Sign up on MyHeritage using my link to start your journey off with a 14 day free-trial. If you continue your subscription afterwards you can get 50% off: bit.ly/scholagladiatoria
Mace are in no way less lethal then blade Matt! Really a mace or club as the odd benefit that you choose how lethal it as the force applied/ commitment to the blow determines the damage inflicted. Even a half hearted blow to the head will cause mortal wounds but a half hearted blow to the limbs will just cause bruising & pain generally unless a particularly nasty well designed mace with a very low contact area. My preference is a mace over sword or axe but I would pick a spear/large pole arm over a mace. My favourite is an (awl pike) as a modest length pike with a cap circumference for clubbing. Basically a spear mace! Bit goedendag but much larger. Put a spike on a solid mace it is often far more lethal then most sword's!
@@kungfujoe2136 D&D fan are we? Bludgeoning mechanically is the best of all 3 melee damage types. The new fresh party always questions my choice of stave, maul or Warhammer over the usual weapons. Look up how many creature have resistance or immunity to piecing & slashing unlike bludgeoning. Shillelagh/magic stick can get ridiculous. People say dexterity is best stat till you make a wisdom fighter. Stick & board is fun be it paladin or fighter. Magic bludgeoning the DM can't refuse. Magic stone is a good 2nd cantrip to take for wisdom fighter so your range damage is Good enough compared to most anything. Magic stick/club for live.
If Kingdom Come:Deliverance taught me anything it was "bring a mace" because swords suck against armour but the humble mace does not care whether you wear a helmet or a cap it cracks what needs to be cracked and rings what needs to be rung.
I always find it funny when people complain about the combat on the KC:D subreddit because they can't kill groups of armoured enemies with a sword, then get defensive and say they won't use a mace or warhammer because it's "cheap" or "too easy" and they "want to use skill." Nah mate it's not cheap and the combat isn't too hard just use the right tool for the job.
Mount & Blade II Bannerlord's Realistic Battle Mod for me is the one that got me to really love maces. It actually made all the (appearing-slightly-too-early) armor worth more than recycled shitpaper, and now my go-to sidearm is always a mace, maybe a sword as a tertiary for fighting unarmored targets or for style as a Vlandian Knight.
@@Adam_okaay the combat is amazing but it suffers when there are multiple enemies. It used to be especially horrible when mobs at night didn't use torches while fighting you and could see in the dark lol.
I immediately thought of the Mace Etiquette book from Elder Scrolls when I saw this. "Mace Etiquette Warriors sometimes make the mistake of thinking that there are no tactics with a mace. They assume that the sword is all about skill and the mace is only about strength and stamina. As a veteran instructor of mace tactics, I can tell you they are wrong. Wielding a mace properly is all about timing and momentum. Once the swing of the mace has begun, stopping it or slowing it down is difficult. The fighter is committed to not just the blow, but also the recoil. Begin your strike when the opponent is leaning forward, hopefully off balance. It is completely predictable that he will lean backward, so aim for a point behind his head. By the time the mace gets there, his head will be in its path. The mace should be held at the ready, shoulder high. The windup should not extend past the shoulders by more than a hand's width. When swinging, lead with the elbow. As the elbow passes the height of your collarbone, extend the forearm like a whip. The extra momentum will drive the mace faster and harder, causing far more damage. At the moment of impact, let the wrist loosen. The mace will bounce and hurt a stiff wrist. Allow the recoil of the blow to drive the mace back into the ready position, thereby preparing the warrior for a quicker second strike." Congratulations, one skill point for one handed.
@@ccgamerlol depends, sword like the gladius are super easy to use. also stabbing can be very effective. sounds like swinging a mace is a lot like swinging a golf club!
I feel like not enough people consider the idea of compounding damage. One of the first things I learned in martial arts is that you can get up from the ground pretty quickly after being thrown the first time, but by the 3rd or 4th time you're thrown getting up starts to become extremely difficult. Likewise, being hit the first time in the hand or wrist when doing staff fighting drills isn't always a big deal but if you smash the same joint or knuckle 2 or 3 times it becomes very difficult to hold onto your stick, and also your ability to deliver blows and counters is continuisly diminished the more punishment you take.
Too right. I was sparring with a guy once in ju-jitsu and ate quite a few thigh kicks. He was wearing shin pads so they weren't particularly sore but eventually the damage built up and suddenly went from that didn't really hurt to my leg buckling. Left me with a hell of bruise too.
Shields is another. I seen a mace (made of tightly wrapped carpet scraps for its head) break someone's forearm through a good quality wooden shield and steel vambraces. The shield and armor showed no damage that I could see. This was one of those medieval type fairs year and years ago, they'd dress up as knights and fight with fake weapons. This really stuck with me as to why maces were useful on the battlefield, this carpet headed mace transferred enough force through the wood, steel and flesh to break the bone. I can only imagine the devastation if that were a headshot or body blow.
A hide-covered flexible shield would absorb a lot rather than transfer all that force eight through. Padding between the shield and vambrace, plus more padding between the vambrace and armor, should help dissipate those forces even better. Padding isn't just a girly option. It's necessary if you're going to combat someone and you want the best chance of coming out unscathed.
I have been in such combat, and have suffered incapacitating injuries even though wearing armor, and using "faux" weapons. It's not a "faux" weapon if it leaves broken bones, soft tissue damage, etc. It's just a safer way to practice. You're not going to bleed out, but you leave the field WELL AWARE that the injuries would have been fatal with a bladed weapon. It's not for sissies. I got too old to heal quickly; and left it for the more full of hormones. The average person still wouldn't do well in an alley against someone with a stick and a trash can lid if they are experienced in using such weapons. Stay alive, it is the primary directive.
There seems to be some serious blind spots with the various influencers that study weapons. They try to translate their own experiences into historical fact, which seems like pretty bad science. The fact that the shield was entirely missed is a pretty obvious example of that. It doesnt help that many of these guys are also fairly unathletic when compared to soldiers and that the vast majority of their "combat" experience comes from slow speed sparring. In fairness this guy does seem to be more fit and referenced source material multiple times, I see this effect a lot more elsewhere.
For some sense of just how indestructible maces are, I was talking to some of the folk at the area medieval weapons dealer, and they told me about how they got in a new model of flanged mace (wooden haft, very beefy head, surprisingly nimble, kinda wish I could have bought it) and they took turns using it on an old dumpster over the course of an afternoon to test it out. The dumpster was unrecognizable. The mace was... blue. Also, I just had the thought while watching that perhaps some of the symbolism of the mace with royalty came precisely from its durability. An unbreakable rule, unshakable authority, an unbroken dynastic lineage... Pure speculation, obviously, but probably about as good as anyone else has come up with.
My wife listened to a couple seconds around minute 8 and asked in exasperated fashion "What's the mystery?" WRT the symbolism of the mace. Where she grew up (East Africa) there were several versions of the verb "to hit". One was thumping an inanimate object or punching someone accidentally or in a fight or similar. There was another - literally "to hippopotamus" after the hippo and rhino hide whips in use during the colonial period - which meant to beat as one would a recalcitrant child or a slave. Beating with rods or fasces or whips there as in many other places is distinct from fighting. A sword's only real purpose is to kill in a fight. A mace/rod/whip _might_ be lethal at the discretion of the wielder. _Symbolically_ its function is to punish those who are lesser. The mace is a symbol of the right of the person in a superior social position to hit others not as in an equal fight but reducing them to the level of nonpersons - animals, criminals, children, or servants/slaves. The Monarch is above everyone, and the mace is the symbol of her/his right to punish everyone else rather than fight them as equals. Likewise the clergy are representatives of the Ultimate Authority. A staff or mace or crosier which represents God's authority and exists (symbolically) primarily to chastise rather than do battle is an obvious accessory
There was an interesting article in Military History Quarterly a number of years ago that theorized that the mace was the first truely anti personnel weapon. I'm going off of memory here, but the point was spears and arrows could be used in hunting, but there's little point in trying to club a wild pig, for instance, to death. On the other hand, clocking a human over the head with a mace pretty much means death. So while a party of men with spears might be hunting for the pot, men with maces had more ominous intentions. It's all conjecture, of course, but I found it interesting enough to remember all these years later.
@@user-rk3yb6nd1n Makes perfect sense. In ancient armies it was mostly sling, bow, spear, dagger, and mace. Slings, bows, and spears were already hunting weapons. Swords came later. Knives are knives. The stone-headed mace didn't have any use besides hitting people.
You've convinced me. I'll keep my mace ready just in case. This reminds me: I just learned the three rules of hand tools. 1. Always use the best tool for the job. 2. The hammer is always the best tool. 3. Anything can be used as a hammer. Nice work as usual. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
Maces are great tools, the only problem with it is reach and opponents can grab it. That's it. Maces are scary when partnered with a shield. 2 knights, one with sword and shield, the other with a mace and shield, the outcome % of the duel won by the mace are higher. That's what this video missed or didn't mention.
There's also the fact that swords are very fragile if used incorrectly. Misjudge a strike and you might very well snap or bend a blade. Mace? Give old Grug One-Eye one and he can keep swinging all day at armor, heads, bodies or a nearby boulder if he feels like it. I've seen what a mace can do to steel, bone and flesh. It's not a pretty sight.
I broke my wrists a long time ago, basically ruining any possibilities of becoming a better sword swinger, but I found solace in the forgiving flanges of a good mace!
You broke both wrists? I mean you pluralized wrists so im just curious because that seems like a very rare injury. I was a pitcher in high school and college and never injured myself beyond typical scrapes and soreness. And even among others at my position i never even heard of one wrist being broken, and we tend to be very tall and skinny as well which you would think might make it more likely, im 6'3 170 lbs for instance and even putting all that force through my body i never did any major damage. So how did you end up breaking your wrists?
Even without the involvement of heavy armor, the mace can have an advantage that shouldn't be underestimated, and that - in some scenarios - might be a disadvantage, but in others can make a huge difference: The short reach. And that's why it made a comeback in the trenches of WW1. Because where space is limited, a shorter weapon is much easier to handle. And while soldiers were trained in bajonet fencing, which made sense on an open battlefield, but was not very practical in a more claustrophobic setting, many switched (as described by Remarque) to using their spades as a melee weapon at first, until they re-discovered the mace in its new form as a trench club.
I was thinking of the same. WW1 soldiers had readily access to sharp (sort of..) steel in the form of their bayonet, many had revolvers, but they often chose to fashion their own clubs and maces. Yes, they are effective in close quartets but I think there is another aspect of it also. Going on a trench raid is scary stuff. You are sneaking through the most hellish enviroment imaginable, in the dark. You know you are going to get in to hand-to-hand combat. You are going to kill or get killed. You are likely nervous and jumpy. As you make contact with the enemy, you have a few seconds to incapacitate them. In this scenario, you are probably going to revert to basic instincts. You are much less likely to mess up with a mace than with almost any other weapon. You can be in a state of panic, and still be quite effective.
It's not do much the trenches It's the bunkers and rounding frequent corner. Any straight section of trench was favorable to bayonets but the trenches were full of claustrophobic bunkers where clubs, shovels, and knives were more useful.
@@LokiLaughs2 There were very few "straight" sections in the trenches of WW1 as far as I know. They were usually a zig-zag with edges just a couple meters long, so as to minimise the damage of artillery shrapnel. In this environment carrying and using a 1.5m pointy stick effectively is probably quite challenging, whereas a club or mace maybe half as long makes an enormous amout of sense.
@@silphonym very correct. Also, to limit the capabilities of enemies just shooting everyone in the trench upon a breach. Trenches pretty much forced melee combat.
Even hitting someone with the flat of those spades with enough force will have an effect. (Even if you hit someone who wears a steel helmet by the shear force) I remember during my conscript time, we got similiar spades. (only difference that the head was foldable, butin such a rugged form that there was no fear of breaking it when using it to hack into wood ect.) And our instructor said:" Yes you got issued a field knife, but in close equaters combat, we recommend you use your spade. It has prooven itself in 2 World wars." So areal mace wil have an even nastier effect. The only thing to me is: The spade is already with you, you don't have to carr/make anything additionaly, and you can stab with it too. (and if you loose it, there is plenty of replacement around.)
I remember lots of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe action figures from the '80s had maces that were relatively huge compared to their bodies. So when I began to see realistic maces, I thought the historical ones looked cartoonishly tiny. I thought the toy versions were real, and the real ones were caricatures!
Even if you were strong enough to lift and swing something that heavy physics still applies. If you try to lift a hundred pound weight on the end of a five foot stick or gods-please-save-us one of those ridiculous anime swords you will fall over due to torque and the center of mass of the system.
A long time ago in the USA, a re-enactment group who used real weapons and armor in choreographed fighting demos, had a person who missed their block and got hit by a mace in a rising strike to the hip. His hip bone shattered and shards traveled to his shoulder. Maces are VERY effective against armored opponents.
As a mace/moringstar supremacist and enthusiast, a huge smile came onto my face and I started rapidly nodding every time you brought up the positives of a mace over a sword. Glad to know I knew these things before watching! Not a lot of people know the true, classical raw power of an "Unga-Bunga" blunt weapon. :P
A friend of mine is a reenactor. He told me that one time he got hit on the head (in helmet) with a fairly simple mace - pretty much just a small ball at the end of the stick. And he was stunned. Not just ringing bells like with the sword hit, because obviously any hit that transfers some energy will have some impact, but a proper long stun when he didn't know what was going on. I don't know whether that is a common effect or he was just unlucky, but it makes sense the the energy transfer in case of a mace is simply more effective through the armour, as all of it is focused on pretty small point at the end, instead of spread along the blade. Also I'd like to mention an old polish movie "Krzyzacy" where two early XVth century knights has a formal duel in full armour. They don't use swords but axes. Similarly their squires, who also fight in the duel, use axes and eventually one of them kills the other with the dagger.
Matt, can you talk about the use of armour in hot climates? Really curious how people fought in deserts and such while wearing several layers without dying of heat stroke.
If I remember correctly, they just didn't. Like the heaviest armor I can think of from a desert or desert adjacent civilization is roman stuff, but even then it wasn't like full plate armor or even chainmail.
@@comradekenobi6908 The Crusaders wore chain over padding for their heavy armor. It was incredibly hot to wear, but it also made their heavy cavalry unstoppable. If they knew there wasn't going to be any fighting, they would remove the armor, but if they thought there might be, they wore it and suffered, hoping the battle would happen soon because the longer it went the more the heat affected both the men and the mounts.
Durability, Solid Steel Maces are very hard to break. No need for edge alignment, meaning its easier to use in a chaotic situation. More forceful blows from weight distribution to break more fragile weapons and armor.
