Nathan Holstrom It would be trivial to design a hammer with a pommel on the haft. You could end your foe rightly, with the added bonus that even a very heavy hammer would be unlikely to slip from your grasp.
Crushing damage to the helmet will kill anybody and your chances are best with low power and low weight behind the strike. Heavy swords also crush helmets and the brains beneath it. I would cheat and pull out my pistol or submachine gun and turn them into swiss cheese. Guns trump swords and hammers.
Hello. We used a war hammer at our cutting party to see what it would do in comparison to swords of different types. We had quite a shock. The spike went very deeply into wooden targets, requiring a ton of leverage to pull out. We attacked a beer cooler with it (lol) and whilst on the surface, the hammer simply put a dimple into it, we were surprised when we opened the cooler to find the shock had blown the inside shell of the cooler to shards. I can assume that a hit on the armoured head with anything similar would send an earthquake through the brain and rip it up. Very very nasty weapon. Leaves invisible damage deep inside the targets.
Handgun tiny bullets are notoriously ineffective at killing because shots into soft tissue impart smallish tissue stretch or cavitation effects well within the human body's capacity for recovery. Elasticity kicks in and brings most of the flesh back into position quite readily, and the actually significant part of the wound is usually very small. But when you move up to the mass of the head of these weapons, the shock impact causes vibration and shockwaves that expand beyond the flesh's ability to rebound and recover. Their impact deforms flesh to a greater degree than the plastic (deformative) potential of the soft tissue of the human body. These smack so hard that the expanding pressurized fluidic flesh simply has to find a relief valve somewhere. It turns to goo and flows away from the point of impact forthwith through whichever path may be found. As my boys Slade once said, "Run, runaway! Run runaway! Run runaway!" And when there has been that degree of traumatic release of pulverized tissue out the backside, there is simply less flesh left remaining for the body's elastic properties to rebound and reform back into the original shape and size. And generally speaking, this is why hunters generally prefer to use heavier, more massive bullets than those typically found in defensive handguns. Mass makes bigger impacts and wounds.
In fantasy games warhammers are generally used against oversized opponents as well. You are speaking about worlds where armoured and armed gorilla is considered "small" enemy.
There was a post on the ARMA forums years back that was allegedly a bit translated from an Egyptian text that dealt with mace use. Here's the whole thing, just slightly reformatted: THE FIFTH LESSON ON THE USE OF THE MACE In this lesson there are many useful points which are not found elsewhere, and there are also questions and answers. The man who uses a mace does not have to fear it breaking or becoming blunt, as in the case of the sword. He can strike with it as and where he likes, as he can with stones or pieces of wood or iron and so forth, unlike in the use of other weapons. Question: Where is the mace carried on the saddle? Answer: On the right side. Horsemen of old used to put it on the left of the saddle, but the right is better. Question: How does the mace-bearer strike a blow with his mace? Answer: He strikes a sideways blow with it so that it does not slip from his hand and injure either his mount or himself. Question: Where should he strike his enemy with his mace? Answer: He should strike a man on his nose. If he is unable to do this then he should strike the forehead. If this is impossible, then on his right upper arm if he is on the right side, or his left upper arm if he is on the left. Alternatively, he should strike the front of his horse's head, on the forelock, or if that is impossible on the front of one of its shoulders. Question: What does the mace-bearer do when he meets the bearer of any other weapons? Answer: He can breal lances, swords, bows, or shields. He can smash helmets, forearms, thighs, and trunks, and he can shatter bones. He can also throw his mace at the horseman or his horse, or at the footsoldiers. Or he can do whatever occurs to him. Question: Where does the horseman hold his mace when he has withdrawn it from its suspensory strap before an encounter? Answer: He holds it between his hands on the saddle, in the centre part of the saddle between himself and the pommel. Question: How should the footsoldier hold his mace in an encounter? Answer: He should lay it on his left forearm gripping it with his right hand and with his shield in his left hand, in the same way as a sword. Question: When is it appropriate for the footsoldier to hold his mace vertical? Answer: He should hold it thus (Note 1), as we mentioned concerning the sword, on passing between ranks of troops and in the presence of kings and sultans. Question: How should the mace be thrown? Answer: The mace-bearer should take hold of it at the grip withthe head of the mace held away from the body and lift the hand until it is level with the shoulder. Then he should stretch out his hand to full extent so that the weight (Note 2) of his mace may have more effect. Question: How heavy should a mace be? Answer: Its weight should not be beyond the strength of the man carrying it so that he can weild it effectively. I have heard it said by friends who fought in campaigns against against the Unbelievers that a mace should weigh 150 dirhams (Note 3). That is a good weight; a mace may be less than that but not more. Note 1 There is a further word in the text apparently describing how the mace is held, in addition to 'vertical'. It is from the same root as 'passing' in the next line, but its exact sense in this context is obscure. Note 2 This is the apparent sense of the word given in the text which literally means 'mercy' and which I assume to be a miscopy (not uncommon in this Ms). Note 3 In modern Egypt a dirham is about 3.12 grams. For twelfth century Syria it was apparently about 3.14 grams (see W. Hinz: Islamische Masse und Gewichte, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden 1955). 150 dirhams would thus equate to about 470 grams.
Great stuff! I've never seen this tralsation before, but I guess it is from the 14th century Mamluk furusiyya (there are different versions in the British Library and Bibliotheque National de France)?
"A person may use such force as is [objectively] reasonable in the circumstances as he [subjectively] believes them to be." So it depends. It's not a bad law really.
@@patrickuk9784 Some guy used a 18th century cavalry saber to defend himself, when a drugged out psycho busted down his door. The police confiscated his sword, called it a katana, and told him he should have had a stronger door.
Really enjoyed these videos. But yes, the main significant difference between the weapons is that the mace was more expensive to make (used more metal, more complicated design) and was intended specifically for bashing in plate. The difference between them is really as simple as that. It was a good weapon for young, horse-mounted, plate-armored noblemen, especially in the 15th century when they weren't quite as disciplined about swordsmanship or lances. By the 15th century, warfare was increasingly dominated by 'middle class' professionals. I'm glad he touched on the more indiscriminate nature of aiming it, too. The warhammer was never really associated with the nobility, whereas the mace was, and it continued as a symbol of authority, such as the mayoral mace, or scepter for quite some time.
I'm always impressed with the science that goes into antique weapons and armor. Every little bit of a weapon seems to have ingenious purpose and function.
Every single innovation in war was made in direct response to other innovations in war... which interestingly occasionally causes warfare to be circular (over large periods of time).
How about cost? It would seem to me a mace, with is metal shaft would have been far more expensive to make that a warhammer. Aside from the skill required to forge one, it just seems to be much more metal.
One can make metal shaft warhammers, and also wooden shaft maces... maybe there's some tendencies in terms of which variants were more common, but I'd not focus on the shaft part for finding differences really.
scholagladiatoria Why do you think the handle of most Western European one handed percussion weapons were so short? I imagine if they were primarily horseman's weapons than having some extra reach was beneficial. The Eastern European warhammers (czekan, obuch, nadziak) often had much longer shaft on the order of 30" or so, and Eastern European warfare were definitely horse-centric.
John Huang Probably because heavier armour was used in the West, which means fighting at much closer range and weight being more important than reach sometimes.
scholagladiatoria Whilst a longer weapon is great for the hit and run tactic horseman should use a short length would be ideal if you had someone trying to pull you off your horse, a quick crack over the top of the skull would dissuade most people from continuing such an action.
How were they used ? hmm , i think you would grab it by the handle and then you would use it to beat the shit out of the enemy . But thats just my guess.
