If the flanged mace was so good at penetrating armor, why would anyone ever pick a falcion over it?

Worked so well they lost majority of battles. They also used spears and swords so axes are still meme tier.

A falchion is good for cutting but you can't cut through mail. A mace can break bones through mail but you don't need such a heavy and slow weapon against someone in light armour. A tool for every task.

Also watch the scholagladiatoria channel. It has many good videos on maces and some on falchions.

Maces weren't heavy retard who learned history from Skyrim

I bet you believe in ''le knights couldn't get up'' and ''viking berserkers'' memes as well.

>a poorly balanced weapon is not heavy

The M60 wasn't heavy either, but that doesn't mean carrying it was a joy.
I know more about firearms than melee weapons, and even I think you're retarded. The other guy probably knows even more.

Top heavy =/= heavy

you dumb shit

and fuck m60

Nice strawman you're using here.

Maces were indeed heavy for their size. They were short, rather small weapons, and still often weighed as much or more than a one handed sword. And they were indeed slower than swords. Not as heavy and slow as most people would probably assume, but still.

That's how it's like in Skyrim?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseman's_pick
>Its relative heaviness made it unwieldy and, thus, easily avoided.

If you're going to shitpost, at least make it something I can't refute off the top of my head.

Not taking any sides in the argument here, just posting some facts.

Wow wikipedia the same one that has [citation needed] after every two sentences how reliable.

Go back to Skyrim.

That's not a mace fucking retard.

welder here
how did they get away with only brazing
brazing is shit and barely holds any bond unless you really pile on the metal
ur honestly better off using glue or duct tape

Ah, thanks. A medieval one handed sword typically weighed around 1kg (with lots of variations), so these maces would confirm what I said here But honestly I had lighter maces in mind, similar in weight to swords or just a bit heavier. A medieval mace with a wooden shaft would be lighter.

You mean a club? That shit's good only for dealing with drunk thugs son.

A club with a metal head, yes, that's the essence of it. You don't see metal shafts until the late Middle Ages.

is welder money good?

Sword is effective against light armor.
Mace is effective against heavy armor.

And axe is effective against what?

Look at the two. You can parry a mace with your hand almost, parrying a sword loses fingers. Stop being a hipster.

Light armor.

900 ad was the peak of medeival warfare

Why would anyone use an axe instead of a sword then?

Weapon preference. You see the same shit in firearms.

It depends on what you mean by 'heavy' armour. If you mean plate armour by that, then I'd argue that a mace wouldn't do much better than a sword in many situations. Plate armour is actually really good at dealing with blunt trauma, since the plate has structural rigidity of its own. I.e. if you hit it, then the energy is distributed over the plate rather than punctually going through. It's possible that due to the flanges the impact was a bit more punctual, but it should be considered that they still wore armour underneath. Unless you hit someone right over the head, there wouldn't be that much concussive damage and hitting a moving target with a mace actually isn't all that easy especially if he's wearing plate that is given a deflective shape. Personally, I'm inclined to think that a mace is much more effective against armour like gambeson or mail, since armour like this has much less structural integrity and the impact is going to be much more punctual and easily break the bones underneath. Maces were most likely most of all cavalry side-arms where you would ride past your target and hit it on the head while doing so. No long fencing, just hitting things. For fighting on foot, I can imagine much more effective weapons - most of all polearms, but possibly also longswords due to offering more range. Sometimes people claim that maces would cause concussive damage 'through' the armour, but personally, I doubt that this is all too effective. Maybe if you hit someone right over the head, but at the body much less so.

>falchion
dat R1 spam

>>Worked so well they lost majority of battles
Really? You mean to tell me that the people from the poorest and least developed part of europe lost to people who weren't poor and undeveloped by comparison?

How shocking.

Axes were cheaper and easier to make and people were likely to already possess an axe that was used for other purposes.

Mail?
How come they taught the Mordhau then, against armored opponents, if blades were more effective against plate armors?

Additionally axe is a a sort of compromise between a sword and a mace, there's the sharpness of the former which is good against unarmored opponents and the top-heaviness of the latter which is good against at least some kinds of armour. Without shields and armour axe is inferior to a sword because of the unwieldiness though.

>falchion
A sword specialized for cutting is unnecessary because it makes no difference whether you slash right through your opponent or only half the way.
A proper point is much more desirable on a sword.
>maces
The balance is just terrible on those and you'd only ever want to wield one against heavily armoured opponents.

an axe is cheaper, easier to obtain and requires less maintaince

Compromises are for niggers. Axes were shit.

trees

In armoured fencing, the common way of fighting was to hold the sword with one hand by the blade and attempt to thrust it into the gaps of the armour, quite akin to using a short spear. This is what the fencers do in the vast majority of depictions. The Mordhau is not nearly as commonly depicted. Certainly, it was a technique which had its uses, e.g. hitting someone over the head with a weighted pommel would probably be much more effective than hitting them over the head with the blade, but it's more of an 'attack of opportunity' than something that was commonly done.

