Why were maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely? You mostly hear of swords or sometimes axes, but why do you hear that little about blunt weapons? They seem pretty effective (i wouldn't want to get hit by something like that) and can also be used against armoured units. It's also pretty great for cavalry. The few depictions of blunt weapons you have are mostly during the renasaince. Why didn't medieval or ancient armys use them?
>>1370406
Comparing a mace to say, a sword, you have denser construction, the mace is thick, especially around the head.
That means, for the same weight, you have a shorter weapon, and a correspondingly slower swing.
Reach is good. Striking quickly is good. It's only when armor develops to the point that the extra anti-armor utility is worth giving up reach and speed that you see maces overtake things like swords and hafted weapons.
Armor got some huge boost in the late medieval period, hence the rising popularity of the mace then.
>>1370406
>maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely?
What the fuck are you talking about? All the knights carried warhammers around, it's the only way to defeat plate.
>>1370406
It wasn't as required?
You need blunt things like that when you're dealing with heavier armour. There are tons of issues with using weapons like that which are 'outweighed' by the need to defeat armour.
If the armour isn't enough to warrant that sort of attention why bother with it at all? Of course there will have been people who do prefer that type of weapon in many periods but the most efficient solutions become the most common. Clearly something was doing the job better.
>>1370453
To be accurate, it was the best way, there were some hobo ways too like half swording.
>>1370500
>Romans were armoured pretty good
Not relative to later periods. The positives of using weapons like spears and swords still outweighed the benefits of using shorter more tiring weapons like maces.
>>1370500
To be honest, most of the Roman armor wasn't great. They used mail for a lot of the late republic and imperial periods, and that segmenta stuff earlier on. Both of them have their weaknesses, and can be penetrated by things like spears and swords, although not easily.
Secondly, most of Rome's enemies didn't stay her enemies for long, whether through diplomacy or conquest, usually people got assimilated into the Roman structure in some manner. The Parthians and later Sassanids were probably the most salient exception, but they were off doing that horse archer thing for the most part.
Most of Rome's enemies were using spears of some sort and were doing fine with that; certainly not enough to revolutionize their entire military structure and culture, if they even had the time to do so after running into Rome.
>>1370484
>half swording
>hobo way
Excuse me while I cry. Half swording is better than that.
>>1370406
>Why were maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely?
Because plate armored men made up a small percentage of people on the battlefield, and war casualties were only a small percentage of violent deaths. Obviously sidearms meant to fight unarmored people (like, you know, swords) are gonna steal the spotlight.
>>1370406
>used so rarely?
Nigga what? They were the go-to weapon of any knight.
I imagine you don't hear much about them because they don't sound as flashy as swords or axes.
>>1370532
The Sassanids mainly seemed to have used Cataphracts with infantry support.
>>1370406
During the late middle ages Maces and war hammers were likely mostly cavalry side-arms. In terms of depictions and findings we do see maces and war hammers, but not as common as pole-arms and swords.
They were definitely used though, e.g. during the Battle of Seckenheim it is specifically mentioned that Count Ulrich von Wuerttemberg was defeated and taken prisoner by the Knight Hans von Gemmingen who took his mace and gauntlet from him as a trophy.
>>1372040
Forgot my pic.
Not OP but peripherally related to his question:
How common were flails in ancient and medieval warfare? I heard recently that some historians aren't sure they were ever seriously used in battle and I think that'd be kinda sad cause they're so stylish.
>>1370406
Swords were seen as fancy. They are also a very well rounded implement if they have both a stabbing point and a slicing edge. If sturdy enough they can also be used for defense, and are in general well balanced.
But most of most medieval warriors wanted to be knights or act like knights and so they wanted to be seen with a sword. It was seen as a symbol of nobility.
>>1372209
There's a bit more information in regards to that. After the battle, the Count was taken prisoner and the winning side held a feast to which he was invited. The Count praised the bravery of the knights who defeated him and asked who it was that personally beat him in battle. A knight stood up and tried to claim victory upon which Hans von Gemmingen silently left only to return with the gaunlet and the mace, returning them to the Count, proving that he was the one who beat him, making the other fall silent and sit down in shame.
I'm pretty sure nobody ITT knows what the fuck they're talking about.
>>1372222
Flails used in combat looked like the ones pictured here. IIRC there's no real evidence the ball and chain ones were used in war, or even existed (apparently most or all of the ones in museums are fakes), and it's likely they were created by Victorian knightaboos.
>>1372222
Can't say I know about accounts of them but from a practical use perspective I can tell you that they wouldn't be too common. While they certainly have advantages and might be interesting in small scale combat how would you use them practically on a battle field?
They leave massive as fuck openings, are fully momentum based so they would require a metric fuck ton of raw skill to master.
On foot you'd be liable to hit others around you as much as your enemies. On horse back while you'd not be hitting others you might deflect into your horse and unless you're intentionally skirmishing you'd have to hit more infrequently.
Further it's not like you can parry with them in any practical sense either.
>>1372239
>upstarts trying to claim other people's wins
Pretty good story.
>>1370441
>the mace is thick, especially around the head.
That's what she said.
>>1370406
>Why were maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely?
Because in warfare without shield or armor ranged weapons are very useful. When shields get added in spears USUALLY become the most useful weapon. Once primitive body armor and helmets that is when maces start to be some what common. A stone or bronze spear head can have trouble with even rather primitive armor of it hits a at odd angle. In northern Mesoamerica, the Andes mountains, and the late bronze age in the middle east maces were somewhat popular. At lest for the middle east iron helmets ended that.
Stone maces can do very real damage to a soldiers using a iron helmet if the strike is well done. If it is not it does not do very much at all. Thus axes replaced the mace in that area.
Maces came back into use as iron headed fanged weapons started in the late 9th century in the Mideast, very slowly gaining popularity and spreading out from there. The newer designs were very good against mail armor.