HamsterPants522 I'm starting a club called _Game_ and everyone's invited if they pay the cover charge. We'll ever offer sippy-cup service (fuck bottles).
I imagine these weapons were also good for situations were weapons needed to be made quickly or in a village with an unskilled smith. Not the flanged or elaborate mace, but a basic mace could be forged much more easily than a sword or axe. No edges to hammer, craft or sharpen and a very very basic shape. I imagine of all the martial weapons you could produce a warhammer/mace in its unornate form the cheapest and quickest
I wonder if the hammer offfers a slight bit more striking power due to its design. The entire mass of the head is in a straight line column with the striking surface, unlike the mace which is spread out. It just seems like this would bring more force down on one point with the hammer than with the mace.
If I'm not mistaken, I've been told that police in the middle ages often had maces instead of swords because they were less lethal. Not sure if it was this type of mace necessarily, but I can't imagine the type of mace in this video killing people as easily as a warhammer, that's for sure.
There were also totally round maces with no flanges or spikes. They were essentially clubs made out of metal. I believe preists were also fond of carrying maces for self defense as a mace could bludgeon someone without drawing blood, allowing them to technically abide by their vow of pacifism.
Fragrahamlincon That's just a myth. There's no real source to back that old story up; it's just another case of "people from long ago sure were stupid; huh?". It's as silly as believing knights would need a crane to get on their horse. I mean come on do you really think that a blunt mace wouldn't draw blood? Regardless it's still pretty obviously against their religion to be acting in violence blood or no blood.
TomatoHouses Yes... No acting in violence... Please remind me, what started the Thirty Years War? What happened to Joan of Arc? Or anyone else who disagreed with their teachings?
There's a particular fragment of the Bayeux Tapestry, one that's shown quite often, where a mace can be seen flying towards the general direction of their enemy. So that was either an early way of ending someone rightly, or, a display of the fact that it was just some heavy thing likely to hit with the head when thrown. I have to add that as far as I remember, Bishop Odo is the only character seen wielding a mace, due to the non-blood spilling mantra and etc, and the "flying mace" looks suspiciously resemblant to Bishop Odo's. But, then again, I'm talking about the Bayeux tapestry, where everyone's suspiciously resemblant to whoever's standing right next to them - haha! Cheers and thanks for the video :-) Ps- I'd go with the mace, 'cause some fights tend to last too long, and as you get tired, having to make sure you're hitting with the right part begins to become harder and harder.
I will have to go with mace. Becuase when you think about it, having the ability to strike the target/enemy and srill forfill the same porpuse as a hammer. I also must say, that the mace in my opinion looks a lot cooler. It looks more "made to battle" you know! :D
I absolutely love that for all Matt goes on about using these weapons for complex strike, binds, and grappling, when you watch him and his mates actually do any sparring, they do just twat each other with them.
The warhammer and mace are both designed as anti-armor weapons, but the way they defeat an opponent in armor is a bit different. The best explanation I heard was an analogy to two different types of modern anti-tank cannon shells. The mace is basically a HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) shell, which kills by using shock wave and spalling created by explosive energy on an armor target. The war hammer is basically an APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) round, which kills by narrowly focusing brute force on a sharp object to penetrate an armor target.
never underestimate a standard framing hammer for home defense. Come to think of it, if I lived in Britain, I would have many many hammers... I might carry one in my tool belt, and wear the tool belt daily.
When it comes to large zombie hordes, you need to start thinking about repetitive stress injuries. Hammer enough zombies and your elbow will start to deteriorate pretty fast, be it tennis elbow or golfers elbow. Better to have a two-handed weapon to spread the work out across more muscle groups. I'd go with either an axe, or better yet, a broad-headed spear. Spear lets you work in corridors where you can't swing, and it gives you distance between yourself and the biohazard.
To me, this "Mace vs. Warhammer" debate strikes me as a combination of two things: Theorycrafting: Men-at-arms of the medieval world undoubtedly argued over near-trivialities the same way that people do today. Anyone familiar with AR-15-type rifles will be familiar with the "Direct-Impingement vs. Gas-Piston" debate over which type of gas-operated action is superior. Although each has its pros and cons, they are close enough to each other in real performance and reliability that it's really a matter of personal preference to everyone except those who operate at the highest levels of rigor, where tiny differences can have huge consequences. That does not, however, stop everyone else, including those who don't use these things for their livelihoods (perhaps especially those people?) from having the most acrimonious debates, wherein one of these two actions is asserted to be irredeemably flawed and therefore less than worthless, and the other held up as just slightly less worthy than God's wet bollocks. If we assume that people will be people, no matter time or place, then there's no reason to believe this phenomenon didn't occur between medieval men-at-arms. Imagine the arguments in the Great Hall on the Feast of Michaelmas. Cost: Regardless of their respective merits as weapons, the mace looks like it cost a hell of a lot more to make, and very conspicuously so. A man-at-arms showing up on the battlefield with a mace probably projected an image of conspicuous wealth. Given the practice of ransoming captured knights, such a projection of conspicuous wealth may well have been an important piece of life insurance for those who could afford it. The warhammer was undoubtedly a more modestly-priced weapon, perhaps used by men-at-arms of more modest means, as well as (perhaps) by afficionadoes who insisted it was the superior weapon, despite being able to afford a mace. ;)
Longbow men threw down their bows at agincourt and other battles and picked up their war hammers .....these barrel chested supermen then butchered the heavily armoured Knights ......
Curious where you read about longbowmen using War hammers. I've only read the Cornwell books, but they all seem to indicate short swords and daggers we're carried by longbowmen?
Which ever is cheaper cause as a rookie adventurer I have a low budget and no combat training (reason why I use a strap on shield and cheap quilted armor).
good video, maybe i missed it but you didnt talk about the wooden vs metal shaft? One thing that concerns me about the war hammer is if the wood is going to break easily in combat.
hi nice video just little info about mace Jan Žižka around 1400 was using mace lot. you are right it's horseman weapon using against enemies foot soldiers helmets in high speed ride through or retreating enemies so must be short and fast with fast retrieve and rider concentrated on hitting helmets not position of edge
Do you mean a flail (ball and chain attached to a stick?) A morningstar is simply a mace with a round iron or steel head with spikes on it. Other than that it isn't much different than the flanged mace featured in this video.
Just a little wrinkle on your great points - I think both these weapons were used by armored horsemen specifically against *other armored horsemen*. They seem too short to be any use against foes on foot (who would likely have a polearm of some type anyway). Cavaly sabers are longer than infantry versions because of this. On the other hand, maybe it would be useful to bash infantry in their helmets. Another interesting tidbit is that the flanged mace was introduced much earlier than the warhammer and the warhammer seems to have lasted well into the renaissance period whilst the mace became a work of art as opposed to a real weapon. That suggests to me that the hammer has specific properties that make it better against plate. The business end of a warhammer was typically hardened to compete with hardened plate, was it not?
I had the same ideas as you have. I actually asked myself why this weapons were so short, if mainly used by horsemen. But I don't know if this horsemen against horsemen theory works out. Only in very close melee they would be close enough to hit or get hit with it. While passing each other it would be pretty hard to hit the enemy horseman I think. But what do I know? I can't even ride at full gallope ;)
Hinterfragen! Talhoffer IIRC shows some horseman v. horseman grappling so I would surmise that sustained close combat (ie not on a pass) between horsemen is not uncommon. If you get 'stuck in' you'd want something like a mace or hammer. Another possible use for a hammer that Matt didn't mention is hooking the reins. Riding away while holding your opponents reins is also in Talhoffer and that is a nasty thing to do to both horse and rider.
From what I know these tend to be secondary weapons after the lance, and high ranking guys don't want to fight a mob of peasants but other high ranking guys.