Like you said: good steel (historically) can be very rare… blunt weapons only require a reasonably hard & heavy material to make. Factor in more specialty processes, like heat treating, and really… of classical weapons, the mace/warhammer is second only to the spear in Cost:Effect, imo.
@@NemisCassander yeah, with bronze or copper, casting is easy and seems to be effective… cast steels can be more hit-or-miss; but *can* be done. If you’re talking barebones fabrication: get about 2kg of old lead Wheel Weights (find as scrap from any auto shop that does any wheel/tire services), melt them on a hot plate - in open air, and in an old metal pot you’ll never cook in again. Make a roughly ‘mace-head’ shaped indentation in some firm mud & center some rebar into it - brace the rebar-handle to stay put and pour in lead. Bend an ‘O’ or a crook into the striking side for a better attachment; but more just proof-of-concept for a $5 mace build lol
Nailed it! Especially on points (e.g. rendering articulating armor non-functional, smashing opponent's sword, no need for edge alignment) that often get too little attention. Onr more addition--in line with the value of the sword as a sidearm, but sometimes one better--a mace (like you've mentioned previously with indigenous clubs, tomahawks etc.) *is handier to carry around*, and the sidearm that's best is the one you're carrying, not leaving behind. :p
I do remember when young media definitely influenced my opinion on swords been best, but as I got older and looked into it I have a massive appreciation for maces, warhammers and mauls.
Very good presentation. I have experience with the mace as a police officer. We were issued a 26” baton made of the same substance as a bowling ball so they had weight. We also used metal flashlights weighted with 5-6 d-cell batteries. Any place we hit was disabled with one blow much as a sword might. Blood loss takes a while to have effect, generally speaking. I sword or knife can “reach into “ an opponents body to damage organs and that’s about the only advantage they have. Blocking with a mace does not require as much movement because it’s weight can deflect a lighter weapon. It lacks hand protection and I have injured my hand when my opponent ducked his head and my fingers hit his head. Your point on length and the swords sweet cutting spot is correct, I would only add that maces can be had in greater length as well. Overall a great overview. My compliments
About lethal vs non-lethal: although it certainly can be lethal, it seems to me that a mace can also be used in a non-lethal way much more easily than a sword, just by swinging it with less force and/or avoiding hitting the head. It's definitely more difficult to stab someone "lightly" with a sword.
I think it also comes down to the fact that maces usually dont cut skin as well. A medieval peseant can survive a broken arm, but a cut artery not even modern people can mend easily, so trying to "subdue" someone with a sword and you end up cutting an artery, well thats it theyre dead but if you break an arm and a leg with a mace, theyll get over it. And if they dont its not your problem
Good point, and not just when you "cut an artery". Anything that cuts/punctures the skin runs the risk of becoming a lethal or disabling wound in the days/weeks after the fight. Broken bones are close to 100% survivable even back then; even if you were treated poorly you'd be disabled but not dead.
I think, a broken arm was very hard to treat back then, especially without the money for a doctor It won't kill immediately but the aftereffects will kill slowly over time
@@robertwildschwein7207 In some places medical treatment might not be available, but all these civilizations absolutely had the knowledge of how to treat simple fractures. And any military unit is going to have someone with said knowledge, even if they aren't an expert. Sure, there are nasty fractures that could cause lethal complications like compartment syndrome (basically a lack of blood flow due to the injury), but even an improperly treated simple fracture will probably just result in pain and disability. In some settings this could mean death/starvation due to loss of income/ability to work/hunt/gather/farm. All that said, in the general sense, pre-modern medicine was *vastly* better at treating fractures than open wounds. Some cultures had an understanding of how to disinfect and clean wounds, but germ theory has been widespread for just a bit over a century, and antibiotics less than that. Literally any open wound, no matter how minor, could become lethal. And once infection set in, there was really no treatment. Look up the first penicillin patient. Guy got an infection and died from a scratch from a rosebush! Antibiotics are so incredible that we take them for granted and fail to realize just how dangerous open wounds were, and why soldiers were willing to wear 40 lbs of head-to-toe mail on campaign for most of medieval history! It's because soldiers are generally OK with the idea of dying quickly in battle from a sword in the belly or a mace to the head. But soldiers fear being one of the many wounded who die after days or weeks of screaming in agony from untreatable invisible wounds.
It is telling that we see maces (and for that matter also warhammers) listed as part of the secondary weaponry of heavy cavalry and in some cases also medium or even light cavalry. They served a useful if niche role as anti-armour weapons in close quarters mounted combat. An interesting case is the Stradiot light cavalry who found that their light lances and bladed sidearms had little to no effect against the French Gendarmes but maces allowed them to launch very effective hit and run harassment attacks against the same heavy cavalry. With little light cavalry available to counter them the French had to deploy missile troops to try and hold the Stradiots at a distance.
And let's place special emphasis on the MOUNTED part of the mace's anti-armor role. The idea that a light, one-handed mace on foot was a serious threat to plate armor is perhaps the most persistent myth about medieval warfare on the internet. There are a variety of period sources which disparage this weapon's ability to seriously harm a well-armored man with anything but a truly heroic blow. It was a weapon for smashing at people's fingers and ringing their ears, when a knight needed to extricate himself from a mounted melee. If you want to threaten someone in full armor with a blunt weapon, you really need to use something larger and two-handed.
@@toddellner5283 Sure it will. But the crucial difference is that a sword can kill with a flick of the wrist. To have any chance of harming someone in armor, a mace requires an absolutely heroic blow, delivered with full force and a predictable windup. In battle one rarely has the luxury for such things, and period sources state this directly. Ultimately a sufficiently strong blow with a mace is no easier to deliver than a well-aimed thrust with a sword. That's why they were mostly used on horseback where finesse is difficult and the mount gives you extra momentum.
@@MinSredMash the second most persistent myth about medieval warfare on the internet is the idea that for something to qualify as an 'anti-armour' weapon it needs to be able to defeat a 15th century European full plate harness..
@@Tomartyr That is clearly the context of the discussion. Matt is literally holding a 15th Century mace in this video. And if it's not a full harness, you would be very foolish to try and whallop the armor when you have the option to bypass it...
Another thought for the mace. If you run someone through with the point of your sword, they may be fatally wounded, but can still hit back for a bit. Break their arm/wrist with a mace and that limb and what it was holding is no longer a threat
@@Robert399 nah. I've seen a lot of fights with machetes in my thirdworld shithole and I can say that slicing the hand or arm won't make them drop their weapons or stop their attacks. They will carry on unless they got their hand chopped off or left it hanging or if their bones gets broken
@@qwormuli77 Eh... sure, some swords will struggle to sever limbs but OP was talking about stopping blows. Even if you don't cut it off, cutting into the incoming hand/arm is a fairly reliable way to stop the incoming blow. And I'd say that's more true with a sword than a mace (simply due to length and speed).
A few advantages of the mace would also come from the fact that you don't have to maintain it. All of the time spent sharpening a sword could be spent training with the mace instead. You also don't have to worry about the mace losing its edge during or after a battle. As long as you can swing it, it's in fighting shape.
It’s multidirectional nature also provides 2-3 additional benefits. It is easier to train or learn how to use bc you can ignore edge alignment and plus it’s strength makes you have to worry less during training and fighting. Next, you can train with sticks or other things in backyard better and skill from one transfer better to other (maybe you dint have mace but have stick in bad scenario). Lastly, you can do attacks from more directions or switch up making it harder to defend and predict
in light of the "civilian context" wouldn't a good thing to look at be WW1? most soldiers were issued bayonets that were still quite long but they often preferred to use club-like weapons as evidenced by the huge amount of makeshift maces and clubs that were used in WW1. Trenches play a part here, with the tight confines of a WW1 trench making longer weapons somewhat less desirable; but there was also considerations like knives getting stuck easily, breaking more easily and maces being to some degree harder to defend against (they more easily crush through the guard and knock weapons out of the hand, and their shortness can give them dagger-like qualities for fighting very close in. (potentially at a distance where even drawing the sword may be too difficult) Clubs have a bunch of advantages over swords for civilian usage, but at the end of the day I think swords work better simply because of their ease of carry and their length. (you can easily carry a sword for the reach alongside a dagger, while carrying a dagger and a mace just gives you two weapons with a similarly short effective reach and similar lack of defensive utility) speaking of all this, I think the king of self-defense weapons remains the dagger; it is the fastest thing to draw when you get jumped and, specifically, in the civilian context fights have a tendency to start pretty much at dagger range.
Wielding a mace properly is all about timing and momentum. Once the swing of the mace has begun, stopping it or slowing it down is difficult. The fighter is committed to not just the blow, but also the recoil. Begin your strike when the opponent is leaning forward, hopefully off balance. It is completely predictable that he will lean backward, so aim for a point behind his head. By the time the mace gets there, his head will be in its path. -Mace Etiquette, Skyrim :D
Matt, the mace can be used in two ways, with its head up, for letal damage, and inverted like a truncheon with a pommel for doing arrest. Paired with a buckler and dagger it gets quite decent as militia (police) kit.
Another point I would like to add, if you needed to bolster your ranks quickly, as you saw the armored forces marching your way, arming your laborers with maces, who already were strong and able to use that strength for long days of work, it could be the difference between a win or a loss. Very little training is required for a strong person to be useful in battle when they are using a mace.
Maces did break as well. Especially the cast bronze maces which were used mostly up until the 2nd half of the 14th c. and the advent of plate armour. They would break, get dented, etc and it's backed by many extant examples in museums. The flanged iron maces also broke, but in a different way where one or two of the flanges break off. The difference is that you can easily repair them by forge welding a new flange to replace the old one.
10th and 11th century Byzantine cataphract cavalry used maces in their charges. They were considered extremely effective at penetrating massed infantry formations. Lances were used by lighter byzantine cavalry who charged at a gallop, where the cataphracts charged at a trot, this made lances less effective and allow the mace to function as a shock weapon to disrupt the enemy infantry line.
So to transcribe it into video game terms, really high durability, decreased durability usage, increased durability damage, increased damage to stamina when striking shields, doesnt apply the bleeding out debuff to the enemy or the stuck weapon debuff to you, can deal reduced damage through armor instead of having to fish for critical hits like with a sword, increased strength damage scaling, decreased dexterity damage scaling, low minimum dexterity to use, can't deal critical hits but has a lower chance to miss (due to wider range of opportunity to make successful hits from not needing edge alignment), lower attack speed, more stamina use per swing, more likely to disarm and shield break seems like putting a spike on the top would be pretty advantageous, no? what kind of shield do you think would pair best with a mace in a given circumstance? Something light and nimble or something heavier and larger?
I'd argue against it. You already have a weapon that can concuss, cause internal bleeding, can deform armor, can break bone, and can break other weapons and shields and more. A spike would be more for jamming into an armor gap, which what's the point if you can just deliver huge kinetic force straight through it? As for a shield, something maneuverable would be preferable. A heater, a mini kite, or even a buckler would help. That or you could go empty handed and use the free hand for grappling, swords are better for grappling and half swording already, you'd be able to match a sword wielding opponent in terms of versatility by having a free hand provided you've got sufficient armor.
The point about smashing armor joints is a good one. Even if it does not wound the man inside, a mechanically locked knee, elbow or shoulder joint can be just as effective.
Another fascinating video. The fact that maces/truncheons are still widely used is, I think, testament to the weapon's utility and ubiquity. Thanks Matt!
I agree with everything said about fighting someone in plate but would also point out how common mail was back then and how devastating a mace would be against mail only. Mail is great against slashing weapons like a sword but gives little to no protection against a bludgeoning weapon like a mace.
I wonder if that is true? Mail with gambeson or padding underneath should have quite a bit of give, would that aid in reducing the kinetic energy transfer of a mace strike? I dunno, gonna have to see if any testing has been done. Good thought though.
@Hana neither would offer much of any protection against a mace strike. Neither gambeson nor chainmail has a rigid structure like plate armor, therefore whatever's underneath will take the brunt of the energy transfer. Chainmail and gambeson work particularly well against swords on account of the kinetic force and weight being focused along a narrow edge, the cutting power is nullified by the chainmail and relatively lighter kinetic force is absorbed by the gambeson. It's not the case with maces however.
I needed this video in my life! You are spot-on, and don't forget about the damage that mace can do to shields, especially wooden shields. It hurts having that shield banged against repeatedly with a heavy, blunt object!
I have been on this kick of breaking things down to pure fundamentals when looking at things. I think it helps to explain things better. Weapons are simply tools. Guns are basically internal combustion engines where the energy is not restrained. Unless you are transferring a chemical aka poison of some sort, weapons are ways to transfer energy in a way that will damage the target. Basically if you look at it that way blades are higher formes of technology and the energy transfer is extremely focused. That means that they need very little energy to be effective. The problem is a material properties one if whatever your weapon can dish out can fail if the target is to robust. There is always an arms race when armor gets better and it will require more energy and or a material that can handle the impact. The United States army is fielding a new rifle for exactly the same reason. It's actually interesting to compare since as firearms developed they went to a lighter weapon that was easier to move and would be more like a sword but as soon as armor comes along then they go heavy like a mace. There seems to be a circle where as armor comes in weapons change until it's no longer worth wearing armor and then we go back to light weapons.
@@duggygee6387 Yes. I guess they are worried about armor. They were using kevlar so soft flexible like mail then switched up to hard steel plates. The have some layered stuff to but it gets broken if anything hits it. I just find it interesting that since we need real people to go into combat we still work around what a body can hold up in and fight in.
On the subject of prohibitions on the use of bladed weapons by the clergy, there are medieval canons that prohibit clergy from using weapons in anger, but the application of those canons is at times uncertain. As with the modern concept of just war, whether in secular or Christian teaching, there were exceptions when it was deemed appropriate, or at least excusable, for a clergyman to use a weapon, especially in defence of another or in self defence. This principle applies to this day - by virtue of their calling and vocation, clergy may not use force in anger, but common law, secular and ecclesiastical alike, accepts that they may be compelled to do so.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher Indeed. Much less controversial (and easier on one’s conscience) to resolve a conflict without lethal force, situation permitting, so clipping a local miscreant round the ear far preferable to running him through with a sword, tempting as it may be. Ditto for any enthusiastic fellows offering to collect a particularly precious chalice and paten and move them to an undisclosed location at no cost to the parish…
Matt. Were maces & hammers more popular in certain regions? For example were maces preferred in Italy over hammers? We're hammers more common in Germanic regions?
