Why were maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely? You mostly hear of swords or sometimes axes...

>Why were maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely?
Because plate armored men made up a small percentage of people on the battlefield, and war casualties were only a small percentage of violent deaths. Obviously sidearms meant to fight unarmored people (like, you know, swords) are gonna steal the spotlight.

>used so rarely?

Nigga what? They were the go-to weapon of any knight.

I imagine you don't hear much about them because they don't sound as flashy as swords or axes.

The Sassanids mainly seemed to have used Cataphracts with infantry support.

During the late middle ages Maces and war hammers were likely mostly cavalry side-arms. In terms of depictions and findings we do see maces and war hammers, but not as common as pole-arms and swords.
They were definitely used though, e.g. during the Battle of Seckenheim it is specifically mentioned that Count Ulrich von Wuerttemberg was defeated and taken prisoner by the Knight Hans von Gemmingen who took his mace and gauntlet from him as a trophy.

Forgot my pic.

Now this is a cool bit of information. Saved for posterity. Cheers user.

Not OP but peripherally related to his question:
How common were flails in ancient and medieval warfare? I heard recently that some historians aren't sure they were ever seriously used in battle and I think that'd be kinda sad cause they're so stylish.

Swords were seen as fancy. They are also a very well rounded implement if they have both a stabbing point and a slicing edge. If sturdy enough they can also be used for defense, and are in general well balanced.

But most of most medieval warriors wanted to be knights or act like knights and so they wanted to be seen with a sword. It was seen as a symbol of nobility.

There's a bit more information in regards to that. After the battle, the Count was taken prisoner and the winning side held a feast to which he was invited. The Count praised the bravery of the knights who defeated him and asked who it was that personally beat him in battle. A knight stood up and tried to claim victory upon which Hans von Gemmingen silently left only to return with the gaunlet and the mace, returning them to the Count, proving that he was the one who beat him, making the other fall silent and sit down in shame.

I'm pretty sure nobody ITT knows what the fuck they're talking about.

Flails used in combat looked like the ones pictured here. IIRC there's no real evidence the ball and chain ones were used in war, or even existed (apparently most or all of the ones in museums are fakes), and it's likely they were created by Victorian knightaboos.

Can't say I know about accounts of them but from a practical use perspective I can tell you that they wouldn't be too common. While they certainly have advantages and might be interesting in small scale combat how would you use them practically on a battle field?
They leave massive as fuck openings, are fully momentum based so they would require a metric fuck ton of raw skill to master.
On foot you'd be liable to hit others around you as much as your enemies. On horse back while you'd not be hitting others you might deflect into your horse and unless you're intentionally skirmishing you'd have to hit more infrequently.
Further it's not like you can parry with them in any practical sense either.

>upstarts trying to claim other people's wins
Pretty good story.

>the mace is thick, especially around the head.
That's what she said.

>Why were maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely?

Because in warfare without shield or armor ranged weapons are very useful. When shields get added in spears USUALLY become the most useful weapon. Once primitive body armor and helmets that is when maces start to be some what common. A stone or bronze spear head can have trouble with even rather primitive armor of it hits a at odd angle. In northern Mesoamerica, the Andes mountains, and the late bronze age in the middle east maces were somewhat popular. At lest for the middle east iron helmets ended that.

Stone maces can do very real damage to a soldiers using a iron helmet if the strike is well done. If it is not it does not do very much at all. Thus axes replaced the mace in that area.

Maces came back into use as iron headed fanged weapons started in the late 9th century in the Mideast, very slowly gaining popularity and spreading out from there. The newer designs were very good against mail armor.

Mace doesn't do jackshit to breast plate. It's not as if it's aluminum can or something. It's a tempered steel. The blow is simply transferred equally to the entire plate, making it ineffective. You wield it to strike someone's head through helmets. Even then, helmets are designed to transfer forces too, so it's hard.

Plate armors are tough if it's in decent condition. Only bullets can pierce it, with some exceptions.

