Hey Dequitem! Thanks for the video response and the great videos. I'm looking to lots more. I guess the main question coming out of this video then is: why use a mace (or axe or warhammer)? What advantage do you think they offer? I have some ideas, and maybe I'll put this into a video. A point I would specifically respond to is about the use of falchions in buhurt: unfortunately, their falchions are very unlike actual historical falchions. What they use in buhurt, in terms of weight distribution, is really more like a mace IMHO. Every original 13th-15th century falchion I have examined in museums is light, with a thin blade and quite fragile edge. These are not the bludgeoning tools that modern reenactment/buhurt seems to think they are. 🙂
th-cam.com/video/2Sh08Du5F10/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BVQL8X4XSd9GZvUM Here is an example of a historical falchion that is very clearly built for buhurt and anti armour techniques.
One handed maces and hammers were used a lot on horseback, and they were still effective against lesser armored opponents on foot. Head hits are the most effective, but jus disorient the opponent to assist in grappling. If you watch more harness combat, one handed blunt weapons simply don’t do much to properly made armor. But a force multiplier like a horse is a great way to make them effective against armor, and we’re sometimes backup weapons to Calvary.
@@pluemas unfortunately I think that is a good replica. But it is inspired particularly by an original example in Paris (though note, the Paris example is smaller and lighter). However, I do agree that particularly in the 13th & 14th century there were some falchion designs specialised to armoured fighting. But most surviving falchions in museums and private collections are light with thin cutting edges - very unlike the chunky bars that are used in buhurt.
I think in 15th century and ongoing, they just used poleaxes and 2h poleweapons for greater reach and force. The way of fighting did evolve to more spear/helebard blocks and the armoured fighters needed to get reach in order to fight with the formation. just my 2 cents@@scholagladiatoria
@intheshadow1623 but the use of polearms in the 15th and 16th century only applys to battles, in duels knights manly used swords. The question is, is it tradition or simply the better weapon.
Glad you're sharing your voice as someone in the harnesfechten community, with its wealth of experience. Our knowledge of this kind of combat can only benefit from dialogue between folks like yourselves and Matt Easton, etc. I would love to see a collab!
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 Please go to a PCA Presbyterian or OPC Presbyterian church, or maybe a Rpcna/Rpc Presbyterian church If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland, they are Presbyterian. If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England. :)
You have good points. Just because it's easy to hit someone with a mace, that doesn't mean you're gonna do any damage. Especially if you're only hitting the body. Overall I agree with you. It's usually horsemen who carry one handed maces and axes probably because they always aim for the head, while footmen prefer falchons and pole axes and other two handed weapons. Very interesting insight, I'm subscribed to both you and Matt Easton btw
You are welcome. I also subscribe to Matt Easten's channel. I really enjoye his videos and mostly agree with him. Your point about horsemen makes absolutely sense. I thought about it too, but I have no experience with maces on horse, that's why I didn't mention it in my video.
They didn't only aim for the head, though that was probably the primary target. Here's one bit Pietro Monte wrote about the mace/club/hammer: "taking the club with both hands, three or four blows are to be struck with the utmost force and velocity, since if we hit his weapon we often strike it out of his hand. Likewise, in whichever other place we strike, we do great work." Juan Quijada de Reayo mentioned wounding head & the hands with the hammer, in the context of men-at-arms fighting men-at-arms.
They don't do any damage because of the cost of that armor and the rules. You hit a joint like an elbow or knee it's going to damage it. You ring their bell with a head shot and they're going to be knocked silly or demised. I'd take a mace or war hammer over a sword in a real fight any day.
I instantly subscribed after watching the 1st few shorts, thank you for preserving the history of combat in whats perhaps THE most honorable way ive seen. While the purpose is no longer to kill your opponent, i could watch you guys duel all day 🙏
Found this channel by accident. Glad I did because the analysis was really informative, thoughtful, and respectful. Definitely subscribing to check out more. 👍 I'm wondering if part of the reason maces were used (more so in battles, rather than knightly duels), was because they were cheaper to produce for peasant militia, compared to swords.
These points I'll be making are probably not for the duels, because simply I'm not interested in them, I only imagine heated battle and chaos scenarios, so that's why these might be entirely irrelevant: I also want to add if the armor is any less that what you're wearing, then I'd pick the sword. And that's why historically sword can be superior because not everyone can afford buying tanks. Probably that was the equivalent price compared to today :) 10:24 same for swords, too. You can block a swing or a thrust with your arm. If a mace can't hurt you a swing with a sword won't hurt you either because of the physics of the energy transfer, unless you hit perpendicular to armor surface, there will be a massive energy loss, (and you can even break your sword, there can be many reasons, missing the alignment or getting blocked or if your opponent changes the angle of their stand...) whereas that's not the case for the mace, if the head contacts, that's near full energy transfer. 11:54 why would you try to defend yourself with a short mace, that simply won't work, if you're defending either you need a shield or a bucket or that defense is pointless. Maces are effective in wrestling distances. If you're going to sit and defend, mace is not the right weapon for it. 12:09 Mace needs space yes, put your other elbow in between you and the opponent and you have the perfect space. I think fighting with a mace requires overwhelming offence, otherwise it won't work. Letting the opponent use his sword is a death sentence. 12:55 but penetrating is not the main goal, again it's the energy transfer. If your goal is to kill a knight that's not an easy task, but disabling them is easier. 14:07 yes, yes, exactly, I also agree with all the handicaps of the maces which you mentioned, I still believe in the superiority of the maces and more so for one handed war hammers despite all that. 15:52 yeah, but you can't even use swords in wrestling distance. 16:27 but that's a longer war hammer. The one other guy had in the background was perfect for close combat. 18:00 Yeah but you can swing again and again, you don't need to aim that much, if it contacts it's enough, while holding your opponents hand or weapon or in the wrestling distance or while he's holding you, you'll eventually break their bones. But with sword using one hand, that's not going to happen, they can switch to dagger but that ends the sword part, so... :) The only time swords' blunt damage can be superior to maces I believe is hitting the fingers. While a mace hit on the fingers can be countered by the suspension effect on the fingers, a sword hit will be much more effective because the force will be much concentrated on a couple of fingers or all the 4 And I agree with him overall. I don't have the opportunity, wish I could join the fights to prove my points :)
I like some of your arguments, but don't underastimate the use of halfsword as a dagger. I can better work with a sword in wrestling than with a mace. I tested both. 😉
@@dequitem that's insane. How can you wrestle someone with 1 hand effectively and also try to use a long weapon? As someone that practices greco in highschool and mostly does BJJ it doesn't make sense at all.
@@ramsaybolton9151halfswording uses both hands, basically for hooking and grappling. Take a look of the duels Dequitem does with his buddy to have a picture how it is used
@@ramsaybolton9151 that's because your context comes from _unarmed_ combat. In armed combat, you of course have a weapon or 2 in your hand and it makes sense that you'd have to make do with only one arm for your (often) dominant arm to land a killing blow. If you try to wrestle with both arms, what's to say your enemy won't just shank you in the back? There's a reason why they tell you that it's often not a good idea to try to fight some with a weapon without any yourself whatsoever.
Nice video! This is something I've thought been so sure of myself. It was nice to get some clarification on that. It really is something that makes sense in theory but maybe not as much in practice.
I mean, the mace is effective in striking armoured heads. That’s the point I think… Also it’s kind of hard to stop the full momentum of the mace, the best option is to dodge. But I think the most overlooked part that nobody talks about is the price, it’s the most affordable and cost effective option that needs little maintenance. And you can arm an army of for example pesants with it and they’ll know how to use it effectively. As with the sword it needs maintenance, is more expensive and you need to edge align your strikes for effective cuts, know how to spot armour gaps so half swording knowledge is required. A poleaxe is the same simplicity but with a reach factor and a more expensive weapon to make also not as effective short range. A spear is a really good weapon for making distance for knights on horseback, also low maintenance but of course not good in close range and an armoured opponent will have the confidence to grab the spear… A knife is excellent on armoured opponents if you are armoured as well, problem is in a battle it ain’t a one on one confrontation, while you there grabbing the dude looking for gaps you getting smashed in the head with a mace. And a mace of course, great for concussions the thing is it’s not as versatile like a sword, it ain’t fast, and can get dodge and grabbed more than it can actually hit. But all it takes is one good solid hit to the head of your opponent and he’s getting dazed, you’ll just need to take the opportunity to strike again afterwards.
Thanks you for the insight about the technique and the "why" and your general content. But talking about poking/estoc i can't seem to find the duel video in the snow where the blade slit in the gap of the neck with a perfect stab, it was one of the rare fights that didn't end in melee/wrestling with dagger stab on the ground and i'm either confused or bad at finding videos but i went trough most of the duels without finding it again, was it taken down or am i mistaken ? it was my favorite duel here :)
Mace is not really an "armoured weapon" per se, i think it's good if you DON'T want to kill your opponent, and your opponent is semi-armoured at most (think like a breastplate and helmet, or maile and helmet etc.) You can take out someone by breaking their knee, shoulder, arm and he won't bleed out. Headshots are also acceptable if the opponent wears a lighter helmet (though it will not do shit against a great bascinet for example). However they are really good from horseback, you can just bash heads either at a gallop or while being surrounded etc. Also in a battlefield they are okay-ish on foot, but they are more of a "rogue's weapon" in that sense that you don't "duel" the guy infront of you with a mace, you probably try to hit people who are not expecting it, like you see two guys fighting next to you and you just join in with a good whack to the head or something. Pollhammers are a bit different story, more reach, more laverage, top spike, bottom spike, and a hook. You can use it as a half sworded longsword (thrusting the point to the gaps and wrestling) but also have the head to hook limbs, weapons, shields, etc and to hit heads.
Love the video, bro. I've always been into Medieval subjects and have a good collection of weapons, but only recently began getting into their practical uses in history.... keep up the good work. Your shorts are quite intense!
Idk man, i watched a bunch of videos where people used the spike on a warhammer to bring devastating blows down on steel helmets and chestplates. Otherwise i agree with the video. Thank you for your insights!