I'm not sure about the statistics. But I can mention that in medieval Central and Eastern Europe - Bohemia, Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and maybe even in Hungary, the mace was an attribute of a commander. Even later, in 16th and 17th century Polish Rzeczpospolita, a mace called bulava, often decorated with gold or silver inlays, would be a commanders' insignia. A nobleman would be given a bulava when receiving the command.
Open wounds can also be more lethal by leading to infections, which were much harder to deal with in the medieval period than today. That might also lead to perception of blunt weapons as less lethal
Matt, I'd like to hear your thoughts on something regarding shields. I have this little theory that there would have been a number of martial systems where shields were utilised a little bit like "sword-breakers". In the event that an opponent cuts into your shield with a bladed weapon, it strikes me a great opportunity to bind their weapon with your shield, which is a huge deal. Considering the different kinds of shields, and the differences between boss-gripped, and strapped shields; I think this could be an interesting little rabbit hole, and maybe worthy of a little bit of experimental archaeology.... :^)
I've seen this argument before, can't remember if it was a Skall, Shad, or Roland video. But they were talking specifically about the thin edge of the Viking period shield, and how an opponent could have their weapon bite into it, and that would give you a momentary chance to take advantage. You could twist the shield (it being a center grip is at an advantage in this instance) and either pull your opponent off balance or wrench the sword out of their grip, or try for a finishing strike while they're bound up.
That’s a good idea but you might also be lugging that sword around if no opportunity presents itself during the battle to take it out. Considering the center of percussion will be the part in the shield, it will be very annoying having the hilt so far away
@Garret LeBuis was going to say thr exact same thing. Yes it was a Shad video, and the vikings did it deliberately to disarm their opponents. I can just imagine a jolly viking laughing from the gut as he wrenches an axe out of his enemy's hand as it got stuck in the shield.
@@uncledoctor6920 You people and your love of that particular criminal demographic make me physically cringe. It only gets worse when you consider that it's statistically likely that you have more in common with the victims of those criminals and the people that kicked them back into the sea, than the criminals. Modern people can be fucking weird.
Notably, Juan Quijada de Reayo's mid-16th-century text recommends using the arming sword over the hammer for a man-at-arms. His order was as follows: lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, & finally dagger. A Renaissance cavalry hammer isn't exactly the same as a mace, but it's quite similar. French cavalry commonly had maces until the pistol displaced them in the late 16th century but it's unclear whether they used them before their swords. Pietro Monte praised a weapon he called a club or mace, but was more of a warhammer by the modern definition based on his description. He suggested carrying a slightly longer one to use in both hands from the saddle. He didn't clearly say whether he preferred it over a sword.
Modern police phrasing often uses the term "less lethal" for many weapons other than firearms. Still potentially lethal, but not nearly as likely to be lethal.
@@robertwildschwein7207 tf you gonna do with a mancatcher in a battlefield lol. What, you gonna snag a nobleman by the neck (who’s most likely wearing plate or brigandine) , and hope he doesn’t stab or smack you in the process? you really want to be the one schmuck that chooses to carry a fricking mancatcher into the battlefield, as opposed to a poleaxe/polehammer or a mace? Neither does the other guy lol
@@keithstone8693 But a mace or polehammer might kill and a poleaxe will either kill or slide off the curved armor surface, while a Mancatcher won't kill.
You make some really compelling arguments here. I think the earlier points you make, specifically with regard to the mace's potential use in law enforcement situations, invites yet another conversation. That is, how were various wounds, delivered by various weapons, actually treated in Medieval times? It's important to realize what a terrifyingly effective killer was _infection._ If you're trying to "bring someone to justice", and you stab them with a sword; even if you only inflict a minor stab-wound; it is almost certain to result in infection; without immediate attention from someone who knows something of medicine. Bruises can get infected.. But that would be far less-certain than with a stab wound. Great vid! :)
For most soldiers, the only chance to get stuck into a trench currently occupied by the enemy would be during a night raid. I don't believe the type of melee weapon matters that much in a raid where the goal is to kill or capture enemies in their sleep. I find it hard to believe there is much difference in effectiveness between killing a defenseless man with a club or with a blade. You might be right here, but to me it seems a distinction without a difference.
@@toddellner5283 yes, E-tools were very effective, almost like an improvised mace, I have mentioned them in a previous video. This video: ruclips.net/video/-MfeCYZkYAE/видео.html
@@Judasdfg I think the distinction in in the length of the weapon, with swords being _usually_ longer and thus more unwieldy in a narrow trench (plus Matts edge alignment comments) Plus its worth noting the in the as trench warfare became more common swored were withdrawn from being issued as part of the fight armaments whereas trench clubs were still being home made and bought, hunting knives were popular too, which increases the likelihood that swords were not as good for trench warfare.
A friend whose grandfather and great uncle served in WWI asked what they carried in the trenches. 1911, 12 gauge shotgun (Winchester 1897), Bowie knife, and shovel. And standing orders to kill on sight any artillery crew with gas shells
Police today have training manuals for use of baton, nightstick, sap, heavy flashlight, etc. They teach that these things can kill, very likely would kill with certain hits, and are very specific about what not to do. They teach instead how to hit to end a fight, without killing. For the suggested civilian uses of a mace, the user might very well have thought about how not to kill, yet at the same time win suddenly, quickly, overwhelming even a powerful and difficult opponent. The same lessons would apply to cutting down an armored opponent step-by-step, hitting the arms and legs first, to cripple before trying to kill. The medieval manuals may not cover it, but there are plenty of very well considered modern manuals and instructors available on the subject.
Odd note, but after playing Blade and Sorcery in VR for a while, I can agree that using a sword to deal with a fully amored opponent is ridiculously frustrating. 😂
If you haven't already, you ought to check out the historical weapons pack on mod nexus. It's got a ton of weapons from the medieval Era like pole axes, Lange messers, rondel daggers, as well as weapons from other cultures.
I grew up reading more history than I could’ve imagined. The bludgeon was the weapon I’ve found the most versatile and effective for continuous defense and ease of grappling. The Bar Mace, flanged mace, all the way to the Kanabo from Japan. Depending on what you use as the head. Or how you construct your mace. You can work into the close distance that cuts off the nimble nature of a sword. Battling most any weapon a mace is self safety application which no edged weapon provides makes it the easiest to close the distance and break your opponents foundation with grappling or strikes to the knees and thighs. If you know how to dual wield the smaller variations, you can seriously battle a lot of things You wouldn’t believe.
What about mace + shield? Another advantage of mace might be its ease of manufacture and relative cheapness. Add to that the comparative lack of training required for effective use. You could maybe field several good fighting men, for the cost of one swordsman? "Number" has a beauty all of its own.
A good heater shield should be able to defend against something like a poleax. Which would give the attacker a chance to close in with the mace. It also covers whatever the mace lacks in defensive capabilities.
But it very much depends on how many people you need to field to begin with. Because if it's more than a dozen, giving them spears is always going to be the optimal solution. Cheap, super effective, and much easier to train for. A mace and shield still require good footwork, coordination, and solid martial basics to use efficiently. A spear only needs to be pointed in the right direction 😬
This is backwards for several reason. Maces are not good weapons for men not wearing full armor. They are short and difficult to defend yourself with. And they are not the best choice for attacking plate-armored men on foot. More importantly almost no one was fielding sword+shield combatants in the first place. Just about everyone brought either a polearm or a bow. Swords and maces were sidearms.
@@MinSredMash people were largely armed with spears because (among other reasons) they were cheap. Doesn't it stand to reason that those guys needed side arms as well? Of course the obvious answer is that those guys probably already had some kind of axe that they were obliged to carry for domestic reasons, but I do get the man's line of thought. If you're a city arsenal trying to "tool up", as it were, I could see them smelting down a bunch of bronze to cast morningstar heads to provide sidearms for your militia.
People often forget weapons are tools. There is always an optimal tool for a job, but it is less obvious if it comes to weapons, because the ultimate goal is to defeat your opponent. But in combat itself, the job itself is usually less apparent. In tool use let's say, the ultimate goal is to build a house. The subjobs themselves are more readily apparent. You know you want to break that rock apart, therefore you use a chisel. You know you want to put material on your trowel, and to do that, you can pick which option of secondary tool would be ideal to reach into your container with. In combat you have a lot less time to identify the current subjob and also you might not have the time to actually get the optimal tool for that subjob, hence the constant discussion about which weapon is the best. There is no tool for that job, that can do everything, but we try to make our preferred weapons out to be the best weapon of all time. As my friend usually says: war requires good tradesmen and tools. A mace is a certainly great tool, and I love it very much for that reason. It is effective in its simplicity. Sadly cannot, or to be more precise, could not ever practice with it. Even a practice mace is a dangerous weapon, and frankly, I want to have beers with my opponent after, not go into a hospital to visit him.
Maze has amazing stopping power even for low trained users. This is true both for people and animals. A good thrust with a sword, even if it cuts an artery, might not stop the enemy attack immediately. This helps in civilian law enforcement type situations because whatever the “bad person” is doing, you want to stop him. It is true for defense against wild animals, if a wild boar charges me and I’m not that trained with a sword I’d rather have a Maze. And well in war, armor defeats this somewhat but still, just “suicidally power through the enemy attack” is much easier against a thrust weapon than against a Maze even though the thrust might be more lethal.
Hi Matt, it would be interesting to explore how sword restriction in civilian setting worked in the past. Clearly arms regulation is an age-old issue, and there would be interesting lessons that can be applied to modern context.
WRT breaking blades I'm reminded of a couple incidents in Northern European sagas where people paused in fighting to force their bent swords back into something they could fight with (and doubtless prayed to all the warlike gods that it wouldn't break before combat was over). And that was just normal wear-and-tear. If someone's taking the equivalent of a hammer to your sword the results could be even worse. Have you done any work on how well period shields stand up to maces and polearms?
Recently had a conversation with someone about what melee weapon would be best in "the zombie apocalypse." My choice was a blunt force weapon like a mace or a shilellagh, while he was adamant on a katana. My fear however with blades is them getting stuck in bone - and isn't it just better to inflict severe blunt force trauma, especially to the head?
Depends on the zombie. If you have to sever the spinal column not just cave in a skull... Hardee to crush the spine from in front. Also depends on zombie. An undead zombie is not affected by crushing a bone vs cutting off a leg will slow it. If it's just a viral thing ... mace might be better but a slit throat might kill those.. no armor on zombies usually. And slow so sword works better than normal? But if you have to destroy the brain? Yeah mace. Stabbing in the face seems troublesome. But then axe seems good. I like axe :-). But then I would probably want a spear?
I think I favor a shield, roughly Captain America-size. I can edge-punch faces with it, batter skulls with the flat, hack down onto arms and legs (or grounded skulls), ram into zombies to knock them out of my path, and dash through a loose swarm with the shield providing significant protection. It would also permit the additional use of hammer, machete, pistol, etc in the free hand. Also, I can easily improvise a shield from common materials using basic tools. Logistics is always a consideration in an apocalypse.
The best advantage out the gate I can think of is. Is that it doesn't require much training to use effectively. Just swing repeatedly until your target goes down.
I'm really curious how men at arms or knights chose their weapons before battle... Not all soldiers on the battlefield were covered in full plate, so having a sword as a backup weapon might seem more logical if you expect to go up against less well equipped opponents. Did they always expect to face their equals? Or did some specialize in facing their equals and others in going after the opponents "weaker" infantry?
I am guessing they would likely pick the one they feel they are most skilled with. Then a backup dagger. While weapons have pros and cons, when it comes to actually stacking up and getting it done, you go with the weapons you trust the most. Any doubt or hesitation can get you killed.
Men-at-arms always had swords. Lance, sword, & mace was common for French men-at-arms in the middle of the 16th century, while Juan Quijada de Reayo assumed lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, & dagger. It's easy enough to wear a sword & mace or hammer on horseback, so men-at-arms didn't have to choose.
I may have missed these arguments in favour of mace - 1. little to no maintenance. As said in the video, swords edge is often chipped, the point can be broken... A mace doesn't need to be sharpened and even rusty or bent does not lose it's deadly force. In conquest weapon maintenance takes time, which may be very limited. No maintenance weapon saves time and strength. 2. Cheap and repairable. Yeah, okay, the one full metal shown on the video is not cheap, cuz takes a lot of steel to make, a lot if skill to forge. However, the other shown briefly is made of stone and wooden stick. Everyone can make that. A wooden handle can also be relatively easy replaced if chipped. Bent or broken sword is often beyond repair. Another interesting thing is not common, but i've seen some mentions of it in armenian or slav epics - mace is a nice throwing weapon. There are some mentions, that baturs or bogatyrs (something similar to a knight) carried small maces as a secondary weapon. As they grabbed the sword, they also discreetly grabbed a mace with an off-hand in order to suddenly throw it at the opponent. It required no technique, opposed to throwing knife or axe, cuz hit with every part is a significant blow. Very hard to deflect, not easy to dodge, it could give some advantage at the beginning of fight. Even if the opponent did dodge or deflected the mace, he lost precious milliseconds.
Would not a mace be relatively cheap and easy to manufacture as compared to a sword? And also there's the question of maintenance; one doesn't have to be constantly mollycoddling a mace in order to get it to function properly.
@@mnorris790 Men-at-arms always carried swords too. & they had full armor & a warhorse (possibly multiple mounts), which were rather costly. They didn't go for maces or hammers because these weapons were cheap. One 16th-century Spanish jousting manual that addresses what the man-at-arms should do in war lists lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, & dagger as the weapons carried, & to use them in that order when fighting other men-at-arms. So it's not completely clear why men-at-arms had maces/hammers, as at least according Juan Quijada de Reayo they used the arming sword before the impact weapon against other riders in full harness, thrusting for the weak points. In that scheme, perhaps the hammer or mace was useful as a convenient & robust third-tier sidearm, to wield after losing or breaking the estoc & arming sword.
What about two-handed maces? I have seen a lot of two-handed hammers, but I haven't seen a two-handed mace yet (not a antique one at least), if anyone knows a picture of one, please give me the link, I am interested.
The English “holy water sprinkler” was a long-hafted mace weapon. There are also maces used as signs of office which were mounted on 4-6 foot hafts. (Sorry, I do not have pictures handy).
They existed. Italian observers claim English soldiers used large numbers of 6ft spiked maces in the 16th century. Two-handed spiked maces also appear from Italy & other parts of Europe. They always or almost always have a top spike for thrusting. I think of them as a variation on the pollaxe & halberd: a polearm you can strike & thrust with.