Mace doesn't do jackshit to breast plate. It's not as if it's aluminum can or something. It's a tempered steel. The blow is simply transferred equally to the entire plate, making it ineffective. You wield it to strike someone's head through helmets. Even then, helmets are designed to transfer forces too, so it's hard.
Plate armors are tough if it's in decent condition. Only bullets can pierce it, with some exceptions.
>>1370406
They were used for a shorter period of time than the sword or spear. Maces and war hammers (of the type we imagine) are only useful against relatively heavily armored opponents.
I've heard some claim that they were used during the migration era and onward as chain mail became extremely prevalent (chain mail doesn't block percussion very well), but I've also heard they were effective in the time of plate armor (although I tend to think polaxes and war hammers were more common than maces). I'm no expert, just my 2 cents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnveFLcgoG0
OI FALKS
>>1370532
>The Parthians and later Sassanids were probably the most salient exception, but they were off doing that horse archer thing for the most part.
While that is somewhat true, the Persians actually did have quite the variety of maces. It was a pretty common weapon to see in the hands of cataphracts.
>>1370406
Maces and war hammers were made mainly to deal with armor.
Armor is expensive as fuck and hard to produce
If you have an army of 10,000 men you would never make 10,000 suits of armor
It is better to fight flesh with sharp fast objects like spears and axes
>>1372222
Flails as you imagine them were not anything more than ceremonial at best and ones in museums are of dubious origin
>>1370453
fucking idiot, hammers are slow and heavy after 10 minutes of swinging one your arm would be useless, longbows beat plate every. fucking. time. Take a good look at the battle of Agincourt where thousands of french knights were killed by 300 longbows. Longswords were also great at smahing the shit out of whatever was under the plate. You sir are a tool!
>>1370500
They hard torsro armor and open faced helmets, anon.
>>1373168
>longbows beat plate every. fucking. time.
>longbows are underpowered in d20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
>>1370532
Roman armour wasn't great? Lorica segmentata rusted very easily compared to mail or scaled armour, but it was very good at stopping swords. Axes and maces were going to cause damage regardless, but unless you could get a spear beneath one of the plates, or it was specifically designed to pierce armour, it wasn't going to do much.
Chainmail would offer a similar amount of protection, though it could be pierced by spears. It didn't rust as easily, and was easier and cheaper to make, which is why it became the standard Roman armour. Scaled armour I don't know too much about, but I assume it also offered good protection against sword attacks, as well as spear attacks.
>>1373168
There was bad ground. because that so many of them died.
Insulting others makes you maybe feel better. But you are sad and I'm laughing about you. Kek
>>1373458
And all of that cover torso only.
Which is already covered by the shield.
Meaning a man is going to attack the limbs and face, which a cutting weapon does better.
Please don't ask 4chan about ancient/medieval weaponry. They unironically think swords were completely useless and barely used.
>>1373573
Also worst of all they believe half swording was common-place.
>>1373573
You need a heavy sword to pierce armour. A short sword is good at hitting unarmoured areas, especially limbs, but it won't do anything to an armoured target. A long sword is heavy enough to bludgeon an armoured target to death and probably big enough to cause some damage to armour. It won't cause as much damage as a mace or axe, but it's still useful. Like a short sword, it would be better used striking unarmoured areas, like limbs or areas were armour is lighter.
>>1373547 #
Chainmail and scaled armour does cover the limbs. Lorica segmentata doesn't usually but there were versions of it that did. Hacking and slashing is inefficient because it tires you out and wounds instead of killing. One of the main reasons the Roman army was so efficient was that it focused on stabbing, usually in the heart, for a quick and clean kill. That's why Roman soldiers carried short swords, they are excellent at stabbing, easy and cheap to make, not that hard to use, and quite light.
>>1373760
You won't pierce through plate armor with any kind of sword. You could pierce through rings of chainmail if you were lucky and the rings were not too big and in the best case scenario the rings might come apart. Heaviness of the sword has nothing to do with it though, you just need a pointy tip. You could also pierce though gambeson, which is essentially just thick clothing, but I don't think the sword had to be particularly heavy to do that.
>>1373760
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q#t=35
>>1373579
It depends on what you mean by 'half-swording'. Often people mistake half-swording with the 'mordhau' technique where the sword is reversed and the opponent hit with the guard or pommel. Half-swording in general however just means gripping the sword with one hand by the blade and using it like a short spear (i.e. using effectively half of the sword). The latter was commonly used in armoured combat. We have plenty of depictions throughout the 15th and early 16th century from various European countries. The mordhau on the other hand was a rarer sight, which would only be occasionally used if the opportunity was right rather than a standard form of attack.
>>1373168
>after 10 minutes of swinging
Actual fighting would not last anywhere near that long.
>>1370406
Do you have any actual proof that Mace were rarely used?
>>1370500
Maces don't beat shield and are useless in dense formation.
>>1373168
At least you got some replies
>>1374288
Battles very often lasted over a dozen hours, there wasn't Hollywood "everyone mixes up because what are formations and everything is done in 5 minutes with 95% causalities on both sides"
Why would you not use blunt weapons against unarmored enemies too? I'd say a baton is a better weapon than most things anyway, you might not bleed people out, but you'll break their arms and legs or outright kill them if hitting the head anyway
Pic related best weapon ever invented for dismounting cavalry and is devastating against armored opponents as well, when properly wielded.
The shaft gives it all the distance of a spear, while the hook is used to devastating effect to pull a mounted knight down off his horse, sometimes fatally, because of the added weight of the armor and the precision with which the shepherd's staff can rip a man right out of the saddle and guide him to fall head first into the ground.
Typically groups of peasants would work together, men with shepherd's staves pulling down the knights while others with clubs and daggers rushed forward to finish off these armored men before they could stand.
One of the most lethal weapons ever in combat, one of the oldest weapons, quite a bit older than metallurgy, and yet several thousand years in the future, it was still effective against the premier military force of the day.
Really effective all the way up until gunpowder, and believe me, it killed more knights than all your fancy longbows could ever dream of matching.
And you never hear diddley squat about this weapon either.