They were used for a shorter period of time than the sword or spear. Maces and war hammers (of the type we imagine) are only useful against relatively heavily armored opponents.
I've heard some claim that they were used during the migration era and onward as chain mail became extremely prevalent (chain mail doesn't block percussion very well), but I've also heard they were effective in the time of plate armor (although I tend to think polaxes and war hammers were more common than maces). I'm no expert, just my 2 cents

youtube.com/watch?v=OnveFLcgoG0
OI FALKS

>The Parthians and later Sassanids were probably the most salient exception, but they were off doing that horse archer thing for the most part.
While that is somewhat true, the Persians actually did have quite the variety of maces. It was a pretty common weapon to see in the hands of cataphracts.

Maces and war hammers were made mainly to deal with armor.

Armor is expensive as fuck and hard to produce

If you have an army of 10,000 men you would never make 10,000 suits of armor

It is better to fight flesh with sharp fast objects like spears and axes

Flails as you imagine them were not anything more than ceremonial at best and ones in museums are of dubious origin

fucking idiot, hammers are slow and heavy after 10 minutes of swinging one your arm would be useless, longbows beat plate every. fucking. time. Take a good look at the battle of Agincourt where thousands of french knights were killed by 300 longbows. Longswords were also great at smahing the shit out of whatever was under the plate. You sir are a tool!

They hard torsro armor and open faced helmets, user.

>longbows beat plate every. fucking. time.

>longbows are underpowered in d20
youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Roman armour wasn't great? Lorica segmentata rusted very easily compared to mail or scaled armour, but it was very good at stopping swords. Axes and maces were going to cause damage regardless, but unless you could get a spear beneath one of the plates, or it was specifically designed to pierce armour, it wasn't going to do much.

Chainmail would offer a similar amount of protection, though it could be pierced by spears. It didn't rust as easily, and was easier and cheaper to make, which is why it became the standard Roman armour. Scaled armour I don't know too much about, but I assume it also offered good protection against sword attacks, as well as spear attacks.

There was bad ground. because that so many of them died.

Insulting others makes you maybe feel better. But you are sad and I'm laughing about you. Kek

And all of that cover torso only.

Which is already covered by the shield.

Meaning a man is going to attack the limbs and face, which a cutting weapon does better.

Please don't ask Veeky Forums about ancient/medieval weaponry. They unironically think swords were completely useless and barely used.

Also worst of all they believe half swording was common-place.

Chainmail and scaled armour does cover the limbs. Lorica segmentata doesn't usually but there were versions of it that did. Hacking and slashing is efficient because it tries you out and wounds instead of killing. One of the main reasons the Roman army was so efficient was that it focused on stabbing, usually in the heart, for a quick and clean kill. That's why Roman soldiers carried short swords, they are excellent at stabbing, easy and cheap to make, not that hard to use, and quite light.

You need a heavy sword to pierce armour. A short sword is good at hitting unarmoured areas, especially limbs, but it won't do anything to an armoured target. A long sword is heavy enough to bludgeon an armoured target to death and probably big enough to cause some damage to armour. It won't cause as much damage as a mace or axe, but it's still useful. Like a short sword, it would be better used striking unarmoured areas, like limbs or areas were armour is lighter.

#

Chainmail and scaled armour does cover the limbs. Lorica segmentata doesn't usually but there were versions of it that did. Hacking and slashing is inefficient because it tires you out and wounds instead of killing. One of the main reasons the Roman army was so efficient was that it focused on stabbing, usually in the heart, for a quick and clean kill. That's why Roman soldiers carried short swords, they are excellent at stabbing, easy and cheap to make, not that hard to use, and quite light.