Not gonna lie, I’m guilty of severely underestimating just how protective plate armor is. Exposure to games, HEMA channels, and academic conjecture definitely influenced how I perceived the efficacy of armor. A lot of it is conjecture, and much of what we know is from historical accounts as opposed to first hand experience. Or so I thought. Turns out there are lads out there crazy enough to full on wallop each other in full harness 😂 While you’re not out to kill each other and have safety features in place (like blunted tips and edges), I’d wager that what you guys do is quite similar to the punishment armor would have taken at the time. So glad I found your channel randomly, and stay safe! (Or at least as safe as a bunch of lads walloping each other can be)
FWIW, swords are used almost exclusively in the combat depicted in the medieval romances and in period artwork. They are described as gradually turning a shield into a pile of splinters. One 13th Century illustration shows a Topfhelm being split in two by a sword blow.
But not all sources are like that. There are also realistic sources with stucked and brocken swords. Especially if you are looking in sources about tournament discriptions where nothing is romanticized for the best story of the main character.
@@dequitem The 'romances' are not necessarily 'romanticized.' Poets like Hartmann von Aue and Wolfram von Eschenbach were practicing knights writing for a knightly audience. This makes them more reliable sources for authentic details than histories written by monks. In Wolfram's _Willehalm_ an army of knights is raised, each armed with a sword.
What about the Bec de Corbin? It has the defensive length of a longsword, a hammer with much more force behind it due to leverage, an ice pick that could penetrate plate (maybe after a few hits) and a point to get into the weak spots from a clinch. The only drawback would be its weight.
One handed maces are best used for Cavalry, the only way most blunt weapons can be effective against armor is with a force multiplier like a horse. Love your videos btw, been watching them a lot since pursuing the knightly arts stopped uploading. If you can get enough people, I think an armored group fight could be pretty sick.
Would love it too. But it's hard to find even a single fighter who is willing to fight in this intensity. But I don't lose hope and will take every advantage I get.
If I lived closer (and wouldn't die from a heart attack), I'd totally swing with you. When I was much younger (and healthier), I used to do such fights with my friends in SCA, which often got us in trouble for being unsanctioned. In any case, I much preferred the warhammer & tomahawk simply because I didn't have the time to train with swords as my friends did (plus tomahawks gave me the throwing option). Regarding mace use, targeted hits to the side of the knee was prohibited, even with armor; we had several injuries so the only "legal" attacks targeting the knees were traps and trips with the weapon shaft. Therefore several major targets were off-limits to mace & hammers. However, this was many years ago and the rules may have changed. Love watching your videos, and it's refreshing to not get into the weeds with theoretical & choreographed situations; we can see exactly how it happened (minus the actual death part). 🫡
Few things both of you missed: 1. Comparing tournament fighting to actual fighting is not accurate. I have years of experience in MMA and also working in the field in high risk security and VIP protection. What works in a tournament setting doesn't always work in the field and medieval times were no different. For example, a round mace head will deliver less power than a flanged one, likely why the flanged maces are not allowed in modern tournaments. The fact that you disallow a flanged mace might suggest it's efficacy versus armor. 2. Neither of you take into account formation or large-scale melee fighting. In a compacted melee, short weapons with a small attack radius are often preferred and we see this as far back as Roman times. Roman troops in formation were taught to stab because it posed significantly less risk for friendly fire. Similarly, we see shorter weapons in the Middle Ages likely for the same reason. Friendly fire has been a concern since the start of military history. These are two big factors that I think carry weight. In all periods, the "best weapon" in organized warfare isn't necessarily the best weapon in single combat. It's the best weapon that works within an Army's structure and doctrine. For example, it's highly debatable as to whether the Gladius was the best weapon of its time...but within the context of Roman doctrine it was a highly devastating killer.
The video was about duels and flagged maces are allowed, but not with spikes and sharp edges. But yes if we would continue the dialog your topics would be interesting.
Dont compare the mace to the gladius. The mace requires a full arc of motion in order to do damage. That requires space, meanwhile the gladius just had to be stabbed because the blade does the work.
I'm curious to know how dangerous are the fights you participate? Those attacks looked legit, even with blunt weapons I have to imagine that if you hit between the plates or eye slits it has to hurt.
I honestly would probably just prefer a dagger, from some small tests I’ve done, they aren’t the most accurate and it is probably a bit difficult in real combat and in armor but I’ve found it isn’t too hard to aim a dagger. I would try to grapple and control their weapon and stab at the gaps. I have not done harnischfechten, even though I would like to and I don’t know if that would work because I’m just not qualified enough, so feel free to correct me if that wouldn’t work
The head is 1kg. But the shafts weight nearly nothing, the mace from scholagladiatoria has a heavy shaft, so yes it isn't that problematic. But in the end I never feel confident get a hit. The main problem of a mace isn't that it doesn't hurt, but it doesn't kill unless you hit the head, and this is harder with a mace than hit someone with a sword in their gabs of armor.
From what I understand maces were effective at least vs mid to late 13th century European armor, as attested by experiences of French crusaders in Egypt where the combat vs mamluks were described as swords vs maces. Also your remarks regarding pollaxes intrigue me. Aren't there accounts of halberds penetrating plate harness? I had presumed pollaxes can do the same but perhaps halberds prowess has been exaggerated?
I have no idea of the sport but under the other video someone said that the maces are lighter in the sport. Because they are to dangerous for headhits. And if i even thought the guy said headhits are not allowed.
The mace can be more useful in massive fights when the pit is too narrow to swing a longsword or in the chaos hitting someone from behind (in this situations a dagger would be better), I´d say it´s also a cheaper weapon and more durable in long fights where the sword get dents and lose cutting and thrusting power. On the other hand if the enemy has a shield mace won´t have chances.
Huh, I always thought that maces and other bludgeons were very effective to use since I assumed you can just beat your enemy into submission armored or not. And also thought that swords were only the better choice for unarmored combat and everyday carry. But the greater reach, nimbler movements, and bigger striking area are good points. This has definitely opened my eyes. With that being said, would you say that a weapon like an Estoc would be especially effective in armored combat? Great video!
Give the Eaton is blunt and can imagine nasty tricks like poolcuing and handing sliding for a murderstroke. Downside is a blunt sword is safer for an opponent to grab.
1v1 with that much armour i would drop the weapon completely, grab yours and focus on ground and pound. generally with that much armour you are not doing much dmg with a weapon, breaking someone with hands will be easier. ofc the spike will kill, but again its an easy weapon to catch and close on with this much protection.
Sehr gutes Video, Matt hat denke keine Erfahrung in Rüstung außerhalb seines Reenactment. Da ist es sehr gut, eine Perspektive aus dem Harnischfechten zu haben und nicht nur aus dem Buhurt, da dort Stiche erlaubt sind...
We should consider how a real battle takes place, it's likely several people all stabbing, clubbing, wrestling all together, it's not gentlemanly 1v1 like we see in movies. Weapons would compliment each other. Hooking, knocking down, stabbing in a mosh pit style.
That's actually not a typical battle scenario. Most battles were line defence and no chaotic scenarios, there a mace can be good, but my statement were to duels 😉.
The way I get is often like this: Spears for the average unarmored or lightly armored common soldier in a general scenario. Maces and other bludgeons for the common soldier or less experienced knight trying to take down another heavily armoured knight. Swords for the most experienced heavily armoured knights who know what they are doing and have reached a much higher training ceiling (assuming unmounted combat).
All this mental logic is amiable, but isn't the proof in the pudding. Strategy, experience, ability, weather, terrain, etc. all come into play, and on any given day, one individual, inexperienced person may be lucky enough to win in a confrontation. Is a one blow kill always the case? What about wearing an opponent down with non lethal blows? (armored or not) I am still alive for now, I just am now a few steps slower. Time may not allow me to wear an apparent down, though. But what do real life statistics say? I would rather be armed with an armor or weapon that gives me a better "chance" of winning/surviving to start with. So what does real life results tell me?
Seen Todd's workshop "anti armor dagger"?? Do an armor really protect from a good dagger, that made specially to fight it ? Link in commentary, if TH-cam didn't erase the message with link😅
I am sorry. Even I was impressed when I watched it for the first time last year, it is a cheap test and don't represent anything it's not hardened steel and it's not shapped like armor. It can only work if you have pretty much luck!
@@dequitem yes that's what I think when seen it. The shape of the armor is made to make the dagger slide away, and the shape also make it way harder than a flat piece. I saw other guys pretend that it's possible to pass throw the armor if you immobilize the ennemy, put the dagger on a pretty flat part or in an angle, and then hammer it with your gantless. Hard to do, but may it can be a situationnal thing to do. Sure the gap in armor are the best goal, but if the opponent is immobilize on the ground, maybe by hammering it with gantless it can be possible ?
There must be a reason people made heavier weapons, not just maces and warhammers. My mains question is, are these maces and warhammers you used to practice at their normal weight or lighter? I know it's very common for competitions for it to be lighter. So I wonder if it's the same for you or if you can actually hit as hard as possible. I can see the swords have no edge for safety and I'm sure a sword is very effective, but there must be a reason weapons got heavier and longer with time. Also, what are your thoughts on the best Two handed sword? Would a Zweihander be good for such fully armored combat? It feels too big and heavy to be used in such duels you do
Proper Zweihander technique involves keeping the weapon moving, using it's own momentum to stay in motion. Used like this it's a tiring weapon to use, but very fast and with massive range, which makes it incredibly dangerous in a duel. It's not meant to be used like a longsword, though like a longsword you can use it as a short spear. High cost, high skill, and you need to be pretty strong and heavy of course, so it's an 'elite' weapon.
I remember the first time I discovered your channel, it was from a short and I thought, "What ? He just killed him with his dagger", then I saw it again and understood. A proof to say that the cinematography and technique displayed was good enough to get me, ahah
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 Please go to a PCA Presbyterian or OPC Presbyterian church, or maybe a Rpcna/Rpc Presbyterian church If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland, they are Presbyterian. If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England. :)
You make some very good points. I personally feel a mace is only simpler to use in am armoured combat context because edge alignment for striking is not as imperative as it would be for someone using a sword to deliver sword blows to unarmoured battlefield combatants. In a buhurt context, teaching someone good and sound sword technique definitely takes more effort than just providing someone a 6 flanged mace and allowing them to swing it. With that being said, a mace in closer distance really helps to facilitate armoured grappling and increase leverage for throws which can lead to fight ending scenarios.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 Please go to a PCA Presbyterian or OPC Presbyterian church, or maybe a Rpcna/Rpc Presbyterian church If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland, they are Presbyterian. If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England. :)
As a fellow armored combat fighter, I can clearly remember my surprise when getting struck by a mace for the first time - being not that painful. Yes our buhurt mace heads are capped at 1 lb or .45 kg under HMB and IMCF rules for safety, but in that moment I was surprised about all the "hype" going into them. Falchions and especially the common one handed axe leave marks on my armor and bruises on my flesh. Yet I find polearms are the true debilitating weapons. All weapon types in our sport have the potential to damage armor, but polearms can cause a fighter to be unable to continue after absorbing hits on their armor. In a sport that Matt Easton stated was "hardcore & brutal" the community within agrees that polearms are scary and the most dangerous. Even blunted they regularly damage collarbones, shoulders, and especially hands!
