Is a medieval MACE easier to use than a Sword?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- I sometimes see people saying that maces (and warhammers, axes etc) are easier to use than swords. Basically I disagree, but there is perhaps one way in which they are easier to use. The video explains!
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#sword #medieval #mace
One consideration, from a military standpoint, is the mace would be harder to damage to the point that it lost effect. A sword edge could be dulled or, in extreme instances, the point might break off while, even if a flanged mace lost one of the projections, it remains effective.
Even no flanges from continued use a mace is still a dangerous implement!
It is a skeletonized hollowed lump of steel making it in near practically indestructible in all combat.
A mace or even a club is simple implement that not much if anything can go wrong making it very reliable & be the enemy armoured or unarmoured the out come & objective is the same as you whack the living day light out of them be it with instruction or instinct.
Matt is really overthinking matters.
Simplicity is beauty as we Engineers say.
I much prefer the simple usage & function of a mace or club that was historically a primary weapon unlike the sword that the former is not obsolete though old unlike the latter later sword that no standing army uses today.
Even Indian & Chinese troops used clubs often spiked on the border conflict Kashmir today.
Sane can be said for the axe, easy to rehaft as well.
It's a pretty good weapon, especially a big one. Consider also that the sharp flanges are devastating, like blades, to flesh. A gap shot with one of these would rip the joint to shreds if there was no maille there, and would probably still draw blood through maille.
One thing, a snapped off blade, will often remain an effective thrusting implement. Reduced effectiveness? Almost without doubt, but generally still usable.
@@benjaminstevens4468curl or snap a tip of a blade tool or weapon it effectiveness is greatly diminished.
Roundels, bollock, stiletto & baselard dagger in time tended toward being a bladeless point to increase rigidity & durability to prevent curling or fracture of any kind though still rarely possible.
Material science & craftsmanship of any item is compromise of design as sacrifices must be made to achieve an out come but the evaluation of what is best depends upon many factors.
Every soldier & even the most pacifistic of maidens or clergy carried daggers unlike swords for a reason!
Most don't know this but the Pugio/dagger of the Roman legions was their 1st armament to use at the soldiers volition as they saw fit but the gladius, Pilum, plumbata, caltrops & tribulus was at the commanders discretion to order the readying/drawing of.
You must have rank & order in your troops or you will chaos no better then a brawl rather then a disciplined unit.
A simple kitchen knife in the right hand can be a very dangerous thing even today let alone a fighting knife or dagger which the latter is singularly dedicated in form to kill with no consideration for utility.
Sword by their nature of design are less durable.
Even the Roman Gladius one could argue is just a large dagger & not a sword for when is string to thick to be rope?
It's all perspective & application.
After years of telling me Penetration is key, Matt is now informing me just giving a good pounding is easier in some situations. Key points are it's less technical, and is effective when you can't get the right penetration angle.
Carnal wrestling
Huh
😅are you being rude😅😅😅
Its not only the head, ribs or arms that are targets for the mace, the collar-bones are extremely vulnerable, especially for mail-shirt based armour as in the early medieval period (as discussed) but even in later periods the shoulders are often vulnerable. You can disable a mans arm by crushing their coller-bone/shoulder if you miss the head or deflect off the helmet. Also some maces had top points so you can stab (if somewhat poorly) with a tip as a weapon to the eyes or other weakpoints.
Goedendag combining best of both worlds
The spiked tip is overlooked a bit I think
Fights between armored opponents often come to a clinch, which at that point you can slide your hand up the haft to right under the head of the mace to get better control over the point
There are a lot more targets than just that even. Hitting extremities that are SUPER hard to protect, like hands and ankles will render opponents nearly useless. In full armor, the mace has a wide range of targets to choose from and the only skill needed is swing hard.
Don't forget shin bones... or any joint on the body
@@HeadCannonPrime Ankles seem like a long shot if you aren't already on the ground grappling.
An axe would be the hardest to use. You need edge alignment, it’s top heavy, short, and your distance needs to be correct.
Hence why pollaxes (and "dane" axes) tend to be fairly short for polearms, I imagine.
It's rather telling that axes were not as popular as sidearms once swords became more accessible, the latter is just a more versatile and intuitive weapon. In the Bridport muster roll of 1457 for example, swords were actually fairly common but axes extremely rare.
It's already hard enough to split firewood properly, imagine hitting a target that fights back.
Axes with shield can be noob friendly.
i feel more nuance is required. depends what you mean by "easy". distance and alignment are all matters of hand eye co-ordination. the more you swing the better you get at it. At some point those elements are irrelevant since you develop the hand-eye co-ordination.
BUT technique. thats something you have to LEARN. while ii'm not an expert, a mace seems to have no technique. you swing as hard as you can and if you are accurate you get the full effect of the weapon. feels like most impact attacks are one move, the SAME move. there is almost no technique?
Swords are more nimble, and therefore have innumerable techniques. maybe as Matt says, its easy to injure someone when you have a weapon that is edged everywhere, but learning to use a sword to its full potential and effectiveness is MUCH more involved, you need to train more, you need to know more, and thus to me this means harder to use.
As you say, we don't have a lot of technical material on fighting with one-handed bludgeons in a medieval context ... but I think what we do have tends towards the idea that fighting is fighting, even in armor. The discussion always brings my mind back to Pietro Monte's comment in the Collectanea, speaking of the one-handed mace on foot in plate armor:
"... for when we have been joined, we cannot strike a great blow. For though we strike him with a club [clauas, what Monte says is the Latin term for mace], axe, and points, this inflicts little or no harm, especially if he is somewhat wise, for against similar we can never apply great blows when he always turns aside or enters in where we can make a small blow on him; which he who is entirely in white armour cares nothing for" (Collectanea LXXIX, tr. Prendergrast and Sperber).