Actually warhammers of various sorts have existed back into the Classical era - just as maces of various sorts. I'm not sure we could say one is older than the other - a stone 'axe' on a stick is sort of half way between the two....
Also, FYI, medieval art and at least one treatise (Talhoffer 1459) shows these short warhammers and maces also used on foot. The fact is that whatever you design a weapon for, it will end up getting used in all sorts of ways. In WW1 there was an Australian cavalry charge using only bayonets, because they didn't have their swords issued yet!
I was paying attention to the BBC articles from when they found the remains of Richard the 3rd and looking at the diagonal hole in his skull I thought someone had brought him down as he was trying to flee, hooked his helmet off with a war hammer and then stuck it though his skull. I don't agree with all the academics saying a spear killed him.
try sewing someone up with a straight needle,, not easy,, same thing goes with penetrating armour with a hammer,, it doesnt matter so much for swords cus theyre longer and have more force behind them when u thrust and u thrust straight not in an arc as SG said above =)
Great video explaining the differences between the two. But I am surprised there was no mention, that the War Hammer with its wooden handle would not reverberate as much as the metal handle on the Mace would from an impact? Essentially sending tremors up you arm into your hand when struck, that would feel like electric pulses. I am certain though in the heat of battle with all the adrenaline pumping, that a Warrior wouldn't notice until the battle was over and the smoke had cleared.
This is such a stupid comparison. It's obviously about whether you have a higher level in one-handed or two-handed and then perks come into play as well.
I'd imagine the main deciding factor between mace or hammer would be ease of use/skill/style/enemy really. A mace can be swung from any direction and the head will strike properly. A hammer's focus needs to be slightly more accurate to get the head or spike/beak on target. I know that when I was working construction it was easy to miss with the head of a carpentry hammer if your hand was sweaty, you were tired, slipped grip, etc. With gauntlets on perhaps you feel even less confident in your ability to have that "accuracy" and therefore choose the mace for it's simplicity? Just a thought.
I absolutely LOVED using a warhammer, and even more so a pole hammer, when fighting in an SCA context. Both are very versatile weapons, and their use in that game is a lot closer to realistic than SCA swords are. (The Polehammer is downright BRUTAL.)
I have seen alot of Crusader pictures with a knight using a mace in battles. It would be interesting to an actual impact power measurement on a target with both these weapons as well as a axe. These weapons could literally knock a armored man of his horse or break arms and legs. The Mace is kindof a one hitter quitter weapon in the right hands.
I just started watching your videos and I was expecting some bone head winging around weapons with no idea what he is doing but you are not only good with a sword but you have knowledge about them.
Do you know the names of maces used in the 12th,13th,and 14th Centuries. Im talking about regular maces With spikes,ridged,or knobbed heads not flanged maces. Like the ones tod has for sale. Im thinking of writing a book from a half finished idea in the back of my brain. Of a Mercenary who reluctantly becomes Crusader in a realistic fantasy setting mixed between 1350 and 1400. Or a book about a Veteran Spearman set in the same universe. Any help would be appreciated.
I'm a copper smith by trade, wielding hammer for decades. I believe that warhammer should have thicker handle or ball at the end. When you swing, the centrifugal force pulls it out of your hand, thicker end helps it "wedge" into your hand. The mace has it. It would also balance the weapon, so you can swing it easier. If you'd have chain mail glove and/or sweaty palms when you fight for life, it would fly off your hand. 4lbs mace can bend 5/8" iron in just a couple of swings.
You wouldn't really want maces or hammers to be counterweighted. That'd nullify their whole point, which is to carry all of their weight and momentum into the point of impact.
It's a joke. From a book - one of those papery-pagey-things. A book you obviously don't know, so I'm not going to explain it and all of its context here. Google it.
You forgot to talk about their effectiveness against un/lightly armored opponents. I think the flanged mace would be better against them because the flanges look more damaging (impact being equal) and it's ability to attack from any angle or direction at any time would help against more nimble and mobile opponents perhaps using swords or having great reach advantage with spears. The warhammer can hook though, like an axe, but not as good.
Surely though the mace has an advantage over the warhammer. In that it has a metal handle, rather than wood. Be pretty easy for an enemy to break a wooden handle in battle surely?
+Douglas Campbell You would be more likely to break the handle with a very hard hit than your enemy breaking it. Have you ever thried to break a hammer handle? It is pretty damn hard unless it is rotten.
If going against a guy in full plate I think the hammer would be the way to go. The various points of the mace I think won't be as good at transferring the energy of a blow the same way a hammer does. The hammer directs all the energy of the swing onto a single point. The mace (at least the design of this one) is likely to hit and roll a little bit, so the impact gets staggered and delayed slightly between at least two of the mace's flanges. The mace though would be great against some poor sap in light armor or unarmored. Though the hammer would be pretty much equally good versus light armor by flipping to the pick side.
Most types of wood won't be broken in the same way you see in movies. Making the handle out of a metal also adds weight to an already very heavy weapon for no good reason as you don't want to parry with these one handed hammers as there's no crossguard or any other form of protection against the blade sliding down. You could deflect strikes with it but because of how the balance is in the head your ability to then bring it back before your opponent can get a strike in is probably close to nil. On top of that, these weapons were almost always paired with shields or bucklers as they're battlefield weapons so there's no reason to parry with them..
Rutger Traa - That may very well be true, your name sounds very Dutch so I suppose we'll take your word for it. Nevertheless, in English the term is more specific. I wonder, though, if the Dutch don't also have a way to differentiate between them? They were different weapons, and were employed differently, so one must assume they didn't call them the same thing. Wouldn't that have lead to confusion? It could be that some Dutch people erroneously call pole hammers war hammers, just like some people erroneously do in English as well. That could explain it.
these vids are really good. and they would be so much better if you edited pictures of the paintings and treatises you were referring too. just a thought not a criticism.
I wanted to add that warhammers, maces, flails, and the like blunt weapons also had the hidden feature of warping armor. The utility of this is apparent when you think of how plate armor bent inwards would rip and tear at skin and if it had already puntured flesh into a craterous wound, it would continuously cause brusing and bleeding; widening the original would more and more as the fight carries on. These weapons were more about pain and maiming leading up to death rather that immediate, one hit killing blows.
Imo, depends on skill of the wielder. Hammer only have 2 side, hammer and spike. While mace, you can hold mace without worrying about side. Mace have 360° side. Hammer need more skill, especially if you learn to use hammer, by holding the metal (blunt side near thumb, spike near little finger). You can align the handle to your forearms or the opposite. I leave it to you to make another video about using hammer this way. 😁
Why would you ever use it that way? It's much more uncomfortable, maybe not even possible with gauntlets, and now you have the benefit of hitting with the stick end.
@@mrkiky You notice stick use by policeman? It's almost the same. The knowhow is from China martial art. Offcourse you can tailored that hammer to make it suitable. Or better yet, design it yourself.
@@budisutanto5987 Yes but policemen don't fight people in armor, they use it for crowd control or to force someone to comply. Besides, the hammer head isn't really comfortable enough to use as a tonfa handle. It's square and too short. And the balance is completely different too, I mean just try using a regular hammer like a tonfa, it doesn't really work.
@@budisutanto5987 Yes, I was just saying that a regular hammer is pretty similar in that regard. The head is of roughly the same length, same weight and also square. Also very awkward to use as a handle.
Nice, I will have one of each thanks. I think the reality is it would depend on where you lived, the martial culture of that location and to some extent personal preference as to which you would have used during the 15-16th Centuries. From my limited research the hammer seemed to be favoured by the English, with the Mace being more German. The two used in this clip seem to bear resemblances to the English warhammer and German mace. I am surprised that they are shorter than a messer however, I had expected them to be about the same size of approxiamately 30 inches.