A surprising number of extant Renaissance short cavalry maces weigh 3.5-4lbs (overall weight). They got quite hefty. Some of them may have been ceremonial, but I doubt that's the full explanation.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 There is a very simple explanation for the popularity of maces among cavalrymen. First. On a horse, the weight carried by the fighter is not so important and you can afford different types of weapons. A simple example. Cataphracts periodically used bows and darts. Second. Cavalry usually fights on the move. The horse gallops without stopping. Piercing and slashing weapons may become stuck on the target. The mace won't get stuck. Third. Maces and flails were actively used by nomads in raids to capture slaves. The Mongols from the Golden Horde especially stood out for this. Non-lethal use of blunt weapons. Fourth. As was said in the video, the most vulnerable place is the head. On horseback you can very comfortably hit the infantrymen's heads with a mace. But all sorts of techniques with a sword will be much more difficult to arrange. These statements are true for a short historical period. It is important that more or less all participants in the battle wore armor, which greatly reduced the effectiveness of slashing weapons. When armor became less common, sabers came into use.
I fully agree with your comment about pole arms. Used to "sword and board" it before retiring. Pole arms are very nasty when used by an experienced person.
Unless I get close enough to you (mace range) so you can't use your pole arm effectively. Then you use it for blocking and I grab it with my other hand and guess what. Your pole is useless and we are locked together in mace range.
It wasn't duels that armored knights were designed for. The lack of lethality in 1vs1 combat on foot of a mace is totally irrelevant to most actual combat scenarios a historic knight would have found themselves in. It was the 2000 pound trained warhorse that was his main weapon after all. All the knight needed was a weapon to bash in heads from above as he plowed through, or knock an occasional opposing knight from his horse (that was all it usually took for them to surrender anyway). When on foot the goal was mostly to just get out, keeping lesser-armored opponents at bay, bash them mostly to the ground so they'd be trampled or mobbed in the crowded chaos. No knight in that situation was going to care much about aiming for weakpoints or lack of lethality against a fully armored enemy he wasn't likely to encounter on foot. Also a shield in that bad situation is much more useful than a twohanded weapon. It was only when armored knights were deployed on foot that it was a different matter, but then they usually traded in for pole weapons, needing to do some actual killing now. The fights probably looked more similar to typical spear&shield infantry clashes and simply getting knocked down likely meant not getting back up again.
I don't think you ride a horse into groups of armed infantry other than in the movies. They're for chasing down fleeing opponents or clashing with other horse troops.
Funnily enough to strengthen your point about maces and heads, in Sweden around the 14th century, maces equipped with protrusions and flanges began to be referred as 'hjälmkrossare' or 'helmet-crushers' in period sources.
You are a real warrior. When you talk about striking and hitting, about fights generally you have this instinctual smiling 😂 Born to fight.😏 It's good that you wearing a helmet in fights, so your opponent can't see your joy and get terrified about this insane dude 😂
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.
In the middle of the 16th century, Juan Quijada de Reayo gave the following order of weapons for men-at-arms: lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, dagger. For whatever, he wrote to use the estoc & then arming sword before turning to the hammer.
I've seen a few contemporary historical illustrations of knights or armoured soldiers carrying both a sword and a mace on their belt. Would it actually be practical to carry both or would one of them get in the way?
IF i am not mistaken Burgundian sources of the equipment of Men at arms mention that the Man at arms must carry a pole arm, Longsword on one side and the mace or Warhammer on another
It was common in the 16th century for French men-at-arms to have lance, sword, & mace as weapons. Raimond de Fourquevaux mentioned this in his 1548 military treatise, though he didn't give any details about mace use, only that men-at-arms did use them.
@@vaderksy4730 You are mistaken, Burgundian ordinances require a long, two handed estoc girt and a knife ("cousteau", ie, a fauchion) tied to the saddle. The 1473 ordonnance is the only one that says to have a mace at the saddle (on the other side of the knife).
Imma be honest i thought the idea of a mace being better against armor was absolute and accepted everywhere so im very surprised when i found out some experts say otherwise. Great knowledge!
I think a pretty simple way to put it is if against armor, a sword does 10 damage, a mace does 15 damage, but the problem is full plate has 1000 hp. Its more effective but the armor is so tough anyway that it just doesnt matter, so in the end you have to rely on lucky critical hits
@chieckenman4432 It does matter. No matter how small the advantage or disadvantage, if you able to apply and accumulate enough, you could win or take down enemy whose you can't beat under normal circumstances. Outcome will be a lot different if we add other variables like terrain or weapon combination into the equation.
I always felt like the mace was really just a cheap, easy and simple sidearm. Not the best option, just the cheap one. Warhammers on the other hand are a lot more dangerous, their shape transfers a lot more. Also, Buhurt maces are extremely light, many athletes have reported that, they are so light to not be dangerous, that they are only considered good for grappling.
I think this needs to be tested with ballistic dummies. Maces can be used as leverage to damage joints (assuming you get there..that's always a gamble). Hits against knees and wrists are awful to deal with and a mace is really good at applying that pressure.
Absolutely great video. Really informative and perspective changing as a lover of medieval armoured combat. I look forward to learning more things on this channel!
Nikephoros in the 10th century prescribed maces, and lots of them, for his super heavy cavalry. Had to have something to recommend their use, albeit in the early medieval period
I always imagined the main use of the mace was from horseback, when surrounded by infantry or some scenario like that, when you can just reach down and start bashing heads, because that's all you can really reach anyway, and the mace is more effective vs helmets.
Bertrandon de la Broquière wrote that he thought the cavalry maces he saw carried by Ottoman soldiers could knock someone out through a helmet if swung freely.
You have no reach with a mace with a horse. Very difficult to aim the horse. Also the horse may not want to go near somebody with a pitch fork. A lot of risk of being dismounted. The best option with a horse is the spear. You do not have to be super precise with the horse as you can compensate with the longer reach of the spear.
One Point that gets under the rug all the time is that not everyone had the money to buy a full armor. A mace seems a fine weapon Vs gambesons and chainmail, but only hurts a full plated warrior on the head. Good video Edit: as I talked about money it came into my mind that a mace is 100times cheaper to build than a sword. So it's a nice side weapon for a peasant militia spear line if the opponent got through the pointy ends.
Would love to see you do some live testing with Tod's Workshop, you both have very good analytical minds regarding medieval combat, and your real-world experience combined with his historical studies would make for some really interesting content
I really like this video. It calls back to why i like things Like MMA in the OneFC, but also the drawbacks of sports. The closer you get to the real thing the more myths you dispell.
A few things: The type of mace being shown was required for heavy cavalry in places like the Byzantine Empire, but this is because they are effective against mail and linen armour, later maces developed to be more dangerous to plate, but were also less used, though ottoman heavy cavalry still carried them, as did the Polish and Russians. Swords were good in duels, the context of battle however is significantly different, when knights were indeed on foot they could cooperate and act tactically. Once men at arms were common, armour developed and killing somewhat more excusable rather than overpowering an opponent men would work in teams, one man would hook the armoured man and try to topple him and the other would stand behind to defend his fellow or to step forward and wail on the toppled knight with a pole-axe or other piercing weapon. Longswords were good in duels, notably juridical one's, and had symbolic purpose. One to one skill and luck played a greater part, and no one wanted to see a couple of retainers ruin the respect towards a duel by ganging up on the opponent or having him run down by a spontaneous knights on horseback.
How dangerous do you think blunt trauma from maces / axes / swords is when used against earlier body armor such as brigandine / lamellar / mail? Would body hits from maces or even swords be potentially lethal if these armors are not actually fully penetrated?
The idea of brigandine armor being earlier is a bit strange- it was contemporary with plate for the majority of it’s life, even though plate ended up being used after brigandine’s use came to an end, right?
@@TheBetterBleedingBladesTH-cam I think brigandine appeared with or as a variant of partial plate armor, while the armor in video is full plate or almost full plate. I specifically asked about brigandine because it is supposedly similiar in performance to decent lamellar armor but people are more likely to recognize brigandine than lamellar.
@@philozoraptor6808 In the sections where he fights his friend, though, most of his friends kit is brigandine- also interesting point. I think brigandine as I think of it comes into it’s own around the same time as solid plate is getting popular (latter half of the 14th century or so? I’m not entirely certain) but you’re probably right that stuff like coats of plates did come before full solid plate, but that depends on what you define as brigandine, and even then coat of plates and such started to come about around just barely earlier than plate, right?
With brigandine u more often become bruises in the shape of a single plate 😂 but u are fully protected against strikes. With realy bad luck 1% of the thrusts can penetrat between the plates, but normally it's safe. Lamellar armor is a often not perfectly shaped and immobilize you more than full plate, but the combination of plates are sometimes wobbly and bruises happens more often. Overall u are still safe enough in both armor types. Mail works better than most people think and can protect you from most sword attacks. Late medival maces are a problem and can hurt and break bones, but only very heavy strikes. Mail and a small padding is more protective than many people think, and very flexible for movement. But u need small plates on shoulders, elbows...
Let’s create some proper content. Sit on your horse, you are after all a knight. Only the British, who were atrocious cavalry throughout mounted warfare, were fond of dismounting. After your lance is gone, try to draw and deploy that long sword against another mounted opponent while you have dismounts trying to pull you down. There’s no half sword and good luck 🍀 poking into a gap. But there at your pommel is a mace. You will strike anyone trying to pull you down on the head. When you are packed into a melee and your sword is completely useless that short range mace is banging away on head, shoulders, arm and hand of your mounted foe. Any good hit and there’s a loss of control. Two individuals in full armor on foot is not why you spend a small fortune to have a harness. You wear it to ride up in mass and bash infantry or prevent enemy heavy cavalry from bashing yours. A mace is very effective in the proper context.