When carrying a mace strapping on a heavy buckler is a beautiful idea for your left arm as it leaves you still capable of using your dagger with your left hand if I remember right one particular Warrior had a tendency to fit his boxing strips & heavy greve serious left hand when he went into battle either brandishing an ax or a mace because originally he was a stonecutter so he was an extremely strong aux basically I wish I could remember his name or who he championed for but he would challenge the champion of another Army for single combat and most likely for the day it was said he would beat the other opponents into submission and leave him standing in the field incapable of returning Sirius online or continuing the attacks when time it was said he fought simply for 20 head of cattle and a ceasefire until the following morning I just remembered he was a Spartan fancied himself as a part-time boxer for the Olympics he carved stone with his knuckle rings as boxing practice
Everything said makes great sense. I would add that idiot princelings are less likely to fall on their maces (or scepters) and impale themselves than they would be if armed with a sword. Self injury altogether would be less likely with a blunt weapon than with a sharp one.
I would imagine an advantage that doesn't seem to be covered here is the momentum of a mace swung full force to carry on through the inertia of a parry of a lighter weapon, such as sword. If you are trying to divert the energy of a heavy thing moving fast with a relatively lighter thing moving equally as fast, the heavier thing will not stop moving when met with the resitance of the lighter thing and both now will be traveling back towards the target of the heavier thing. An over head swing with a mace on an opponent with a sword would likely still carry on to knock the guy in the noggin, even if he tries to block or parry the blow
Bishop Oddo carried a club because he was a Priest. Traditionally, the clergy were not supposed to shed blood so would carry a club or staff for self defence or more rarely into battle. Apparently the good Lord was not keen on his holy men spilling the claret but broken bones and stoved in skulls were okay.
vs armor or when you are NOT a trained fighter that knows how to edge align a sword or thrust with precision oooga booga style has its merits, just hit them with the heavy end any way you can. I bet there is techniques for mace but you don't need to know much to do the job.
Visit the WWI Museum in Kansas City Missouri. Clubs and maces were used in trench warfare. They have vintage weapons that are actual artifacts from the conflict.
I would imagine in armor a mace might be less tiring in some ways. Fencing requires a lot of movement if the entire body. A mace has to be used with force and up close so it's not like you are fencing with it. You only swing if you think you can hit.
An interesting thing I've read, in admittedly a fantasy novel (but one written by a person with a proper archaeology degree) was that maces, unlike sabres, were commonly banned in parts of Poland throughout history, because when hot tempered slavs would get into a drunken argument, and inevitably draw their weapons, one of them would soon get injured and cut, but importantly, not to the point of receiving a moral or laming wound; and the split blood would quickly cool their tempers. Meanwhile, with a bludgeon weapon, it was very easy to permanently maime or even kill someone, without necessarily going for a particularly killing blow.
When talking about weapons on the battlefield in medieval Europe, youtubers always focus on killing potential and how easily it can be used to kill a foe... but would that have always been the intention on the battlefield? In much of Central and South America there were many societies that preferred to take members of opposing armies alive (either to enslave them or for ransom) rather than killing them. These warriors tended to use weapons more akin to clubs or maces because it was easier to incapacitate without killing. Perhaps there were times on the medieval battlefields when it would have been preferable to take as many of the opposing army alive? Even in places/times where there wasn't slavery, an invading army wouldn't necessarily want to kill all the commoners in the opposing army if they were looking to occupy the land afterwards.... there'd be no one left to work the fields.
Anything that stops someone else hitting you back is a win. Break someone's sword arm with a mace and they will probably lose interest in hitting you. OK a minority may continue to offend you with their offhand, but most will stop.
It rarely, if ever, was convenient for armies to take many prisoners in Medieval Europe. The nobles that you could ransom for sweet cash, sure, they were usually treated well and protected, because the people paying the ransom would not take it well if their dear lord/sire/brother/whatever came back missing fingers or teeth. Although not always, as the many wars of succession show us (often, the captured would-be monarchs and their direct families were summarily executed, to prevent further, ahem, "complications"). The commoners, though, were killed savagely: they were many more mouths to feed, and in a war, food was always the first casualty; for a defending army, they were worthless, because the invaders would never ransom them, and the captives couldn't be trusted as additions to one's army, except in very special circumstances; and for invaders, they could easily become the brunt of a resistance movement or revolt later on - it was much safer to put them to the sword and replace them with your own people.
Of course in Central and parts of South America prisoners were to be sacrificed and eaten. Getting them back alive, not necessarily in fact but alive, was important
There's something I'd like add on to this, especially in the context of, specifically, unarmored combat between someone who has a sword, and someone with a mace. If the guy with the sword begins an attack motion, let's say, a swing for example, someone else with a sword would have options such as dodging it, or attempting to block it or parry it with their own sword. When the cutting edge of a sword hits, well, almost anything, there's a chance it will lose some of that sharpness, and a lot of factors can influence that, but generally speaking, if one sword blocks the impact of another (particularly on the blade edge), the blades will tend to cut into one another, even moreso if the quality of their materials is low (or mismatched, with the weaker weapon taking more damage.) The mace, and in particular one entirely made of metal, has several defensive advantages a sword does not have. While most of them tend not to have any kind of guard or such for the user's hands, which would certainly make it a risky proposition, in theory at least, the entirety of the shaft acts as an essentially unbreakable guard. Given the weight and construction of a fully metal mace, bracing it against an incoming swing from a sword shouldn't require all that much effort, and if there's any weapon damage to be taken in the exchange, it's likely all going to be on the sword, not the mace. However, there's another meaningful aspect to consider; a mace tends to be heavy, in general quite a bit more than a sword, so, what happens when you swing a mace at a sword being swung at you? I'm not a physicist, but I would hazard a guess that a mace weighing twice as much or more than a sword, bringing that much weight compounded with the force put into swinging it, brought to bear against a lighter, more fragile weapon coming from the opposite direction, is very much more likely to negate or even reverse the direction of force from the incoming sword. In simpler terms, intercepting a sword swing with a counter-swing by a mace is probably either going to either knock it completely out of the way, or seriously damage (or shatter) it. I've never heard of this being mentioned anywhere, honestly, so I'm partly speculating here (and partly going on testing I've done with a 4-foot steel mace I own), but I would assume that the guy with the sword would be endangering his weapon and his health by committing to any attack the guy with the mace could intercept with his own swing. I do understand swords are a lot faster, and this kind of thing would probably require both skill and lightning reflexes, but I feel pretty confident that if I ever was squaring off with a swordsman with my mace in hand, I would consider their weapon to be a target, and would specifically try to counter their swing with my own, both to either disarm them, or force an opening. There aren't many other weapons that could, in theory, so decisively exploit an enemy's attack, simultaneously negating it while using your own momentum to keep your attack going, breaking their guard and giving yourself a fair chance to give them a pretty damaging strike. Another thing would be the simple physics behind swinging a mace on the offense, whether against armored or unarmored opponents. If you've ever stubbed a toe, banged your shin, or slammed your arm against something, you know that blunt force damage still hurts, and can be incredibly debilitating, even on such a small scale. The entire shaft of a mace is able to inflict damage, not unlike a sword, and while obviously damage from the head impacting something will be the most significant, the fact that you don't even need to worry about edge alignment means you're free to simply focus on where you're trying to strike, and how hard you're striking. Landing a cut on someone's arm might not disable them, but landing the full weight of a mace in the same place might completely disarm them. And beyond that, there's not many good ways to prevent a mace from doing its full damage without dodging it outright; a shield isn't going to completely negate the impact at all (if not making the effect worse), you're not going to be able to block it without a fully braced weapon of your own (such as an axe or your own mace, with a hand above and below the point of impact, while a sword would stand no chance even with both hands on the hilt and could be driven back into your own body with the force of the blow), and even in armor, the amount of force that swing can produce will knock you around or even knock you off your feet, if the mace is big enough for that. As far as armored opponents, now, I've never been in a suit of armor being pummeled repeatedly by someone with a mace, but if I imagine myself in that situation, I can picture the kind of loud, insufferable experience that would be. A hit on even a fully visored helmet stands a chance to bend the visor to obscure my vision, or, depending on the type of visor, it could even jam it downward into my throat. A hit on my gauntlet might dislocate my wrist, elbow, or shoulder depending on if or how I braced myself. Any impact has a chance to dent the armor inward, and if the mace has large spiked flanges (like mine does), there's a chance it could shatter a shard of my own armor into my skin, whether it's on the side of the helmet or anywhere else (also potentially making it harder to take the armor off.) Of skill, it boils down to the sword having a higher skill floor (requiring a lot more attention to edge alignment and where to hit your opponent, as well as what not to hit to avoid damaging your weapon) while a mace has a much lower skill floor (it's basically a technologically advanced club, and the club is known as the simplest weapon for a reason.) I would argue the mace has a potentially higher skill ceiling, one not likely to be reachable, and the benefits probably still don't outweigh the versatility of a sword, its speed and reach advantages, especially when it comes to thrusting. For me personally, given the choice between the two, I'd certainly pick a mace over a sword more times than not, as even with less maneuvering and positional advantage, there's still more potential opponents that a mace can counter than a sword, as it will have a significantly simpler time in dealing with armored opponents, as well as plenty of damage against someone without. And considering an 'armored' opponent might simply have a coat of mail, enough to make a sword a fair bit less effective, that mail's not gonna protect against a mace (honestly, that might be an even more painful and damaging impact than without mail at all.)
Matt please use the term "Less than Lethal" as opposed to "Non Lethal". Maces and clubs are 'Less than lethal' weapons as opposed to stabbing or edged weapons. (I know you know the difference)
@@christiangudmundsson8390 That is just semantics. its a weapons classification. They are "non lethal" , "less than lethal" and "lethal". Implying the middle tier is less than "
@@HeadCannonPrime Sure it's just semantics, obviously. Look, if you have established these categories then sure, then it makes sense, I suppose. Although I wonder if you might not want to put maces in the "lethal" category. But from a semantical point of view, calling them "less lethal" makes more sense than "less than lethal", because "less than lethal" really sounds like it's the same as "non lethal".
@@scholagladiatoria still ill bet there were cheap and dodgy constructed maces in history. Plus some had wooden shafts which aren't indestructible. I suppose they are short but still could be damaged
My supporting points: In the modern day, we still have a spice called mace, and a self-defense liquid in a can called mace. - edit: Also, a mace is an upgrade of the mighty STICK!
I would counter that you _can_ thrust with a mace, especially against someone who is unarmoured. No, definitely not as lethal as a sword, but taking a lunging punch with a 2 - 3.5 lb blunt/blunt-pointed steel weapon is going to do significant harm.
Sign up on MyHeritage using my link to start your journey off with a 14 day free-trial. If you continue your subscription afterwards you can get 50% off: bit.ly/scholagladiatoria
Mace are in no way less lethal then blade Matt!
Really a mace or club as the odd benefit that you choose how lethal it as the force applied/ commitment to the blow determines the damage inflicted.
Even a half hearted blow to the head will cause mortal wounds but a half hearted blow to the limbs will just cause bruising & pain generally unless a particularly nasty well designed mace with a very low contact area.
My preference is a mace over sword or axe but I would pick a spear/large pole arm over a mace.
My favourite is an (awl pike) as a modest length pike with a cap circumference for clubbing.
Basically a spear mace! Bit goedendag but much larger.
Put a spike on a solid mace it is often far more lethal then most sword's!
against undead ofc
I wish a Time-traveler Industrialized, Secularized and gave Winchester Rifles to Early Medieval Humanity
Then the world would be a much better place
@@kungfujoe2136 D&D fan are we?
Bludgeoning mechanically is the best of all 3 melee damage types.
The new fresh party always questions my choice of stave, maul or Warhammer over the usual weapons.
Look up how many creature have resistance or immunity to piecing & slashing unlike bludgeoning.
Shillelagh/magic stick can get ridiculous.
People say dexterity is best stat till you make a wisdom fighter.
Stick & board is fun be it paladin or fighter.
Magic bludgeoning the DM can't refuse.
Magic stone is a good 2nd cantrip to take for wisdom fighter so your range damage is Good enough compared to most anything.
Magic stick/club for live.
Hit in the sternum, they will die
If Kingdom Come:Deliverance taught me anything it was "bring a mace" because swords suck against armour but the humble mace does not care whether you wear a helmet or a cap it cracks what needs to be cracked and rings what needs to be rung.
Warhammer or axe are my favorites in that game. Bonking sleeping Cumans in a cave is very fun.
I always find it funny when people complain about the combat on the KC:D subreddit because they can't kill groups of armoured enemies with a sword, then get defensive and say they won't use a mace or warhammer because it's "cheap" or "too easy" and they "want to use skill." Nah mate it's not cheap and the combat isn't too hard just use the right tool for the job.
Hahaha, KC:D brought me here as well. Axe guy here.
Mount & Blade II Bannerlord's Realistic Battle Mod for me is the one that got me to really love maces. It actually made all the (appearing-slightly-too-early) armor worth more than recycled shitpaper, and now my go-to sidearm is always a mace, maybe a sword as a tertiary for fighting unarmored targets or for style as a Vlandian Knight.
@@Adam_okaay the combat is amazing but it suffers when there are multiple enemies. It used to be especially horrible when mobs at night didn't use torches while fighting you and could see in the dark lol.
I immediately thought of the Mace Etiquette book from Elder Scrolls when I saw this.
"Mace Etiquette
Warriors sometimes make the mistake of thinking that there are no tactics with a mace. They assume that the sword is all about skill and the mace is only about strength and stamina. As a veteran instructor of mace tactics, I can tell you they are wrong.
Wielding a mace properly is all about timing and momentum. Once the swing of the mace has begun, stopping it or slowing it down is difficult. The fighter is committed to not just the blow, but also the recoil. Begin your strike when the opponent is leaning forward, hopefully off balance. It is completely predictable that he will lean backward, so aim for a point behind his head. By the time the mace gets there, his head will be in its path.
The mace should be held at the ready, shoulder high. The windup should not extend past the shoulders by more than a hand's width. When swinging, lead with the elbow. As the elbow passes the height of your collarbone, extend the forearm like a whip. The extra momentum will drive the mace faster and harder, causing far more damage.
At the moment of impact, let the wrist loosen. The mace will bounce and hurt a stiff wrist. Allow the recoil of the blow to drive the mace back into the ready position, thereby preparing the warrior for a quicker second strike."
Congratulations, one skill point for one handed.
as someone with no combat skill, I could bet that I can be useful with a mace as a frontline grunt, but completely useless with a sword
@@ccgamerlol depends, sword like the gladius are super easy to use. also stabbing can be very effective.
sounds like swinging a mace is a lot like swinging a golf club!
Yo this is awesome! Another reason why ES was amazing with the huge amount of content inside its books alone
@@Born_Stellar
Driver Nephi, Fallout New Vegas ;)
I found that Maces work better on the undead. Like skeletons.