The point of the larger discussion is that fighting in plate armor on foot more or less always comes down to wrestling anyway, for which reason you shouldn't do it if you aren't good at wrestling. Mechanically, he's saying that maces only really have a telling effect on a plate-aremored opponent when you can make a "great blow" with them, which means you've got a fairly narrow band of distance at which you've got to keep the fight if you want to stick to using your mace. You've got to be able to develop powerful blows, which more or less means extended arms, and of course you've got to land the blow with the head of the mace, as well. I feel like Monte is saying here that, in actual practice, a mace in an armored fight has to be just as precise as it does in an unarmored fight--moreso, because of course a blow to the body with the head of a mace will tell on an unarmored opponent fairly well, while a blow to the corselet will not.
Of course it's true that a mace has fewer "techniques" against armor than a longsword does--but that's true in an unarmored context as well, and I think you're right to point out that the real determinant of "ease of use" isn't how big the technique catalogue is. But if we take Monte at his word that a mace does "little or no harm" to an armored opponent who "enters in," and that, practically speaking, an armored fight will pretty much always get to "entering in" ... then I think it's fair to say that armored fighting with sidearms is pretty much armored fighting with sidearms, in the way that unarmored fighting is unarmored fighting, no matter what you're using.
Yeah so sword or spear or bow for unarmored , mace. Axe or dagger for armor
From an effect-on-target perspective, sure. But we know that the sword, spear, and bow were also used effectively against fully armored targets, and not just by common soldiers. It's less about "what will this weapon do when it hits the target?" and more about "what does it look like to overcome the target with this weapon in my hand?" Not what the weapon does, but how it makes you fight.
@@Nabterayl im not sure what u mean, certain weapons do almost nothing to REAL armor your only chance is wrestling with daggers clubbing the head or joints with your mace ofc its short but thats what u give to overcome a armored opponent bcus armor. Works
Bows do almost nothing to plate armor, of course, but that didn’t stop them being an effective weapon against armored men with the right ground and the right tactical situation. As for swords and spears, we have extensive discussion of their use against plate armor. Matt alludes to the use of the sword against armor in this very video: predominantly, thrust with the point into the enemy’s mail or helmet sights, and to a lesser extent, hook and bash with the crossguard and pommel. Spears against armor work the same way.
Of particular interest, I think, is that when you’re fighting with a sword in armor, your weapon can still be used even when your plates are literally grinding on the other guy’s, because a sword held at the half sword can be brought in quite close and still be effective. It has a shorter effective reach than a mace, but unlike the mace, you don’t have that “minimum range” that Monte talks about. And the spear, of course, has a longer range than the mace, which is why in a plate-armored context you often saw it paired with the sword.
@@starsixtyseven195 Actually long swords can still break bones in hands protected by steel gauntlets. WarBows and crossbows will penetrate arm pauldrons and leg chausses fairly consistently. One-handed maces also can't do much to the cuirass and well-shaped helmets. If you want to consistently do damage to all parts of an armoured opponent, you need a pole axe(that still won't do much to the torso) or even better, an arquebus.
Something for people to keep in mind when it comes to blunt weapons against plate armor: plate armor still protects you significantly more against blunt impact than if you weren’t wearing it or were wearing a different type of armor.
Absent the prospect of piercing or circumventing plate armor, sheer energy delivery is the key factor. The force behind the blow isn't stopped-- it's spread. The weapon hits the armor, and the armor then hits _you._ The armor spreads that energy out and may even slow the transfer via elastic deformation (cushioning). So you'll need a weapon that can deliver more force than the target can tolerate even after it's been transduced by the plate. A sword won't do that unless to go full mordhau on them.
That's the WHOLE POINT here- the Mace directs all the force of a blow into a POINT that punches through armor like a sword-edge just CAN'T, almost ALWAYS.
This weapon has existed for SOOOO long BECAUSE it does what you don't understand- it's not BLUNT impact, it's a Point-Impact Weapon. And the human leverage of a sword-arm, a club-arm is focused on one of those pointed flanges (yeah, it takes a little extra bit of skill to focus that force upon your point of impact BUT NOT AS MUCH SKILL AS AN AXE OR SWORD would require), so what would be an exhaustive but ineffective sword or axe stroke punches through with the pointy flange of a mace.
Look back, do your research... After knights leave their horses and lances and shields and swords behind, once the battle moves BEYOND those "first choices", what do knights turn to next?
HMMMM???
@@slingshotjohnny1 yeeeeeah ... but if you're suggesting that someone who's about to be hit with a flanged mace and is given the option to be wearing plate armor or not wearing plate armor when it happens would just shrug and say, "Meh, whatever--armor or no armor, do your research, it won't make a difference either way," I think you'd find that almost everybody would rather be wearing the armor than not.
@@slingshotjohnny1dude, I think you’re wholly miss understanding what I said. There are people who think that percussive weapons just ignore armor. I was just saying that you’re still much better off with the armor than without it. I wasn’t making any argument as to what weapon to use, or anything along those lines.
concussion isn’t mitigated though, you’re getting the impact on plate armor even with padding underneath- hell, it’s what causes most injuries on battlefields! blunt force trauma breaking bones vs. slash or stab wounds
Lindybeige, some years back, put forward the opinion the short hafted mace was a tool for horsemen to clear out opponents immediately around them in melee. It does seem well suited to close-in fighting. Repro's of early maces...Norman maces, etc...seem to have had much longer hafts and smaller warheads. It might be an interesting thing to study the evolution of the ace through time, Easter and Western Europe.