You won't pierce through plate armor with any kind of sword. You could pierce through rings of chainmail if you were lucky and the rings were not too big and in the best case scenario the rings might come apart. Heaviness of the sword has nothing to do with it though, you just need a pointy tip. You could also pierce though gambeson, which is essentially just thick clothing, but I don't think the sword had to be particularly heavy to do that.

youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q#t=35

It depends on what you mean by 'half-swording'. Often people mistake half-swording with the 'mordhau' technique where the sword is reversed and the opponent hit with the guard or pommel. Half-swording in general however just means gripping the sword with one hand by the blade and using it like a short spear (i.e. using effectively half of the sword). The latter was commonly used in armoured combat. We have plenty of depictions throughout the 15th and early 16th century from various European countries. The mordhau on the other hand was a rarer sight, which would only be occasionally used if the opportunity was right rather than a standard form of attack.

>after 10 minutes of swinging

Actual fighting would not last anywhere near that long.

Do you have any actual proof that Mace were rarely used?

Maces don't beat shield and are useless in dense formation.

At least you got some replies

Battles very often lasted over a dozen hours, there wasn't Hollywood "everyone mixes up because what are formations and everything is done in 5 minutes with 95% causalities on both sides"

Why would you not use blunt weapons against unarmored enemies too? I'd say a baton is a better weapon than most things anyway, you might not bleed people out, but you'll break their arms and legs or outright kill them if hitting the head anyway

Pic related best weapon ever invented for dismounting cavalry and is devastating against armored opponents as well, when properly wielded.

The shaft gives it all the distance of a spear, while the hook is used to devastating effect to pull a mounted knight down off his horse, sometimes fatally, because of the added weight of the armor and the precision with which the shepherd's staff can rip a man right out of the saddle and guide him to fall head first into the ground.

Typically groups of peasants would work together, men with shepherd's staves pulling down the knights while others with clubs and daggers rushed forward to finish off these armored men before they could stand.

One of the most lethal weapons ever in combat, one of the oldest weapons, quite a bit older than metallurgy, and yet several thousand years in the future, it was still effective against the premier military force of the day.

Really effective all the way up until gunpowder, and believe me, it killed more knights than all your fancy longbows could ever dream of matching.

And you never hear diddley squat about this weapon either.

>Battles very often lasted over a dozen hours

But fighting did not. Battles were 99% marching around. Most soldiers wouldn't even do any actual fighting. And if they did it would be over quickly.

>And you never hear diddley squat about this weapon either.

And why?

Because it's the ultimate peasant weapon. The only way to wield it properly in combat is when you've spent your whole life since boyhood using it to hook sheep around their necks and middles.

That's what allows a shepherd to slip that hook right around a knight's neck and throw him headfirst right onto the ground. They can hook an arm or a leg, trip you, throw you off balance, all to bring the shaft against your jaw or slam the butt right into your forehead.

I'm telling you, when somebody really knows how to use one, it's stunningly, brutally lethal.

Carrying around something like that is heavy. You cant really sheath it so the pointy shit is going to jam into your dick every time you run. Also reach and being able to do more than one thing with your weapon is good

You know nothing, user Ymous.

The only situation, where "battle would be over quickly" is successful cavalry charge against infantry.
Are you able to name any medieval battles, where they decided
>We can and it quickly, but fuck it, we are paid hourly so gonna need to march few hours aimlessly.

>thats waht she said
hahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahaahahahhhaxxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxddxdxdxdxdxdx
user you are funny

>bow that can pierce full plate
>cost efficient uses of stamina

Nice meme, Bro

It's called maneuvering. What exactly do YOU think a battle looked like? Lines of guys swinging weapons at each other, yet somehow not successfully killing anyone, for HOURS?

and they're not, you know dented by the blow?
The metal in the breast plate isn't that thick. it's nt magic the force has to go somewhere

A mace is a specialty weapon, and while it has the advantage in being able to concentrate more force at the tips of the head, it lacks the reach, cutting, and piercing ability of even a sword.

People seem to forget that even if a sword doesn't cut, due to impacting plate or mail, it's STILL a large chunk of metal that imparts a concussive impact as well. You may not be able to cut through a helmet, but you can damn sure daze a motherfucker, if not knock them out, with a solid sword blow to the head.

So while a mace is an effective tool, I think the lack of range and versatility is what made it less commonplace.

