten or misura larga(?)) and close (krieg or misura stretta). When you're in Zufechten, you're not all that vulnerable even if your weapon is pointing away from the enemy since you'll still have the time and distance needed to swing that weapon into a strike or an engagement position. In Krieg, you might be vulnerable if you restrict yourself to full-armed swings, but remember that you don't really have to--you can attack just as well with the pommel or the butt.

Quote:
And I think we all agree now that it's harder to recover your weapon if you are using an impact weapon, unless if you decided to hold it close to the head (which would bring other disadvantages). So to me, that's why I like teh sharp 'n shinnies better, and all that might have to do with why people don't use hammers in duels. And as for in battle, well, we've discussed it enough...


Actually I was half lying. "Recover" assumes that you want to reverse the momentum of a swing in midair. This is harder to do with impact weapons, but there are many, many ways of getting around this problem. One is by controlling the engagament distance (especially by making sure that your enemy is too far away to reach you when you'e in your most vulnerable moments) and another is by using a shorter, more practical form of attack like the pommel or the butt. Many kinds of military axes and hammers also have back-spikes that are very handy when you need to change the direction of a failed attack.

Yes, using realistic training weapons is very important in developing an understanding of how these weapons are supposed to work. Only when you've felt the weight of a real sword and compare it with the weight of a real mace, axe, or hammer will you understand how they're supposed to work. And you'll be amazed at how fast these heavy things can move.
View user's profile Send private message
Bram Verbeek





Joined: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 217

PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 12:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have a few cents I would like to add to the basket

First, a long time ago there was the discussion of whether clerics would take maces to battle or just about any weapon, this, as I recall, stems from a clergyman noble who was forbidden to take up the sword. in response, he took a mace to battle. Since D&D, this instance has become a illusion of standardisation.

Second, in my experience, it is much harder to dodge a balanced weapon, especially one as multifunctional as a sword, then a weapon weighted at the end, it is though, harder to parry something like a hammer. A weighted weapon takes more time to get somewhere, and is harder to change direction, a balanced weapon has less impact, it is mostly the rotary impact, plus a little from the momentum from the pob to the actual pivot point. If you calculate this and calculate the amount of joules stored in a weighted weapon, you see that the weighted weapon has about 5 times the impact energy of a balanced weapon. Problem with weighted weapons is: all the energy delivered to the target has to come from you, problem with balanced weapons is, you need a whole lot of speed to deliver the energy, and human arms cannot make that much speed.
View user's profile Send private message
Jack Yang




Location: maryland
Joined: 24 Mar 2007

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 6:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

LOL we can really argue on forever aye...?
bram, a balanced weapon might take more speed to deliver the same impact as a weighted weapon, but in this case, our balanced weapon is a sword, and it doesnt take much impact for a sword to cut.

And eh...
well, I see I couldn't convience you that a sword is a suprior weapon to a hammer, but eh... some one said he was practicing with realisticly weighted maces...? How do you do that without getting hurt....??? WTF?!
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 9:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The myth of clergymen and sharp weapons has been discussed ere now, and I think quite discredited.

In discussing the speed of swords vs. maces/hammers, stop-cuts have been mentioned. I should perhaps add that drawcuts are practical with a sharp weapon, which is a technique useless with a blunt one. Winding a longsword (or any sword, I suppose) allows an attack to be made even when a sword is crossed, from a full stop. I am not aware of any comparable move with a mace.
View user's profile Send private message
Jack Yang




Location: maryland
Joined: 24 Mar 2007

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar, 2007 4:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Can't you use the hammer to thrust in a cross? Some hammers have a spike on their heads for thrusts, and even if there's no spike, you can still "push" with it, and although it probably wont kill your enemy but it'll hurt him, I'm sure...
But I think you are right to say that one might find it hard to perform an equivalent move to the draw-cut with a hammer...
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar, 2007 11:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jack Yang wrote:
some one said he was practicing with realisticly weighted maces...? How do you do that without getting hurt....??? WTF?!


Same way you practice with realistically wieghted swords, since they weigh about the same (2-4 pounds on average); a little closed cell foam on the weapon, and a helmet and good set of protective gloves on your body.

I can post videos if you like.

J

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar, 2007 11:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Felix Wang wrote:
I should perhaps add that drawcuts are practical with a sharp weapon, which is a technique useless with a blunt one. Winding a longsword (or any sword, I suppose) allows an attack to be made even when a sword is crossed, from a full stop. I am not aware of any comparable move with a mace.


That is pretty much what I was saying about momentum...

Got to learn not to be so long winded Surprised
J

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print


Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Thu 29 Mar, 2007 11:15 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Practicing with realistically-weighted maces can be done if you have enough protection. Jean-Henri has spoken about this thing quite comprehensively so I guess there's not much need to elaborate on it.