Cavalry maces yes, and I think they're so cool. They're just a longer mace to compensate for the height of the horse.
Imagine getting struck in the head by one of those as the knight wielding it rides past, that'd be like getting hit by a metal baseball thrown by a pro player.
Unfortunately, with that wooden body, their lifespan probably wasn´t much longer than that of a pizza box, so archaeology could be difficult.
When the zombie apocalypse happens I'm going with a mace.
@pannobhasa a falchion might be better tbh
It's made for hacking through flesh, sinew and cloth padding, and requires little more skill than a mace to wield
The trouble is that zombies are relatively unaffected by flesh wounds. Only traumatic injury to the brain (as in a smashed head) will stop them. Didn't they teach you anything in school?@@uncledoctor6920
I’m a mace guy I guess you would say. I am a retired police officer and I worked a very high crime area so the baton was carried daily and used perhaps monthly for years. I have great confidence in it . I will offer a comment about it being indestructible. I used a monadnock baton that we were told was indestructible- “made from the same material used to make bowling balls “. The lanyard would slid down so at about the place a guard would be on a sword, I drilled a hole 1/8” wide through the baton. On Christmas Eve (somehow fitting) it was about 32 degrees outside when I was called to a domestic disturbance where a man was threatening a woman and trying to make her eat rat poison. To make a long story short, I was attacked by the man who was 6’2” 260 pounds professional football player ( name withheld). As he reach for me I hit him with all my might. The blow landed on his forearm and disabled his arm. My trusty unbreakable baton broke at the point I had drilled the tiny hole, the end sailed across the room and hit another policeman in the chest and took him out of the fight as well. I was left with the handle only. So even a simple weapon can fail. Please excuse the long comment
¡Wow, nice story! Were you forced to withdraw from the fight? How was the emergency resolved? Did they assigned you a more resistant weapon? Did you get a nickname, maybe Glynn Batonbreaker?
whyd you drill the hole to begin with?
@@cal2127 I believe he was saying the lanyard would just slide freely over the baton, so he drilled a hole for the lanyard at about the place guard would be on a sword to prevent it from moving so much.
I’m not going to argue against your point that even a simple weapon can fail - but am going to say that your story is hardly evidence for that point. You drilled a hole through your tool - introducing who knows how many new stress fractures to the material and also changing the structure. Where a strong hit may have flexed the tool before, now there is a point where it lacks any reinforcement and your result is clear enough.
The point should really be: don’t mess with the structural integrity of your tools - especially life saving tools.
In case you need it - there are plenty of ways and materials to attach cordage to a cylindrical object without said cordage slipping. Any of those would have been better than drilling a hole. Glad the football player didn’t pay you out and happy new year!
I guess you wished for a sword at this point.
Thanks Matt, another great video. Have a fine New Year yourself and an excellent 2024. I discovered your channel a few years ago and you're a great example of something I've always thought: A smart, enthusiastic and motivated person can make any subject worthwhile watching. I've no HEMA or martial background but enjoying your explanations has led to a richer understanding of our past, so thanks for that!
All the best
Giving someone a good wallop is easier with a mace. However, fighting is so much more than that. Dodging, parrying, blocking, speed, recovery, reach etc etc. People who don't know much about fighting will focus on offending the opponent when the actual main goal is to survive. Knowing that difference requires a bit more thought, which many people don't give to the issue.
I think that's why this "myth" of maces being easier to use is so pervasive: it makes sense at a first glance.
I counter your first point. It's easier with the sword still. It's longer, it doesn't matter where or with what part you hit. Yes, edge alignment, but even with complete crappy edge alignment you'll do heavy damage. It might just take out just a junk of flesh instead of chopping the arm off, but with a mace it's the difference between a broken arm and a bruce.
People overestimate how difficult edge alignment is, at least in my mind
I'd actually say that using a Mace is easier to use. The problem is that being easier to use isn't the most important part of fighting. So a sword might be harder to use but it comes with so many advantages that it will often outperform the mace.
Sorry but it sounds like you're talking about sparring. Fighting is about inflicting a disabling injury *quickly* and move on. Think trench warfare.
Someone wildly wielding a mace can still be scary and deadly even if he doesn't understand what armor is and what a shield is and how it hits soft spots.
If he needs to fight someone at a distance, there's a flail or just a sharpened stick.
90% of real world non sport fighting is typically the most aggressive violent person overwhelming the person forced to be defensive off the get go.
Happy new year, Matt.
Interesting idea that armour flips the usability of sword and mace. Makes sense to me.
Looking forward to what you come up with next year.
After great German Farmers revolt 1525 ( smaller events 1524 to 1526), most german Farmers lost their right to own a sword, so a small EDC knife was often only bladed weapon remaining. So dangerous tools, and wooden clubs had been nearly only possible weapon a farmer or poor townsman had.
That was when someone found the loophole and made the Kriegsmesser type of blades, right?