>>1374596
>Battles very often lasted over a dozen hours
But fighting did not. Battles were 99% marching around. Most soldiers wouldn't even do any actual fighting. And if they did it would be over quickly.
>>1374739
>And you never hear diddley squat about this weapon either.
And why?
Because it's the ultimate peasant weapon. The only way to wield it properly in combat is when you've spent your whole life since boyhood using it to hook sheep around their necks and middles.
That's what allows a shepherd to slip that hook right around a knight's neck and throw him headfirst right onto the ground. They can hook an arm or a leg, trip you, throw you off balance, all to bring the shaft against your jaw or slam the butt right into your forehead.
I'm telling you, when somebody really knows how to use one, it's stunningly, brutally lethal.
Carrying around something like that is heavy. You cant really sheath it so the pointy shit is going to jam into your dick every time you run. Also reach and being able to do more than one thing with your weapon is good
>>1374747
You know nothing, Anon Ymous.
The only situation, where "battle would be over quickly" is successful cavalry charge against infantry.
Are you able to name any medieval battles, where they decided
>We can and it quickly, but fuck it, we are paid hourly so gonna need to march few hours aimlessly.
>>1372267
>thats waht she said
hahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahaahahahhhaxxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxddxdxdxdxdxdx
anon you are funny
>>1373168
>bow that can pierce full plate
>cost efficient uses of stamina
>>1373168
Nice meme, Bro
>>1374884
It's called maneuvering. What exactly do YOU think a battle looked like? Lines of guys swinging weapons at each other, yet somehow not successfully killing anyone, for HOURS?
>>1372358
and they're not, you know dented by the blow?
The metal in the breast plate isn't that thick. it's nt magic the force has to go somewhere
A mace is a specialty weapon, and while it has the advantage in being able to concentrate more force at the tips of the head, it lacks the reach, cutting, and piercing ability of even a sword.
People seem to forget that even if a sword doesn't cut, due to impacting plate or mail, it's STILL a large chunk of metal that imparts a concussive impact as well. You may not be able to cut through a helmet, but you can damn sure daze a motherfucker, if not knock them out, with a solid sword blow to the head.
So while a mace is an effective tool, I think the lack of range and versatility is what made it less commonplace.
>>1374938
> It's called maneuvering.
You had very limited options of maneuvering in medieval times. When fight began you just couldn't call those soldiers off and order them to attack other places. The only option was to wisely use reserves, but when you used them all, you could just pray for win. The only exception would be feigned retreat, but i don't know if it was known in western Europe.
Also, you using your arguments against yourself, because if fight was quickly over, you couldn't use any tactics - time of reaction, giving an order, sending the or.. oh well they are already done fighting.
> Lines of guys swinging weapons at each other, yet somehow not successfully killing anyone, for HOURS?
It's over-exaggeration, but kinda yes. It's not easy to kill fully armored human. That's not like in the movies, where with one slash of sword they cut full plate armor in half. Worse thing, that human can move and react to your attacks, protecting his vulnerable points. And add few his nearby friends, who also look after him.
Of course no human can fight for that long, so you can swap with fresh soldiers. Everyone is exhausted and are unable to fight anymore? Well, that means you are losing battle.
To sum up, in very fight causalities were few, but after panicked retreat real capturing/killing would start.
>>1375030
>People seem to forget that even if a sword doesn't cut, due to impacting plate or mail, it's STILL a large chunk of metal that imparts a concussive impact as well. You may not be able to cut through a helmet, but you can damn sure daze a motherfucker, if not knock them out, with a solid sword blow to the head.
The fact that people can spar with blunt swords relatively safely suggests otherwise.
>>1375061
How often do boxers get knocked out while sparring?
>>1375030
>People seem to forget that even if a sword doesn't cut, due to impacting plate or mail, it's STILL a large chunk of metal that imparts a concussive impact as well.
He doesn't seem to be impressed by that impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q#t=35s
I don't know how this myth started. If stupid sword/axe/mace hit would break ribs through armor, how could all of this be possible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxfuliFab0Q
And dozens of other events, staged battles etc.
>>1370406
>Why were maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely?
Wow what the hell. /his/ in charge of not knowing its shit at all, but thinking it has the authoriy to come up with clever questions. AGAIN.
Protip: Maces were not used rarely during the late medieval ages at all and swords are for all purposes sidearms.
>>1375061
>The fact that people can spar with blunt swords relatively safely suggests otherwise.
Sparring isn't fighting.
>>1375076
That's because he was hit in the stomach.
Notice he didn't go for a head shot?
Or a full impact shot on the arm?
>>1375030
Swords were sidearms exactly because they had very little to offer against a heavy armored oponent. /his/ really doesn't know about even the most fundamental shit of its topics, kinda losing faith in this shit board.
>>1375122
Basically, this.
To elaborate somewhat, the only reason most people think maces and other blunt-force weapons were used more rarely is because they're featured less in fighting treatises and art. They were probably used a fair amount in actual combat. IIRC, they were especially popular in cavalry contexts because they allowed you to easily bash people off of a horse and do damage with the momentum gained in that context.
Swords, for the most part during the medieval era, were sidearms used in case a spear or other pole weapon was lost or in closer combat. In that role, they're very effective. The French video posted above shows why; when you get close like that, they're easy to use and grappling levers and to poke at gaps in armor.
>>1375177
Right...which makes them better at engaging unarmored opponents, due to reach advantage, the ability to stab as well as cut, and their more efficient use from a horse.
>>1375186
More of a civilian self defense weapon almost, exactly.
>>1375115
You're not supposed to attack the hands in that competition, and that's the closest, and most vulnerable, target of an armored man.
Fuck up their hands, and they can't hold a weapon, and are vulnerable to other blows.
>>1375188
Nope.
The ability to cut, pierce, and concuss, combined with the reach advantage on ground, or mounted, is exactly why the sword was more popular than the mace.
>>1375167
Jump to 41:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxfuliFab0Q
>>1375161
>Sparring isn't fighting.