I noticed you mentioned the fact that these weapons were used by mounted troops, but failed to talk about them being used from horseback. This is how I speculate they were most commonly used, as a backup weapon after a knight lost his lance against infantry. A blow from a mace or Warhammer delivered by a knight on horseback at full gallop against a man on the ground would have been absolutely devastating.
Maybe but it doesn't fit well with the fact that they were anti-armor weapons. At some point you'd be fighting a knight with it, not necessarily on horseback. Beside if you look at the warhammer, it's a very rudimentary weapon. It's just a fancy hammer head on a stick. Any blacksmith could make it, and it doesn't require super high quality materials and fancy heat treatment either. I wouldn't be surprised if they were used by "low budget" troops against "high budget" troops as well. Especially the two handed version. Ganging up on a dismounted knight to concuss him, hook him , hit his legs so you can capture him alive, I could see that happening.
They certainly would. Not to knock Matt, but that mace looks less than functionak. Historical maces had significantly thicker flanges from what I have seen. Example: www.historica-arma.com/historical-arms/edged-weapons/mace/ Now THAT looks like something you can bash a metal plate with.
I may be revealing my great age but I remember distinctly the use of Mace, Mace and Chain, and a war Ax in the fifties MGM film 'Ivanhoe'. The judge of the duel keeps saying that the combatants must avoid hitting their opponents horse. If they do then the archers will shoot them. Is that historically accurate? Little Robert Taylor and much bigger George Sanders beat on each other enthusiastically. But their shields are made of sheet steel and get all twisted up. That part I'm pretty sure was bogus.
Cool video. Ive read that spear/pikemen were known to carry a mace. It makes sense to me as any weapon you can grab quickly for close quarters and does not require you to index an edge/point is an advantage.
I wonder Matt if you could do a video on mace heads. There seems to have been a lot of different types and I would be curious to know if they were many regional variances or that they were meant to better deal with different conditions based on the time and place.
I'm so glad I live in the era of modern warfare. I'd rather be blown to bits by a missile or headshot by a sniper than be beat to death by another man with a blunt weapon!
Oh we're more creative than that. You can have your limbs blown off by landmines, get shredded by claymore mines, get internal burns from mustard gas, or get blown apart by artillery and/or cluster bombs and a whole host of other nasty stuff. Of course, you might get unlucky and just almost die. At least they make pretty reasonably priced prosthetics nowadays. If you get chemical burns in your lungs though, you're SOL as far as I know.
Cool. Good job bro. In the end you described all the other stuff each 'tool' can be used for. I like that cuz that's what I was thinking about the whole time.
I'm curious and hopefully someone can answer; how often were fully armoured knights REALLY facing off? I dont feel like it'd be terribly economic to field a knight - it seems like it'd be awfully expensive and would therefor be excluded to being bodyguards or a small set of shock troops. There couldn't be more than a couple "Knights" on a battlefield - and I wouldn't expect anyone but an officer to be able to afford such plate. I think THAT'S probably why there isn't much info on maces/warhammers in combat, there just doesn't seem to be much need.
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a helmet.
+Jonathan Hughes LOL!
lol
Nathan Holstrom It would be trivial to design a hammer with a pommel on the haft. You could end your foe rightly, with the added bonus that even a very heavy hammer would be unlikely to slip from your grasp.
+Jonathan Hughes good initiative, if only the historical smiths would've seen this.
Crushing damage to the helmet will kill anybody and your chances are best with low power and low weight behind the strike. Heavy swords also crush helmets and the brains beneath it. I would cheat and pull out my pistol or submachine gun and turn them into swiss cheese. Guns trump swords and hammers.
Warhammers are okay, but I know something that's 40 000 times better.
Space marine bolters!
A POMMLE!!!
Why, the mighty Thunder Hammer of course Brother!
StraightOuttaJarhois I saw what you did there.
TAP wins every time over everything
You should have smashed some watermelons, it would've made the video better-
Sincerely,
Gallager
Damn, I miss you
Warhammer instruction manual:
*Hold stick. Hit guy.
Mace instruction manual:
*Hold stick. Hit guy.
Bash them with the heavy end.
just beat the crap out if them
All your fancy sword techniques and heavy armor can't save you from this heavy stick
*Hold stick. Hit guy. Repeat as necessary.
*Hold stick. Hit guy.
*HARD
Hello. We used a war hammer at our cutting party to see what it would do in comparison to swords of different types. We had quite a shock. The spike went very deeply into wooden targets, requiring a ton of leverage to pull out. We attacked a beer cooler with it (lol) and whilst on the surface, the hammer simply put a dimple into it, we were surprised when we opened the cooler to find the shock had blown the inside shell of the cooler to shards. I can assume that a hit on the armoured head with anything similar would send an earthquake through the brain and rip it up. Very very nasty weapon. Leaves invisible damage deep inside the targets.
The "beauty" of blunt force trauma!
Handgun tiny bullets are notoriously ineffective at killing because shots into soft tissue impart smallish tissue stretch or cavitation effects well within the human body's capacity for recovery. Elasticity kicks in and brings most of the flesh back into position quite readily, and the actually significant part of the wound is usually very small.
But when you move up to the mass of the head of these weapons, the shock impact causes vibration and shockwaves that expand beyond the flesh's ability to rebound and recover. Their impact deforms flesh to a greater degree than the plastic (deformative) potential of the soft tissue of the human body. These smack so hard that the expanding pressurized fluidic flesh simply has to find a relief valve somewhere. It turns to goo and flows away from the point of impact forthwith through whichever path may be found.
As my boys Slade once said,
"Run, runaway! Run runaway! Run runaway!"
And when there has been that degree of traumatic release of pulverized tissue out the backside, there is simply less flesh left remaining for the body's elastic properties to rebound and reform back into the original shape and size.
And generally speaking, this is why hunters generally prefer to use heavier, more massive bullets than those typically found in defensive handguns. Mass makes bigger impacts and wounds.
Texas BEAST, back and to the left...
Cavitation it’s what’s makes a big shotgun slug so formidable
frank datank, do you mean a rifle? Shotgun shells are filled with shot. Does the shot produce cavitation?
Am i only one who thinks those realistically small warhammers and maces look *deadlier* than their over sized stupid fantasy versions?
like how a scaple can be more intimidating than a carving knife i spose =)
The heavy heads of fantasy ones would do much more damage, but no person could swing it with any sort of agility or for any extended period of time.
Yep, you're the only one.
They may not be as efficient or useful, but large maces and warhammers look a lot deadlier.
In fantasy games warhammers are generally used against oversized opponents as well. You are speaking about worlds where armoured and armed gorilla is considered "small" enemy.
There was a post on the ARMA forums years back that was allegedly a bit translated from an Egyptian text that dealt with mace use.
Here's the whole thing, just slightly reformatted:
THE FIFTH LESSON ON THE USE OF THE MACE
In this lesson there are many useful points which are not found elsewhere, and there are also questions and answers.
The man who uses a mace does not have to fear it breaking or becoming blunt, as in the case of the sword. He can strike with it as and where he likes, as he can with stones or pieces of wood or iron and so forth, unlike in the use of other weapons.
Question: Where is the mace carried on the saddle?
Answer: On the right side. Horsemen of old used to put it on the left of the saddle, but the right is better.
Question: How does the mace-bearer strike a blow with his mace?
Answer: He strikes a sideways blow with it so that it does not slip from his hand and injure either his mount or himself.
Question: Where should he strike his enemy with his mace?