Axe wasn't that effective against mail either nigger.

>1.56kg
its a fucken feather

Most people on Veeky Forums are unfit and can't run for more than 10 seconds so of course anything above 1kg is heavy for them.

the unwieldiness of maces was something that could be overcome with practice and strength training. There is a long standing tradition within Indian and Iranian physical culture of swing heavy, oversized maces for strength training. When you regularly train swinging a 30kg mace at maximum range of motion, something the size of a sledgehammer feels WAY more manageable. Some of the more renowned mace swingers worked out with 50kg+ maces and could move them for an hour at a time without dropping weight or stopping their motion.

It's heavier than swords that are significantly longer.

This means it is indeed heavy for its size.

Cutting through proper gambeson is A LOT harder than you would think it is.

youtube.com/watch?v=Li_yObDjXVQ

Can be cringey but they know what they're doing.

idk mate, when you're you're moving around a lot in a fight and you've got heavy mail as well as gambeson on your body along with a heay shield... it won't feel like a feather.

But then again people coped fine with 4kg longswords so I guess they got used to it.

So if thrusting is better against chainmail, platemal and gambeson, and the rapier was the preferred weapon for civilian unarmored fights.... it would seem that thrusting would be generally speaking superior to cutting. Except on horseback against unarmored opponents (you wouldn't want to get stuck thrusting the enemy).

The point (or lack thereof) of a mace is to deliver momentum to the target, not to damage the armor. Where a sword would glide right off or even break on armor, the mace hits it squarely and delivers the energy right to the guy underneath it. No armor would be able to inhibit the actual momentum of a mace

Well, with thrusting there's a higher chance that you're going to actually kill someone, if you make contact, because you'll have driven your weapon further inside the body where it will fuck with their insides. Cutting weapons can obviously do this with a successful slash, but often injuries will look really horrific but they're be pretty superficial.

You're kinda right in assuming that thrusting is better against plate mail, chainmail and gambeson but only if you're attacking against the armour itself. As we know, no cut/thrust can get through plate and its really fuckin hard with gambeson and mail so there's not much of a point in even trying. For this reason soldiers would attack the parts of the body where the armour was weakest or non existent with cuts and thrusts depending on what was up in the fight.

Although thrusting is more likely to deliver a mortal wound it's only thing you can do with a diverse weapon; if you exclusively thrust then you're very predictable. Cutting can also be effective at warding people off and keeping them at bay, slicing hamstrings, cutting throats, etc.

but year thrusting does more damage so to speak.

>You're kinda right in assuming that thrusting is better against plate mail, chainmail and gambeson but only if you're attacking against the armour itself. As we know, no cut/thrust can get through plate and its really fuckin hard with gambeson and mail so there's not much of a point in even trying. For this reason soldiers would attack the parts of the body where the armour was weakest or non existent with cuts and thrusts depending on what was up in the fight. Also the video in would suggest that thrusting against gambeson wouldn't be that difficult, while cutting would.

Generally speaking wouldn't it also be easier to thrust through the gaps of the armor? That's why I said thrusting would be better against plate mail, naturally both cutting and thrusting against the plates themselves would be pretty pointless.

Also the video in would suggest that thrusting against gambeson wouldn't be that difficult, while cutting would.

>No armor would be able to inhibit the actual momentum of a mace
The issue is that a plate is rigid and has a reasonably large surface area. The impact does not go right through but it is distributed over the surface area and then dampened by the padding underneath. Just try wearing a helmet and having someone hit you with something. You'll soon realise that even though you feel the impact, the impact is not punctual and you'll have a very hard time determining where exactly you're being hit on the helmet. Very much unlike when you're wearing a mail coif or something, where you can relatively easily determine where exactly you're being hit. Hard helmets do a great job at protecting against blunt impacts, it's why they're most commonly worn on construction sites. Plate armour protects from impact in a similar sense.

Keep in mind: I'm not doubting that a person can be knocked out by being hit hard enough with a mace over the head - even when wearing a helmet. However, I'm doubting what I consider a myth: that maces or blunt weaponry in general were particularly effective against plate armour. This seems RPG logic to me, where someone tries to balance arms and armour. A mace would be much more effective against other types of armour than plate. Plate armour protects quite well from them and if you're facing a man armed with a mace, you're better off wearing plate than anything else.

There were no 4kg longswords.

Thrusting is only better against chainmail if the blade is thin not every sword could actually penetrate it.

No, it didn't work for them, that's why they mostly used seaxes and spears.