It sounds like a very German affair indeed (am German myself, and that is a very typical thing to what I would perceive as our culture :)
@@guyincognito959 : The farmers of my homeregion had to cut away the tips of their Lange Messer and Bauernwehr after failed Rebellion of 1525. If it was allowed for Farmers again to own such a weapon, I don't know, but I have never heared or saw it in paintings. Perhaps those ones, who had been picked to serve in Militia Levy called Landesdefension. In contrast to other german states, Württemberg had a Parlament, which had some influence, that the Duke could field not so many professional soldiers. In german weapons collections the remaining Langen Messer are so decorated, that i think, this had been pieces of wealthy citizens ore nobles, who allways had access to weapons. During 17tn century the Lange Messer ( Dussak) transformed into Hirschfänger, which was until 1849 only allowed for noblemen, Forrest officials and Professional Hunters.
Various guilds jealously guarded the right to carry tools of their trades, hammers for smiths, hatchets for millers, big knives for butchers, etc. If a guy swings a two kilo hammer or disassembles steer carcasses dawn to dusk five days a week you don't want to be on the other end of whatever he uses to make a living.
@@guyincognito959 No, the loophole for that was so blacksmiths who were not part of a guild could make weapons to sell, they weren't allowed to make swords, but they were allowed to make knives.
You really think people acted according to law 100% of the time? I can bet my left foot that the passed law didn't fully affect everyone, if it affected anyone at all considering how combative and pragmatic the germans are.
as game developer I enjoy many information from this channel, great job mate 👍
Many thanks for all the wonderful videos you've made in 2023.
With regards to this video, perhaps there's another context where a mace would be a preferred weapon: mounted combat? If you're in a press you cannot use a spear or lance (or maybe you've expended it) but you're in the right position for hitting people on the head. Perhaps one for Jason Kingsley?
Wishing you a happy and prosperous new year.
That, and far less liability of getting stuck, which is a major concern when dealing with the speed and force of attacking while on a moving horse. Maces and hammers remained in frequent use long after they had declined in use among foot infantry.
A sword may have a slightly higher skill floor but once you pass that skill floor it will often make things easier. A lot of things are like this; driving a car requires more skill than walking but once you know how to drive a car it becomes a lot easier to drive places than to walk (as long as there is a road). It is also just situational, different tools work better for different things.
Walking on two legs is actually very difficult. You just learn it so young you don't remember and it becomes instinctive.
@@101Mant same could be said for throwing a ball or catching something out of the air. Give the intelligence of your body more credit.
A mace is always dangerous, a sword may not be as threatening if youre armored.
@@101Mant Just ask people trying to build usable biped robots.
Until a silly spear comes along and ruins your years of training
The thing I agree with you most vehemently on is the idea that one learns to fight, first and foremost, and the particular weapon used is secondary. Happy New Year from the Other Side of the International Date Line!
There are certain skills that apply more to weapons with mass at the end. Because you can't assume the first shot will count, whether because your opponent will avoid it or just because it may hurt but not stop them and you'll need to whack them a few more times, it's good to be aware of tricks you can do with momentum or rebound to keep the thing going so your next strikes will come quicker, rather than the slow hit, pull back, start again kind of thing. With maces in specific there's also this weird sideways arm cranking back-and-forth thing I've seen SCA mace fighters do, that doesn't have a parallel in other kinds of weapons, which would be an additional thing to learn. It works because you can damage people with the side of the weapon, unlike other weapons. I wouldn't have thought this would work, but they can hit surprisingly hard this way and do quite fast sequences of blows.
So use of these weapons is not quite as simple as it may seem.
Happy New Year, Matt! Keep up the amazing work, we love your channel.
Matt they had maces in the Bronze Age and copper age and if you think about it a copper mace would do a real number on a copper sword. If you hit the sword with a mace the sword would fold up. That would make the mace easier to use than the sword back then.
Next thing I thought is when mounted on horseback and chasing down retreating foot soldiers , with a sword you hang off the side of the horse and slash the backs of their legs as you ride past like playing polo , but with a mace you don’t have to lean down to strike because you strike the back of the head with the mace thus making it easier.
Thirdly , it just is easier, especially when panicking like the untrained or unseasoned.
Happy New Year, Matt! Thank you for ending the year with a great video! Sláinte!
Nearly everyone would know how to use hand-tools. Especially ones like axes and hammers. And learning how to use them was probably taught in the same manner as modern streetfighting and prison combat techniques, in flexible, decentralized, unorganized, and ad hoc groups where old men teach younger men how to grow old. Especially among the laborers, who already incorporated low key drills into their folk dances.
Hafted weapons and clubs are also infinitely more accessible.
It's already January here in Australia, happy new year!
Maces (and hammers) were popular secondary weapons and you see many examples of them in medieval europe. In the latter part of the period ( late 14th into 15 centuary) the war hammer became the premium killing weapon with it used both by men on foot and on horseback. War axes (often with a rear beak or spike) were used but they are a little less easy to carry at the side than maces and hammers are and were more expensive. Some weapons were chained to gauntlets to help prevent them from being lost in combat.
Thanks for all the good work, man. Health & prosperity to you and your family.
thanks for all the content this year,looking forward to more in the coming year!
Being as most weapons are based on a big stick, the differences between them are what define their value in combat. Being a peasant 'smith' myself and only being trained in unarmed combat: wrestling, kickboxing and brawling. I can see how the uninitiated may see a mace as easier than the sword. But having survived combat (a bar fight is combat) I can see how the damage potential of each is dependent on the same skills and knowledge. Knowing how to hit is only a minor part in the grand scheme, knowing where and when to hit is much more important. Knowing what weapon to bring to the situation, whether armored or not, makes getting out of it easier. I still have trouble with the fact that people brought swords to armored combat after plate was popularized. A short spear/pollaxe would make far more sense, to me (yes I know it was done), than any kind of sword in any case involving armor.