Well yes - precisely because blunt swords aren't very dangerous, especially with some protective gear they use in HEMA, which is nonetheless a lot less protective than actual armour.
Now I'm not saying swords are rubbish against armored opponents since you can do a murderstroke with the pommel, essentially turning the sword into a mace, stab into the gaps of the armour, make the opponent to trip etc. Swords are pretty versatile, but it is still stupid to strike the armor itself with the blade and will mostly just damage the sword more than anything.
>>1375207
>>1375207
There's exactly no army or unit during the whole medieval ages, which would have used a sword as a primary weapon. So it being 'more popular' is intellecutal dishonesty. It is in the same way more popular than daggers were more popular than spears. Easy to carry arround and useful not only for battlefield applications, that's why everyone had one. A last resort in large scale combat though.
>>1375262
>A last resort in large scale combat though.
Agree.
However, it is still my contention that it is the versatility offered by a sword, as a side arm, that made them more popular than a mace.
>>1375249
And?
Watch enough of those competitions, and you'll see head shots instantly knock players to the ground, and I've also seen a few leg shots that have had a similar effect.
>>1375249
wtf are these people doing, those look like actual axes and their hitting each other in the head
>>1375278
Meh. There were people who carried maces as primary weapon and swords as secondary ones , not the other way round. The versatility of a sword is relative to its poor armor penetration and concussing power.
>>1375289
Oh boy
And i saw basketball balls knocking people over
"And?"
>>1375195
They are still being hit into gauntlets.
Well, of course it is not real fight, you can't also stick daggers into eyes etc.
Videos purpose was to show that you don't get broken ribs and spit blood after getting hit by sword and other nasty things, when you are clad in armor.
>>1375342
>comparing getting hit with a basketball to being hit on the head by some 200 + pound gorilla wielding a big chunk of metal.
>>1375069
they usually wear headgear so not often
>>1375408
I know buzzfeed is ass, but it's one of a few decent articles on the BOTN's
Cached link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xT4B8to_SswJ:www.buzzfeed.com/timchester/inside-the-violent-geeky-world-of-hardcore-international-med+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&utm_term=.kk1x3LQe4#.vfvAwLor7
>“There were 450 fighters at last year’s Battle of the Nations championship,” Birkin says, referring to the annual contest that’s been held across Europe for the last few years, “and 64 of them had to go to the medical tent. One of our guys needed six stitches, and another snapped his arm.”
>Team members have suffered broken bones and dislocated shoulders, and a patchwork of bruises is worn as a coat of arms. I overhear one particularly worrying account from a fighter talking about receiving a head blow from a pole axe: “My right vision completely went; there were sparkly lights and stuff. I spent a week in a brain-fog haze, walking around like a zombie.”
These guys wear more padding and shit under their armor than is historically common, and their still getting concussive injuries.
Because you weren't likely to fight someone wearing plate armour.
>>1374601
Go punch someone in the face. Now, go stab someone in the face. One is fatal. One is an inconvenience.
>>1375122
Maces were side-arms too. Pretty much any short weapon is a side-arm.
>>1370500
The falx, for example, which is a pretty cutting oriented weapon, was effective against the romans.
Their armour wasn't that good and left tons of places exposed.
>>1372240
Ya got that right.
>>1370406
They were used all the time, they just weren't romanticized the way swords were.
>>1373794
>Chainmail and scaled armour does cover the limbs
Roman armor didn't. Armor evolved over time.
Stop commenting on things you don't understand.
>MUH THRUSTS
>MUH THRUUUUUSTS
See above.
>>1374601
Protip:
You can remain fully functional with many, many broken bones.
>>1374739
Post sources.
>>1375013
Great. You dented a thing that doesn't rest directly on the skin.
That's IF the blow doesn;'t glance offof the rounded surface.
Also
>it has ot go somewhere
It gets dispersed across the surface of the breastplate. Welcome structural integrity-the worlds first safe space.
>>1375030
It's 3lbs of weight at maximum with the center of mass likely in the bottom third.
Swords are shit clubs.
>>1374739
>>1374762
Really makes you think.
>>1377321
>Swords are shit clubs.
Swords are better than clubs because the mass, and force, can be concentrated on the edge of the blade, as opposed to across the face of a wider club.
The concentration of force in a small area is exactly what maces are designed to do.
>>1373386
>the englboo stops replying
>>1377421
No, you retard.
Maces are designed so that the mass is concentrated along the end. Edges are totally irrelevant to this, hence most maces in history totally lacking them.
Swords are fucking awful when used as blunt instruments. If they were any good at it, nobody would have needed maces.
>>1377430
>Swords are fucking awful when used as blunt instruments.
The blades of swords are awful as blunt instruments, not the pommel though.
>>1377478
Yes, but using it this way gives up most of the good things about the sword.
Hence, maces.
Or poleaxes, in all reality.
>>1370497
>grip the pointy end to use sword as mace
>>1377430
>Edges are totally irrelevant to this
Look at the mace in pic related, genius.
The edges, that you claim are irrelevant, are purpose built to concentrate the mass and force of the mace. That's why it's effective.
If they didn't need those edges to concentrate mass and force, than they wouldn't have made them, and they would have simply used a club, or a club shaped end on a metal mace.
ANY metal tool that can concentrate the mass and force of the object, like a sword edge, will deliver force more effectively and efficiently than an object that doesn't concentrate the force and mass, like a club.
It's simply a matter of physics.
>>1373168
Why is a bow and arrow posting on 4chan?
Can we get one of those macros with it typing feverishly?
To be honest, maces were quite bad against plate armor, in late medieval times they become "ceremonial weapons/military symbol of power"
Warhammers on the other hand...
>>1372246
Nice bulge though.
>>1370406
Blunt weapons become more popular in the later middle ages when plate armour got more sophisticated and swords didn't penetrate them as easily anymore. Around the same time English longbows became popular.
>>1377421
It's bad for the blade, though. Poor sword.
>>1377509
For maces made to fight plate it may have had more to do with not glancing off.
For that design of mace I heard it was specialized against mail.