> It's called maneuvering.

You had very limited options of maneuvering in medieval times. When fight began you just couldn't call those soldiers off and order them to attack other places. The only option was to wisely use reserves, but when you used them all, you could just pray for win. The only exception would be feigned retreat, but i don't know if it was known in western Europe.

Also, you using your arguments against yourself, because if fight was quickly over, you couldn't use any tactics - time of reaction, giving an order, sending the or.. oh well they are already done fighting.

> Lines of guys swinging weapons at each other, yet somehow not successfully killing anyone, for HOURS?

It's over-exaggeration, but kinda yes. It's not easy to kill fully armored human. That's not like in the movies, where with one slash of sword they cut full plate armor in half. Worse thing, that human can move and react to your attacks, protecting his vulnerable points. And add few his nearby friends, who also look after him.
Of course no human can fight for that long, so you can swap with fresh soldiers. Everyone is exhausted and are unable to fight anymore? Well, that means you are losing battle.
To sum up, in very fight causalities were few, but after panicked retreat real capturing/killing would start.

>People seem to forget that even if a sword doesn't cut, due to impacting plate or mail, it's STILL a large chunk of metal that imparts a concussive impact as well. You may not be able to cut through a helmet, but you can damn sure daze a motherfucker, if not knock them out, with a solid sword blow to the head.

The fact that people can spar with blunt swords relatively safely suggests otherwise.

How often do boxers get knocked out while sparring?

>People seem to forget that even if a sword doesn't cut, due to impacting plate or mail, it's STILL a large chunk of metal that imparts a concussive impact as well.

He doesn't seem to be impressed by that impact.
youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q#t=35s

I don't know how this myth started. If stupid sword/axe/mace hit would break ribs through armor, how could all of this be possible

youtube.com/watch?v=yxfuliFab0Q

And dozens of other events, staged battles etc.

>Why were maces, clubs, warhammers etc. used so rarely?

Wow what the hell. Veeky Forums in charge of not knowing its shit at all, but thinking it has the authoriy to come up with clever questions. AGAIN.

Protip: Maces were not used rarely during the late medieval ages at all and swords are for all purposes sidearms.

>The fact that people can spar with blunt swords relatively safely suggests otherwise.

Sparring isn't fighting.

That's because he was hit in the stomach.

Notice he didn't go for a head shot?

Or a full impact shot on the arm?

Swords were sidearms exactly because they had very little to offer against a heavy armored oponent. Veeky Forums really doesn't know about even the most fundamental shit of its topics, kinda losing faith in this shit board.

Basically, this.

To elaborate somewhat, the only reason most people think maces and other blunt-force weapons were used more rarely is because they're featured less in fighting treatises and art. They were probably used a fair amount in actual combat. IIRC, they were especially popular in cavalry contexts because they allowed you to easily bash people off of a horse and do damage with the momentum gained in that context.

Swords, for the most part during the medieval era, were sidearms used in case a spear or other pole weapon was lost or in closer combat. In that role, they're very effective. The French video posted above shows why; when you get close like that, they're easy to use and grappling levers and to poke at gaps in armor.

Right...which makes them better at engaging unarmored opponents, due to reach advantage, the ability to stab as well as cut, and their more efficient use from a horse.

More of a civilian self defense weapon almost, exactly.

You're not supposed to attack the hands in that competition, and that's the closest, and most vulnerable, target of an armored man.

Fuck up their hands, and they can't hold a weapon, and are vulnerable to other blows.

Nope.

The ability to cut, pierce, and concuss, combined with the reach advantage on ground, or mounted, is exactly why the sword was more popular than the mace.

Jump to 41:40

youtube.com/watch?v=yxfuliFab0Q

>Sparring isn't fighting.

Well yes - precisely because blunt swords aren't very dangerous, especially with some protective gear they use in HEMA, which is nonetheless a lot less protective than actual armour.