Answer: He should strike a man on his nose. If he is unable to do this then he should strike the forehead. If this is impossible, then on his right upper arm if he
is on the right side, or his left upper arm if he is on the left. Alternatively, he should strike the front of his horse's head, on the forelock, or if that is impossible on the front of one of its shoulders.
Question: What does the mace-bearer do when he meets the bearer of any other weapons?
Answer: He can breal lances, swords, bows, or shields. He can smash helmets, forearms, thighs, and trunks, and he can shatter bones. He can also throw his mace at the horseman or his horse, or at the footsoldiers. Or he can do whatever occurs to him.
Question: Where does the horseman hold his mace when he has withdrawn it from its suspensory strap before an encounter?
Answer: He holds it between his hands on the saddle, in the centre part of the saddle between himself and the pommel.
Question: How should the footsoldier hold his mace in an encounter?
Answer: He should lay it on his left forearm gripping it with his right hand and with his shield in his left hand, in the same way as a sword.
Question: When is it appropriate for the footsoldier to hold his mace vertical?
Answer: He should hold it thus (Note 1), as we mentioned concerning the sword, on passing between ranks of troops and in the presence of kings and sultans.
Question: How should the mace be thrown?
Answer: The mace-bearer should take hold of it at the grip withthe head of the mace held away from the body and lift the hand until it is level with the shoulder. Then he should stretch out his hand to full extent so that the weight (Note 2) of his mace may have more effect.
Question: How heavy should a mace be?
Answer: Its weight should not be beyond the strength of the man carrying it so that he can weild it effectively. I have heard it said by friends who fought in campaigns against against the Unbelievers that a mace should weigh 150 dirhams (Note 3). That is a good weight; a mace may be less than that but not more.
Note 1
There is a further word in the text apparently describing how the mace is held, in addition to 'vertical'. It is from the same root as 'passing' in the next line, but its exact sense in this context is obscure.
Note 2
This is the apparent sense of the word given in the text which literally means 'mercy' and which I assume to be a miscopy (not uncommon in this Ms).
Note 3
In modern Egypt a dirham is about 3.12 grams. For twelfth century Syria it was apparently about 3.14 grams (see W. Hinz: Islamische Masse und Gewichte, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden 1955). 150 dirhams would thus equate to about 470 grams.
Great stuff! I've never seen this tralsation before, but I guess it is from the 14th century Mamluk furusiyya (there are different versions in the British Library and Bibliotheque National de France)?
That comes to 1 lb or just under half a kilo. Seems a bit light...
mrspeigle: a mace is front heavy. half a kilo of a hammer is really heavy.
Isn't it kind of funny that whoever wrote that text was probably screaming "it's not complicated, YOU HIT WITH IT" for one or two questions?
I feel sorry for the poor bast**d who would try to break into your house mate.
Vaughan Williamson I. agree with you.
He better come armed with dual shields
@@carbonado2432 Yeah, one of the most retarded laws out there. Protecting the criminals, punishing the victims
"A person may use such force as is [objectively] reasonable in the circumstances as he [subjectively] believes them to be." So it depends. It's not a bad law really.
@@patrickuk9784 Some guy used a 18th century cavalry saber to defend himself, when a drugged out psycho busted down his door.
The police confiscated his sword, called it a katana, and told him he should have had a stronger door.
Really enjoyed these videos. But yes, the main significant difference between the weapons is that the mace was more expensive to make (used more metal, more complicated design) and was intended specifically for bashing in plate. The difference between them is really as simple as that. It was a good weapon for young, horse-mounted, plate-armored noblemen, especially in the 15th century when they weren't quite as disciplined about swordsmanship or lances. By the 15th century, warfare was increasingly dominated by 'middle class' professionals. I'm glad he touched on the more indiscriminate nature of aiming it, too.
The warhammer was never really associated with the nobility, whereas the mace was, and it continued as a symbol of authority, such as the mayoral mace, or scepter for quite some time.
I came here to see two guys fighting (one with a Mace and one with a Warhammer) to the death. I'm unsatisfied.
did you wait for the after-credit sequence?
I'm always impressed with the science that goes into antique weapons and armor. Every little bit of a weapon seems to have ingenious purpose and function.
Every single innovation in war was made in direct response to other innovations in war... which interestingly occasionally causes warfare to be circular (over large periods of time).
if i recall right, maces were the first tools created specifically to harm/kill other humans
someone please correct me if i'm wrong
Mace? Never played that game...
It's quite short and painful.
L.O.L.
There's a scifi version called Mace 40000.
How about cost?
It would seem to me a mace, with is metal shaft would have been far more expensive to make that a warhammer. Aside from the skill required to forge one, it just seems to be much more metal.
historically correct...maces werent for the peasantry or levy troops.
allenbt11 You do realize you can make an all metal Warhammer to write
One can make metal shaft warhammers, and also wooden shaft maces... maybe there's some tendencies in terms of which variants were more common, but I'd not focus on the shaft part for finding differences really.
Heroesflorian indeed
The war hammer is an infinitely better choice on the battlefield or for home defence in my opinion 👍
scholagladiatoria
Why do you think the handle of most Western European one handed percussion weapons were so short? I imagine if they were primarily horseman's weapons than having some extra reach was beneficial. The Eastern European warhammers (czekan, obuch, nadziak) often had much longer shaft on the order of 30" or so, and Eastern European warfare were definitely horse-centric.
John Huang Probably because heavier armour was used in the West, which means fighting at much closer range and weight being more important than reach sometimes.
scholagladiatoria Whilst a longer weapon is great for the hit and run tactic horseman should use a short length would be ideal if you had someone trying to pull you off your horse, a quick crack over the top of the skull would dissuade most people from continuing such an action.
speed
a long weapon is good at striking down at foot-'people' from a horse and not much else (spear-like weapons excepted)
I wonder if they had corded handles so they wouldn't fall off.
How were they used ? hmm , i think you would grab it by the handle and then you would use it to beat the shit out of the enemy . But thats just my guess.
I love the mace ...
Wade Clark it looks amazing
Did anyone else come here expecting a talk about the tabletop wargame?
No? Just me then... *NEEEEEERRRDDD!!*
Hersey
I do play warhammer40k, but I didnt think about it at all :p
Uaxis Oh really? Well I'm gonna create a game called Club, and _you're_ not invited. :p
He's not anerd he's just interested in history
HamsterPants522 I'm starting a club called _Game_ and everyone's invited if they pay the cover charge. We'll ever offer sippy-cup service (fuck bottles).
always nervous when you swing the mace around your head.
In short, maces are more noob friendly
Yeah, it can spin around im your hand and it does no difference.
I imagine these weapons were also good for situations were weapons needed to be made quickly or in a village with an unskilled smith. Not the flanged or elaborate mace, but a basic mace could be forged much more easily than a sword or axe. No edges to hammer, craft or sharpen and a very very basic shape. I imagine of all the martial weapons you could produce a warhammer/mace in its unornate form the cheapest and quickest
exactly, you could make hundreds of maces with a single mold
I wonder if the hammer offfers a slight bit more striking power due to its design. The entire mass of the head is in a straight line column with the striking surface, unlike the mace which is spread out. It just seems like this would bring more force down on one point with the hammer than with the mace.
If I'm not mistaken, I've been told that police in the middle ages often had maces instead of swords because they were less lethal. Not sure if it was this type of mace necessarily, but I can't imagine the type of mace in this video killing people as easily as a warhammer, that's for sure.
There were also totally round maces with no flanges or spikes. They were essentially clubs made out of metal. I believe preists were also fond of carrying maces for self defense as a mace could bludgeon someone without drawing blood, allowing them to technically abide by their vow of pacifism.