I feel like not enough people consider the idea of compounding damage. One of the first things I learned in martial arts is that you can get up from the ground pretty quickly after being thrown the first time, but by the 3rd or 4th time you're thrown getting up starts to become extremely difficult. Likewise, being hit the first time in the hand or wrist when doing staff fighting drills isn't always a big deal but if you smash the same joint or knuckle 2 or 3 times it becomes very difficult to hold onto your stick, and also your ability to deliver blows and counters is continuisly diminished the more punishment you take.
be interesting for a video game to incorporate that instead of just a straight health bar...
@@samsowden That's basically what a stamina/mana bar is for
@@samsowden Kingdom come
Hammer the gap
Too right. I was sparring with a guy once in ju-jitsu and ate quite a few thigh kicks. He was wearing shin pads so they weren't particularly sore but eventually the damage built up and suddenly went from that didn't really hurt to my leg buckling. Left me with a hell of bruise too.
Shields is another. I seen a mace (made of tightly wrapped carpet scraps for its head) break someone's forearm through a good quality wooden shield and steel vambraces. The shield and armor showed no damage that I could see. This was one of those medieval type fairs year and years ago, they'd dress up as knights and fight with fake weapons. This really stuck with me as to why maces were useful on the battlefield, this carpet headed mace transferred enough force through the wood, steel and flesh to break the bone. I can only imagine the devastation if that were a headshot or body blow.
Did they have padding under the plate?
A hide-covered flexible shield would absorb a lot rather than transfer all that force eight through. Padding between the shield and vambrace, plus more padding between the vambrace and armor, should help dissipate those forces even better.
Padding isn't just a girly option. It's necessary if you're going to combat someone and you want the best chance of coming out unscathed.
wow thats an incredibly crazy thing to witness!
I have been in such combat, and have suffered incapacitating injuries even though wearing armor, and using "faux" weapons. It's not a "faux" weapon if it leaves broken bones, soft tissue damage, etc. It's just a safer way to practice. You're not going to bleed out, but you leave the field WELL AWARE that the injuries would have been fatal with a bladed weapon. It's not for sissies. I got too old to heal quickly; and left it for the more full of hormones. The average person still wouldn't do well in an alley against someone with a stick and a trash can lid if they are experienced in using such weapons. Stay alive, it is the primary directive.
There seems to be some serious blind spots with the various influencers that study weapons. They try to translate their own experiences into historical fact, which seems like pretty bad science. The fact that the shield was entirely missed is a pretty obvious example of that. It doesnt help that many of these guys are also fairly unathletic when compared to soldiers and that the vast majority of their "combat" experience comes from slow speed sparring. In fairness this guy does seem to be more fit and referenced source material multiple times, I see this effect a lot more elsewhere.
For some sense of just how indestructible maces are, I was talking to some of the folk at the area medieval weapons dealer, and they told me about how they got in a new model of flanged mace (wooden haft, very beefy head, surprisingly nimble, kinda wish I could have bought it) and they took turns using it on an old dumpster over the course of an afternoon to test it out. The dumpster was unrecognizable. The mace was... blue.
Also, I just had the thought while watching that perhaps some of the symbolism of the mace with royalty came precisely from its durability. An unbreakable rule, unshakable authority, an unbroken dynastic lineage... Pure speculation, obviously, but probably about as good as anyone else has come up with.
any idea what it was called or who made it?
@@davewebster5120 no, sorry. I never asked an it was years ago besides.
My wife listened to a couple seconds around minute 8 and asked in exasperated fashion "What's the mystery?" WRT the symbolism of the mace. Where she grew up (East Africa) there were several versions of the verb "to hit". One was thumping an inanimate object or punching someone accidentally or in a fight or similar. There was another - literally "to hippopotamus" after the hippo and rhino hide whips in use during the colonial period - which meant to beat as one would a recalcitrant child or a slave. Beating with rods or fasces or whips there as in many other places is distinct from fighting.
A sword's only real purpose is to kill in a fight. A mace/rod/whip _might_ be lethal at the discretion of the wielder. _Symbolically_ its function is to punish those who are lesser. The mace is a symbol of the right of the person in a superior social position to hit others not as in an equal fight but reducing them to the level of nonpersons - animals, criminals, children, or servants/slaves. The Monarch is above everyone, and the mace is the symbol of her/his right to punish everyone else rather than fight them as equals. Likewise the clergy are representatives of the Ultimate Authority. A staff or mace or crosier which represents God's authority and exists (symbolically) primarily to chastise rather than do battle is an obvious accessory
Excellent insight.
Brilliant.
There was an interesting article in Military History Quarterly a number of years ago that theorized that the mace was the first truely anti personnel weapon. I'm going off of memory here, but the point was spears and arrows could be used in hunting, but there's little point in trying to club a wild pig, for instance, to death. On the other hand, clocking a human over the head with a mace pretty much means death. So while a party of men with spears might be hunting for the pot, men with maces had more ominous intentions.
It's all conjecture, of course, but I found it interesting enough to remember all these years later.
@@user-rk3yb6nd1n Makes perfect sense. In ancient armies it was mostly sling, bow, spear, dagger, and mace. Slings, bows, and spears were already hunting weapons. Swords came later. Knives are knives. The stone-headed mace didn't have any use besides hitting people.
Language shapes ideas. Ideas shape culture. Culture shapes...
You've convinced me. I'll keep my mace ready just in case.
This reminds me: I just learned the three rules of hand tools.
1. Always use the best tool for the job.
2. The hammer is always the best tool.
3. Anything can be used as a hammer.
Nice work as usual. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
Also, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail ready to be… hammered.
If the hammer didn't fix it, you haven't hit it hard enough yet....
@John Wallace
Chad's always use the biggest hammer.
Maces are great tools, the only problem with it is reach and opponents can grab it. That's it. Maces are scary when partnered with a shield. 2 knights, one with sword and shield, the other with a mace and shield, the outcome % of the duel won by the mace are higher. That's what this video missed or didn't mention.
@@ajstyles5704 I wouldn't want to try grabbing at a mace, sounds like good way to get smashed fingers.
The fact that you don't have to worry about edge alignment when using a mace is a huge plus.
There's also the fact that swords are very fragile if used incorrectly. Misjudge a strike and you might very well snap or bend a blade. Mace? Give old Grug One-Eye one and he can keep swinging all day at armor, heads, bodies or a nearby boulder if he feels like it. I've seen what a mace can do to steel, bone and flesh. It's not a pretty sight.
I broke my wrists a long time ago, basically ruining any possibilities of becoming a better sword swinger, but I found solace in the forgiving flanges of a good mace!
suspiciously erotic comment
I'm in the same boat, so I started training with a quarter/bo-staff. Easier on the wrists. Part of me does miss the blade, though.
Careful using a mace, it's got a recoil, jerks back in a way. I'm dumb is the context
You broke both wrists? I mean you pluralized wrists so im just curious because that seems like a very rare injury. I was a pitcher in high school and college and never injured myself beyond typical scrapes and soreness. And even among others at my position i never even heard of one wrist being broken, and we tend to be very tall and skinny as well which you would think might make it more likely, im 6'3 170 lbs for instance and even putting all that force through my body i never did any major damage. So how did you end up breaking your wrists?
@@ExtraVictory Bike accident or car accident where both your hands are on the handlebar or wheel. (mine was bike accident, both wrists)
Even without the involvement of heavy armor, the mace can have an advantage that shouldn't be underestimated, and that - in some scenarios - might be a disadvantage, but in others can make a huge difference: The short reach. And that's why it made a comeback in the trenches of WW1. Because where space is limited, a shorter weapon is much easier to handle. And while soldiers were trained in bajonet fencing, which made sense on an open battlefield, but was not very practical in a more claustrophobic setting, many switched (as described by Remarque) to using their spades as a melee weapon at first, until they re-discovered the mace in its new form as a trench club.
I was thinking of the same.
WW1 soldiers had readily access to sharp (sort of..) steel in the form of their bayonet, many had revolvers, but they often chose to fashion their own clubs and maces.
Yes, they are effective in close quartets but I think there is another aspect of it also.
Going on a trench raid is scary stuff. You are sneaking through the most hellish enviroment imaginable, in the dark. You know you are going to get in to hand-to-hand combat. You are going to kill or get killed. You are likely nervous and jumpy. As you make contact with the enemy, you have a few seconds to incapacitate them.
In this scenario, you are probably going to revert to basic instincts. You are much less likely to mess up with a mace than with almost any other weapon. You can be in a state of panic, and still be quite effective.
It's not do much the trenches It's the bunkers and rounding frequent corner. Any straight section of trench was favorable to bayonets but the trenches were full of claustrophobic bunkers where clubs, shovels, and knives were more useful.
@@LokiLaughs2 There were very few "straight" sections in the trenches of WW1 as far as I know. They were usually a zig-zag with edges just a couple meters long, so as to minimise the damage of artillery shrapnel. In this environment carrying and using a 1.5m pointy stick effectively is probably quite challenging, whereas a club or mace maybe half as long makes an enormous amout of sense.
@@silphonym very correct. Also, to limit the capabilities of enemies just shooting everyone in the trench upon a breach. Trenches pretty much forced melee combat.
Even hitting someone with the flat of those spades with enough force will have an effect. (Even if you hit someone who wears a steel helmet by the shear force)
I remember during my conscript time, we got similiar spades. (only difference that the head was foldable, butin such a rugged form that there was no fear of breaking it when using it to hack into wood ect.) And our instructor said:" Yes you got issued a field knife, but in close equaters combat, we recommend you use your spade. It has prooven itself in 2 World wars."
So areal mace wil have an even nastier effect. The only thing to me is: The spade is already with you, you don't have to carr/make anything additionaly, and you can stab with it too. (and if you loose it, there is plenty of replacement around.)
I remember lots of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe action figures from the '80s had maces that were relatively huge compared to their bodies. So when I began to see realistic maces, I thought the historical ones looked cartoonishly tiny. I thought the toy versions were real, and the real ones were caricatures!
Hypothetically if you possesed super-strength a sturdy blunt weapon with extended reach would be a good choice.
Even if you were strong enough to lift and swing something that heavy physics still applies. If you try to lift a hundred pound weight on the end of a five foot stick or gods-please-save-us one of those ridiculous anime swords you will fall over due to torque and the center of mass of the system.
You should check out Byzantine maces. You would be surprised how smaller they are compared to Western European maces.
@@toddellner5283 That's why we need to make Hammerhead series from the Anime Expo.
Man-at-Arms probably just used some special metal he devised for his mace.
A long time ago in the USA, a re-enactment group who used real weapons and armor in choreographed fighting demos, had a person who missed their block and got hit by a mace in a rising strike to the hip. His hip bone shattered and shards traveled to his shoulder. Maces are VERY effective against armored opponents.
Pic or it dident happen
@Bob Smith I imagine that the migration would have been a slow and painful process...
As a mace/moringstar supremacist and enthusiast, a huge smile came onto my face and I started rapidly nodding every time you brought up the positives of a mace over a sword. Glad to know I knew these things before watching! Not a lot of people know the true, classical raw power of an "Unga-Bunga" blunt weapon. :P
A friend of mine is a reenactor. He told me that one time he got hit on the head (in helmet) with a fairly simple mace - pretty much just a small ball at the end of the stick. And he was stunned. Not just ringing bells like with the sword hit, because obviously any hit that transfers some energy will have some impact, but a proper long stun when he didn't know what was going on.
I don't know whether that is a common effect or he was just unlucky, but it makes sense the the energy transfer in case of a mace is simply more effective through the armour, as all of it is focused on pretty small point at the end, instead of spread along the blade.
Also I'd like to mention an old polish movie "Krzyzacy" where two early XVth century knights has a formal duel in full armour. They don't use swords but axes. Similarly their squires, who also fight in the duel, use axes and eventually one of them kills the other with the dagger.
Matt, can you talk about the use of armour in hot climates? Really curious how people fought in deserts and such while wearing several layers without dying of heat stroke.
If I remember correctly, they just didn't. Like the heaviest armor I can think of from a desert or desert adjacent civilization is roman stuff, but even then it wasn't like full plate armor or even chainmail.
@@airesbattleblade732 the name of it escapes me but I do recall there was Roman chain mail armor. The lorica hamata I think?
@@airesbattleblade732 they actually still did, since their enemies still called the crusaders wearing heavy armor in battles
@@comradekenobi6908 The Crusaders wore chain over padding for their heavy armor. It was incredibly hot to wear, but it also made their heavy cavalry unstoppable. If they knew there wasn't going to be any fighting, they would remove the armor, but if they thought there might be, they wore it and suffered, hoping the battle would happen soon because the longer it went the more the heat affected both the men and the mounts.
@@nobodyspecial4702 seems inconvenient
Durability, Solid Steel Maces are very hard to break. No need for edge alignment, meaning its easier to use in a chaotic situation. More forceful blows from weight distribution to break more fragile weapons and armor.
Made the comment before watching. You made the points in exactly this order lol
Like you said: good steel (historically) can be very rare… blunt weapons only require a reasonably hard & heavy material to make.
Factor in more specialty processes, like heat treating, and really… of classical weapons, the mace/warhammer is second only to the spear in Cost:Effect, imo.
From a materials perspective, could you _cast_ a Mace? I wouldn't imagine so, but thought I should ask. (Casting a Sword would be right out.)
@@NemisCassander yeah, with bronze or copper, casting is easy and seems to be effective… cast steels can be more hit-or-miss; but *can* be done.
If you’re talking barebones fabrication: get about 2kg of old lead Wheel Weights (find as scrap from any auto shop that does any wheel/tire services), melt them on a hot plate - in open air, and in an old metal pot you’ll never cook in again.
Make a roughly ‘mace-head’ shaped indentation in some firm mud & center some rebar into it - brace the rebar-handle to stay put and pour in lead.
Bend an ‘O’ or a crook into the striking side for a better attachment; but more just proof-of-concept for a $5 mace build lol
You could probably use slag to make the mace
@@justinokraski3796 kinda brittle, but it’d work for a few blows
Nailed it! Especially on points (e.g. rendering articulating armor non-functional, smashing opponent's sword, no need for edge alignment) that often get too little attention.
Onr more addition--in line with the value of the sword as a sidearm, but sometimes one better--a mace (like you've mentioned previously with indigenous clubs, tomahawks etc.) *is handier to carry around*, and the sidearm that's best is the one you're carrying, not leaving behind. :p
I do remember when young media definitely influenced my opinion on swords been best, but as I got older and looked into it I have a massive appreciation for maces, warhammers and mauls.