Indeed that's the context we're a mace can work, but it doesn't work that good in foot combat. Non the less, most knights on horseback wear onehanded swords and there are many picturial sources of using the pommel as a mace from a horseback.
An EXCELLENT video! You clearly have a lot of experience fighting in actual armor and your demonstration of how the mace strikes do nothing to the chest, shoulders and elbows. Reach is a great advantage in all types of melee combat and the sword is extremely versatile on how it can be used to damage an opponent, armored or not.
@Dequitem I think you make a large number of excellent points concerning YOUR armor and those of the 15th Century (and later field plate) but remember that the battlefield encompassed a number of people with less training and much less armor coverage and poshness. Hardened armor was definitely a thing for the wealthy but for the average soldier, archer, or skirmisher not as much. I agree with you that a knight likely wouldn't choose a mace for combat but others might through lack of funding or training with a sword. I just think this discussion could use a bit more specificity. Who is choosing the mace and why might they for fighting a foe in armor? What is the level of armor? That of a rich noblemen of the mid to late 15th Century? or that of a middling man-at-arms of the early to middle part of the 14th Century? I agree with you that good armor makes a mace a suboptimal choice but against poor armor (unhardened, thinner, ill-fitting) it might be worth it. I would consider it as an archer is my mates and I peppered the heck out of an armored gent with heavy arrows/quarrels and then when he was disoriented or injured (if we could), rush him with a number of peeps with bludgeoning weapons to keep the disorientation up and hopefully injure while others worked to hold the knight and others worked to get nasty pointy things into the gaps of the armor.
But most medival soldiers had plate armor it's a myth that a peasent was unarmored at all, a knight had to armor their soldiers and a citizen had to buy armor by himself if he wants his rights as a member of the city. It's not true that there were that many unarmored or people with only mail, yes there is a big difference between a trained knight and a soldier but peasents ar less como on the battlefield of the middelage. All that changes after the the 16th century. Most modern movies ly to u.
@@dequitem again, that's why I said we need to better define who the combatants are and the time period. I didn't ever say peasants. But I did differentiate between archers, skirmishers, and other not fully armored on the battlefield. I also made the distinction that not all plate was hardened or made well. That is why I think you need to better seat your argument in both time and circumstances. I think your arguments are very good for your armor and similar mid 15th century and later hardened 3/4 harness to field plate. But I disagree with you about that being the only or the majority of the armor on the battlefield at that time. Looking at the manuscript illustration and artwork or the time, it is still clear that there is a variety of armor and armor coverage among soldiers/man-at-arms/knights based on location, time period, and I would guess personal preference. An excellent resource for thickness, hardess, and type of armor is "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" by Alan Williams. A point he makes is that until the 15th Century the majority of steel plate manufactured north of the Alps was not case hardened. Mr. Williams goes in depth using analysis of extant pieces discussing thickness and metallurgy by region. Great book.
Great video, I can tell you have respect for the man. Your response brought up many interesting points from the perspective of armoured fighting without any denigration of your opponent and friend. Very honourable, I dig your style.
I never assumed that Matt was talking about armored duels. It's about combat in war. The mace as a war weapon suffered greatly when the first real helmets were introduced during the Bronze Age, and it never really came back. But Matt's question why we see a seemingly increased appearance of knightly maces in the 14th and 15th c. AD is very justified, especially if you state that it was nearly useless/always the worse option. In my opinion it was the still best option (not a good option) for close quarter fighting on horseback where you cannot move a lot, wrestle or apply fancy tactics. I see the mace as a special weapon with restricted benefits for certain situations.
So if the head is the only viable target for the mace to hit, no wonder why it was used mostly on horseback, since from there heads are the parts that sticks up. Playing "whack a mole" with a sword from horseback is maybe a bit more cluncky.
7:32 wtf are you talking about a slicing specific sword vs. a mace? your not doing noteworthy dmg with a falchion or katana for that matter bc thats what it is in design on purpose; you are also going to HEAVILY dmg the blade, 4-6 hits and your efficiency off the blade is crumbled and the extreme cutting ability will be noteworthy deminished... and again, a sword due to how the weight is distributed and the density of the point hitting, will not course nearly as much blunt trauma, which is what matters vs. plate armour, also vs. chain for that matter...
2 handed weapon should have almost always advantage against 1 handed weapon with speed and manuvers, but if you use mace try to push enemy to the ground and fight on the ground to get some advantage, when you fall flat on back with 2 handed sword, and and another guy is squash him with the weight of his body, and waking his head and arms with mace what gone to happend?
maybe the reason for using a mace in battle is the same as stated for usage in law enforcement. given people were religious in medival some of them might have just followed the 5th commandment "you shall not kill". while at the same time maybe get some ransome.
I am tired of the so-called exprests who claim that a good plate armor can be penetrated easliy with something that is not a musket) No, you can neither do it with a slander / klevets / warhammer not an arbalest / longbow.
This is dumb, I've seen the maces used in sparing, they are nothing like historical blunt weapons, they are lighter, and concentrated the force over a much larger area.
To bring up another good point, warhammers (even 1-handed) are ENTIRELY banned in Buhurt. No weight restrictions, just banned. That says a lot about their effectiveness, even in one hand.
@@dequitem Combat is never necessarily about killing your opponent, but disabling his ability to fight. Any injury can be debilitating and effects differ from situation to situation. A broken collarbone, concussion, crushed knee or smashed elbow to name some such injuries will disable the person and make him ineffective in fighting back. From a modern perspective a rifle shot that wounds an enemy is as good as one that kills an enemy, since it is a casualty in any case.
I'd imagine maces and axes would be one of the most effective weapons against chainmail and segmented armor. Plate is very effective at dispersing and deflecting the energy of attack due to its rigidity. Because they're hard and often flat / angular, weapons are going to struggle to impart all of their energy without a perfectly spaced, timed, and angled attack. And the energy that is actually transfered is dispersed across one large piece of metal. But with chainmail, it has neither the dispersion or deflecting effects of plate armor. Its primary protection comes almost purely from its hardness that stops it from being easily cut or stabbed through. Im in no way shape or form educated on the subject. This is just what makes sense to me with my current understanding of armor.
You make some questionable declarative statements, like at 12:38, discussing poleaxes, you declare that only hits to the head can be lethal to an opponent in plate armour. The neck has multiple vital structures right below the skin. You have arteries running close to the surface at every joint. None protected by bone. A hit to the head in a helmet is in no reasonable way more lethal, as death would require the breaking of the skull. A blow that can defeat the helmet, break the skull and then cause intracranial hemorrhage could also injure all the arteries or airways which are not protected by any bones.
Thank you for this very insightful video! I wonder if maces were often used to defeat mail, rather than plate armor? While a sword can pierce mail, doing so requires a fairly stiff, pointy sword, and won't always result in much penetration. A mace blow would transmit much more effectively through mail, possibly allowing for incapacitating body and limb blows, with the added benefit of keeping the enemy alive.
you brought up a lot of good points in this video! I do have one question though. It appears that the most dangerous area of the sword is the tip, to thrust into gaps and penetrate mail. Many poleaxes had a thrusting point on both front and back ends of the weapon. Couldn't that be used to similar effectiveness to a sword while keeping your options open with the blunt hammer and extra reach?
My impression was that in the context of getting a knight for ransom, its much easier to incapacitate without killing when you hit him with a mace compared to hitting him with a sword.
Hey Dequitem! Thanks for the video response and the great videos. I'm looking to lots more.
I guess the main question coming out of this video then is: why use a mace (or axe or warhammer)? What advantage do you think they offer? I have some ideas, and maybe I'll put this into a video.
A point I would specifically respond to is about the use of falchions in buhurt: unfortunately, their falchions are very unlike actual historical falchions. What they use in buhurt, in terms of weight distribution, is really more like a mace IMHO. Every original 13th-15th century falchion I have examined in museums is light, with a thin blade and quite fragile edge. These are not the bludgeoning tools that modern reenactment/buhurt seems to think they are. 🙂
th-cam.com/video/2Sh08Du5F10/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BVQL8X4XSd9GZvUM
Here is an example of a historical falchion that is very clearly built for buhurt and anti armour techniques.
One handed maces and hammers were used a lot on horseback, and they were still effective against lesser armored opponents on foot. Head hits are the most effective, but jus disorient the opponent to assist in grappling. If you watch more harness combat, one handed blunt weapons simply don’t do much to properly made armor. But a force multiplier like a horse is a great way to make them effective against armor, and we’re sometimes backup weapons to Calvary.
@@pluemas unfortunately I think that is a good replica. But it is inspired particularly by an original example in Paris (though note, the Paris example is smaller and lighter). However, I do agree that particularly in the 13th & 14th century there were some falchion designs specialised to armoured fighting. But most surviving falchions in museums and private collections are light with thin cutting edges - very unlike the chunky bars that are used in buhurt.
I think in 15th century and ongoing, they just used poleaxes and 2h poleweapons for greater reach and force. The way of fighting did evolve to more spear/helebard blocks and the armoured fighters needed to get reach in order to fight with the formation. just my 2 cents@@scholagladiatoria
@intheshadow1623 but the use of polearms in the 15th and 16th century only applys to battles, in duels knights manly used swords. The question is, is it tradition or simply the better weapon.
Glad you're sharing your voice as someone in the harnesfechten community, with its wealth of experience. Our knowledge of this kind of combat can only benefit from dialogue between folks like yourselves and Matt Easton, etc. I would love to see a collab!
I also would love a collaboration. Björn Rüther is also on my line of collaboration plans.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
Please go to a PCA Presbyterian or OPC Presbyterian church, or maybe a Rpcna/Rpc Presbyterian church
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland, they are Presbyterian.
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
:)
@@dequitemyou go the bonkers 🦾
You have good points. Just because it's easy to hit someone with a mace, that doesn't mean you're gonna do any damage. Especially if you're only hitting the body.
Overall I agree with you.
It's usually horsemen who carry one handed maces and axes probably because they always aim for the head, while footmen prefer falchons and pole axes and other two handed weapons.
Very interesting insight, I'm subscribed to both you and Matt Easton btw
You are welcome. I also subscribe to Matt Easten's channel. I really enjoye his videos and mostly agree with him.
Your point about horsemen makes absolutely sense. I thought about it too, but I have no experience with maces on horse, that's why I didn't mention it in my video.