Happy New Year to you and yours!
I would love it if you did another "is this video game armour good?" style video you did in the past, maybe accepting some suggestions
Happy New Year Matt & Lucy! May your 2024 be better than the last 4 years! Cheers!!
It all does come down to Matt's favorite word context, happy new year all
Happy New Year, Matt!
Sidestepping the main argument for a bit, wouldn't the point of fechtbuecher be to illustrate skills you could 'only learn from a trained professional', while anyone with a backyard and a grandfather would be able to pick up the skills for cudgel fighting?
Jogo do pao, although believed to be a mix of shepherd stickfighting and knightly twohander training, is primarily practised in village squares.
Thanx for the videos! As a sucker for histore i love watching handling of historical weapons. It adds that little salt to the “ historical battle of 1457” - keep up the good work
The one aspect that I don't think you dealt with was the proximity and confinement of the combat. I can't speak for 'the press' of Medieval or early Renaissance armoured combat but, if one ignores the pistol and grenade, I'm fairly confident that the most favoured weapons for WWI trench raiding were daggers, clubs/maces, and single-handed axe/hammer proxies; one never hears of a "trench sword".
Hope you have a very Happy New Year, Matt.
Sabers were still popular in ww1 but usually only used by cavalry and officers. so not necessarily what would be issued to a 16 year old soldier in the trenches.
Happy New Year, Matt! Happy New Year, everyone!
You are Matt Easton and I will continue to watch
I think it's super cool that you put out a video to end 2023. Happy 2024 Matt!
Hello, Matt and Lucy. I wish you a Happy New Year, may you get everything you desire and you deserve.
Thanks for continuing to be Matt Easton! 😊
(Really hope there is enough material on the Karambit for a video this year! But no pressure! 🫡)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
can i make a reaction video on this and use parts of your video to discuss the topic?
Nice surprise! Happy new year Matt!
Happy New Year Matt and family!
Thank you Matt. Happy new year.
A Happy New Year, Matt... also to your family.
Happy new year Matt :))
Another benefit of maces is that they are ridiculously easy to make. As long as you have a sturdy handle and something heavy for a head they can be constructed out of almost anything. We saw this in WWI when the trench club became a popular weapon.
Second, pairing the mace or warhammer with a shield can put the wielder on more level footing with a swordsman. It mostly comes down to your strengths, whether you prefer straight forward tactics to more complex strategy.
Happy New Year, Matt!
I use a Mace and Shield for LARP. Primarily because I hate LARP swords due to non-functional floppy guards and rule against thrusting. I don't want it to make me worse at HEMA. But with a Mace I can use it pretty much the same way I would a real one.
My cross guards where made special and not floppy at all for that reason.
@@nickdavis5420 Most events will rule that unsafe.
@@RainMakeR_Workshop not for amtgard or bel
We make our own weapons for LARP so you can make a stabbing sword. They don't look as pretty but they work. Of course I've been LARPing long enough that we had to make our own weapons as there were no commercially available ones. Also do full contact LARP.
@@nickdavis5420 Oh, you mean those ugly boffer things. They might as well be a Mace.
🎄Merry Júl and Happy New Year Matt!🎆
I do tend to agree with your stance (pardon the pun!) on this topic. Instinctual striking, and it's ease of readiness to most people, does not equate to ease of learning/use. Both weapons, in an unarmored situation, would cause damage upon first striking but the sword (due to the edge and point not actually requiring a second strike to still cause severe damage) would allow for an inexperienced combatant to become effective at incapacitating opponents at a rapid pace. I don't mention reach as there is such a great variety to that component in the category of sword or bladed weapon in general. Then again, concussive weapons are meant to focus so much energy into the strike that it may be the only necessary one that needs to hit. And if said student also learned to grapple with the haft of the weapon for follow-up techniques, then they too wouldn't require another strike to subdue their opponent. Armor does really change all of that, because the instinctive swinging attack with a sword has lessened effect from the blade's edge. And here the design of the sword comes into play too...does it have quillons, a pommel (a pommel that's spiked?), an unsharpened area of the blade to use bare handed, ect cetera. So, what it really comes down to is the tendency to generalize things and seek to use catchall phrases. Maybe a more accurate way to look at it is that specifically in the context of the basic swing most people know/default to, a concussive weapon can have greater effect. But that point also depends on the situation. Great topic of discussion either way!
Like the trench club in WW1 the mace could be useful in confined spaces like breaching a castle or city walls or urban, fighting indoors. It could also be thrown more effectively than a sword or dagger?
You can throw a sword by the guard just like a spear its rlly scary
great video matt, happy new year
I imagine it being almost necessary to use a shield or some serious armour to wield a mace effectively, so you can get in close a bit safer. Swords don't have as much of a problem and against some lowly archer probably quite sufficient to use the blade and tip safely.
It's also worth considering that swords of any significant length are weapons that common people wouldn't have cause to use often. Hammers and axes are tools that many would use in their work or daily life, and which would be almost entirely analogous to the "weapon versions" so to speak, so they might find hammers and axes much more familiar and comfortable to use for that reason.
It really depends on the era. In the late Medieval and early Modern period swords had become quite common and decent access for civilians.
Kind of like short-to-medium bladed weapons in SE Asia. If you have used one since you were big enough to lift both ends off the ground it isn't going to take long to teach you to use it as a weapon. The biggest jump my short sword/machete/golok and axe skills ever took was due to using them every day for months clearing Scotch broom and small trees by hand.