Very good presentation. I have experience with the mace as a police officer. We were issued a 26” baton made of the same substance as a bowling ball so they had weight. We also used metal flashlights weighted with 5-6 d-cell batteries. Any place we hit was disabled with one blow much as a sword might. Blood loss takes a while to have effect, generally speaking. I sword or knife can “reach into “ an opponents body to damage organs and that’s about the only advantage they have. Blocking with a mace does not require as much movement because it’s weight can deflect a lighter weapon. It lacks hand protection and I have injured my hand when my opponent ducked his head and my fingers hit his head. Your point on length and the swords sweet cutting spot is correct, I would only add that maces can be had in greater length as well. Overall a great overview. My compliments
Maces weren't heavier than most swords.
About lethal vs non-lethal: although it certainly can be lethal, it seems to me that a mace can also be used in a non-lethal way much more easily than a sword, just by swinging it with less force and/or avoiding hitting the head. It's definitely more difficult to stab someone "lightly" with a sword.
I think it also comes down to the fact that maces usually dont cut skin as well. A medieval peseant can survive a broken arm, but a cut artery not even modern people can mend easily, so trying to "subdue" someone with a sword and you end up cutting an artery, well thats it theyre dead but if you break an arm and a leg with a mace, theyll get over it. And if they dont its not your problem
Or you can invert it and use it as a club with a pommel, for doing arrests. If you have to kill, use the head, if you have to arrest use the shaft.
Good point, and not just when you "cut an artery". Anything that cuts/punctures the skin runs the risk of becoming a lethal or disabling wound in the days/weeks after the fight. Broken bones are close to 100% survivable even back then; even if you were treated poorly you'd be disabled but not dead.
I think, a broken arm was very hard to treat back then, especially without the money for a doctor
It won't kill immediately but the aftereffects will kill slowly over time
@@robertwildschwein7207 In some places medical treatment might not be available, but all these civilizations absolutely had the knowledge of how to treat simple fractures. And any military unit is going to have someone with said knowledge, even if they aren't an expert.
Sure, there are nasty fractures that could cause lethal complications like compartment syndrome (basically a lack of blood flow due to the injury), but even an improperly treated simple fracture will probably just result in pain and disability. In some settings this could mean death/starvation due to loss of income/ability to work/hunt/gather/farm.
All that said, in the general sense, pre-modern medicine was *vastly* better at treating fractures than open wounds. Some cultures had an understanding of how to disinfect and clean wounds, but germ theory has been widespread for just a bit over a century, and antibiotics less than that.
Literally any open wound, no matter how minor, could become lethal. And once infection set in, there was really no treatment.
Look up the first penicillin patient. Guy got an infection and died from a scratch from a rosebush!
Antibiotics are so incredible that we take them for granted and fail to realize just how dangerous open wounds were, and why soldiers were willing to wear 40 lbs of head-to-toe mail on campaign for most of medieval history!
It's because soldiers are generally OK with the idea of dying quickly in battle from a sword in the belly or a mace to the head. But soldiers fear being one of the many wounded who die after days or weeks of screaming in agony from untreatable invisible wounds.
Beautiful collection and an Albion wow. I want the Maximilian
It is telling that we see maces (and for that matter also warhammers) listed as part of the secondary weaponry of heavy cavalry and in some cases also medium or even light cavalry. They served a useful if niche role as anti-armour weapons in close quarters mounted combat.
An interesting case is the Stradiot light cavalry who found that their light lances and bladed sidearms had little to no effect against the French Gendarmes but maces allowed them to launch very effective hit and run harassment attacks against the same heavy cavalry. With little light cavalry available to counter them the French had to deploy missile troops to try and hold the Stradiots at a distance.
And let's place special emphasis on the MOUNTED part of the mace's anti-armor role. The idea that a light, one-handed mace on foot was a serious threat to plate armor is perhaps the most persistent myth about medieval warfare on the internet. There are a variety of period sources which disparage this weapon's ability to seriously harm a well-armored man with anything but a truly heroic blow. It was a weapon for smashing at people's fingers and ringing their ears, when a knight needed to extricate himself from a mounted melee. If you want to threaten someone in full armor with a blunt weapon, you really need to use something larger and two-handed.
Be that as it may even a fairly light mace with a long shaft swung at a gallop will pack some kinetic energy.
@@toddellner5283 Sure it will. But the crucial difference is that a sword can kill with a flick of the wrist. To have any chance of harming someone in armor, a mace requires an absolutely heroic blow, delivered with full force and a predictable windup. In battle one rarely has the luxury for such things, and period sources state this directly. Ultimately a sufficiently strong blow with a mace is no easier to deliver than a well-aimed thrust with a sword. That's why they were mostly used on horseback where finesse is difficult and the mount gives you extra momentum.
@@MinSredMash the second most persistent myth about medieval warfare on the internet is the idea that for something to qualify as an 'anti-armour' weapon it needs to be able to defeat a 15th century European full plate harness..
@@Tomartyr That is clearly the context of the discussion. Matt is literally holding a 15th Century mace in this video. And if it's not a full harness, you would be very foolish to try and whallop the armor when you have the option to bypass it...
Matt: there's no treaties on maces
Treaty on maces: mace go bonk
Another thought for the mace. If you run someone through with the point of your sword, they may be fatally wounded, but can still hit back for a bit. Break their arm/wrist with a mace and that limb and what it was holding is no longer a threat
Well that’s equally true of cutting into their hand/arm.
@@Robert399 nah. I've seen a lot of fights with machetes in my thirdworld shithole and I can say that slicing the hand or arm won't make them drop their weapons or stop their attacks. They will carry on unless they got their hand chopped off or left it hanging or if their bones gets broken
@@Robert399 _IF_ your sword is a good enough cutter for that, yes.
@@qwormuli77 Eh... sure, some swords will struggle to sever limbs but OP was talking about stopping blows. Even if you don't cut it off, cutting into the incoming hand/arm is a fairly reliable way to stop the incoming blow. And I'd say that's more true with a sword than a mace (simply due to length and speed).
@@Robert399 Assuming the arm or wrist wasn't armored
"The place of mace" would be a great title for a mini series about the history and use of maces all over the world.
A few advantages of the mace would also come from the fact that you don't have to maintain it. All of the time spent sharpening a sword could be spent training with the mace instead. You also don't have to worry about the mace losing its edge during or after a battle. As long as you can swing it, it's in fighting shape.
It’s multidirectional nature also provides 2-3 additional benefits. It is easier to train or learn how to use bc you can ignore edge alignment and plus it’s strength makes you have to worry less during training and fighting. Next, you can train with sticks or other things in backyard better and skill from one transfer better to other (maybe you dint have mace but have stick in bad scenario). Lastly, you can do attacks from more directions or switch up making it harder to defend and predict
Also with defense it’s multidirectional nature might be better
in light of the "civilian context" wouldn't a good thing to look at be WW1? most soldiers were issued bayonets that were still quite long but they often preferred to use club-like weapons as evidenced by the huge amount of makeshift maces and clubs that were used in WW1.
Trenches play a part here, with the tight confines of a WW1 trench making longer weapons somewhat less desirable; but there was also considerations like knives getting stuck easily, breaking more easily and maces being to some degree harder to defend against (they more easily crush through the guard and knock weapons out of the hand, and their shortness can give them dagger-like qualities for fighting very close in. (potentially at a distance where even drawing the sword may be too difficult)
Clubs have a bunch of advantages over swords for civilian usage, but at the end of the day I think swords work better simply because of their ease of carry and their length. (you can easily carry a sword for the reach alongside a dagger, while carrying a dagger and a mace just gives you two weapons with a similarly short effective reach and similar lack of defensive utility)
speaking of all this, I think the king of self-defense weapons remains the dagger; it is the fastest thing to draw when you get jumped and, specifically, in the civilian context fights have a tendency to start pretty much at dagger range.
You can’t slide your hand down a mace and give yourself a debilitating wound unlike a lot of knives
@@robsarnowski6313 they were still extremely common weapons in WW1 and used extremely effectively.
@@robsarnowski6313 also many of the bayonets issued were basically swords, which led to the use of knives and clubs.
Wielding a mace properly is all about timing and momentum. Once the swing of the mace has begun, stopping it or slowing it down is difficult. The fighter is committed to not just the blow, but also the recoil. Begin your strike when the opponent is leaning forward, hopefully off balance. It is completely predictable that he will lean backward, so aim for a point behind his head. By the time the mace gets there, his head will be in its path.
-Mace Etiquette, Skyrim :D
Maces are probably my favorite medieval weapons, so very glad to see this video. Thanks for sharing, Matt. Very interesting discussion.
The crown servant you are looking for is The Provost Marshal. I believe York was one of the first cities to have such a position.
Matt, the mace can be used in two ways, with its head up, for letal damage, and inverted like a truncheon with a pommel for doing arrest. Paired with a buckler and dagger it gets quite decent as militia (police) kit.
Another point I would like to add, if you needed to bolster your ranks quickly, as you saw the armored forces marching your way, arming your laborers with maces, who already were strong and able to use that strength for long days of work, it could be the difference between a win or a loss. Very little training is required for a strong person to be useful in battle when they are using a mace.
Maces did break as well. Especially the cast bronze maces which were used mostly up until the 2nd half of the 14th c. and the advent of plate armour. They would break, get dented, etc and it's backed by many extant examples in museums. The flanged iron maces also broke, but in a different way where one or two of the flanges break off. The difference is that you can easily repair them by forge welding a new flange to replace the old one.
10th and 11th century Byzantine cataphract cavalry used maces in their charges. They were considered extremely effective at penetrating massed infantry formations. Lances were used by lighter byzantine cavalry who charged at a gallop, where the cataphracts charged at a trot, this made lances less effective and allow the mace to function as a shock weapon to disrupt the enemy infantry line.
So to transcribe it into video game terms, really high durability, decreased durability usage, increased durability damage, increased damage to stamina when striking shields, doesnt apply the bleeding out debuff to the enemy or the stuck weapon debuff to you, can deal reduced damage through armor instead of having to fish for critical hits like with a sword, increased strength damage scaling, decreased dexterity damage scaling, low minimum dexterity to use, can't deal critical hits but has a lower chance to miss (due to wider range of opportunity to make successful hits from not needing edge alignment), lower attack speed, more stamina use per swing, more likely to disarm and shield break
seems like putting a spike on the top would be pretty advantageous, no?
what kind of shield do you think would pair best with a mace in a given circumstance? Something light and nimble or something heavier and larger?
I'd argue against it. You already have a weapon that can concuss, cause internal bleeding, can deform armor, can break bone, and can break other weapons and shields and more. A spike would be more for jamming into an armor gap, which what's the point if you can just deliver huge kinetic force straight through it?
As for a shield, something maneuverable would be preferable. A heater, a mini kite, or even a buckler would help. That or you could go empty handed and use the free hand for grappling, swords are better for grappling and half swording already, you'd be able to match a sword wielding opponent in terms of versatility by having a free hand provided you've got sufficient armor.
The point about smashing armor joints is a good one. Even if it does not wound the man inside, a mechanically locked knee, elbow or shoulder joint can be just as effective.
Amazing content. I am constantly blown away. this right here is exactly the type of information that serious fantasy wargamers are looking for.
What an awesome arming sword you use for comparison at the beginning!
Another fascinating video. The fact that maces/truncheons are still widely used is, I think, testament to the weapon's utility and ubiquity. Thanks Matt!
very clinical breakdown. i just found this channel.
I agree with everything said about fighting someone in plate but would also point out how common mail was back then and how devastating a mace would be against mail only. Mail is great against slashing weapons like a sword but gives little to no protection against a bludgeoning weapon like a mace.
I wonder if that is true? Mail with gambeson or padding underneath should have quite a bit of give, would that aid in reducing the kinetic energy transfer of a mace strike? I dunno, gonna have to see if any testing has been done. Good thought though.
@@HanaTheSloth from the way I’ve seen gambeson give when hit by a sword, I don’t see it helping an awful lot against a mace
@Hana neither would offer much of any protection against a mace strike. Neither gambeson nor chainmail has a rigid structure like plate armor, therefore whatever's underneath will take the brunt of the energy transfer. Chainmail and gambeson work particularly well against swords on account of the kinetic force and weight being focused along a narrow edge, the cutting power is nullified by the chainmail and relatively lighter kinetic force is absorbed by the gambeson. It's not the case with maces however.
After the mace my second favorite is the flail with spikes or studs . So medieval and intimidating. Shock value, most literally.
SF author Lois Bujold said of morningstars... "They give the idea of personal space some authority"
I'd be scared using a flail tbh lol
The master has spoken!
Ok but flattery aside, I do consider you the best sword (or general arms and armor) RUclipsr and a real expert. Thanks.
I agree, imo Matt just edges it out compared to Skall and both are leagues above shad
I needed this video in my life! You are spot-on, and don't forget about the damage that mace can do to shields, especially wooden shields. It hurts having that shield banged against repeatedly with a heavy, blunt object!
I have been on this kick of breaking things down to pure fundamentals when looking at things. I think it helps to explain things better.
Weapons are simply tools. Guns are basically internal combustion engines where the energy is not restrained. Unless you are transferring a chemical aka poison of some sort, weapons are ways to transfer energy in a way that will damage the target.
Basically if you look at it that way blades are higher formes of technology and the energy transfer is extremely focused. That means that they need very little energy to be effective. The problem is a material properties one if whatever your weapon can dish out can fail if the target is to robust. There is always an arms race when armor gets better and it will require more energy and or a material that can handle the impact. The United States army is fielding a new rifle for exactly the same reason. It's actually interesting to compare since as firearms developed they went to a lighter weapon that was easier to move and would be more like a sword but as soon as armor comes along then they go heavy like a mace. There seems to be a circle where as armor comes in weapons change until it's no longer worth wearing armor and then we go back to light weapons.
Is the new rifle mentioned the XM5?
@@duggygee6387 Yes. I guess they are worried about armor. They were using kevlar so soft flexible like mail then switched up to hard steel plates. The have some layered stuff to but it gets broken if anything hits it. I just find it interesting that since we need real people to go into combat we still work around what a body can hold up in and fight in.
On the subject of prohibitions on the use of bladed weapons by the clergy, there are medieval canons that prohibit clergy from using weapons in anger, but the application of those canons is at times uncertain. As with the modern concept of just war, whether in secular or Christian teaching, there were exceptions when it was deemed appropriate, or at least excusable, for a clergyman to use a weapon, especially in defence of another or in self defence. This principle applies to this day - by virtue of their calling and vocation, clergy may not use force in anger, but common law, secular and ecclesiastical alike, accepts that they may be compelled to do so.