They didn't only aim for the head, though that was probably the primary target. Here's one bit Pietro Monte wrote about the mace/club/hammer: "taking the club with both hands, three or four blows are to be struck with the utmost force and velocity, since if we hit his weapon we often strike it out of his hand. Likewise, in whichever other place we strike, we do great work." Juan Quijada de Reayo mentioned wounding head & the hands with the hammer, in the context of men-at-arms fighting men-at-arms.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 aiming for the weapons seems interesting. Thanks for the information!
They don't do any damage because of the cost of that armor and the rules. You hit a joint like an elbow or knee it's going to damage it. You ring their bell with a head shot and they're going to be knocked silly or demised. I'd take a mace or war hammer over a sword in a real fight any day.
I instantly subscribed after watching the 1st few shorts, thank you for preserving the history of combat in whats perhaps THE most honorable way ive seen.
While the purpose is no longer to kill your opponent, i could watch you guys duel all day 🙏
Found this channel by accident. Glad I did because the analysis was really informative, thoughtful, and respectful. Definitely subscribing to check out more. 👍
I'm wondering if part of the reason maces were used (more so in battles, rather than knightly duels), was because they were cheaper to produce for peasant militia, compared to swords.
These points I'll be making are probably not for the duels, because simply I'm not interested in them, I only imagine heated battle and chaos scenarios, so that's why these might be entirely irrelevant:
I also want to add if the armor is any less that what you're wearing, then I'd pick the sword. And that's why historically sword can be superior because not everyone can afford buying tanks. Probably that was the equivalent price compared to today :)
10:24 same for swords, too. You can block a swing or a thrust with your arm. If a mace can't hurt you a swing with a sword won't hurt you either because of the physics of the energy transfer, unless you hit perpendicular to armor surface, there will be a massive energy loss, (and you can even break your sword, there can be many reasons, missing the alignment or getting blocked or if your opponent changes the angle of their stand...) whereas that's not the case for the mace, if the head contacts, that's near full energy transfer.
11:54 why would you try to defend yourself with a short mace, that simply won't work, if you're defending either you need a shield or a bucket or that defense is pointless. Maces are effective in wrestling distances. If you're going to sit and defend, mace is not the right weapon for it.
12:09 Mace needs space yes, put your other elbow in between you and the opponent and you have the perfect space. I think fighting with a mace requires overwhelming offence, otherwise it won't work. Letting the opponent use his sword is a death sentence.
12:55 but penetrating is not the main goal, again it's the energy transfer. If your goal is to kill a knight that's not an easy task, but disabling them is easier.
14:07 yes, yes, exactly, I also agree with all the handicaps of the maces which you mentioned, I still believe in the superiority of the maces and more so for one handed war hammers despite all that.
15:52 yeah, but you can't even use swords in wrestling distance.
16:27 but that's a longer war hammer. The one other guy had in the background was perfect for close combat.
18:00 Yeah but you can swing again and again, you don't need to aim that much, if it contacts it's enough, while holding your opponents hand or weapon or in the wrestling distance or while he's holding you, you'll eventually break their bones. But with sword using one hand, that's not going to happen, they can switch to dagger but that ends the sword part, so... :)
The only time swords' blunt damage can be superior to maces I believe is hitting the fingers. While a mace hit on the fingers can be countered by the suspension effect on the fingers, a sword hit will be much more effective because the force will be much concentrated on a couple of fingers or all the 4
And I agree with him overall.
I don't have the opportunity, wish I could join the fights to prove my points :)
I like some of your arguments, but don't underastimate the use of halfsword as a dagger. I can better work with a sword in wrestling than with a mace. I tested both. 😉
@@dequitem that's insane. How can you wrestle someone with 1 hand effectively and also try to use a long weapon? As someone that practices greco in highschool and mostly does BJJ it doesn't make sense at all.
@@ramsaybolton9151halfswording uses both hands, basically for hooking and grappling. Take a look of the duels Dequitem does with his buddy to have a picture how it is used
@@ramsaybolton9151 that's because your context comes from _unarmed_ combat. In armed combat, you of course have a weapon or 2 in your hand and it makes sense that you'd have to make do with only one arm for your (often) dominant arm to land a killing blow. If you try to wrestle with both arms, what's to say your enemy won't just shank you in the back? There's a reason why they tell you that it's often not a good idea to try to fight some with a weapon without any yourself whatsoever.
Nice video! This is something I've thought been so sure of myself. It was nice to get some clarification on that. It really is something that makes sense in theory but maybe not as much in practice.
I mean, the mace is effective in striking armoured heads. That’s the point I think…
Also it’s kind of hard to stop the full momentum of the mace, the best option is to dodge.
But I think the most overlooked part that nobody talks about is the price, it’s the most affordable and cost effective option that needs little maintenance. And you can arm an army of for example pesants with it and they’ll know how to use it effectively. As with the sword it needs maintenance, is more expensive and you need to edge align your strikes for effective cuts, know how to spot armour gaps so half swording knowledge is required.
A poleaxe is the same simplicity but with a reach factor and a more expensive weapon to make also not as effective short range. A spear is a really good weapon for making distance for knights on horseback, also low maintenance but of course not good in close range and an armoured opponent will have the confidence to grab the spear… A
knife is excellent on armoured opponents if you are armoured as well, problem is in a battle it ain’t a one on one confrontation, while you there grabbing the dude looking for gaps you getting smashed in the head with a mace. And a mace of course, great for concussions the thing is it’s not as versatile like a sword, it ain’t fast, and can get dodge and grabbed more than it can actually hit. But all it takes is one good solid hit to the head of your opponent and he’s getting dazed, you’ll just need to take the opportunity to strike again afterwards.
They're biased towards swords because of the rules of the game they are playing.
Thanks you for the insight about the technique and the "why" and your general content.
But talking about poking/estoc i can't seem to find the duel video in the snow where the blade slit in the gap of the neck with a perfect stab, it was one of the rare fights that didn't end in melee/wrestling with dagger stab on the ground and i'm either confused or bad at finding videos but i went trough most of the duels without finding it again, was it taken down or am i mistaken ? it was my favorite duel here :)
I love how there's drama in every area of TH-cam. 😂
(I know it's educational n fun.)
Mace is not really an "armoured weapon" per se, i think it's good if you DON'T want to kill your opponent, and your opponent is semi-armoured at most (think like a breastplate and helmet, or maile and helmet etc.) You can take out someone by breaking their knee, shoulder, arm and he won't bleed out. Headshots are also acceptable if the opponent wears a lighter helmet (though it will not do shit against a great bascinet for example). However they are really good from horseback, you can just bash heads either at a gallop or while being surrounded etc.
Also in a battlefield they are okay-ish on foot, but they are more of a "rogue's weapon" in that sense that you don't "duel" the guy infront of you with a mace, you probably try to hit people who are not expecting it, like you see two guys fighting next to you and you just join in with a good whack to the head or something.
Pollhammers are a bit different story, more reach, more laverage, top spike, bottom spike, and a hook. You can use it as a half sworded longsword (thrusting the point to the gaps and wrestling) but also have the head to hook limbs, weapons, shields, etc and to hit heads.
Absolutely agree. 😍
Short maces saw use almost exclusively by men-at-arms & other heavily armored cavalry in 15th- & 16th-century Europe.
Love the video, bro. I've always been into Medieval subjects and have a good collection of weapons, but only recently began getting into their practical uses in history.... keep up the good work. Your shorts are quite intense!
Idk man, i watched a bunch of videos where people used the spike on a warhammer to bring devastating blows down on steel helmets and chestplates. Otherwise i agree with the video. Thank you for your insights!
We really won't know until we have people fight to the death with 3 lb maces.
Not gonna lie, I’m guilty of severely underestimating just how protective plate armor is. Exposure to games, HEMA channels, and academic conjecture definitely influenced how I perceived the efficacy of armor. A lot of it is conjecture, and much of what we know is from historical accounts as opposed to first hand experience. Or so I thought.
Turns out there are lads out there crazy enough to full on wallop each other in full harness 😂 While you’re not out to kill each other and have safety features in place (like blunted tips and edges), I’d wager that what you guys do is quite similar to the punishment armor would have taken at the time. So glad I found your channel randomly, and stay safe! (Or at least as safe as a bunch of lads walloping each other can be)
FWIW, swords are used almost exclusively in the combat depicted in the medieval romances and in period artwork. They are described as gradually turning a shield into a pile of splinters. One 13th Century illustration shows a Topfhelm being split in two by a sword blow.
But not all sources are like that. There are also realistic sources with stucked and brocken swords. Especially if you are looking in sources about tournament discriptions where nothing is romanticized for the best story of the main character.
@@dequitem The 'romances' are not necessarily 'romanticized.' Poets like Hartmann von Aue and Wolfram von Eschenbach were practicing knights writing for a knightly audience. This makes them more reliable sources for authentic details than histories written by monks. In Wolfram's _Willehalm_ an army of knights is raised, each armed with a sword.
What about the Bec de Corbin? It has the defensive length of a longsword, a hammer with much more force behind it due to leverage, an ice pick that could penetrate plate (maybe after a few hits) and a point to get into the weak spots from a clinch. The only drawback would be its weight.
Video about that in 2 or 4 weeks! 😅
@@dequitem won't miss it then!
Its a polearm, which already makes it an entirely different class of weapon to maces. I can see them hurting fairly hard.
One handed maces are best used for Cavalry, the only way most blunt weapons can be effective against armor is with a force multiplier like a horse. Love your videos btw, been watching them a lot since pursuing the knightly arts stopped uploading. If you can get enough people, I think an armored group fight could be pretty sick.
Would love it too. But it's hard to find even a single fighter who is willing to fight in this intensity. But I don't lose hope and will take every advantage I get.
Cavalry
@@ezkiller93 😅
If I lived closer (and wouldn't die from a heart attack), I'd totally swing with you. When I was much younger (and healthier), I used to do such fights with my friends in SCA, which often got us in trouble for being unsanctioned.
In any case, I much preferred the warhammer & tomahawk simply because I didn't have the time to train with swords as my friends did (plus tomahawks gave me the throwing option).
Regarding mace use, targeted hits to the side of the knee was prohibited, even with armor; we had several injuries so the only "legal" attacks targeting the knees were traps and trips with the weapon shaft. Therefore several major targets were off-limits to mace & hammers. However, this was many years ago and the rules may have changed.