As anon said, not all maces throughout history have had protrusions, and even those that did were usually blunt.
If you think a sword makes a good club, I dare you to find a hammer and hit yourself with the shaft. That's approximately how swords were balanced. Look up the technique mordhau for use of a sword as a hammer.
>>1370406
two handed impact weapons --> used on foot
one handed impact weapons --> used on horseback
plate armour and knight used in the same sentence --> you are most likely an idiot.
>>1378185
Thats why you find it in about a dozens manuals...
>>1378060
>late armour got more sophisticated and swords didn't penetrate them as easily anymore
And before plate armor become sophisticated it was what, like from copper to be easily penetrated by swords?
Also, maces were popular in eastern Europe quite early, Certainly because of 10th century full plate armours, eheheh.
>Around the same time English memebows became popular.
>>1378333
>Also, maces were popular in eastern Europe quite early, Certainly because of 10th century full plate armours, eheheh.
No but because maces which are almost exclusively used from horseback are easy to manufacture and make an efficient weapon for the horse based warfare of that region.
People that imagine knights in in plate armour duelling with maces are just idiots.
>>1378169
>it may have had more to do with not glancing off.
No, it had everything to do with concentrating mass and force for greater effectiveness.
It's physics, which is something a lot of idiots in this thread can't quite grasp.
>>1378674
Tbh senpai. It's not the only possible explanation. You are taking conjecture for fact.
>>1378245
You find random shit in manuals all the time.
I could write a manual on sucking my own dick and i bet in 600 years autists would be arguing about how it's a useful form of combat.
Half swording and mordhau in manuals are presented in "just in case this happens, do X" terms. You don't going into a fight expecting to halfsword and mordhau the whole time. They're techniques that you use for a couple seconds when the opportunity presents itself and you have nothing better to do.
>>1379920
Halfswording is integral part of Harnischfechten, Mordhau is just a technique amongst many others. It's an integral part of the German school of the long sword. Whilst not very useful for unarmored fighting it is the bread and butter of armored fighting with the sword.
>>1379401
>You are taking conjecture for fact.
Not conjecture, physics.
It's the same reason they stopped using rounded tipped swords, as the sharply pointed swords made better use of mass and concentrated the force of a thrust at a narrow point, as opposed to distributing that force across the wider surface area of a rounded point. This made sharply pointed swords more efficient and effective at piercing than their rounded point counterparts, and that made it easier to dispatch the enemy when you managed to knock them off their feet, or gained access to a weakened area.
It's the same thing with a mace. They're more effective and efficient at concentrating force than a standard club, or other bludgeon, as the force is concentrated along the narrow metal flanges at the head of the mace.
Spikes are more effective, but they're also more likely to get stuck in the target than a metal flange, so that's why they adopted the flange over spikes.
>>1379920
Half-swording seems to be the standard case when dealing with armour judging by historical depictions.
It makes sense too - for what reason would you bash a blade against armour? It's not like you can cut it or bother the guy inside significantly. Just look at modern re-enactment, Battle of the Nations, etc. - they hit each other with swords and survive the whole thing just fine.
>>1380922
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCvOC2VwDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4k-vjdeZO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg
>armoured fencing is nerding out on the highest level
>>1381592
Is that supposed to disprove what I wrote?
I certainly hope you're not thinking that the mordhau was half-swording. Half-swording means grabbing the sword by the blade in order to thrust the point into gaps where the armour didn't cover, like a short spear. That is why it's called half-swording - since it uses only half of the sword. The mordhau is not half-swording, the mordhau is the mordhau.
>>1381630
>Not at all.
Carry on then. Maybe I was a bit jumpy.
>imho is just a halfswording technique amongst others
To me it occasionally seems like it's more about outright reversing the blade rather than using just 'half' of it, but it's a matter of execution I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing#Armoured_combat_.28Harnischfechten.29
>From the evidence of the Fechtbücher, most armoured fights were concluded by wrestling moves, with one combatant falling to the ground. Lying on the ground, he could then be easily killed with a stab into his visor or another opening of the armour.
Well that's historically and accurately depressing.
>mfw I realize most armored melees end up in two barely mobile oafs playing grab-ass trying to shove a shank in a exposed joint
>>1382535
It's true that armor turns melees into not very cool brawling, but the "barely mobile" part is not true at all, as evidenced by many videos posted in this thread.
One armored guy vs many unarmored opponents could look quite cool though....
>>1382557
>Theres a bit more to it than that.
Well yes I was simplifying for humorous purposes.
>>1382571
>"barely mobile"
Yeah I was joking about the Hollywood image of armored superheroes leaping about the battlefield like an extra from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
When in reality...
>most armoured fights were concluded by wrestling moves, with one combatant falling to the ground
>>1372358
>Hurr I dunno physics: The Post
>>1373168
the dumbest post ive ever seen
most maces/warhammers were at least a little lighter than longswords
>>1375041
You're an idiot and most of what you wrote is completely false, but I'm to lazy to correct every single point. Fuck you though (not even that anon).
>>1382630
This is true, as far as we talk about one handed weapons, they are not that heavy, same weight (+-) as fair sized sword of the time. The thing with impact weapons is that you cant really fence with them.The point of gravity is far forward centered in the head. That makes turning a weapon, i.e. the time you need to make two strikes in opposite directions, fucking slow. Such it is hard to parry with it, no stabbing, to heavy to use as main gauche, no hand protection and a lot of other deficits.
What was it really good at then? Really high impact force, in a reasonably small package.
Whacking down people, preferably fleeing infantry from horseback. Running them down with 40mph, giving them a good slap with the hammer, to the head, neck or spine, next. Also, they are more efficient on horseback, because horseback fencing is a bitch anyways, impact weapons do make sense here.
Steppe influenced horse warrior cultures such as Turks, Persians, Moguls and many others made good use of such weapons, you can find many different types of hammers, axes and maces over the centuries.
>>1382588
>>most armoured fights were concluded by wrestling moves, with one combatant falling to the ground
check modern MMA, BJJ is taught everywhere for a reason.