There's probably a reason for the stereotype of priests being competent boxers.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher Indeed. Much less controversial (and easier on one’s conscience) to resolve a conflict without lethal force, situation permitting, so clipping a local miscreant round the ear far preferable to running him through with a sword, tempting as it may be. Ditto for any enthusiastic fellows offering to collect a particularly precious chalice and paten and move them to an undisclosed location at no cost to the parish…
Matt. Were maces & hammers more popular in certain regions? For example were maces preferred in Italy over hammers? We're hammers more common in Germanic regions?
I'm not sure about the statistics. But I can mention that in medieval Central and Eastern Europe - Bohemia, Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and maybe even in Hungary, the mace was an attribute of a commander. Even later, in 16th and 17th century Polish Rzeczpospolita, a mace called bulava, often decorated with gold or silver inlays, would be a commanders' insignia. A nobleman would be given a bulava when receiving the command.
Open wounds can also be more lethal by leading to infections, which were much harder to deal with in the medieval period than today. That might also lead to perception of blunt weapons as less lethal
...and thereby unintended death too.
Broken bones were very lethal too, mind
The Mace. Perfect weapon for Brian Blessed!
Chisick...... fresh horses!
😁
Absolutely fascinating. Great information, Matt.
Matt, I'd like to hear your thoughts on something regarding shields. I have this little theory that there would have been a number of martial systems where shields were utilised a little bit like "sword-breakers". In the event that an opponent cuts into your shield with a bladed weapon, it strikes me a great opportunity to bind their weapon with your shield, which is a huge deal. Considering the different kinds of shields, and the differences between boss-gripped, and strapped shields; I think this could be an interesting little rabbit hole, and maybe worthy of a little bit of experimental archaeology.... :^)
You could certainly hack at the sword with the shield (assuming it's a smallish shield), much like he's suggesting for the mace.
I've seen this argument before, can't remember if it was a Skall, Shad, or Roland video. But they were talking specifically about the thin edge of the Viking period shield, and how an opponent could have their weapon bite into it, and that would give you a momentary chance to take advantage. You could twist the shield (it being a center grip is at an advantage in this instance) and either pull your opponent off balance or wrench the sword out of their grip, or try for a finishing strike while they're bound up.
That’s a good idea but you might also be lugging that sword around if no opportunity presents itself during the battle to take it out. Considering the center of percussion will be the part in the shield, it will be very annoying having the hilt so far away
@Garret LeBuis was going to say thr exact same thing. Yes it was a Shad video, and the vikings did it deliberately to disarm their opponents. I can just imagine a jolly viking laughing from the gut as he wrenches an axe out of his enemy's hand as it got stuck in the shield.
@@uncledoctor6920 You people and your love of that particular criminal demographic make me physically cringe. It only gets worse when you consider that it's statistically likely that you have more in common with the victims of those criminals and the people that kicked them back into the sea, than the criminals. Modern people can be fucking weird.
Notably, Juan Quijada de Reayo's mid-16th-century text recommends using the arming sword over the hammer for a man-at-arms. His order was as follows: lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, & finally dagger. A Renaissance cavalry hammer isn't exactly the same as a mace, but it's quite similar. French cavalry commonly had maces until the pistol displaced them in the late 16th century but it's unclear whether they used them before their swords. Pietro Monte praised a weapon he called a club or mace, but was more of a warhammer by the modern definition based on his description. He suggested carrying a slightly longer one to use in both hands from the saddle. He didn't clearly say whether he preferred it over a sword.
Excellent information! Do you know where one could find these primary sources, preferably online ?
Modern police phrasing often uses the term "less lethal" for many weapons other than firearms. Still potentially lethal, but not nearly as likely to be lethal.
What a brilliant page! Thank you!
Another time you might want a less-lethal weapon is when trying to take a high- ranking enemy for ransom.
@@XCodes Exactly.
Mancatcher is probably better for that
@@robertwildschwein7207 Not if they're wearing a beaver or gorget.
@@robertwildschwein7207 tf you gonna do with a mancatcher in a battlefield lol. What, you gonna snag a nobleman by the neck (who’s most likely wearing plate or brigandine) , and hope he doesn’t stab or smack you in the process?
you really want to be the one schmuck that chooses to carry a fricking mancatcher into the battlefield, as opposed to a poleaxe/polehammer or a mace?
Neither does the other guy lol
@@keithstone8693 But a mace or polehammer might kill and a poleaxe will either kill or slide off the curved armor surface, while a Mancatcher won't kill.
You make some really compelling arguments here. I think the earlier points you make, specifically with regard to the mace's potential use in law enforcement situations, invites yet another conversation. That is, how were various wounds, delivered by various weapons, actually treated in Medieval times? It's important to realize what a terrifyingly effective killer was _infection._ If you're trying to "bring someone to justice", and you stab them with a sword; even if you only inflict a minor stab-wound; it is almost certain to result in infection; without immediate attention from someone who knows something of medicine. Bruises can get infected.. But that would be far less-certain than with a stab wound. Great vid! :)
If you managed to get into the enemies trench during the First World War, a short mace is better than a sword, I’d say.
For most soldiers, the only chance to get stuck into a trench currently occupied by the enemy would be during a night raid. I don't believe the type of melee weapon matters that much in a raid where the goal is to kill or capture enemies in their sleep. I find it hard to believe there is much difference in effectiveness between killing a defenseless man with a club or with a blade. You might be right here, but to me it seems a distinction without a difference.
And the shovel which was essentially a two-flanged mace was very popular.
@@toddellner5283 yes, E-tools were very effective, almost like an improvised mace, I have mentioned them in a previous video.
This video:
ruclips.net/video/-MfeCYZkYAE/видео.html
@@Judasdfg I think the distinction in in the length of the weapon, with swords being _usually_ longer and thus more unwieldy in a narrow trench (plus Matts edge alignment comments) Plus its worth noting the in the as trench warfare became more common swored were withdrawn from being issued as part of the fight armaments whereas trench clubs were still being home made and bought, hunting knives were popular too, which increases the likelihood that swords were not as good for trench warfare.
A friend whose grandfather and great uncle served in WWI asked what they carried in the trenches. 1911, 12 gauge shotgun (Winchester 1897), Bowie knife, and shovel. And standing orders to kill on sight any artillery crew with gas shells
Police today have training manuals for use of baton, nightstick, sap, heavy flashlight, etc. They teach that these things can kill, very likely would kill with certain hits, and are very specific about what not to do. They teach instead how to hit to end a fight, without killing. For the suggested civilian uses of a mace, the user might very well have thought about how not to kill, yet at the same time win suddenly, quickly, overwhelming even a powerful and difficult opponent. The same lessons would apply to cutting down an armored opponent step-by-step, hitting the arms and legs first, to cripple before trying to kill. The medieval manuals may not cover it, but there are plenty of very well considered modern manuals and instructors available on the subject.
Odd note, but after playing Blade and Sorcery in VR for a while, I can agree that using a sword to deal with a fully amored opponent is ridiculously frustrating. 😂
If you haven't already, you ought to check out the historical weapons pack on mod nexus. It's got a ton of weapons from the medieval Era like pole axes, Lange messers, rondel daggers, as well as weapons from other cultures.
I grew up reading more history than I could’ve imagined. The bludgeon was the weapon I’ve found the most versatile and effective for continuous defense and ease of grappling. The Bar Mace, flanged mace, all the way to the Kanabo from Japan. Depending on what you use as the head. Or how you construct your mace. You can work into the close distance that cuts off the nimble nature of a sword. Battling most any weapon a mace is self safety application which no edged weapon provides makes it the easiest to close the distance and break your opponents foundation with grappling or strikes to the knees and thighs. If you know how to dual wield the smaller variations, you can seriously battle a lot of things You wouldn’t believe.
What about mace + shield?
Another advantage of mace might be its ease of manufacture and relative cheapness. Add to that the comparative lack of training required for effective use. You could maybe field several good fighting men, for the cost of one swordsman? "Number" has a beauty all of its own.
That's what immediately jumped to mind... it's cheap and anyone who can lift it can use it.
A good heater shield should be able to defend against something like a poleax. Which would give the attacker a chance to close in with the mace. It also covers whatever the mace lacks in defensive capabilities.
But it very much depends on how many people you need to field to begin with. Because if it's more than a dozen, giving them spears is always going to be the optimal solution. Cheap, super effective, and much easier to train for. A mace and shield still require good footwork, coordination, and solid martial basics to use efficiently. A spear only needs to be pointed in the right direction 😬
This is backwards for several reason. Maces are not good weapons for men not wearing full armor. They are short and difficult to defend yourself with. And they are not the best choice for attacking plate-armored men on foot. More importantly almost no one was fielding sword+shield combatants in the first place. Just about everyone brought either a polearm or a bow. Swords and maces were sidearms.
@@MinSredMash people were largely armed with spears because (among other reasons) they were cheap. Doesn't it stand to reason that those guys needed side arms as well? Of course the obvious answer is that those guys probably already had some kind of axe that they were obliged to carry for domestic reasons, but I do get the man's line of thought. If you're a city arsenal trying to "tool up", as it were, I could see them smelting down a bunch of bronze to cast morningstar heads to provide sidearms for your militia.
I would also add that the flanged mace will deform the armor and possibly make parts of your opponents armor immobile
It depends on the ｃｏｎｔｅｘｔ. In the end, it's all about ｐｅｎｅｔｒａｔｉｏｎ.
Thank you, Matt, for the excellent video!
I think Kult of Athena are going to sell a few maces today.
By the Sword has a really good mace collection too, all functional. Got a 16th century German variety from there 🤓
People often forget weapons are tools. There is always an optimal tool for a job, but it is less obvious if it comes to weapons, because the ultimate goal is to defeat your opponent. But in combat itself, the job itself is usually less apparent.
In tool use let's say, the ultimate goal is to build a house. The subjobs themselves are more readily apparent. You know you want to break that rock apart, therefore you use a chisel. You know you want to put material on your trowel, and to do that, you can pick which option of secondary tool would be ideal to reach into your container with.
In combat you have a lot less time to identify the current subjob and also you might not have the time to actually get the optimal tool for that subjob, hence the constant discussion about which weapon is the best.
There is no tool for that job, that can do everything, but we try to make our preferred weapons out to be the best weapon of all time.
As my friend usually says: war requires good tradesmen and tools.
A mace is a certainly great tool, and I love it very much for that reason. It is effective in its simplicity.
Sadly cannot, or to be more precise, could not ever practice with it. Even a practice mace is a dangerous weapon, and frankly, I want to have beers with my opponent after, not go into a hospital to visit him.
A-mace-ing
Maze has amazing stopping power even for low trained users. This is true both for people and animals. A good thrust with a sword, even if it cuts an artery, might not stop the enemy attack immediately.
This helps in civilian law enforcement type situations because whatever the “bad person” is doing, you want to stop him. It is true for defense against wild animals, if a wild boar charges me and I’m not that trained with a sword I’d rather have a Maze. And well in war, armor defeats this somewhat but still, just “suicidally power through the enemy attack” is much easier against a thrust weapon than against a Maze even though the thrust might be more lethal.
That's what I was thinking, this weapon has greater stopping power than a sword
Yesss! Love me some mace content!
bruh watch the vid first
@@duck653 I was just looking forward to the video mate
Hi Matt, it would be interesting to explore how sword restriction in civilian setting worked in the past. Clearly arms regulation is an age-old issue, and there would be interesting lessons that can be applied to modern context.
WRT breaking blades I'm reminded of a couple incidents in Northern European sagas where people paused in fighting to force their bent swords back into something they could fight with (and doubtless prayed to all the warlike gods that it wouldn't break before combat was over). And that was just normal wear-and-tear. If someone's taking the equivalent of a hammer to your sword the results could be even worse. Have you done any work on how well period shields stand up to maces and polearms?
I was pleased to see this. I have always argued that versus armour a mass weapon was the best weapon.
Recently had a conversation with someone about what melee weapon would be best in "the zombie apocalypse." My choice was a blunt force weapon like a mace or a shilellagh, while he was adamant on a katana. My fear however with blades is them getting stuck in bone - and isn't it just better to inflict severe blunt force trauma, especially to the head?
The baseball bat would become a great club. Like an amber set shilellagh.
Depends on the zombie. If you have to sever the spinal column not just cave in a skull... Hardee to crush the spine from in front.
Also depends on zombie. An undead zombie is not affected by crushing a bone vs cutting off a leg will slow it.
If it's just a viral thing ... mace might be better but a slit throat might kill those.. no armor on zombies usually. And slow so sword works better than normal?
But if you have to destroy the brain? Yeah mace. Stabbing in the face seems troublesome.
But then axe seems good. I like axe :-).
But then I would probably want a spear?
I think I favor a shield, roughly Captain America-size. I can edge-punch faces with it, batter skulls with the flat, hack down onto arms and legs (or grounded skulls), ram into zombies to knock them out of my path, and dash through a loose swarm with the shield providing significant protection.
It would also permit the additional use of hammer, machete, pistol, etc in the free hand.
Also, I can easily improvise a shield from common materials using basic tools. Logistics is always a consideration in an apocalypse.
The best advantage out the gate I can think of is. Is that it doesn't require much training to use effectively. Just swing repeatedly until your target goes down.
I'm really curious how men at arms or knights chose their weapons before battle... Not all soldiers on the battlefield were covered in full plate, so having a sword as a backup weapon might seem more logical if you expect to go up against less well equipped opponents.
Did they always expect to face their equals? Or did some specialize in facing their equals and others in going after the opponents "weaker" infantry?
I think they had to be prepared to fight anyone on the battlefield. The heavy cavalry was the elite troops that had to fight everyone.
I am guessing they would likely pick the one they feel they are most skilled with.
Then a backup dagger.
While weapons have pros and cons, when it comes to actually stacking up and getting it done, you go with the weapons you trust the most. Any doubt or hesitation can get you killed.
Men-at-arms always had swords. Lance, sword, & mace was common for French men-at-arms in the middle of the 16th century, while Juan Quijada de Reayo assumed lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, & dagger. It's easy enough to wear a sword & mace or hammer on horseback, so men-at-arms didn't have to choose.
I may have missed these arguments in favour of mace - 1. little to no maintenance. As said in the video, swords edge is often chipped, the point can be broken... A mace doesn't need to be sharpened and even rusty or bent does not lose it's deadly force. In conquest weapon maintenance takes time, which may be very limited. No maintenance weapon saves time and strength.