Love watching your videos, and it's refreshing to not get into the weeds with theoretical & choreographed situations; we can see exactly how it happened (minus the actual death part). 🫡
Few things both of you missed:
1. Comparing tournament fighting to actual fighting is not accurate. I have years of experience in MMA and also working in the field in high risk security and VIP protection. What works in a tournament setting doesn't always work in the field and medieval times were no different. For example, a round mace head will deliver less power than a flanged one, likely why the flanged maces are not allowed in modern tournaments. The fact that you disallow a flanged mace might suggest it's efficacy versus armor.
2. Neither of you take into account formation or large-scale melee fighting. In a compacted melee, short weapons with a small attack radius are often preferred and we see this as far back as Roman times. Roman troops in formation were taught to stab because it posed significantly less risk for friendly fire. Similarly, we see shorter weapons in the Middle Ages likely for the same reason. Friendly fire has been a concern since the start of military history.
These are two big factors that I think carry weight. In all periods, the "best weapon" in organized warfare isn't necessarily the best weapon in single combat. It's the best weapon that works within an Army's structure and doctrine. For example, it's highly debatable as to whether the Gladius was the best weapon of its time...but within the context of Roman doctrine it was a highly devastating killer.
The video was about duels and flagged maces are allowed, but not with spikes and sharp edges.
But yes if we would continue the dialog your topics would be interesting.
Dont compare the mace to the gladius. The mace requires a full arc of motion in order to do damage. That requires space, meanwhile the gladius just had to be stabbed because the blade does the work.
I'm curious to know how dangerous are the fights you participate? Those attacks looked legit, even with blunt weapons I have to imagine that if you hit between the plates or eye slits it has to hurt.
Thank you
I honestly would probably just prefer a dagger, from some small tests I’ve done, they aren’t the most accurate and it is probably a bit difficult in real combat and in armor but I’ve found it isn’t too hard to aim a dagger. I would try to grapple and control their weapon and stab at the gaps. I have not done harnischfechten, even though I would like to and I don’t know if that would work because I’m just not qualified enough, so feel free to correct me if that wouldn’t work
Sounds good. Keep in mind a sword is a bigger dagger and can do the same actions but with more power and reach. 😉
Isn't the mace you're using lighter than they'd normally be? Would you be as confident hitting yourself like that if it was a full weight mace?
The head is 1kg. But the shafts weight nearly nothing, the mace from scholagladiatoria has a heavy shaft, so yes it isn't that problematic. But in the end I never feel confident get a hit. The main problem of a mace isn't that it doesn't hurt, but it doesn't kill unless you hit the head, and this is harder with a mace than hit someone with a sword in their gabs of armor.
The real reason is they felt the d6 line of weapons needed to be expanded beyond hand axes and short swords.
From what I understand maces were effective at least vs mid to late 13th century European armor, as attested by experiences of French crusaders in Egypt where the combat vs mamluks were described as swords vs maces.
Also your remarks regarding pollaxes intrigue me. Aren't there accounts of halberds penetrating plate harness? I had presumed pollaxes can do the same but perhaps halberds prowess has been exaggerated?
I have no idea of the sport but under the other video someone said that the maces are lighter in the sport. Because they are to dangerous for headhits. And if i even thought the guy said headhits are not allowed.
Headhits are allowed!
The mace can be more useful in massive fights when the pit is too narrow to swing a longsword or in the chaos hitting someone from behind (in this situations a dagger would be better), I´d say it´s also a cheaper weapon and more durable in long fights where the sword get dents and lose cutting and thrusting power. On the other hand if the enemy has a shield mace won´t have chances.
Who made your gorget? I love that design and haven't seen one like it before
Self made, there are only pictural sources for that kind of gorget
Huh, I always thought that maces and other bludgeons were very effective to use since I assumed you can just beat your enemy into submission armored or not. And also thought that swords were only the better choice for unarmored combat and everyday carry. But the greater reach, nimbler movements, and bigger striking area are good points. This has definitely opened my eyes.
With that being said, would you say that a weapon like an Estoc would be especially effective in armored combat?
Great video!
Yes, the difference between estoc and later longswords isn't that big.
Give the Eaton is blunt and can imagine nasty tricks like poolcuing and handing sliding for a murderstroke. Downside is a blunt sword is safer for an opponent to grab.
1v1 with that much armour i would drop the weapon completely, grab yours and focus on ground and pound.
generally with that much armour you are not doing much dmg with a weapon, breaking someone with hands will be easier.
ofc the spike will kill, but again its an easy weapon to catch and close on with this much protection.
Sehr gutes Video, Matt hat denke keine Erfahrung in Rüstung außerhalb seines Reenactment.
Da ist es sehr gut, eine Perspektive aus dem Harnischfechten zu haben und nicht nur aus dem Buhurt, da dort Stiche erlaubt sind...
Danke. Durch seine Erfahrung im Hema war auch ich von ein paar seiner Aussagen überrascht.
Have you guys ever accidently stabbed through an opening in your armor? Love your videos.
Yes. Did happen.
Nice,I might be biased against swords, would prefer anything else, axe preferably
We should consider how a real battle takes place, it's likely several people all stabbing, clubbing, wrestling all together, it's not gentlemanly 1v1 like we see in movies. Weapons would compliment each other. Hooking, knocking down, stabbing in a mosh pit style.
That's actually not a typical battle scenario. Most battles were line defence and no chaotic scenarios, there a mace can be good, but my statement were to duels 😉.
Appears better off to ensure your armour.
If longswords are so great for fighting in and out of armor, then what is the point of other weapons at all? Everyone should just have longswords lol
Indeed, most late medival duelists used longswords in and without armor.
The way I get is often like this:
Spears for the average unarmored or lightly armored common soldier in a general scenario.
Maces and other bludgeons for the common soldier or less experienced knight trying to take down another heavily armoured knight.
Swords for the most experienced heavily armoured knights who know what they are doing and have reached a much higher training ceiling (assuming unmounted combat).
also the so called lasted for a thousand years so different eras armor had different weaknesses
This is so funny, I literally just finished watching a Shadiversity video on testing armor!
I hope it was hardened!
@@dequitemprolly wasn’t since it’s shad
@@nagh887 🤣
"and we haven't even mentioned the mordhau to the head"
Jokes on you I choose axe
You bring up many good points; I agree with you.
So the melee weapon selection is balanced?
Any reference of how I can find the venetian war hammer you show at the beginning of the video?
Your neck armor looks amazing.
All this mental logic is amiable, but isn't the proof in the pudding.
Strategy, experience, ability, weather, terrain, etc. all come into play, and on any given day, one individual, inexperienced person may be lucky enough to win in a confrontation.
Is a one blow kill always the case?
What about wearing an opponent down with non lethal blows? (armored or not)
I am still alive for now, I just am now a few steps slower.
Time may not allow me to wear an apparent down, though.
But what do real life statistics say?
I would rather be armed with an armor or weapon that gives me a better "chance" of winning/surviving to start with.
So what does real life results tell me?
sine i already know that a mace is more effective aganst plate armour sine its a ball of iron whith spikes but u can still use tour sword for stabing
Seen Todd's workshop "anti armor dagger"??
Do an armor really protect from a good dagger, that made specially to fight it ?
Link in commentary, if TH-cam didn't erase the message with link😅
th-cam.com/video/7iU3q23jGX0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=40TOsvo2z95MUbaI
I am sorry. Even I was impressed when I watched it for the first time last year, it is a cheap test and don't represent anything it's not hardened steel and it's not shapped like armor. It can only work if you have pretty much luck!
@@dequitem yes that's what I think when seen it.
The shape of the armor is made to make the dagger slide away, and the shape also make it way harder than a flat piece.
I saw other guys pretend that it's possible to pass throw the armor if you immobilize the ennemy, put the dagger on a pretty flat part or in an angle, and then hammer it with your gantless.
Hard to do, but may it can be a situationnal thing to do.
Sure the gap in armor are the best goal, but if the opponent is immobilize on the ground, maybe by hammering it with gantless it can be possible ?
There must be a reason people made heavier weapons, not just maces and warhammers.
My mains question is, are these maces and warhammers you used to practice at their normal weight or lighter? I know it's very common for competitions for it to be lighter. So I wonder if it's the same for you or if you can actually hit as hard as possible. I can see the swords have no edge for safety and I'm sure a sword is very effective, but there must be a reason weapons got heavier and longer with time.
Also, what are your thoughts on the best Two handed sword? Would a Zweihander be good for such fully armored combat? It feels too big and heavy to be used in such duels you do
Proper Zweihander technique involves keeping the weapon moving, using it's own momentum to stay in motion. Used like this it's a tiring weapon to use, but very fast and with massive range, which makes it incredibly dangerous in a duel. It's not meant to be used like a longsword, though like a longsword you can use it as a short spear.
High cost, high skill, and you need to be pretty strong and heavy of course, so it's an 'elite' weapon.
I remember the first time I discovered your channel, it was from a short and I thought, "What ? He just killed him with his dagger", then I saw it again and understood. A proof to say that the cinematography and technique displayed was good enough to get me, ahah
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
Please go to a PCA Presbyterian or OPC Presbyterian church, or maybe a Rpcna/Rpc Presbyterian church
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland, they are Presbyterian.
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
:)
You make some very good points. I personally feel a mace is only simpler to use in am armoured combat context because edge alignment for striking is not as imperative as it would be for someone using a sword to deliver sword blows to unarmoured battlefield combatants.
In a buhurt context, teaching someone good and sound sword technique definitely takes more effort than just providing someone a 6 flanged mace and allowing them to swing it.
With that being said, a mace in closer distance really helps to facilitate armoured grappling and increase leverage for throws which can lead to fight ending scenarios.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
Please go to a PCA Presbyterian or OPC Presbyterian church, or maybe a Rpcna/Rpc Presbyterian church
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland, they are Presbyterian.
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
:)
As a fellow armored combat fighter, I can clearly remember my surprise when getting struck by a mace for the first time - being not that painful. Yes our buhurt mace heads are capped at 1 lb or .45 kg under HMB and IMCF rules for safety, but in that moment I was surprised about all the "hype" going into them. Falchions and especially the common one handed axe leave marks on my armor and bruises on my flesh. Yet I find polearms are the true debilitating weapons. All weapon types in our sport have the potential to damage armor, but polearms can cause a fighter to be unable to continue after absorbing hits on their armor. In a sport that Matt Easton stated was "hardcore & brutal" the community within agrees that polearms are scary and the most dangerous. Even blunted they regularly damage collarbones, shoulders, and especially hands!