I bet you mastered your knowledge of the nordic people on the Vikings show. You also think they wore biker leather vests?
This is not an mmorpg you fucking retard.
At least you semi-know your shit. Maces were indeed mostly cavalry sidearms.
You are a fucking retard son. According to what you just said they should've been using longswords up until the 19th century, but guess what, they used fucking sabers, aka swords meant for cutting. For cavalry straight sword has 0 use.
Of course, falchions werent cavalry weapons, most likely they weren't widely used. As much as we know they could've been peasant weapons (their form is ideal for a worktool) which somehow found its way into the hands of a few members of the nobility.
This.

You are assuming that plate is complete impervious to to deformation. While it distributes the force MORE evenly there will still be localized impact which can bend the armor at the point of contact and decrease its over all durability, with enough force the armor and be bent enough to compress the padding enough to take that dampening effect away or at very least decrease it severely. The big problem being getting hit hard enough that your armor is actually causing blunt trauma...

If we're talking about 15th century plate armour, then you'd have a hard time putting a permanent dent in it. Especially a large enough dent that would even bother the guy inside the armour. It's not like it wasn't possible to dent armour, but to put a serious dent in it that would be bothersome would take more effort than it's worth, since hitting a moving target that is trying to kill you well enough - not to mention the multiple times it takes to bother him by denting the armour - would simply be impractical in battle. You're better off using a war hammer and trying to puncture the armour with the beaky end. Also it should be considered that your primary targets would be the head and extremities. Maces are short weapons, they don't offer a whole lot of reach. And if you're in a situation where you can hit a guy in the chest multiple times at full force with a mace in order to put a bothersome dent in it, you're probably also able to simply thrust a dagger to his face and end the whole thing with much less effort.

>For cavalry straight sword has 0 use.
This is probably why knights and cavalrymen in western Europe before the 19th century had mainly straight swords at their belts. A straight sword can even be a primary weapon for a cavalryman, see m.youtube.com/watch?v=bee71tYERBw

>Of course, falchions werent cavalry weapons, most likely they weren't widely used. As much as we know they could've been peasant weapons (their form is ideal for a worktool)
Unlikely. A good worktool does not generally make a good weapon and vice versa. How would a falchion serve as a tool? Apart from using it as a machette, maybe, but that's not very useful in medieval Europe.

>At least you semi-know your shit.
How generous of you, senpai. His comment was serious and not full of insults, which is more than I can say of yours.

Honestly, you have no reason to be so rude. No use for a straight sword in cavalry indeed. Make way for the expert.

Ah, and stop using the term platemail guys. That doesn't exist. There is either mail or plate. Chainmail is a bit silly too. You can just say mail.

Shields

In theory. There is a reason though short range weapons for the battlefield usually were slashing not thrusting weapons throughout history, unless paired with a large ass shield: you run the danger of getting your weapon stuck, and while your thrusts are more dealy in the long run, until internal bleeding builds up they are less hindering to the opponents movements + contemporary records say they hurt less in the beginning + the hands and arms are easier targets then the torso, the torso usually had still better protection, and it is hard to successfully thrust in the arms but easy af to cut them.

And cutting is easier and does not expose you so much. Thrusting can leave you in a vulnerable position. You have accounts of soldiers trained to thrust but cutting because they panicked. It seems to be a natural reaction (there is a video by Matt Easton on the subject).

How often someone had his hand cut off after failed thrust?

>Of course, falchions werent cavalry weapons

manuscriptminiatures.com/media/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1-32.jpg
manuscriptminiatures.com/media/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/12-9.jpg
manuscriptminiatures.com/media/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1-41.jpg

>Of course

I was terribly inaccurate in my words. Of course straight swords are as useful as they can be, but they don't offer anything which beats a curved saber. And don't be silly, in Western Europe they started using sabers during the early 17th century, which became dominant in the late 18th century with the spreading of light cavalry.
And concerning the falchions, you really should look up seaxes. Both are cheap, rude blades usable as a chopping tool and on the battlefield top. In my opinion (there really isn't a consensus regarding this topic) they were cheap multitools in the beginning, accessible by the poorer soldiers, it evolved as a weapon during the 12th century when even some knights used it but never became widespread, and eventually died out.

Falchions were much more wieldy, and not everyone was armored

They actually weren't that wieldy either according to HEMA guys who actually used it.

>For cavalry straight sword has 0 use.
Except for how they can be used as a makeshift lance after your real lance broke. Longswords had enough reach for that. Sabres aren't nearly as good at that.

>they don't offer anything which beats a curved saber
The point forms a lint with the hilt, making them more accurate thrusting weapons. They're also pointier and better for dealing with heavily armoured opponents since you can thrust the weapon into the gaps. With a sabre - especially a heavily curved sabre - you'll have a hard time harming a man in armour, which is why sabres only became widespread as cavalry weapons when heavy armour wasn't around any more.