Fragrahamlincon Those technicalities man.
Fragrahamlincon
That's just a myth. There's no real source to back that old story up; it's just another case of "people from long ago sure were stupid; huh?". It's as silly as believing knights would need a crane to get on their horse. I mean come on do you really think that a blunt mace wouldn't draw blood? Regardless it's still pretty obviously against their religion to be acting in violence blood or no blood.
TomatoHouses Yes... No acting in violence... Please remind me, what started the Thirty Years War? What happened to Joan of Arc? Or anyone else who disagreed with their teachings?
The Mace. Good enough for Brian Blessed so it's good enough for me.
Quality Henry V reference, noice
Really interesting to watch, I personally love hammers myself
You remind me of Tywin Lannister.
Thank you. I take that as a Huge Personal Compliment.
scholagladiatoria
I wouldn't want to cross you, haha!
My god...how did i not notice this earlier
scholagladiatoria Just shave 20 years off Tywin and you look just fucking like him.
ATC "The Lannister's send their regards."
Warhammer: Choose Wisely
Mace: Just keep swinging
Looking at them, a strong dude(240+lb) with a Warhammer seems more deadly.
There's a particular fragment of the Bayeux Tapestry, one that's shown quite often, where a mace can be seen flying towards the general direction of their enemy.
So that was either an early way of ending someone rightly, or, a display of the fact that it was just some heavy thing likely to hit with the head when thrown.
I have to add that as far as I remember, Bishop Odo is the only character seen wielding a mace, due to the non-blood spilling mantra and etc, and the "flying mace" looks suspiciously resemblant to Bishop Odo's. But, then again, I'm talking about the Bayeux tapestry, where everyone's suspiciously resemblant to whoever's standing right next to them - haha! Cheers and thanks for the video :-)
Ps- I'd go with the mace, 'cause some fights tend to last too long, and as you get tired, having to make sure you're hitting with the right part begins to become harder and harder.
I will have to go with mace. Becuase when you think about it, having the ability to strike the target/enemy and srill forfill the same porpuse as a hammer. I also must say, that the mace in my opinion looks a lot cooler. It looks more "made to battle" you know! :D
mace looks cooler xD
nope, warhammer looks much more awesome :D
Looks like this contest will have to be settled with a duel: Mace vs warhammer.
Bring it on jajajajja
HamsterPants522
I'll take the lightsaber.
Exima But that defies the laws of physics.
As a truly horrid woman once said..."What difference does it make"!
Personally, I'd rather be hit with a feather!
Or a fine, even....
What about flails? Any chance we get a video on those?
Bora Mitricevic Yes, when I have one.
scholagladiatoria Great, thanks.
+scholagladiatoria for hammers so the spikes are for unarmored and the hammer is for smashing armor?
+Duksing Chau Both sides are actually for dealing with armor. That spike is great for hooking.
+CarnalKid More for punching holes through armour, they have a small surface area so more force can be applied per square inch
I absolutely love that for all Matt goes on about using these weapons for complex strike, binds, and grappling, when you watch him and his mates actually do any sparring, they do just twat each other with them.
The hammer and mace,when you absolutely positively have to put down every single undead fiend in the room.
That flange is freaking beautiful. :O
I also just love the war hammer look. Slightly more versatile weapon as well as you described.
The warhammer and mace are both designed as anti-armor weapons, but the way they defeat an opponent in armor is a bit different. The best explanation I heard was an analogy to two different types of modern anti-tank cannon shells. The mace is basically a HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) shell, which kills by using shock wave and spalling created by explosive energy on an armor target. The war hammer is basically an APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) round, which kills by narrowly focusing brute force on a sharp object to penetrate an armor target.
Sauron wielded a mace (not the flail you see in the movie); therefore, mace wins.
In the movies Sauron uses a mace. The flail is wielded by the Witch King of Angmar. So mace wins doubly so!
never underestimate a standard framing hammer for home defense. Come to think of it, if I lived in Britain, I would have many many hammers... I might carry one in my tool belt, and wear the tool belt daily.
That mace looks so damn wicked and badass.
Those are both terrifying weapons imo.
A war hammer would be my anti-zombie weapon of choice
I just realized how similar my Estwing rock pick is to a war hammer...and, yes, I have thought about using it for zombies...
When it comes to large zombie hordes, you need to start thinking about repetitive stress injuries. Hammer enough zombies and your elbow will start to deteriorate pretty fast, be it tennis elbow or golfers elbow. Better to have a two-handed weapon to spread the work out across more muscle groups. I'd go with either an axe, or better yet, a broad-headed spear. Spear lets you work in corridors where you can't swing, and it gives you distance between yourself and the biohazard.
To me, this "Mace vs. Warhammer" debate strikes me as a combination of two things:
Theorycrafting: Men-at-arms of the medieval world undoubtedly argued over near-trivialities the same way that people do today. Anyone familiar with AR-15-type rifles will be familiar with the "Direct-Impingement vs. Gas-Piston" debate over which type of gas-operated action is superior. Although each has its pros and cons, they are close enough to each other in real performance and reliability that it's really a matter of personal preference to everyone except those who operate at the highest levels of rigor, where tiny differences can have huge consequences. That does not, however, stop everyone else, including those who don't use these things for their livelihoods (perhaps especially those people?) from having the most acrimonious debates, wherein one of these two actions is asserted to be irredeemably flawed and therefore less than worthless, and the other held up as just slightly less worthy than God's wet bollocks. If we assume that people will be people, no matter time or place, then there's no reason to believe this phenomenon didn't occur between medieval men-at-arms. Imagine the arguments in the Great Hall on the Feast of Michaelmas.
Cost: Regardless of their respective merits as weapons, the mace looks like it cost a hell of a lot more to make, and very conspicuously so. A man-at-arms showing up on the battlefield with a mace probably projected an image of conspicuous wealth. Given the practice of ransoming captured knights, such a projection of conspicuous wealth may well have been an important piece of life insurance for those who could afford it. The warhammer was undoubtedly a more modestly-priced weapon, perhaps used by men-at-arms of more modest means, as well as (perhaps) by afficionadoes who insisted it was the superior weapon, despite being able to afford a mace. ;)
Longbow men threw down their bows at agincourt and other battles and picked up their war hammers .....these barrel chested supermen then butchered the heavily armoured Knights ......
Daggers and short swords.
Plus it was muddy,
Once a armoured man is down in that.
The bowman had a real big advantage.
Curious where you read about longbowmen using War hammers. I've only read the Cornwell books, but they all seem to indicate short swords and daggers we're carried by longbowmen?
wow first time i see a real mace :x,would love to see the medieval arms in real life :x
Nothing like good old fashioned blunt force trauma. :) Nicely done, sir.
The flanged mace is designed specifically for biting into plate at steep angles. The war hammer can not hit at such steep angles. Mace is better.
“You don’t want to be sticking the point in things all the time” words to live by 😂
Which ever is cheaper cause as a rookie adventurer I have a low budget and no combat training (reason why I use a strap on shield and cheap quilted armor).
Is the morning star a historical accurate weapon ?
good video, maybe i missed it but you didnt talk about the wooden vs metal shaft? One thing that concerns me about the war hammer is if the wood is going to break easily in combat.
hi nice video just little info about mace Jan Žižka around 1400 was using mace lot. you are right it's horseman weapon using against enemies foot soldiers helmets in high speed ride through or retreating enemies so must be short and fast with fast retrieve and rider concentrated on hitting helmets not position of edge
I feel like it would equally suck to get hit by either.
Could we get a video on the morningstar?
Do you mean a flail (ball and chain attached to a stick?) A morningstar is simply a mace with a round iron or steel head with spikes on it. Other than that it isn't much different than the flanged mace featured in this video.