A surprising number of extant Renaissance short cavalry maces weigh 3.5-4lbs (overall weight). They got quite hefty. Some of them may have been ceremonial, but I doubt that's the full explanation.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 There is a very simple explanation for the popularity of maces among cavalrymen.
First. On a horse, the weight carried by the fighter is not so important and you can afford different types of weapons. A simple example. Cataphracts periodically used bows and darts.
Second. Cavalry usually fights on the move. The horse gallops without stopping. Piercing and slashing weapons may become stuck on the target. The mace won't get stuck.
Third. Maces and flails were actively used by nomads in raids to capture slaves. The Mongols from the Golden Horde especially stood out for this. Non-lethal use of blunt weapons.
Fourth. As was said in the video, the most vulnerable place is the head. On horseback you can very comfortably hit the infantrymen's heads with a mace. But all sorts of techniques with a sword will be much more difficult to arrange.
These statements are true for a short historical period. It is important that more or less all participants in the battle wore armor, which greatly reduced the effectiveness of slashing weapons. When armor became less common, sabers came into use.
I fully agree with your comment about pole arms. Used to "sword and board" it before retiring. Pole arms are very nasty when used by an experienced person.
I would definitely "nope" out to taking a hit from pretty much any part of a bec de corbin.
Unless I get close enough to you (mace range) so you can't use your pole arm effectively. Then you use it for blocking and I grab it with my other hand and guess what. Your pole is useless and we are locked together in mace range.
It wasn't duels that armored knights were designed for. The lack of lethality in 1vs1 combat on foot of a mace is totally irrelevant to most actual combat scenarios a historic knight would have found themselves in. It was the 2000 pound trained warhorse that was his main weapon after all. All the knight needed was a weapon to bash in heads from above as he plowed through, or knock an occasional opposing knight from his horse (that was all it usually took for them to surrender anyway). When on foot the goal was mostly to just get out, keeping lesser-armored opponents at bay, bash them mostly to the ground so they'd be trampled or mobbed in the crowded chaos. No knight in that situation was going to care much about aiming for weakpoints or lack of lethality against a fully armored enemy he wasn't likely to encounter on foot. Also a shield in that bad situation is much more useful than a twohanded weapon.
It was only when armored knights were deployed on foot that it was a different matter, but then they usually traded in for pole weapons, needing to do some actual killing now. The fights probably looked more similar to typical spear&shield infantry clashes and simply getting knocked down likely meant not getting back up again.
I don't think you ride a horse into groups of armed infantry other than in the movies. They're for chasing down fleeing opponents or clashing with other horse troops.
> It was the 2000 pound trained warhorse that was his main weapon after all
That's such a beautiful sentence that made everything click for me!
Funnily enough to strengthen your point about maces and heads, in Sweden around the 14th century, maces equipped with protrusions and flanges began to be referred as 'hjälmkrossare' or 'helmet-crushers' in period sources.
Interesting.
You are a real warrior.
When you talk about striking and hitting, about fights generally you have this instinctual smiling 😂
Born to fight.😏
It's good that you wearing a helmet in fights, so your opponent can't see your joy and get terrified about this insane dude 😂
😅 Indeed, most of the time I really smile under the helmet.
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.
Exactly! ❤️
In the middle of the 16th century, Juan Quijada de Reayo gave the following order of weapons for men-at-arms: lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, dagger. For whatever, he wrote to use the estoc & then arming sword before turning to the hammer.
I've seen a few contemporary historical illustrations of knights or armoured soldiers carrying both a sword and a mace on their belt. Would it actually be practical to carry both or would one of them get in the way?
I think it's a good idea, they not tend to swing in the way and hinder you.
IF i am not mistaken Burgundian sources of the equipment of Men at arms mention that the Man at arms must carry a pole arm, Longsword on one side and the mace or Warhammer on another
It was common in the 16th century for French men-at-arms to have lance, sword, & mace as weapons. Raimond de Fourquevaux mentioned this in his 1548 military treatise, though he didn't give any details about mace use, only that men-at-arms did use them.
Prepared for all situations!
@@vaderksy4730 You are mistaken, Burgundian ordinances require a long, two handed estoc girt and a knife ("cousteau", ie, a fauchion) tied to the saddle. The 1473 ordonnance is the only one that says to have a mace at the saddle (on the other side of the knife).
If you have time in the future can you do a comparison between a longsword and a pole arm like halberd for armored combat?
I will, I already have a script for that 😉.
@@dequitemyes! I cant wait.
Spoiler, the guy with the sword dies at the end ;)
@@CryptoC4T 🤔
Imma be honest i thought the idea of a mace being better against armor was absolute and accepted everywhere so im very surprised when i found out some experts say otherwise. Great knowledge!
It is better against armor. Brigantines and mail specifically
It is indeed better against armour BUT its effectiveness is not as high as we imagine.
I think a pretty simple way to put it is if against armor, a sword does 10 damage, a mace does 15 damage, but the problem is full plate has 1000 hp.
Its more effective but the armor is so tough anyway that it just doesnt matter, so in the end you have to rely on lucky critical hits
@chieckenman4432 It does matter. No matter how small the advantage or disadvantage, if you able to apply and accumulate enough, you could win or take down enemy whose you can't beat under normal circumstances. Outcome will be a lot different if we add other variables like terrain or weapon combination into the equation.
@@chengkuoklee5734 Sure, but now Swords actually have more advantages than we expect.
Excellent video. I wouldn’t mind more of these analytical types of videos
I always felt like the mace was really just a cheap, easy and simple sidearm. Not the best option, just the cheap one. Warhammers on the other hand are a lot more dangerous, their shape transfers a lot more.
Also, Buhurt maces are extremely light, many athletes have reported that, they are so light to not be dangerous, that they are only considered good for grappling.
But the weight is historical accurate 😅
I think this needs to be tested with ballistic dummies. Maces can be used as leverage to damage joints (assuming you get there..that's always a gamble). Hits against knees and wrists are awful to deal with and a mace is really good at applying that pressure.
I'd say always take a mace with you as a knight for fighting against foolish enemies, ransom keeps the beer flowing and armour oiled.
Absolutely great video. Really informative and perspective changing as a lover of medieval armoured combat. I look forward to learning more things on this channel!
Nikephoros in the 10th century prescribed maces, and lots of them, for his super heavy cavalry. Had to have something to recommend their use, albeit in the early medieval period
I always imagined the main use of the mace was from horseback, when surrounded by infantry or some scenario like that, when you can just reach down and start bashing heads, because that's all you can really reach anyway, and the mace is more effective vs helmets.
Exactly, this is the best option!
Yes but if we are talking about 15th c., then knights often fought dismounted.
@@swiatlowiekuiste depends on the region. I the holy roman empire knights stay in the sattel if possible.
Bertrandon de la Broquière wrote that he thought the cavalry maces he saw carried by Ottoman soldiers could knock someone out through a helmet if swung freely.
You have no reach with a mace with a horse. Very difficult to aim the horse. Also the horse may not want to go near somebody with a pitch fork. A lot of risk of being dismounted. The best option with a horse is the spear. You do not have to be super precise with the horse as you can compensate with the longer reach of the spear.
Ok, why poleaxes and simillar "hamer-like" poleaems exist, when do nothing to armor?
They do something. They can knock out or penetrat through helmets and pierce mail.
@@dequitem Thanks for respond :)
One Point that gets under the rug all the time is that not everyone had the money to buy a full armor. A mace seems a fine weapon Vs gambesons and chainmail, but only hurts a full plated warrior on the head.
Good video
Edit: as I talked about money it came into my mind that a mace is 100times cheaper to build than a sword. So it's a nice side weapon for a peasant militia spear line if the opponent got through the pointy ends.
Historical maces are often the same price like swords. A steel mace isn't a wooden club. Spear and Messer is the common combination.
@@dequitem oh okay,good to know.
Would love to see you do some live testing with Tod's Workshop, you both have very good analytical minds regarding medieval combat, and your real-world experience combined with his historical studies would make for some really interesting content
I really like this video. It calls back to why i like things Like MMA in the OneFC, but also the drawbacks of sports. The closer you get to the real thing the more myths you dispell.
A few things:
The type of mace being shown was required for heavy cavalry in places like the Byzantine Empire, but this is because they are effective against mail and linen armour, later maces developed to be more dangerous to plate, but were also less used, though ottoman heavy cavalry still carried them, as did the Polish and Russians.
Swords were good in duels, the context of battle however is significantly different, when knights were indeed on foot they could cooperate and act tactically. Once men at arms were common, armour developed and killing somewhat more excusable rather than overpowering an opponent men would work in teams, one man would hook the armoured man and try to topple him and the other would stand behind to defend his fellow or to step forward and wail on the toppled knight with a pole-axe or other piercing weapon.
Longswords were good in duels, notably juridical one's, and had symbolic purpose. One to one skill and luck played a greater part, and no one wanted to see a couple of retainers ruin the respect towards a duel by ganging up on the opponent or having him run down by a spontaneous knights on horseback.
How dangerous do you think blunt trauma from maces / axes / swords is when used against earlier body armor such as brigandine / lamellar / mail? Would body hits from maces or even swords be potentially lethal if these armors are not actually fully penetrated?
The idea of brigandine armor being earlier is a bit strange- it was contemporary with plate for the majority of it’s life, even though plate ended up being used after brigandine’s use came to an end, right?
Love your RBM mod for Bannerlord! Can't play without it ❤
@@TheBetterBleedingBladesTH-cam I think brigandine appeared with or as a variant of partial plate armor, while the armor in video is full plate or almost full plate. I specifically asked about brigandine because it is supposedly similiar in performance to decent lamellar armor but people are more likely to recognize brigandine than lamellar.
@@philozoraptor6808 In the sections where he fights his friend, though, most of his friends kit is brigandine- also interesting point. I think brigandine as I think of it comes into it’s own around the same time as solid plate is getting popular (latter half of the 14th century or so? I’m not entirely certain) but you’re probably right that stuff like coats of plates did come before full solid plate, but that depends on what you define as brigandine, and even then coat of plates and such started to come about around just barely earlier than plate, right?