Well that would require both bodkin arrows and we'll placed shots, they got lucky, plus you'd have to be insanely strong for that long, also you can't hold more than 40 arrows so they'd have to used them wisely
>>1373168
> long swords
> armor
Last time I checked a falchion isn't a long sword but it still isn't that good, plus dude the "Guten tag" which was a German farming tool was apparently surprisingly effective
>>1374912
That's what your mom said when I told her I was gonna fuck her
>>1377308
Roman scaled and chainmail armour could cover the limbs, but it's well known that the Roman army focused on thrusting over slashing. You're right that Roman armour didn't cover the limbs as frequently as I said, but you're wrong regarding thrusting.
>>1374912
You might have autism anon
>>1386026
>it's well known that the Roman army focused on thrusting over slashing.
Except we have first hand accounts that say otherwise.
The primary MUH THRUSTS source out there is josephus, who contradicts himself constantly.
The gladius is very clearly a cut and thrust weapon. We also have sources describing romans as being perfectly happy to cut at legs under shields, as well as talking about the horrific cut wounds Romans left on the bodies of dead Macedonians.
On top of that,the thrust is not some sort of super move. Killing the other guy doesn't matter. At all. Removing his capacity to harm you does. A man with no ability to wield a weapon na be killed at your leisure. A man who will be dead in 30 seconds from a thrust-or in a few days form infection-can still kill you. It also isn't some sort of magical, energy efficient way to thrust. You will get tired either way.
>MUH DISIPLINED THRUSTING ROMANS!!!!!1111ELEVEN
Is a meme. Full stop.
>Roman scaled and chainmail armour could cover the limbs
It never did outside of the dacian wars, until we get to the late period army.
>>1385945
The "goedendag" was dutch, iirc.
>>1387403
>Except we have first hand accounts that say otherwise.
No, we don't.
The gladius is capable of cutting, of course, and nobody denies that.
However, the primary attack with the gladius is the thrust, and it seems that only YOU deny that.
>>1387575
No, fucking livy says otherwise.
>>1387575
I'd say it's equally a hacking weapon as much as a thrust, though that doesn't mean a huge open from the top hacking swing that exposes yourself, you don't need to do that. But it was used to hack, a gladius is almost a machete.
Why do you think gladius had leaf shaped blades? For extra weight.
Why are almost all swords of this era short machete like swords, such as the xiphos and the kopis.
>>1387586
Just because soldiers used muskets like a club to brain their enemies, doesn't mean that their primary intent wasn't to shoot, and the same thing applies with the gladius. They were designed to be thrusted into the enemy at close range, and that's how they were employed more often than not.
>>1387632
>Why are almost all swords of this era short machete like swords, such as the xiphos and the kopis.
Because those that employed those weapons did so from close order fighting formations, and in those formations you don't have the room needed to swing around longer blades.
The concept used by the Romans was to maintain a close fighting formation, and close with the enemy where you can launch "jab" like attacks with the tip of your gladius from behind the cover of your shield. They employed a technique where each man covered the man to his right, so that when the enemy raises his right arm to strike with his weapon, he would leave his entire right side exposed to a thrust from a gladius.
Saying the gladius was a "cutting" weapon is pants on head retarded, and akin to saying that a single edged curved sabre is a "thrusting" weapon.
>>1387632
>Why are almost all swords of this era short machete like swords, such as the xiphos and the kopis.
Because metallurgy was not advanced enough to manufacture longer quality blades in the required numbers.
>>1387755
Fucking christ you're retarded.
>They were designed to be thrusted into the enemy at close range
Which is why it has a broad, fat blade and not a tapered one, right?
Nevermind that the design wasn't toman, and wa likely taken from celtiberians.
>MUH CLOSE FORMATIONS
THEY HAD THE LOOSEST FUCKING ORDER OF ANY CIVILIZED STATE. THEY HAD A FUCKING LOOSER LINE THAN THE GOD DAMN GAULS.
Piss off with your ignorant shit.
>They employed a technique where each man covered the man to his right
No, they fucking didn't. A line with 3-6 feet between combatants and fucking cyclindrical shields does not provide mutual coverage.
You've managed to confuse them for fucking hoplites.
>>1387784
Except cavalry could get longer blades in quantity, and this doesn't explain the shape of weapons like the kopis, falcat,a of machaira.
>>1387632
>Why do you think gladius had leaf shaped blades? For extra weight.
I'd wager it was for structural integrity and possibly to leave a wider wound channel.
>>1388052
They actually just flat out make for better cutting weapons.
>>1388038
>Except cavalry could get longer blades in quantity
Nope, not until they annexed Noricum. For a long time bronze weapons where superior to iron ones, and only celts made iron blades of sufficient quality at an affordable price.
>>1387755
This post is awful, it's a jumbled bunch of knowledge you've picked up from various sources and combined with no sense.
>Because those that employed those weapons did so from close order fighting formations
Romans fought with about a meter between them ideally.
>where you can launch "jab" like attacks with the tip of your gladius from behind the cover of your shield
Or hack with their thick strong blades as is described in many ancient accounts and is obvious by the weapons design.
>They employed a technique where each man covered the man to his right,
No, that's Greek hoplites
>Saying the gladius was a "cutting" weapon is pants on head retarded
If it wasn't a cutting weapon it wouldn't have sharp edges. It was a hack and stab weapon. Hack, not cut.
>>1387784
Cavalry had long blades, Celts had long blades, it was plenty advanced, short swords was a design choice.
>>1388038
The "broad, fat blade" of the gladius is designed that way to give it greater thrusting efficiency, so that penetration of even 1 to 2 inches can prove fatal.
Celts didn't use a fighting formation as much as they simply mobbed their enemies. That's why the manlet Romans cut them to pieces.
The formation the Romans used was purposely designed to allow for mutual support, and the distance they were supposed to maintain between each man was the distance it took to stab an enemy in front of the man on your right. So you're right in that the distance of 3 feet is pretty close.