2. Cheap and repairable. Yeah, okay, the one full metal shown on the video is not cheap, cuz takes a lot of steel to make, a lot if skill to forge. However, the other shown briefly is made of stone and wooden stick. Everyone can make that. A wooden handle can also be relatively easy replaced if chipped. Bent or broken sword is often beyond repair.
Another interesting thing is not common, but i've seen some mentions of it in armenian or slav epics - mace is a nice throwing weapon. There are some mentions, that baturs or bogatyrs (something similar to a knight) carried small maces as a secondary weapon. As they grabbed the sword, they also discreetly grabbed a mace with an off-hand in order to suddenly throw it at the opponent. It required no technique, opposed to throwing knife or axe, cuz hit with every part is a significant blow. Very hard to deflect, not easy to dodge, it could give some advantage at the beginning of fight. Even if the opponent did dodge or deflected the mace, he lost precious milliseconds.
Would not a mace be relatively cheap and easy to manufacture as compared to a sword? And also there's the question of maintenance; one doesn't have to be constantly mollycoddling a mace in order to get it to function properly.
Easy to use, easy to maintain. Any engineer can tell you how useful some of the most basic and non-overly engineered items are.
The main people who used maces in 15th/16th-century Europe were men-at-arms. Cost wasn't a major issue for them.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Regardless it's not as if they grew on trees. If they didn't care about the price then whoever was arming them must have.
@@mnorris790 Men-at-arms always carried swords too. & they had full armor & a warhorse (possibly multiple mounts), which were rather costly. They didn't go for maces or hammers because these weapons were cheap. One 16th-century Spanish jousting manual that addresses what the man-at-arms should do in war lists lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, & dagger as the weapons carried, & to use them in that order when fighting other men-at-arms. So it's not completely clear why men-at-arms had maces/hammers, as at least according Juan Quijada de Reayo they used the arming sword before the impact weapon against other riders in full harness, thrusting for the weak points. In that scheme, perhaps the hammer or mace was useful as a convenient & robust third-tier sidearm, to wield after losing or breaking the estoc & arming sword.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Seems like cheapness is a virtue in a robust third tier sidearm.
Thanks, Matt! Yet again, another educational and entertaining video. Cheers!
What about two-handed maces? I have seen a lot of two-handed hammers, but I haven't seen a two-handed mace yet (not a antique one at least), if anyone knows a picture of one, please give me the link, I am interested.
The English “holy water sprinkler” was a long-hafted mace weapon. There are also maces used as signs of office which were mounted on 4-6 foot hafts. (Sorry, I do not have pictures handy).
They existed. Italian observers claim English soldiers used large numbers of 6ft spiked maces in the 16th century. Two-handed spiked maces also appear from Italy & other parts of Europe. They always or almost always have a top spike for thrusting. I think of them as a variation on the pollaxe & halberd: a polearm you can strike & thrust with.
When carrying a mace strapping on a heavy buckler is a beautiful idea for your left arm as it leaves you still capable of using your dagger with your left hand if I remember right one particular Warrior had a tendency to fit his boxing strips & heavy greve serious left hand when he went into battle either brandishing an ax or a mace because originally he was a stonecutter so he was an extremely strong aux basically I wish I could remember his name or who he championed for but he would challenge the champion of another Army for single combat and most likely for the day it was said he would beat the other opponents into submission and leave him standing in the field incapable of returning Sirius online or continuing the attacks when time it was said he fought simply for 20 head of cattle and a ceasefire until the following morning I just remembered he was a Spartan fancied himself as a part-time boxer for the Olympics he carved stone with his knuckle rings as boxing practice
Everything said makes great sense. I would add that idiot princelings are less likely to fall on their maces (or scepters) and impale themselves than they would be if armed with a sword. Self injury altogether would be less likely with a blunt weapon than with a sharp one.
Those princelings came from a warrior class and were most likely highly trained. I doubt that was much of an issue.
@@Armored_Muskrat Im pretty sure you have that not only wrong but backwards.
@@laserbrain7774 Guess you don't know much history then.
@@Armored_Muskrat right back at ya.
I would imagine an advantage that doesn't seem to be covered here is the momentum of a mace swung full force to carry on through the inertia of a parry of a lighter weapon, such as sword. If you are trying to divert the energy of a heavy thing moving fast with a relatively lighter thing moving equally as fast, the heavier thing will not stop moving when met with the resitance of the lighter thing and both now will be traveling back towards the target of the heavier thing. An over head swing with a mace on an opponent with a sword would likely still carry on to knock the guy in the noggin, even if he tries to block or parry the blow
Bishop Oddo carried a club because he was a Priest.
Traditionally, the clergy were not supposed to shed blood so would carry a club or staff for self defence or more rarely into battle.
Apparently the good Lord was not keen on his holy men spilling the claret but broken bones and stoved in skulls were okay.
There's no historical evidence for this, and it's pretty nonsensical since a mace will still spill plenty of blood.
I love the take on civilian use of maces. I always just think of them as a combat weapon, especially since they pair so well with a shield.
vs armor
or when you are NOT a trained fighter that knows how to edge align a sword or thrust with precision
oooga booga style has its merits, just hit them with the heavy end any way you can. I bet there is techniques for mace but you don't need to know much to do the job.
Visit the WWI Museum in Kansas City Missouri. Clubs and maces were used in trench warfare. They have vintage weapons that are actual artifacts from the conflict.
I would imagine in armor a mace might be less tiring in some ways. Fencing requires a lot of movement if the entire body. A mace has to be used with force and up close so it's not like you are fencing with it. You only swing if you think you can hit.
Remember that a mace is more tiring than a sword to even just hold due to the weight distribution.
An interesting thing I've read, in admittedly a fantasy novel (but one written by a person with a proper archaeology degree) was that maces, unlike sabres, were commonly banned in parts of Poland throughout history, because when hot tempered slavs would get into a drunken argument, and inevitably draw their weapons, one of them would soon get injured and cut, but importantly, not to the point of receiving a moral or laming wound; and the split blood would quickly cool their tempers.
Meanwhile, with a bludgeon weapon, it was very easy to permanently maime or even kill someone, without necessarily going for a particularly killing blow.
When talking about weapons on the battlefield in medieval Europe, youtubers always focus on killing potential and how easily it can be used to kill a foe... but would that have always been the intention on the battlefield?
In much of Central and South America there were many societies that preferred to take members of opposing armies alive (either to enslave them or for ransom) rather than killing them. These warriors tended to use weapons more akin to clubs or maces because it was easier to incapacitate without killing. Perhaps there were times on the medieval battlefields when it would have been preferable to take as many of the opposing army alive?
Even in places/times where there wasn't slavery, an invading army wouldn't necessarily want to kill all the commoners in the opposing army if they were looking to occupy the land afterwards.... there'd be no one left to work the fields.
Anything that stops someone else hitting you back is a win. Break someone's sword arm with a mace and they will probably lose interest in hitting you. OK a minority may continue to offend you with their offhand, but most will stop.
It was like that with nobles in Medieval Europe. You could get a ransom for them.
It rarely, if ever, was convenient for armies to take many prisoners in Medieval Europe. The nobles that you could ransom for sweet cash, sure, they were usually treated well and protected, because the people paying the ransom would not take it well if their dear lord/sire/brother/whatever came back missing fingers or teeth. Although not always, as the many wars of succession show us (often, the captured would-be monarchs and their direct families were summarily executed, to prevent further, ahem, "complications"). The commoners, though, were killed savagely: they were many more mouths to feed, and in a war, food was always the first casualty; for a defending army, they were worthless, because the invaders would never ransom them, and the captives couldn't be trusted as additions to one's army, except in very special circumstances; and for invaders, they could easily become the brunt of a resistance movement or revolt later on - it was much safer to put them to the sword and replace them with your own people.
Of course in Central and parts of South America prisoners were to be sacrificed and eaten. Getting them back alive, not necessarily in fact but alive, was important
@@toddellner5283
In parts of North and Central America, you mean, because ritual cannibalism wasn't a thing down here in South America.
There's something I'd like add on to this, especially in the context of, specifically, unarmored combat between someone who has a sword, and someone with a mace. If the guy with the sword begins an attack motion, let's say, a swing for example, someone else with a sword would have options such as dodging it, or attempting to block it or parry it with their own sword. When the cutting edge of a sword hits, well, almost anything, there's a chance it will lose some of that sharpness, and a lot of factors can influence that, but generally speaking, if one sword blocks the impact of another (particularly on the blade edge), the blades will tend to cut into one another, even moreso if the quality of their materials is low (or mismatched, with the weaker weapon taking more damage.)
The mace, and in particular one entirely made of metal, has several defensive advantages a sword does not have. While most of them tend not to have any kind of guard or such for the user's hands, which would certainly make it a risky proposition, in theory at least, the entirety of the shaft acts as an essentially unbreakable guard. Given the weight and construction of a fully metal mace, bracing it against an incoming swing from a sword shouldn't require all that much effort, and if there's any weapon damage to be taken in the exchange, it's likely all going to be on the sword, not the mace.
However, there's another meaningful aspect to consider; a mace tends to be heavy, in general quite a bit more than a sword, so, what happens when you swing a mace at a sword being swung at you? I'm not a physicist, but I would hazard a guess that a mace weighing twice as much or more than a sword, bringing that much weight compounded with the force put into swinging it, brought to bear against a lighter, more fragile weapon coming from the opposite direction, is very much more likely to negate or even reverse the direction of force from the incoming sword.
In simpler terms, intercepting a sword swing with a counter-swing by a mace is probably either going to either knock it completely out of the way, or seriously damage (or shatter) it. I've never heard of this being mentioned anywhere, honestly, so I'm partly speculating here (and partly going on testing I've done with a 4-foot steel mace I own), but I would assume that the guy with the sword would be endangering his weapon and his health by committing to any attack the guy with the mace could intercept with his own swing.
I do understand swords are a lot faster, and this kind of thing would probably require both skill and lightning reflexes, but I feel pretty confident that if I ever was squaring off with a swordsman with my mace in hand, I would consider their weapon to be a target, and would specifically try to counter their swing with my own, both to either disarm them, or force an opening. There aren't many other weapons that could, in theory, so decisively exploit an enemy's attack, simultaneously negating it while using your own momentum to keep your attack going, breaking their guard and giving yourself a fair chance to give them a pretty damaging strike.
Another thing would be the simple physics behind swinging a mace on the offense, whether against armored or unarmored opponents. If you've ever stubbed a toe, banged your shin, or slammed your arm against something, you know that blunt force damage still hurts, and can be incredibly debilitating, even on such a small scale. The entire shaft of a mace is able to inflict damage, not unlike a sword, and while obviously damage from the head impacting something will be the most significant, the fact that you don't even need to worry about edge alignment means you're free to simply focus on where you're trying to strike, and how hard you're striking.
Landing a cut on someone's arm might not disable them, but landing the full weight of a mace in the same place might completely disarm them. And beyond that, there's not many good ways to prevent a mace from doing its full damage without dodging it outright; a shield isn't going to completely negate the impact at all (if not making the effect worse), you're not going to be able to block it without a fully braced weapon of your own (such as an axe or your own mace, with a hand above and below the point of impact, while a sword would stand no chance even with both hands on the hilt and could be driven back into your own body with the force of the blow), and even in armor, the amount of force that swing can produce will knock you around or even knock you off your feet, if the mace is big enough for that.
As far as armored opponents, now, I've never been in a suit of armor being pummeled repeatedly by someone with a mace, but if I imagine myself in that situation, I can picture the kind of loud, insufferable experience that would be. A hit on even a fully visored helmet stands a chance to bend the visor to obscure my vision, or, depending on the type of visor, it could even jam it downward into my throat. A hit on my gauntlet might dislocate my wrist, elbow, or shoulder depending on if or how I braced myself. Any impact has a chance to dent the armor inward, and if the mace has large spiked flanges (like mine does), there's a chance it could shatter a shard of my own armor into my skin, whether it's on the side of the helmet or anywhere else (also potentially making it harder to take the armor off.)
Of skill, it boils down to the sword having a higher skill floor (requiring a lot more attention to edge alignment and where to hit your opponent, as well as what not to hit to avoid damaging your weapon) while a mace has a much lower skill floor (it's basically a technologically advanced club, and the club is known as the simplest weapon for a reason.) I would argue the mace has a potentially higher skill ceiling, one not likely to be reachable, and the benefits probably still don't outweigh the versatility of a sword, its speed and reach advantages, especially when it comes to thrusting.
For me personally, given the choice between the two, I'd certainly pick a mace over a sword more times than not, as even with less maneuvering and positional advantage, there's still more potential opponents that a mace can counter than a sword, as it will have a significantly simpler time in dealing with armored opponents, as well as plenty of damage against someone without. And considering an 'armored' opponent might simply have a coat of mail, enough to make a sword a fair bit less effective, that mail's not gonna protect against a mace (honestly, that might be an even more painful and damaging impact than without mail at all.)
Matt please use the term "Less than Lethal" as opposed to "Non Lethal". Maces and clubs are 'Less than lethal' weapons as opposed to stabbing or edged weapons.
(I know you know the difference)
I think you mean "less lethal", the "than" sort of implies it's non lethal, doesn't it?
@@christiangudmundsson8390 That is just semantics. its a weapons classification. They are "non lethal" , "less than lethal" and "lethal". Implying the middle tier is less than "
@@HeadCannonPrime Sure it's just semantics, obviously. Look, if you have established these categories then sure, then it makes sense, I suppose. Although I wonder if you might not want to put maces in the "lethal" category.
But from a semantical point of view, calling them "less lethal" makes more sense than "less than lethal", because "less than lethal" really sounds like it's the same as "non lethal".
Good stuff, Matt.
did you not bend a mace in the past
you can still use it :D
Yes, the Deepeeka, but that was a bad replica and the reason for the bend was because it wasn't made properly.
@@scholagladiatoria still ill bet there were cheap and dodgy constructed maces in history. Plus some had wooden shafts which aren't indestructible. I suppose they are short but still could be damaged
I think it's best in confined spaces as well. Slightly shorter etc. Would be great at the top of a tight staircase etc.
My supporting points: In the modern day, we still have a spice called mace, and a self-defense liquid in a can called mace.
-
edit: Also, a mace is an upgrade of the mighty STICK!
Mace is Caveman Club but IMPROVED
Just bought a functional 16th century German mace!! Surprisingly light, now I can feel like Sauron!! 🤓
I would counter that you _can_ thrust with a mace, especially against someone who is unarmoured. No, definitely not as lethal as a sword, but taking a lunging punch with a 2 - 3.5 lb blunt/blunt-pointed steel weapon is going to do significant harm.