With brigandine u more often become bruises in the shape of a single plate 😂 but u are fully protected against strikes. With realy bad luck 1% of the thrusts can penetrat between the plates, but normally it's safe.
Lamellar armor is a often not perfectly shaped and immobilize you more than full plate, but the combination of plates are sometimes wobbly and bruises happens more often.
Overall u are still safe enough in both armor types.
Mail works better than most people think and can protect you from most sword attacks. Late medival maces are a problem and can hurt and break bones, but only very heavy strikes. Mail and a small padding is more protective than many people think, and very flexible for movement. But u need small plates on shoulders, elbows...
Let’s create some proper content. Sit on your horse, you are after all a knight. Only the British, who were atrocious cavalry throughout mounted warfare, were fond of dismounting. After your lance is gone, try to draw and deploy that long sword against another mounted opponent while you have dismounts trying to pull you down. There’s no half sword and good luck 🍀 poking into a gap. But there at your pommel is a mace. You will strike anyone trying to pull you down on the head. When you are packed into a melee and your sword is completely useless that short range mace is banging away on head, shoulders, arm and hand of your mounted foe. Any good hit and there’s a loss of control. Two individuals in full armor on foot is not why you spend a small fortune to have a harness. You wear it to ride up in mass and bash infantry or prevent enemy heavy cavalry from bashing yours. A mace is very effective in the proper context.
Indeed that's the context we're a mace can work, but it doesn't work that good in foot combat. Non the less, most knights on horseback wear onehanded swords and there are many picturial sources of using the pommel as a mace from a horseback.
An EXCELLENT video!
You clearly have a lot of experience fighting in actual armor and your demonstration of how the mace strikes do nothing to the chest, shoulders and elbows.
Reach is a great advantage in all types of melee combat and the sword is extremely versatile on how it can be used to damage an opponent, armored or not.
@Dequitem I think you make a large number of excellent points concerning YOUR armor and those of the 15th Century (and later field plate) but remember that the battlefield encompassed a number of people with less training and much less armor coverage and poshness. Hardened armor was definitely a thing for the wealthy but for the average soldier, archer, or skirmisher not as much. I agree with you that a knight likely wouldn't choose a mace for combat but others might through lack of funding or training with a sword.
I just think this discussion could use a bit more specificity. Who is choosing the mace and why might they for fighting a foe in armor? What is the level of armor? That of a rich noblemen of the mid to late 15th Century? or that of a middling man-at-arms of the early to middle part of the 14th Century?
I agree with you that good armor makes a mace a suboptimal choice but against poor armor (unhardened, thinner, ill-fitting) it might be worth it.
I would consider it as an archer is my mates and I peppered the heck out of an armored gent with heavy arrows/quarrels and then when he was disoriented or injured (if we could), rush him with a number of peeps with bludgeoning weapons to keep the disorientation up and hopefully injure while others worked to hold the knight and others worked to get nasty pointy things into the gaps of the armor.
But most medival soldiers had plate armor it's a myth that a peasent was unarmored at all, a knight had to armor their soldiers and a citizen had to buy armor by himself if he wants his rights as a member of the city. It's not true that there were that many unarmored or people with only mail, yes there is a big difference between a trained knight and a soldier but peasents ar less como on the battlefield of the middelage. All that changes after the the 16th century. Most modern movies ly to u.
@@dequitem again, that's why I said we need to better define who the combatants are and the time period. I didn't ever say peasants. But I did differentiate between archers, skirmishers, and other not fully armored on the battlefield. I also made the distinction that not all plate was hardened or made well. That is why I think you need to better seat your argument in both time and circumstances.
I think your arguments are very good for your armor and similar mid 15th century and later hardened 3/4 harness to field plate. But I disagree with you about that being the only or the majority of the armor on the battlefield at that time.
Looking at the manuscript illustration and artwork or the time, it is still clear that there is a variety of armor and armor coverage among soldiers/man-at-arms/knights based on location, time period, and I would guess personal preference.
An excellent resource for thickness, hardess, and type of armor is "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" by Alan Williams. A point he makes is that until the 15th Century the majority of steel plate manufactured north of the Alps was not case hardened. Mr. Williams goes in depth using analysis of extant pieces discussing thickness and metallurgy by region. Great book.
Great video, I can tell you have respect for the man. Your response brought up many interesting points from the perspective of armoured fighting without any denigration of your opponent and friend. Very honourable, I dig your style.
hmm, buhurt falchions really shouldn't be judged as analogous here. rather notorious thick objects yeah?
I never assumed that Matt was talking about armored duels. It's about combat in war. The mace as a war weapon suffered greatly when the first real helmets were introduced during the Bronze Age, and it never really came back. But Matt's question why we see a seemingly increased appearance of knightly maces in the 14th and 15th c. AD is very justified, especially if you state that it was nearly useless/always the worse option. In my opinion it was the still best option (not a good option) for close quarter fighting on horseback where you cannot move a lot, wrestle or apply fancy tactics. I see the mace as a special weapon with restricted benefits for certain situations.
Indeed, it's for striking from a horseback, but it doesn't feel like Matt talked about that.
So if the head is the only viable target for the mace to hit, no wonder why it was used mostly on horseback, since from there heads are the parts that sticks up.
Playing "whack a mole" with a sword from horseback is maybe a bit more cluncky.
7:32 wtf are you talking about a slicing specific sword vs. a mace? your not doing noteworthy dmg with a falchion or katana for that matter bc thats what it is in design on purpose; you are also going to HEAVILY dmg the blade, 4-6 hits and your efficiency off the blade is crumbled and the extreme cutting ability will be noteworthy deminished... and again, a sword due to how the weight is distributed and the density of the point hitting, will not course nearly as much blunt trauma, which is what matters vs. plate armour, also vs. chain for that matter...
2 handed weapon should have almost always advantage against 1 handed weapon with speed and manuvers, but if you use mace try to push enemy to the ground and fight on the ground to get some advantage, when you fall flat on back with 2 handed sword, and and another guy is squash him with the weight of his body, and waking his head and arms with mace what gone to happend?
maybe the reason for using a mace in battle is the same as stated for usage in law enforcement. given people were religious in medival some of them might have just followed the 5th commandment "you shall not kill". while at the same time maybe get some ransome.
I am tired of the so-called exprests who claim that a good plate armor can be penetrated easliy with something that is not a musket) No, you can neither do it with a slander / klevets / warhammer not an arbalest / longbow.
Indeed and a sword can't do either, but every armor has gabs 😅 even their aren't much.
@@dequitem yep, totally agree with you, and you should aim your strikes there)
This is dumb, I've seen the maces used in sparing, they are nothing like historical blunt weapons, they are lighter, and concentrated the force over a much larger area.
To bring up another good point, warhammers (even 1-handed) are ENTIRELY banned in Buhurt. No weight restrictions, just banned. That says a lot about their effectiveness, even in one hand.
Yes they are effective in injure people, does that automatically means that they kill?
Ps. Sharp and pointy swords are banned too 😅😋
@@dequitem Combat is never necessarily about killing your opponent, but disabling his ability to fight. Any injury can be debilitating and effects differ from situation to situation. A broken collarbone, concussion, crushed knee or smashed elbow to name some such injuries will disable the person and make him ineffective in fighting back. From a modern perspective a rifle shot that wounds an enemy is as good as one that kills an enemy, since it is a casualty in any case.
One thing I wonder about is how rounded your mace is, would you be so keen to hit yourself with a pointy one like Matt has?
I'd imagine maces and axes would be one of the most effective weapons against chainmail and segmented armor.
Plate is very effective at dispersing and deflecting the energy of attack due to its rigidity. Because they're hard and often flat / angular, weapons are going to struggle to impart all of their energy without a perfectly spaced, timed, and angled attack. And the energy that is actually transfered is dispersed across one large piece of metal.
But with chainmail, it has neither the dispersion or deflecting effects of plate armor. Its primary protection comes almost purely from its hardness that stops it from being easily cut or stabbed through.
Im in no way shape or form educated on the subject. This is just what makes sense to me with my current understanding of armor.
Just wanted to say that I appreciate this kind of dialogue, we all benefit from it!
I am here from Mats channel and I really like your format, a politeness Dequitem. I am happy to subscribe.
Cool, thanks to Matt.
What steel is your armor made out of? Maybe back in the medieval period, armour was easier to dent overall because of worse steel
when using a sword
you can hold the sword by the blade
and use the pommel as a mace
Wish you luck on getting tik tok to ban the guy re-uploading your vids
They don't answer at all!
You make some questionable declarative statements, like at 12:38, discussing poleaxes, you declare that only hits to the head can be lethal to an opponent in plate armour.
The neck has multiple vital structures right below the skin. You have arteries running close to the surface at every joint. None protected by bone.
A hit to the head in a helmet is in no reasonable way more lethal, as death would require the breaking of the skull.
A blow that can defeat the helmet, break the skull and then cause intracranial hemorrhage could also injure all the arteries or airways which are not protected by any bones.
Good point, I count the neck to the head 😅
Isnt one of the main reasons maces were used a lot also that they were simply cheaper and easier to make than swords?
Not realy, there are better weapons in the same spectrum of costs. Also maces were never used that much.
Thank you for this very insightful video!
I wonder if maces were often used to defeat mail, rather than plate armor? While a sword can pierce mail, doing so requires a fairly stiff, pointy sword, and won't always result in much penetration. A mace blow would transmit much more effectively through mail, possibly allowing for incapacitating body and limb blows, with the added benefit of keeping the enemy alive.
That head shot with the mace after talking about when its lethal :S Damn. Hard to unring that bell hahaha
Both according to records can get through armor. But the mace can be used for nonlethal stun.
On battlefield a mace and shield is better, but for duels I prefer longswords.
I love this, it's like theory + practice, and a whole lot to learn.
you brought up a lot of good points in this video! I do have one question though. It appears that the most dangerous area of the sword is the tip, to thrust into gaps and penetrate mail. Many poleaxes had a thrusting point on both front and back ends of the weapon. Couldn't that be used to similar effectiveness to a sword while keeping your options open with the blunt hammer and extra reach?
Of course but it's easier to grab the poleaxe. A Blade can protect the swordsman from getting pinned in grappling.
My impression was that in the context of getting a knight for ransom, its much easier to incapacitate without killing when you hit him with a mace compared to hitting him with a sword.
Absolutely, that's the most interesting part.