That's disappointing i always thought it was called mourning star. Hahaha mourning sounds cooler
Mace all day. I bonked my way through Lordran with a mace.
Same. Mace ftw!
But my Warpick got me through Manus and the rest of the dlc for the first time.
Just a little wrinkle on your great points - I think both these weapons were used by armored horsemen specifically against *other armored horsemen*. They seem too short to be any use against foes on foot (who would likely have a polearm of some type anyway). Cavaly sabers are longer than infantry versions because of this. On the other hand, maybe it would be useful to bash infantry in their helmets.
Another interesting tidbit is that the flanged mace was introduced much earlier than the warhammer and the warhammer seems to have lasted well into the renaissance period whilst the mace became a work of art as opposed to a real weapon. That suggests to me that the hammer has specific properties that make it better against plate. The business end of a warhammer was typically hardened to compete with hardened plate, was it not?
I had the same ideas as you have. I actually asked myself why this weapons were so short, if mainly used by horsemen.
But I don't know if this horsemen against horsemen theory works out. Only in very close melee they would be close enough to hit or get hit with it. While passing each other it would be pretty hard to hit the enemy horseman I think.
But what do I know? I can't even ride at full gallope ;)
Hinterfragen! Talhoffer IIRC shows some horseman v. horseman grappling so I would surmise that sustained close combat (ie not on a pass) between horsemen is not uncommon. If you get 'stuck in' you'd want something like a mace or hammer.
Another possible use for a hammer that Matt didn't mention is hooking the reins. Riding away while holding your opponents reins is also in Talhoffer and that is a nasty thing to do to both horse and rider.
From what I know these tend to be secondary weapons after the lance, and high ranking guys don't want to fight a mob of peasants but other high ranking guys.
Actually warhammers of various sorts have existed back into the Classical era - just as maces of various sorts. I'm not sure we could say one is older than the other - a stone 'axe' on a stick is sort of half way between the two....
Also, FYI, medieval art and at least one treatise (Talhoffer 1459) shows these short warhammers and maces also used on foot. The fact is that whatever you design a weapon for, it will end up getting used in all sorts of ways. In WW1 there was an Australian cavalry charge using only bayonets, because they didn't have their swords issued yet!
I was paying attention to the BBC articles from when they found the remains of Richard the 3rd and looking at the diagonal hole in his skull I thought someone had brought him down as he was trying to flee, hooked his helmet off with a war hammer and then stuck it though his skull. I don't agree with all the academics saying a spear killed him.
Why isn't the beak on the warhammer straight?
+funcounting Because a swing moves the head in an arc. The curve matches that arc.
scholagladiatoria Wow, that's smart.
kinda like a stitches needle,, hehe
try sewing someone up with a straight needle,, not easy,, same thing goes with penetrating armour with a hammer,, it doesnt matter so much for swords cus theyre longer and have more force behind them when u thrust and u thrust straight not in an arc as SG said above =)
To be used as a hook perhaps.
Great video explaining the differences between the two. But I am surprised there was no mention, that the War Hammer with its wooden handle would not reverberate as much as the metal handle on the Mace would from an impact? Essentially sending tremors up you arm into your hand when struck, that would feel like electric pulses. I am certain though in the heat of battle with all the adrenaline pumping, that a Warrior wouldn't notice until the battle was over and the smoke had cleared.
This is such a stupid comparison. It's obviously about whether you have a higher level in one-handed or two-handed and then perks come into play as well.
Higher level? These are both one-handed weapons used in very similar historical contexts and during the same period.
I was making a Skyrim joke. Love your videos, mate.
Zyrus Smith Lol when you try to make a kid joke to a middle age guy prepare for a serious reply, btw love your video Matt...
Any chance u could discuss lances? nice video :)
I'd imagine the main deciding factor between mace or hammer would be ease of use/skill/style/enemy really. A mace can be swung from any direction and the head will strike properly. A hammer's focus needs to be slightly more accurate to get the head or spike/beak on target. I know that when I was working construction it was easy to miss with the head of a carpentry hammer if your hand was sweaty, you were tired, slipped grip, etc. With gauntlets on perhaps you feel even less confident in your ability to have that "accuracy" and therefore choose the mace for it's simplicity? Just a thought.
Warhammer 40.000 wins. Always.
I absolutely LOVED using a warhammer, and even more so a pole hammer, when fighting in an SCA context. Both are very versatile weapons, and their use in that game is a lot closer to realistic than SCA swords are. (The Polehammer is downright BRUTAL.)
Thanks for the video!!!! GOD bless and keep you and JESUS loves you!!!!
I have seen alot of Crusader pictures with a knight using a mace in battles. It would be interesting to an actual impact power measurement on a target with both these weapons as well as a axe. These weapons could literally knock a armored man of his horse or break arms and legs. The Mace is kindof a one hitter quitter weapon in the right hands.
I just started watching your videos and I was expecting some bone head winging around weapons with no idea what he is doing but you are not only good with a sword but you have knowledge about them.
I like them, for I am a simple man and those are simple weapons.
"Which is better: maces or warhammers?"
"maces."
"Why?"
"Pretty star on stick go sMACC"
Cringe
Do you know the names of maces used in the 12th,13th,and 14th Centuries. Im talking about regular maces With spikes,ridged,or knobbed heads not flanged maces.
Like the ones tod has for sale. Im thinking of writing a book from a half finished idea in the back of my brain. Of a Mercenary who reluctantly becomes Crusader in a realistic fantasy setting mixed between 1350 and 1400.
Or a book about a Veteran Spearman set in the same universe. Any help would be appreciated.
I'm a copper smith by trade, wielding hammer for decades. I believe that warhammer should have thicker handle or ball at the end. When you swing, the centrifugal force pulls it out of your hand, thicker end helps it "wedge" into your hand. The mace has it. It would also balance the weapon, so you can swing it easier. If you'd have chain mail glove and/or sweaty palms when you fight for life, it would fly off your hand.
4lbs mace can bend 5/8" iron in just a couple of swings.
+Andrej Premk the underside of gauntlets are leather, so i don't think sweaty palms would be a problem.
You wouldn't really want maces or hammers to be counterweighted. That'd nullify their whole point, which is to carry all of their weight and momentum into the point of impact.
Multiple exclamation marks, a clear sign of a diseased mind. Nice video though.
It's a joke. From a book - one of those papery-pagey-things. A book you obviously don't know, so I'm not going to explain it and all of its context here. Google it.
Sorry but the war hammer wins and im not just saying that because the war hammer is my favorite. Weapon
You forgot to talk about their effectiveness against un/lightly armored opponents. I think the flanged mace would be better against them because the flanges look more damaging (impact being equal) and it's ability to attack from any angle or direction at any time would help against more nimble and mobile opponents perhaps using swords or having great reach advantage with spears.
The warhammer can hook though, like an axe, but not as good.
Thanks but I’ll just stick to 12 gauge semi automatic 😂
Its like the difference between a mallet and a maul
Surely though the mace has an advantage over the warhammer. In that it has a metal handle, rather than wood. Be pretty easy for an enemy to break a wooden handle in battle surely?
+Douglas Campbell lol no
+Douglas Campbell You would be more likely to break the handle with a very hard hit than your enemy breaking it. Have you ever thried to break a hammer handle? It is pretty damn hard unless it is rotten.
If going against a guy in full plate I think the hammer would be the way to go. The various points of the mace I think won't be as good at transferring the energy of a blow the same way a hammer does. The hammer directs all the energy of the swing onto a single point. The mace (at least the design of this one) is likely to hit and roll a little bit, so the impact gets staggered and delayed slightly between at least two of the mace's flanges. The mace though would be great against some poor sap in light armor or unarmored. Though the hammer would be pretty much equally good versus light armor by flipping to the pick side.