I can't wait to see what the channel brings in 2024. Yeah when it comes to armored combat I would have a mace as a backup weapon especially with shield as well.
Trying to decide what to fit into my purse, this is a perfect guide.
correction, it is not a purse, it is a knapsack
Happy New Year Matt
Happy new years Matt It was a hard year but I'm single now and was able to buy two swords this year my first ever thanks to your reviews
Thanks for the video and happy new year
Happy New Year, mate!
Its all about action economy. Compared to maces, swords can cause greater harm for less effort. Its also harder to keep yourself safe with a mace, especially if youre not accustom to recovering from a swing with a top-heavy weapon. People tend to forget that in a fight not getting injured by your opponent is just as important, if not moreso, than injuring your opponent.
an untrained person with a sword will tend to just swing as hard as they can anyway so the point is really moot. In a fight, a person trained in ANYTHING will fare better than a person trained in nothing by keeping distance and being able to read openings.
@@HeadCannonPrime well this is just annectodal from both of us, but my personal experience is when people have to use a pointy weapon they aren't trained with they end up defaulting to pokey pokey and not smacky smacky.
Since most people tried to have some armor on when going into battle. And mail was generally the bare minimum of armor worn since at most 1000A.D. the large cutting edge of a sword doesn't really matter on most of the body. This is why bludgeoning weapons were rather popular. A mace generally gives the user much less defensive options than swords, but they require very little skill to be able to effectively injur or kill an enemy. As armor got better over the centuries, swords had to change while maces stayed virtually the same.
I would say in comtext yes a sword is far easier to use. Simply put a novice chop or slice will cripple and or kill. Where as a novice strike from a mace will bruise possibly concuss but lethal? Not so much.
Keep in mind the blunt force trauma from a sword is far more than you all realize. Even in a thick gambusson a sword strike can break a rib or collar bone, so to against mail.
Absolute nonsense. Have you been watching Shad?
Yes i totally agrer!
I was initially skeptical when you were talking about tbe bladed length of a sword to be superior, but when you explained the CONTEXT being important, i wholly agree.
The field of battle (sparring, sport or mortal combat), your opponent's armour/defenses, and the ever-pervasive matchup of skills would be MUCH more decisive than any pure attribute of the mace itself.
Maces against armour and blades against flesh is a pretty good rule of thumb for most historical combat scenarios (how many caveats is that now?)
happy new year!
Wiliam the conqueror’s half brother, Odo - same mother, different father - was the bishop of bayeux. He was with the norman side at Hastings and he appears in the bayeux tapestry on horseback armed with a mace. Because clerics were - theoretically - not allowed to ‘shed blood’ some people assumed Odo used a mace because thats a loophole in the rules but in fact it was just his bishop’s mace, marking his authority, and Odo didnt actually do any fighting with it. Having said that, Odo later pops up in a number of military campaigns and almost certainly was a warrior cleric. Its just not clear what weapons he actually wielded in battle.
Two things to consider (even when fighting an unarmored opponent).
1) Maces do not require edge alignment. A low skilled person with a sword in a high pressure situation is not going to execute textbook strikes. With a mace it doesn't matter. Battlefield technology is all about taking the skill OUT of fighting so that you can field a cheap-to-train - yet effective - army.
2) Enclosed spaces. Swords (much less halberds) don't do well in enclosed spaces. They basically become stabby daggers. I could see maces being useful as guard weapons within fortifications.
You can't generalize that a mace is superior in enclosed spaces. Given a sufficiently encumbered space, the mace becomes utterly useless, while the sword can still deliver two-handed thrusts.
Furthermore, basically no one in all of history *chose* to *train* an army of macemen. The common soldiers brought whatever weapons they saw fit, and if they could afford swords, they pretty much always chose them...
It would be interesting to do a video about how soldiers fall back on their training under stress. How do reenactors fight under stress? Do they lose their technical skills and just start swinging? What weapons would be good for a formation of guys under stress?
Not if theyre worth their salt as soldiers
•A mace has a completely circular striking surface, meaning edge alignment has nothing to do *and* you have more versatility in angles to strike from.
•A mace does not enter an opponent’s body, and so does not need to be extracted.
Not true for all maces.
Some maces have spikes on the head or the end of the head
@@toddellner5283 The spikes are primarily for focusing the impact, to my knowledge, not for actually piercing into the foe (as there are often other spikes preventing this). In such cases, while the head might not be exactly circular, you still can’t really go wrong.
So.... not completely circular. And there are flanged maces, bar maces, oblong maces and maces, as I mentioned before, which have a longer piercing spike at the crown. It is a very broad term and covers a lot of different weapons @@AAA-p3i5v
Interesting points! It makes me think that is depends on if the person is talking about "ease of use" versus "ease of becoming effective".
I practiced longsword for 6 years, top of the class, and I feel like adding that the lack of treatises on the use of the mace points to an ease to strike with said weapon but also an important lack of defense maneuvers against it!
I think for knights on horseback , mace was secondary weapon after lance. (If i was armored cavalry i would have a lance in my hand, sword on my left side, mace on right side and dagger in front. Be ready for different circumstances. ) In sitiuations when you can`t charge anymore and stuck, but still on horseback i will say mace is better than sword. Range, footwork and technique are out but you can stand on stirrups and make some really hard blows and maces are perfect for that. In battle scenario when you are on foot, sword or mace, personal prefference i guess. But in a duel, armored or unarmored i will choose a sword over a mace. One opponent, better reach and technique is everything.