It's you that's confused about hoplites, however. Hoplites fought at an even closer interval, however, you're confusing "attacking the man on the right", which they didn't do, with "providing shield protection to the man on your right, which is what they DID do.
You need to do more research, and quit acting like a spastic 12 year old.
>>1388419
>The "broad, fat blade" of the gladius is designed that way to give it greater thrusting efficiency, so that penetration of even 1 to 2 inches can prove fatal.
That's got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a while. Broad blades are broad because they're for hacking, blades meant for thrusting are thin with very long tapered ends. The gladius was a perfect combination of both, a thick strong blade, a long tapered end.
>Celts didn't use a fighting formation as much as they simply mobbed their enemies.
You mean apart from all the times they're mentioned using a sort of phalanx.
> and the distance they were supposed to maintain between each man was the distance it took to stab an enemy in front of the man on your right
Citation needed
>>1388349
>Romans fought with about a meter between them ideally.
That's a close order fighting formation.
>Or hack with their thick strong blades
I've never once disputed the fact that the blades were indeed used for cutting / "hacking", it is my contention that that is NOT the intended purpose of the design, nor was it the primary attack.
The gladius was designed, and used, primarily to thrust. Period.
>>1388444
>The gladius was designed, and used, primarily to thrust. Period.
It was used to hack equally as much as thrust. Read about the Macedonian wars
>>1388438
>That's got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a while.
That's because you obviously lack the ability to appreciate the design of the gladius, and how it was used.
Pic related: gladius and a long sword
Which do you think will transfer more energy from a thrust?
It's the gladius. Why? Because of the design.
The wide blade that extends almost to the tip provides the mass, and rigidity, needed to transfer energy from the thruster to the blade without losing a lot of energy due to blade flex. This allows the user to penetrate a target efficiently, and with less energy than is required using longer and thinner blades.
Combine the penetration efficiency with the width of the blade, and you've created a sizable, and usually lethal, wound in your enemy with relatively little energy expenditure.
>>1388534
Here's the pic...
>>1388534
Wow you've proved it was good as thrusting, which everybody agrees upon.
And yes it was still a great hacking weapon. What are the best hacking weapons? Machetes. What's their defining feature? They're short and broad. What is a gladius? Short and broad.
Deal with it
>>1388545
>What are the best hacking weapons?
Curved, single edged weapons with more mass on the non-blade side than the blade side for increased cutting efficiency and effectiveness.
Pic related: Kopis and a falchion
Note that both are capable of stabbing, but primarily used for cutting...which is the opposite of the gladius.
>>1388626
Yes those are primarily for hacking. The gladius was 50/50 hack and stab. Thrusting is a lot harder to do than slashing, you're more likely to miss, it would be ridiculous to only stab.
>>1388631
What historical sources do you have to back this claim up?
>>1388631
As someone who has fenced epee and larped and swung latex swords in dozens of skirmishes (would have been more if I hadn't been a druid most of the time), I can confidently say you are a retard
Thrusting and hitting is piss easy, you can just extend your arm and take a step forward, and voila you have a thrust
>>1388639
Not that guy and I can't cite a thing off the top of my head, but the gladius had a reputation for being able to hack people limb from limb. As for stabbing it was a common Roman tactic to stab at the thighs.
Saying it was a competent sword for both doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
>>1388639
The long point makes them equally vulnerable to thrusting. A single accidental stab at a shield or a piece of armour or one that lodges in bone will result in a broken tip. A thrusting sword has it balance moved right back near the hand. No Roman gladius has its POB back this far. A purely cutting sword has its balance moved much closer to the tip. No gladius has its POB this far forward. All Roman swords were intended for both cutting and thrusting. This is consistent with the primary sources - Polybius, Livy, Diodorus, and even Vegetius.
>>1388639
> Besides the shield they also carry a sword, hanging on the right thigh and called a Spanish sword. 7 This is excellent for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm
Polybius, Histories, 6, 23, 8
>>1388653
>As someone who has fenced epee
A thin lightweight sword literally designed around thrusting.
>swung latex swords
Absolutely irrelevant.
While a gladius would undoubtedly be far easier to thrust with than a longer and heavier longsword, I can attest from personal experience with a real longsword that those fuckers are harder to thrust with than slash with.
>>1388349
>Cavalry had long blades, Celts had long blades,
Yes, but neither where thee as long as later cavalry swords nor did they work particularly well. The steel or iron used was normally not hardened and relatively soft, there are numerous accounts of those blades bending in combat. Theres also accounts that Roman officers strongly preferred the more expensive bronze blades because they found them superior to the iron blades,
>>1388534
>never been at the receiving end of a two handed longsword thrust
>>1388753
>doesn't understand basic physics
There's a lot of that in this thread for some reason...
>>1388534
Longswords were actually pretty good thrusting weapons and fairly rigid - at least if we're talking about late medieval longswords.
>>1389391
I agree.
However, their length makes them more susceptible to losing energy during a thrust due to flexing.
>>1389571
It depends on their cross section. Late medieval longswords often had diamond shaped cross sections which made them fairly rigid. Also, half-sword techniques were applied to give them even more rigidity. Overall, I'd argue that a long and pointy longsword makes for a better thrusting weapon than the rather short and bulky Gladius.
>>1389580
Not to mention the estoc variant longswords.
>>1388444
>That's a close order fighting formation.
It's looser than every hellenic power, the celts, and some Germans and Iberians.
In other words, it's looser than almost everyone.
>MUH ONE INCH
One inch deep thrusts will not prove fatal regardless of width. Yoru organs are too deep ion the body for that.
you need FOUR inches of penetration to reliably kill.
Also
>WIDE BLADE BETTER PENETRATION
THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF HOW PHYSICS WORKS.
>>1388639
Macedonian wars.
The public funeral of men killed skirmishing with romans dismayed the Macedonians-they were used to a war of pike, arrow, and javelin. Neat little holes in the body.
The Romans had hacked their opponents apart, and this shocked them, leaving asking what kind of men they were oging to fight.