No, and the handle doesn't have to be metal, they were usually wooden
Most types of wood won't be broken in the same way you see in movies. Making the handle out of a metal also adds weight to an already very heavy weapon for no good reason as you don't want to parry with these one handed hammers as there's no crossguard or any other form of protection against the blade sliding down. You could deflect strikes with it but because of how the balance is in the head your ability to then bring it back before your opponent can get a strike in is probably close to nil.
On top of that, these weapons were almost always paired with shields or bucklers as they're battlefield weapons so there's no reason to parry with them..
I did not hear you mention the weight of the hammer or mace
"They are really short weapons" some warhammers were over 2 metres long
Rutger Traa That is a pollaxe or pole hammer.
scholagladiatoria In dutch they are both called strijdhamer (warhammer)
Rutger Traa - That may very well be true, your name sounds very Dutch so I suppose we'll take your word for it. Nevertheless, in English the term is more specific. I wonder, though, if the Dutch don't also have a way to differentiate between them? They were different weapons, and were employed differently, so one must assume they didn't call them the same thing. Wouldn't that have lead to confusion? It could be that some Dutch people erroneously call pole hammers war hammers, just like some people erroneously do in English as well. That could explain it.
Joe S. It could be there is a dutch name for it but as far as I know they are both called strijdhamer
- I will say this... Strijdhamer sounds pretty cool.
Hm... new series? Deadliest Weapon, based on that (atrocious, but entertaining) Deadliest Warrior show?
Do a video on war mallets. There is little information on them.
Just wish this guy would give demonstrations instead of running his mouth interminably.
these vids are really good. and they would be so much better if you edited pictures of the paintings and treatises you were referring too. just a thought not a criticism.
Even if you don't pierce a helmet, you could give someone a concussion even through the helmet.
I wanted to add that warhammers, maces, flails, and the like blunt weapons also had the hidden feature of warping armor. The utility of this is apparent when you think of how plate armor bent inwards would rip and tear at skin and if it had already puntured flesh into a craterous wound, it would continuously cause brusing and bleeding; widening the original would more and more as the fight carries on. These weapons were more about pain and maiming leading up to death rather that immediate, one hit killing blows.
Imo, depends on skill of the wielder.
Hammer only have 2 side, hammer and spike. While mace, you can hold mace without worrying about side. Mace have 360° side.
Hammer need more skill, especially if you learn to use hammer, by holding the metal (blunt side near thumb, spike near little finger). You can align the handle to your forearms or the opposite.
I leave it to you to make another video about using hammer this way. 😁
Why would you ever use it that way? It's much more uncomfortable, maybe not even possible with gauntlets, and now you have the benefit of hitting with the stick end.
@@mrkiky You notice stick use by policeman? It's almost the same.
The knowhow is from China martial art.
Offcourse you can tailored that hammer to make it suitable. Or better yet, design it yourself.
@@budisutanto5987 Yes but policemen don't fight people in armor, they use it for crowd control or to force someone to comply. Besides, the hammer head isn't really comfortable enough to use as a tonfa handle. It's square and too short. And the balance is completely different too, I mean just try using a regular hammer like a tonfa, it doesn't really work.
@@mrkiky I thought we are discussing war hammer . . .
@@budisutanto5987 Yes, I was just saying that a regular hammer is pretty similar in that regard. The head is of roughly the same length, same weight and also square. Also very awkward to use as a handle.
“You won’t want to be sticking the point into things all the time...”
Nice, I will have one of each thanks.
I think the reality is it would depend on where you lived, the martial culture of that location and to some extent personal preference as to which you would have used during the 15-16th Centuries.
From my limited research the hammer seemed to be favoured by the English, with the Mace being more German. The two used in this clip seem to bear resemblances to the English warhammer and German mace.
I am surprised that they are shorter than a messer however, I had expected them to be about the same size of approxiamately 30 inches.
I noticed you mentioned the fact that these weapons were used by mounted troops, but failed to talk about them being used from horseback. This is how I speculate they were most commonly used, as a backup weapon after a knight lost his lance against infantry. A blow from a mace or Warhammer delivered by a knight on horseback at full gallop against a man on the ground would have been absolutely devastating.
Maybe but it doesn't fit well with the fact that they were anti-armor weapons. At some point you'd be fighting a knight with it, not necessarily on horseback. Beside if you look at the warhammer, it's a very rudimentary weapon. It's just a fancy hammer head on a stick. Any blacksmith could make it, and it doesn't require super high quality materials and fancy heat treatment either. I wouldn't be surprised if they were used by "low budget" troops against "high budget" troops as well. Especially the two handed version. Ganging up on a dismounted knight to concuss him, hook him , hit his legs so you can capture him alive, I could see that happening.
the flanges on that mace look sort of fragile. Would they deform when hitting plate armor?
They certainly would. Not to knock Matt, but that mace looks less than functionak. Historical maces had significantly thicker flanges from what I have seen.
Example:
www.historica-arma.com/historical-arms/edged-weapons/mace/
Now THAT looks like something you can bash a metal plate with.
@@horvathbenedek3596 holy fucking shit!
I may be revealing my great age but I remember distinctly the use of Mace, Mace and Chain, and a war Ax in the fifties MGM film 'Ivanhoe'. The judge of the duel keeps saying that the combatants must avoid hitting their opponents horse. If they do then the archers will shoot them. Is that historically accurate? Little Robert Taylor and much bigger George Sanders beat on each other enthusiastically. But their shields are made of sheet steel and get all twisted up. That part I'm pretty sure was bogus.
Nutcracker beats Warhammer
Didn't Hellenic and Roman cataphracts use maces? Seems like the best weapon to crush helmets in downward strokes to either side of you.
Cool video. Ive read that spear/pikemen were known to carry a mace. It makes sense to me as any weapon you can grab quickly for close quarters and does not require you to index an edge/point is an advantage.
In a large melee I’d want the mace in singular combat give me the hammer
I wonder Matt if you could do a video on mace heads. There seems to have been a lot of different types and I would be curious to know if they were many regional variances or that they were meant to better deal with different conditions based on the time and place.
3:24 Nigel Thornberry came into my mind, lol.
Excellent videos. Keep up the good work!
I'm so glad I live in the era of modern warfare. I'd rather be blown to bits by a missile or headshot by a sniper than be beat to death by another man with a blunt weapon!
Oh we're more creative than that. You can have your limbs blown off by landmines, get shredded by claymore mines, get internal burns from mustard gas, or get blown apart by artillery and/or cluster bombs and a whole host of other nasty stuff.
Of course, you might get unlucky and just almost die.
At least they make pretty reasonably priced prosthetics nowadays. If you get chemical burns in your lungs though, you're SOL as far as I know.
Cool. Good job bro.
In the end you described all the other stuff each 'tool' can be used for. I like that cuz that's what I was thinking about the whole time.
I'm curious and hopefully someone can answer; how often were fully armoured knights REALLY facing off? I dont feel like it'd be terribly economic to field a knight - it seems like it'd be awfully expensive and would therefor be excluded to being bodyguards or a small set of shock troops. There couldn't be more than a couple "Knights" on a battlefield - and I wouldn't expect anyone but an officer to be able to afford such plate.
I think THAT'S probably why there isn't much info on maces/warhammers in combat, there just doesn't seem to be much need.
Mace is a ladies weapon, at least in modern times.😀
ROCK PICK POINTED TIP - LONG HANDLE = 100 bucks for a magic indestructible weapon those primates would have been jealous of!