I'd agree completely with regards to a true mace - a club with a topheavy striking weight. I'm not as convinced that clubs in more of a "baseball bat" form, or just a long heavy stick, lose as much in terms of striking area and nimbleness. Certainly not as nimble as a sword, but I don't think a bat is quite as "clumsy" as a mace/hammer/axe. Bats also have a "sweet spot" like swords, and blows that land outside that sweet spot are _less_ effective but not _ineffective._ Having a lack of directionality also works in their favour. Any side of the bat that strikes you hurts the same, but the flat of the sword will just give a nasty welt.
I think there are some things you overlooked, by and large I would say yes your are right. You did hint at edge alignment where it was technical, but this is more to skill needed with sword which is not just in hitting, but also but maintaining. Any schmuck can pick up a sword and swing it, but you also have not damage the edge, properly making sure the edge doesn't bite or dull too fast before the battle is over or else that gambison you might have been able to cut through a little bit, well you are just SOL at that point. Something like a mace, even a flanged one, not an issue you need to worry about, a Mace is going to be just as effective the 40th time you hit someone with it regardless of how you swing it, a sword is a very different story, especially one that relies heavily on a sharp edge like a scimitar. Something like a rapier which as Antonio Banderes so well put "Pointy end goes into the man" also not as crucial.
I largely agree with your conclusion, though I think you've over-stated the benefit of cuts over breaks. In this video you imply that any cut from any part of a sword to any part of the body is a debilitating injury, whereas any broken bone that isn't the skull is not debilitating. Part of this is just emphasis, of course, but I also feel like you tend to give short shrift to the value of impairing an opponent instantly with a broken arm or what-have-you, instead of a wound that will kill them.
people MEAN the skill floor for effective utilization of the mace is lower than the skill floor for effective utilization of the sword. When they say its easier they are almost certainly not talking about the skill ceiling. Not are they ever talking about which tool is superior when used most effectively.
Happy New Year!
Bludgeoning weapons are my favorite! In looks and in practice!
I'd like to see the local plods with Maces like that .... great stuff Matt keep up the good work.
Happy new year everybody
In India and presumably southeast Asia there are prominent depictions of shock troops with large, two handed maces used for breaking formations and possibly damage wooden doors and other infrastructure. Maces with spearheads on the top extended the reach and allowed impaling light troops to incapacitate them quickly.
Happy New Year! 🎆🎈
I would think perhaps another reason maces and hammers were in use was as a cavalry weapon.
Since one of the advantages of fighting on horseback is all that extra momentum, a weapon that effectively directs that energy into the opponent is a good idea.
Now, different cavalry weapons have different benefits and disadvantages: spears and lances have good reach and are also effective at using your momentum to kill an armored opponent, but they're not good for taking multiple opponents in quick succession. Thus, in many scenarios a sidearm was preferred, and while swords have the reach advantage, perhaps making it easier to hit opponents from horseback, they aren't that effective at landing a solid hit against an armored opponent - the blade may glance off from the round surface of a helmet. Whereas a mace hit from horseback would probably take someone out even in a helmet. Additionally, while there may be techniques to minimize the risk of your sword being stuck in your target and hard to dislodge, against an armored opponent I suspect there was always the risk of this happening. A mace could be preferred to reduce that risk.
People who think that edge alignment requires skill don't seem to understand that the shape of a grip or shaft will usually allow for natural/easy edge alignment (unless for some reason your edged weapon has a perfectly round grip!).
If its natural then why do people do cutting practice to improve their edge alignment? Maybe because there's some skill involved? Hmm?
Two-word answer: edge alignment.
Two-word response: head alignment.
Thanks for the video, Matt! See you next year!
Elongate and enlarge the flanges, turning them into small axe blades. Have bladed langets on all sides running all the way down the haft to a large disk guard. Spiked knuckle bow with both pommel and top spikes.... make the pommel a solid dome or filled with lead to balance the weapon perfectly.
I would think as an additional economic concern: blunt weapons can be easier to product and are much easier to maintain. I would be curious as well if less expensive steels were also used for blunt weapons as the need for the mace / flange to "grab / bite" is less so since the energy is still transferred.
I really like the look of that mace; all black, stout with a simple, functional design.
Happy 2024 to you too, Matt!
I think people simply meant that the mace does not require edge alignment like the sword to be effective. Just swing and smash. But thanks for the extensive analysis Mat! :)
It's easier to use in the sense that the skill ceiling is really low. Like you said, pretty much everyone knows how to swing a blunt object. It's relatively simple and straightforward: you just hit them in the head with the heavy end as hard as you can.
Not to say you can't become an expert with a mace and learn all kinds of tricky moves. It's just not really necessary for them to be effective.
also, i have used a baton professionally for 20 years +, and unless you hit a hard target, i.e head, hands, bony parts, they dont do so much. i have personally been hit almost 18 times with a rebar, i was unarmed, and i ended up taking control over the perp.
can broken off mace heads be converted in to sword pommels?
The ultimate weapon...
It would be a rather unbalanced counterbalance, so I'd say no. Sword pommels have some weight but I wouldn't try to use it as a mace, and holding up a mace as pommel during sword moves would be a wrist wrencher.
I would add one more wrinkle to the discussion you've made, regarding situational simplicity of weapons. Someone could well train to use a sword alone, even 1-handed swords as in modern fencing or traditional dueling. In many periods of history and fighting styles, you don't necessarily need to learn to work with a shield as well.
To train with/develop mace skill/technique, you are almost inevitably going to have to integrate aspects of shield use & technique, because it will almost inevitably be part of the situation. In this way, the mace is going to require more ambidextrous effort in its normal applications.