Now I'm not saying swords are rubbish against armored opponents since you can do a murderstroke with the pommel, essentially turning the sword into a mace, stab into the gaps of the armour, make the opponent to trip etc. Swords are pretty versatile, but it is still stupid to strike the armor itself with the blade and will mostly just damage the sword more than anything.

There's exactly no army or unit during the whole medieval ages, which would have used a sword as a primary weapon. So it being 'more popular' is intellecutal dishonesty. It is in the same way more popular than daggers were more popular than spears. Easy to carry arround and useful not only for battlefield applications, that's why everyone had one. A last resort in large scale combat though.

>A last resort in large scale combat though.

Agree.

However, it is still my contention that it is the versatility offered by a sword, as a side arm, that made them more popular than a mace.

And?

Watch enough of those competitions, and you'll see head shots instantly knock players to the ground, and I've also seen a few leg shots that have had a similar effect.

wtf are these people doing, those look like actual axes and their hitting each other in the head

Meh. There were people who carried maces as primary weapon and swords as secondary ones , not the other way round. The versatility of a sword is relative to its poor armor penetration and concussing power.

Oh boy

And i saw basketball balls knocking people over

"And?"

They are still being hit into gauntlets.

Well, of course it is not real fight, you can't also stick daggers into eyes etc.
Videos purpose was to show that you don't get broken ribs and spit blood after getting hit by sword and other nasty things, when you are clad in armor.

>comparing getting hit with a basketball to being hit on the head by some 200 + pound gorilla wielding a big chunk of metal.

they usually wear headgear so not often

I know buzzfeed is ass, but it's one of a few decent articles on the BOTN's

Cached link: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xT4B8to_SswJ:www.buzzfeed.com/timchester/inside-the-violent-geeky-world-of-hardcore-international-med &cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&utm_term=.kk1x3LQe4#.vfvAwLor7

>“There were 450 fighters at last year’s Battle of the Nations championship,” Birkin says, referring to the annual contest that’s been held across Europe for the last few years, “and 64 of them had to go to the medical tent. One of our guys needed six stitches, and another snapped his arm.”

>Team members have suffered broken bones and dislocated shoulders, and a patchwork of bruises is worn as a coat of arms. I overhear one particularly worrying account from a fighter talking about receiving a head blow from a pole axe: “My right vision completely went; there were sparkly lights and stuff. I spent a week in a brain-fog haze, walking around like a zombie.”

These guys wear more padding and shit under their armor than is historically common, and their still getting concussive injuries.

Because you weren't likely to fight someone wearing plate armour.

Go punch someone in the face. Now, go stab someone in the face. One is fatal. One is an inconvenience.

Maces were side-arms too. Pretty much any short weapon is a side-arm.

The falx, for example, which is a pretty cutting oriented weapon, was effective against the romans.

Their armour wasn't that good and left tons of places exposed.

Ya got that right.

They were used all the time, they just weren't romanticized the way swords were.

>Chainmail and scaled armour does cover the limbs
Roman armor didn't. Armor evolved over time.

Stop commenting on things you don't understand.

>MUH THRUSTS
>MUH THRUUUUUSTS
See above.

Protip:
You can remain fully functional with many, many broken bones.

Post sources.

Great. You dented a thing that doesn't rest directly on the skin.

That's IF the blow doesn;'t glance offof the rounded surface.

Also
>it has ot go somewhere
It gets dispersed across the surface of the breastplate. Welcome structural integrity-the worlds first safe space.

It's 3lbs of weight at maximum with the center of mass likely in the bottom third.

Swords are shit clubs.

Really makes you think.

>Swords are shit clubs.

Swords are better than clubs because the mass, and force, can be concentrated on the edge of the blade, as opposed to across the face of a wider club.

The concentration of force in a small area is exactly what maces are designed to do.

>the englboo stops replying

No, you retard.

Maces are designed so that the mass is concentrated along the end. Edges are totally irrelevant to this, hence most maces in history totally lacking them.

Swords are fucking awful when used as blunt instruments. If they were any good at it, nobody would have needed maces.