With swords, of course, a padded blunt or waster can be used as a training device of resonably realistic weight, but remember that they still have weight--and even a waster or a blunt can deliver a greater impact than a baseball bat if it hits with full force. Practicing with a blunt or waster of realistic weight and balance requires just about as much care and caution as practicing with an impact weapon does.

Of course, draw cuts can be executed from a bind--against an unarmored or lightly-armored opponent. But honestly, is there anybody crazy enough to use a mace or a warhammer without either heavy armor or a fairly large shield? The first dramatically reduces the effectiveness of draw cuts while the second makes action at the bind much less likely. And remember that the motion of a pommel bash or a butt-strike closely resembles that of a very tight draw-cut so there is still a great deal of resemblance in technique in that sense.

When in a bind, I suppose a thrust or pommel-bash wouldn't always be the best choice. With a mace and shield, you just shove and/or step back. With a mace and a horse, how the hell would you get into a bind anyway? With a two-handed warhammer, remember that gripping it with one hand close to the hammer's head creates a situation quite similar to half-swording and I believe a resourceful fighter would still be able to use the levering, tripping, and throwing techniques involved therein after he/she has taken care to consider the shorter length of the weapon compared to a longsword.
View user's profile Send private message
Korey J. Lavoie




Location: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 06 Apr 2006

Posts: 63

PostPosted: Fri 30 Mar, 2007 5:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Am I the only one thinking that clubs in the "Wooden Sword" style might have played a role in how Sword Smith's working in the Bronze Age and onward through history, learned to properly proportion swords and effectively use cross-sectional geometry over a swords length to achieve the best properties for handling and overall effectiveness?
From the hundred year war
To the Crimea
With a Lance and a Musket and a Roman Spear
To all of the Men who have stood with no fear
In the Service of the King
-The Clash: The Card Cheat
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 30 Mar, 2007 9:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quite probable for some kinds of early weapons made entirely of bronze, but the presence of a hilt (or other components) made from a different materials would have changed the equation somewhat. And, if I'm not mistaken, the earliest practical weapon of sword length that we know of already had a hilt of organic components.
View user's profile Send private message
Korey J. Lavoie




Location: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 06 Apr 2006

Posts: 63

PostPosted: Fri 30 Mar, 2007 10:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Quite probable for some kinds of early weapons made entirely of bronze, but the presence of a hilt (or other components) made from a different materials would have changed the equation somewhat. And, if I'm not mistaken, the earliest practical weapon of sword length that we know of already had a hilt of organic components.


Please tell me what Weapon that was.

From the hundred year war
To the Crimea
With a Lance and a Musket and a Roman Spear
To all of the Men who have stood with no fear
In the Service of the King
-The Clash: The Card Cheat
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Fri 30 Mar, 2007 1:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Korey J. Lavoie wrote:
Am I the only one thinking that clubs in the "Wooden Sword" style might have played a role in how Sword Smith's working in the Bronze Age and onward through history, learned to properly proportion swords and effectively use cross-sectional geometry over a swords length to achieve the best properties for handling and overall effectiveness?


Sir Richard Burton makes a convincing argument that swords evolved from throwing sticks (like boomernags) and dual purpose throwing / hitting sticks, which existed all over the world including Europe. The original shaping was probably for aerodynamics which turned out, on a harder and denser type of wood, to be particularly good at breaking bones with that wedge shape. He implies that these wooden protoswords evolved into some of the first sword-like copper alloy weapons.

Jean

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Fri 30 Mar, 2007 1:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jack Yang wrote:
Can't you use the hammer to thrust in a cross? Some hammers have a spike on their heads for thrusts, and even if there's no spike, you can still "push" with it, and although it probably wont kill your enemy but it'll hurt him, I'm sure...
But I think you are right to say that one might find it hard to perform an equivalent move to the draw-cut with a hammer...


Taking the A & A Iberian mace as an example: A draw cut would obviously not be a cut but a raking blow on a limb should be painful even without breaking bones. http://www.arms-n-armor.com/view.html?pole147a.jpg

Full power mace blows usually mean holding the mace near the end for maximum power and against plate armour only the more powerful blows would be effective I think.

Against unarmoured opponents or body parts much lighter blows or contact could still incapacitate or disarm I think.

Shifting from the mace being held near the end of the handle or nearer the head seems very easy to do with practice using just the holding hand. ( Think of someone juggling and those skills applied to a mace )

Basically I just mean that any polearm is used in a very fluid way and grip(s) can slide around to make using all parts of the weapon in defensive or attacking moves.

So, my point, which I may have made before, is that a mace would not be only used for simple bashing but would include less powerful but still useful techniques.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Fri 30 Mar, 2007 2:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:


So, my point, which I may have made before, is that a mace would not be only used for simple bashing but would include less powerful but still useful techniques.


Another huge problem with any hafted weapon, spear, axe, mace or hammer, is that when the momentum is lost your opponent can seize your weapon with an off hand. I do it all the time in sparring Happy

BD

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Impact Weapons
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum