Can someone explain to me why I'd ever use a flanged mace over a spiked morningstar given the choice?

How much metal you're using to make one? How easy one or the other is to make?

Which one do you want?

I want to know when I'd prefer one to the other, assuming I own one of each already and manufacturing or quality is not an issue.

You made me look you turbofaggot, now I can't unsee it. AAAAAAAAAAAAA

Weight. The flanged mace has a greater impact psi than a morningstar of comparable mass. Both will stagger and bruise, but a flanged mace will also punch / penetrate.

then why would I want to use a morningstar?

There's really no difference in use. At best, the flanged one might feel lighter and be easier to swing.

have you ever seen a morningstar

In an RPG? Stat differences. In RL? Probably depends which feels better to you based on your size, weight, strength, reach, etc.

If you were having one custom made? I would guess a flanged mace would have better durability over time and use? Also maybe looks classier?

Weren't most real "morning stars" more like spiked clubs anyway?

>A morningstar is heavier
One handed melee weapons all weigh about the same, ~1.5kg. Two handed weapons are a little under twice that. This is just the practical limit of how heavy something can be and still be quickly swung around by humans. Any variations within one class of weapons will overlap with the ranges of the others.

>removing a lot of presumably unnecessary weight
Not really sure what you mean. Weapons have to have mass to inflict damage. I can imagine something being unnecessary light or heavy, but its probably not true for an entire class of weapons that ever saw practical use.

>So what's the strategic difference?
Strategic difference implies overall planning. Tactical difference is more appropriate for weapon use as it relates to actual execution. I don't image there is much of a different in your plan of hitting dude A with club B or club C.

I could see there being some trade off between spikes being a bit better for force concentration than flanges, but flanges being less likely to get stuck in stuff.

Probably not that big a difference. Almost certainly less important than skill of use. Which is almost always the case for in class weapon comparison, regardless of the /k/ and Veeky Forums weapon wankfests.

The flanged mace is an elegant weapon of noblemen and knights.

The morningstar is a weapon of peasants, brigands, and knaves.

>not being part of the Bar Mace Master Race

I doubt using it over a mace is a big plus.

If you're going to have long edges like that, why not at least sharpen them?

It'll hurt, but it comes with the hindering downside of looking like a fucking faggot. Meanwhile, a morning star is tough and brutal while a flanged mace is elegant and deadly.

you're not going to cut too deep and the blades might get stuck, won't they?

it's probably negligible, but wouldn't a simple, straight shaft work before the head and be more aerodynamic?

As an unrelated note: I feel like that mace should have more flangs, but that's just me.

Also, while it might require a bit more precision, I prefer hammers with pick backs if I want something to take on armor. Against fleshier dudes in softer armor (peasants) I'll stick with a bladed weapon (katana.)

Ok, so to specifically examine TACTICAL difference...

Both weapons are designed to deliver concussions through thick armor. Would either weapon be expected to actually penetrate armor (in the same way a war pick might?). Would the morningstar do this better than the flanged mace?

And you can throw it - I don't know why you would, but you can lob it at someone like one of those stick grenades.

It's cheap and easy to make.

Yeah. They tend to have a larger ball core and dull often stubby spikes. The spikes, and depending on design the ball, impact but spread out the pressure more than a flange does. Morningstars are unlikely to neatly penetrate plate to a large extent, allowing the armour to dissipate even more of the impact energy across the plate section.

I'm not talking about the flails, those are retarded.

*penetrate / dent

I'm not yet convinced these spikes would have no penetration. If they were sufficiently dense I guess you'd get a bed of nails effect. But a few sparse ones here and you'd have to have penetration before concussion, no?

I thought it was the other way around. That maces were easy to make and morningstars very difficult. All those spikes are tedious afterall.

youtube.com/watch?v=O-y6oirEsZA

youtube.com/watch?v=RjzE8YMkC5s

youtube.com/watch?v=NoPGpdxJ0fE

Dent armour, maybe. I don't see the armour being actually pierced, though. Swing a solid enough club and you can dent armour. And honestly, personally, I don't see a big difference between a morning star and a flanged mace except personal aesthetics.

youtube.com/watch?v=UGv_UdgHeCQ

>strategic
I really think you mean tactical here, friend

>not wanting to assault your enemies with a combat-grade baseball bat

I'd rather just take a baseball bat and maybe add a few studs to it. Works well enough already.

>None of these answers have said shit about swing recovery.

Flanged mace requires more skill (considering same net weight and balance ratio, too many flanges requires less aim but fucks up your damage, less flanges means more chances of the weapon getting damaged or stuck and the need to align strikes, but vastly improves the effect) yet allows you to recover more quickly from a blow or resist multiple opponents in melee if you're of exceptional stamina.

A morningstar is just plain fucking damage. The spikes (if thin) may get stuck on an armor or torn off in some cases at which point it becomes just a round mace, and requires more investment after the attack; so it becomes harder to defend yourself against multiples, and the weapon is not that hard to deflect in a duel unless it's one of those big impractical ones.

If you want to go two handed and attack with advantage supporting another guy, large morningstar may be best because you don't have to align the flange to get good impact, just aim at a general area and if you do it right, you should be incapping one guy in one or two blows. Otherwise, if you're just frontliner, take a shield and an infantrymace variant.

That's too heavy for a proper fight

No. Those spikes are more liable to snap off. They won't penetrate enough to deal any damage.

Nigga what the fuck are you on about? Anyone can swing a baseball bat, and you don't need to be an expert baseball bat swinger to make it hurt.

I remember a particular design from the XVI, can't find it in my images, but it was a spiked ball with just one big spike on one side (the rest as nail like protusions), which would make it a morningstar-pick hybrid. Looked trippy as shit but the museum tag said it was used in battle successfully, so IDK.

Thin spikes are a bet in finding a weak spot in armor or an unarmored one, getting in using the inertia of big ass ball of steel, snapping and causing huge ammounts of pain; or, hitting bone and incapping the fighter. If you were losing too many spikes you would turn the head a little and continue bashing shit; but you didn't expect all the spikes to survive just like you don't expect all the flanges to survive in most maces.

youtube.com/watch?v=iYCwH7J-eQc

Not that poster, but you might want to reconsider the advantages of the design. This is not exactly a bar mace, but rather, a hybrid of sorts, and it shows some advantages of both, its balance is a little bit more to the center which allows more swing, but still keeps the edges which concentrate the impact in a small area.

Regarding the simple shaft question, this is why you should go instead for a staff if you want just speed, because it's not just how fast it goes, but what happens when it hits.

I just wanted to post this because I like it but still supports the point nicely. The weapon looks badass enough as it is, and didn't require lodsemoney to make.

A flanged mace can deliver an impact through heavy armor, it doesn't have to penetrate to stun, and it can break a collarbone. A ball-and-chain doesn't allow the same followthrough, but can't be parried and can sometimes hit over the top of a shield, disarm, entangle, or even trip if the chain is long enough. A nailbat-style light morningstar can't deliver the same impact because it lacks the mass, so the impact is concentrated behind the spike that strikes truest, and being channeled through a single point allows it to penetrate.

If you fight things in metal armor without finesse, I'd go with the mace. If you want the DM to let you trip or disarm, spiked ball and chain. If you're cheap, nailbat.

If you're not expert then you're going to get your ass kicked by some knight with a poleaxe.

A baseball bat is basically just a two-handed cudgel anyway. If they were so awesome they'd have been used historically, but they weren't. Presumably that's because it's a two-handed weapon that doesn't have a lot of killing power. The only reason they get used today is because they're widely available while swords, polearms and maces are both vanishingly rare and restricted by law.

Since when is 'a proper fight' meaning going up against a knight with a poleaxe? Am a knight too, in armor?

And it's not like you can't swing a baseball bat one handed. If your 'combat-grade' baseball bat can't do that, then I'd rather stick with a mace.

not OP, agree that almost anything else would be better. there are a few era paintings of long two handed clubs being wielded by peasant irregulars, alongside a mishmash of other weapons. The usage would be to unhorse someone with a strong hit from the side, or to stun someone preoccupied by other enemies. Probably brought it because it's all he could get.

A scaling in STR, nerd. Get your C/C out of here and if you start saying "but it's a bleed weapon" like that was something to brag about I'll krump your ass again you filthy casual.

Right, I was going on the assumption of steel/iron weaponry. My last post was quite rushed, sorry.
But in that case, it's a wooden club, there's limits to its effectiveness. The bar mace can be steel without being too heavy and it can distribute force over a smaller area. And a 'proper fight' in this case is a fight against an armoured dude, because that's where maces were used. Baseball bats can fuck you up, but they're no substitute for an actual mace or warhammer.

you made me look
and now I can't stop thinking how to do it better
jesus christ it's horrible
HORRIBLE

C/C, what? And lots of morningstars were balls of iron. If anything they look heavier. I don't understand your rhetoric, you filthy professional.

So you are saying they are armor piercing when used against unarmored opponents?

They focus the pressure of the strike onto a smaller area. This allows for greater armor penetration, damage to the underlying flesh.

But pic related is the best mace out there. Accept no substitutes.

>a big plus

Because it's more effective. Maces are for breaking or deforming armor and spikes on a ball are just an earlier, more primitive attempt at accomplishing that. The flanged mace is more effective for its intended purpose, which is why you'd never use a spiked mace if you ever had the option and any experience or understanding of combat.

the morningstar is subpar because to penetrate armor, you need to strike exactly with one specific spike. thusly, use a warpick/hammer instead. something that doesnt get lodged too much after penetration as well.

God. DAMNIT. Welding class just started up again and I want to go make a better one out of pure spite and anger. I've been welding for like a month and I could do a better job than that shit.

THEY EVEN FUCKING POLISHED THE SHITTY WELD INSTEAD OF DOING IT RIGHT OR FUCKING GRINDING IT DOWN AT LEAST GOD FUCKING DAMNIT WHY.

>Also, while it might require a bit more precision, I prefer hammers with pick backs if I want something to take on armor.
The pick actually isn't meant to be the back, as the folded up thumb plate above the handle shows. Your picture shows a horseman's pick, and the blunt hammer end is the intended back, like on an axe — easy mistake to make, though, since it looks a lot like a claw hammer.

Besides that you're correct, the horseman's pick is the best option for perforating armor. The only drawback is it's harder to strike with the head in proper alignment, which is what that thumb plate's there to help with.

I feel that morningstar is more likely to stuck in enemy helmet/plate. Just like warhammer's beak.

It's a Dark Souls reference. The Morning Star in that game had C-level scaling with STR and DEX, which is decidedly mediocre, but it also causes bleed buildup.

The normal mace (which happens to be flanged) is B/C, I think, which means it's significantly better while having the exact same moveset.

>/v/ memes

it's """""artistic""""""""""

>Would either weapon be expected to actually penetrate armor
I recall a specific flanged type that could penetrate plate, but it only did it shallowly and penetrating caused it to get stuck.

Also a difference everyone forgets is that morningstars had wood shafts whiles maces are often all metal

He does, but there is always a strategic advantage to arms/armor that are easier to carry/wear. Most gamers forget that a lot of the evolution of weaponry is directed by how much something sucks to carry on a 30 mile a day march.

'ball and chain' flails are a myth

You're less likely to hit yourself with a mace.

Nope
youtube.com/watch?v=AGf7n7iUF_k