Obviously, there's an overlapping ven diagram of situations with or without shields or free hand options, but more of the mace applications are going to call for shield-work overall.
The mace for non-lethal tournament fighting in armour is certainly better for the longevity of the participants while still giving a great spectacle.
Certainly, the mischief that a sword in the right hands is capable of is "disproportionate"
In a chaotic melee where there's a full press - I think analysis goes out of the window. A dagger in the visor, spear to the neck are probably more effective than a weapon you need to swing - but chaos rules as do flails and curved swords in a shitstooorm
I think this video often gets caught up looking at which is most effective for a "newbie" over which is easiest for a "newbie". As to the original proposed question, the answer is "it depends" but for somewhat different reasons.
Using a mace is generally more instictive and easier for a completely untrained person to pick up and use - it's like picking up a stick and hitting someone with it and if you mess up doing something stupid you aren't going to cut your arm off. For using either weapon after a few hours of training I agree the sword is actually easier to use as the effective striking area is much larger and the initial learning curve with a sword is pretty quick. For different battlefield situations there are some where a mace is easier to train someone to use and others where a sword is easier to train someone to use.
Which weapon will end up being more effective in these situations is a different disucssion entirely and covered well in this video. Looking at it from that effectiveness perspective I agree 100% with this video's summary.
I'd also point out that for warfare maintenance of the weapon will be a large factor and the mace is definitely easier to maintain than a sword especially for someone who has just picked up the weapon for the first time
I believe it greatly depends, for every weapon, every armor, every situation, against every oponent and etc etc, but swords are easier to use against unarmored targets and more lethal in any part, maces are harder to use unless against armored targets since a mace doesnt have to strike a specific weakpoint like a sword and the weakpoints become weak areas which is easier to target than a small point (specially on an opponent who is fighting back) and a mace's lethality can be controlled by the raw power you put into it basically, so it is still as lethal as a sword but you can control it's lethality based on your power rather than only where you strike, or well you can with a sword aswell but it's much harder and makes you more vulnerable if the target is fighting back, so for lethality control and armored targets a mace is best, although it requires more accuracy on the distancing so that's a bit harder, except that and exertion i suppose it's not much harder, again it really depends a lot on the situation, target, your entire equipment (armor, other weapons, secondary weapons, terrain, encumbrance, etc etc)
Happy New Year 🎉
Hello,
I always think that using a mace is more difficult than using a spear because it's range primarily.
I had a friend who always said that axes were easier to use than swords because it was only brute force. I will send him the video.
Happy Christmas and Happy New Year!
Great information again. I didn't even know it was called a "mace".
My 8th great grandfather came to America in 1629. My 9th was Sir Henry Fairfax from Yorkshire. I've been interested in history for a long time.
Almost all of the dozen books I've read of the first hand accounts from Indian captives talk about being "knocked on the head". They were always threatened with being "knocked on the head" or told stories of others being "knocked on the head".
I wish someone would dig deeply into a simple rock being the weapon. No one seems to talk about it, even archeologist. Last year was my 44th archery season and I've killed many things with just a rock. My father says the same. I read a story not long ago about the leader from Mutiny on the Bounty and he said they were attacked by people armed with only rocks. The man beside him was killed by just a rock. I personally think that there was a transitional weapon between just a rock and a sling using a tree branch similar to an atlatl but never survived for archeologist. I also think that homo naledi survived by dropping rocks from trees. If I had to I'd carry several 10 pound rocks up a tree at a funnel which drivers could push animals.
Train with a stick & a shield in some hefty sparing gear.
Mace-club & shield come far more instinctual then swordsmanship.
I use to mainly train staffs, pole arms & daggers but purposely researched maces as well as pole-clubs-pole-maces/ stabkuele=stick club/rod club.
I let 2 people smack each other a bit in protection for while they will get the fundamentals which a teacher just have to explain the tips & tricks they missed.
The sword needs instruction from the start or people will pick up bad habit's they will be forced to unlearn wasting precious time that could have been spent on better things.
Everyone has only so many hours in the day & less for training in any combat for even if 4 hours a day which few will ever do how much can you fit in that time Matt?
A lot would likely get irritated at me but I spent little time on the sword in the grand scheme as the primary weapons of war are guns, spears & pole arms.
Learning to fight with a staff even translates to a bayonetted rifle unlike a sword.
dagger fighting, staff, marksmanship & Even clubs-maces that sort of over lap with staff will guaranteed to be used in a battle or if assaulted even in a civilian setting.
If anyone is going to attack you with a weapon 9/10 times it is a knife-dagger like object or club-bludgeon/rock.
Do not take this as offence reader but if you like swordsmanship do it but do not be under any falsities or delusions & gain a protagonist syndrome as you all learn from usually duelling treatises & Do not consider the effect of open conflict against multiple opponent or that regrouping & retreating to an advantageous position is united effort of force is an option.
Spear vs sword the spear most often wins but formation of spears that know what they are doing vs swordsmen in formation the spearmen will decimate them for even the Roman legions needed Pilum & plumbata to close with gladius & scutum which call it a short sword if you will but I see it a big dagger in how it is used in the close.
Swordsmen have a habit of becoming obsessed with dual & get mentally ridged!
I learn to hunt with rifles & trapping from 5 with my elders who are all ex forces who slaughtered men.
My grandfather even taught me fisticuffs & pale he used to rip armed Koreans & Chinese apart with his bare hands near the size of dustbin lids as Jim was built like a gorilla but he was shockingly agile for his size.