>>1388739
>nor did they work particularly well
Tell you what, anon. We're going to play a game.
I'll get a spatha. you get a gladius. First one to die is wrong.
>Theres also accounts that Roman officers strongly preferred the more expensive bronze blades because they found them superior to the iron blades
No, there aren't.
>>1370406
What you "mostly hear of" isn't necessarily indicative of what actually was the case.
Swords and lances have been romanticised and popularised in media alongside the knight-in-shining-armour archetype, which is also bs "historians" of the past polished off the paint in order to fit their ideal of what knights "should" be.
>>1389639
During the early 15th century 'white armour' was the fashion of the day. It is described in Italian chronicles for example which literally mention that English mercenaries spent all day polishing their armour so that it would sparkle white in the sunlight. Not to mention that we have paintings from that time period as well and lots of them show polished steel. It's not like armour wasn't painted, blackened, blued, engraved, gilded, etc. - this was fairly common. However, polished steel was at least since the late 14th century a common sight on the battlefields.
>>1389580
>I'd argue that a long and pointy longsword makes for a better thrusting weapon than the rather short and bulky Gladius.
It has a range benefit, but that's about it.
Humans aren't perfect, and when thrusting, the force we apply will never be completely in line with the weapon we're thrusting. This misaligned force will cause the weapon to flex, and the longer that weapon is, and the more misaligned the force, the greater the flex, and the less force that actually gets used to penetrate a target.
The gladius helps alleviate this issue by being short and wide in design, so that it is less susceptible to shitty thrusts and can more efficiently transfer force into the target.
It's like the difference between hitting a long thin nail with a hammer, vs. hitting a short wider nail with a hammer. The short nail is easier to drive because it is less susceptible to being bent by a fucked up hammer blow.
>>1388668
>A slash sweeps, it covers a broad area, a thrust is directional.
It's easier to thrust while keeping your guard up. The large swings you are fantasizing about do not actually happen.
>>1389702
Holy shit.
Swords are sharp. Nails are not.
Bodies are soft. Wood is not.
Significant force is not require dot stab a human being with sharp metal and cause grievous injury.
>>1370406
>>1388631
>Thrusting is a lot harder to do than slashing, you're more likely to miss, it would be ridiculous to only stab.
Thrusting succesfully requires a lot less force than cuts because the force is concentrated on such a small area. Cutting also requires good edge alignment or it will fail to cause much substantial damage at all. Even normal clothing protects moderately against cuts but not against thrusts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c38zGxQxYok
>>1389702
>It has a range benefit, but that's about it.
Range is the most useful benefit of them all, because it means you can hurt someone who can't hurt you. Why do you think did people usually use spears as their primary weapons?
>the greater the flex, and the less force that actually gets used to penetrate a target
A steel sword with a diamond cross section is not going to flex that much. Especially not when penetrating something squishy such as a person. I think you're overestimating the amount of flex in late medieval and early modern steel weapons. These were by no means like modern fencing foil, where the flexibility is a safety feature. Flimsier weapons than longswords were used as thrusting weapons - and they were used with great effectiveness.
>>1390040
>Bodies are soft
Not if they're armored.
>>1391627
Swords meant for thrusting in armor typically had diamond cross section and were stiff as fuck.
They also still tapered.
I have NEVER seen a sword meant to penetrate be deliberately made fat and flat, or fucking leaf bladed.
>>1390069
looks like a frat paddle
>>1391787
>I have NEVER seen a sword meant to penetrate be deliberately made fat and flat, or fucking leaf bladed.
If you've seen a gladius, you have. They were used against armored Romans, and every other armored force the Romans ever fought.
My point is, and has been, that the gladius design is more efficient simply due to physics, which is apparently a new concept to most of you.
We're done.
>>1391843
Your whole argument is based on supposedly detrimental flexibility of longswords. However, late medieval longswords were primarily thrusting weapons. And they were quite rigid too. Also, they offered greater reach. Would you also argue that a gladius is a better thrusting weapon than a rapier?
Personally, I'm more inclined to think that the gladius was given the short and bulky shape since it was essentially a remainder of the bronze age. Its shape is a consequence of the material it was originally made from and the limitations of said material. It needed to have that sort of shape to keep it from bending on impact. As soon as iron became available it allowed for longer, thinner, more resilient blades to be made - such as the spatha.
Fact is, if the gladius was more efficient of a weapon, it would have kept being used. However, it was mostly abandoned in favour of the spatha. Arguably it also had something to do with different military structure during the migration period and early middle ages, with smaller sized armies and a greater focus on single combat, but even as armies grew in size again, during the late middle ages up to the early modern period, we didn't really see them re-emerge.
>>1391918
you also have to consider mettle work in roman times was not as good as later swords, so there were major drawbacks to making them long.
at least for unarmored applications. I dont see flexing being a problem for thrusting. sharp metal, soft belly, it doesnt take alot of force
>>1391843
You're fucking retarded.
>MUH GLADIUS
THE GLADIUS WAS NOT DESIGNED BY THE ROMANS YOU FUCKTARD.
It comes from fucking spain, and was made and used by people who had very, very little armor. It wasn't designed with romans in mind either, but with the tribe a hill over.
Even if it WAS, it was adopted at time when body armor wasn't guaranteed among romans, and bronze pectorales were in common use.
On top of that, modern testing shows that underarm thrusts with single handed weapons are rarely, if ever, going to be of any use at all against iron armor.
>>1391843
RE
TA
RD
ED
>>1370500
Roman armor may have been good by ancient world standards but it was crap compared to late medieval plate armor. A Roman soldier's arms, legs, face, and neck were all exposed during combat, giving an attacker plenty of places to attack with a bladed weapon. Full plate makes slashing attacks completely useless and makes stabbing attacks only possible at a few points on the body which were usually still covered by mail or a padded jacket. Fully armored combat with bladed weapons like swords and daggers usually meant wrestling and half-swording to try and shove the point into someone's eyes, underarm, or groin. At that point, a mace or a warhammer becomes more practical because you can just bash someone with it.
