Posts: 1,420 Location: New Orleans
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 11:17 am
| Joseph J. E. Hancock wrote: |
Check out my signature, guys.
http://www.maisters.demon.co.uk/weapons.htm
Unfortunately, I can't find the actual historical reference, but I have used this sig for a while, and I'm sticking with it. :D
P.S - This is my first post on this forum, so hello. :) |
As for the 25 pound maul in your sigline, there are "historical references" which claim that this sword...
[ Linked Image ]
...was used to slay a dragon. In England. I'm not sure if I believe that is actually true.
J
Posts: 7
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 11:29 am
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
As for the 25 pound maul in your sigline, there are "historical references" which claim that this sword......was used to slay a dragon. In England. I'm not sure if I believe that is actually true.
J |
Well, yes, that is why I pointed out I had no decent evidence to back it up. :D Nevertheless, I like the quote, and I am sticking with it.
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 11:35 am
| Quote: |
| Agreed. Just because they were stored away for war doesn't mean that their primary purpose was as a weapon. Plenty of non-combat related items get stored away for war. |
You're grasping at straws now. Here's the translated text:
| Quote: |
| Then, since the mob was unarmed, one of their number led them to the Chatelet where Bertrand de Guesclin, a former High Constable, had stored 3,000 lead-tipped cudgels in preparation for a battle which was to have been fought against the English. The rabble used axes to break their way into the tower where these cudgels or mallets (in French, maillets) were kept, and, arming themselves, set forth in all directions to rob the houses of the King's representatives and in many cases to murder them. |
These mallets certainly sound like weapons to me. Note that the mob used axes to break into the storehouse, so they already had tools that could double as weapons. Yet they still wanted to get their hands on lead-tipped cudgels.
And, as I've said before, two sixteenth-century English sources clearly considerly lead mauls weapons. Strickland lists hundreds of such mauls being stored as weapons. About the Second Battle of Saint Albans, William Gregory wrote the following:
| Quote: |
| Therefore they are much neglected, and men betake themselves to mallets of lead, bows, swords, glaives, and axes. |
As you can see, there's a lot of evidence for lead mauls being considered weapons.
Posts: 73 Location: New Zealand
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 7:25 pm
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Quote: | | Agreed. Just because they were stored away for war doesn't mean that their primary purpose was as a weapon. Plenty of non-combat related items get stored away for war. |
You're grasping at straws now. Here's the translated text:
| Quote: | | Then, since the mob was unarmed, one of their number led them to the Chatelet where Bertrand de Guesclin, a former High Constable, had stored 3,000 lead-tipped cudgels in preparation for a battle which was to have been fought against the English. The rabble used axes to break their way into the tower where these cudgels or mallets (in French, maillets) were kept, and, arming themselves, set forth in all directions to rob the houses of the King's representatives and in many cases to murder them. |
These mallets certainly sound like weapons to me. Note that the mob used axes to break into the storehouse, so they already had tools that could double as weapons. Yet they still wanted to get their hands on lead-tipped cudgels. |
I hope you don't mind if I make a few logical additions to that paragraph.
These mallets certainly sound like they were used as weapons to me. Note that a few of the mob used axes to break into the storehouse, so they already had tools that could double as weapons and wouldn't need to take a mallet themselves. Yet they still wanted to get their hands on lead-tipped cudgels so that everyone else could join them in bashing in doors and the skulls of unarmed men.
While I am convinced that mallets were used as weapons, I'm not convinced that that was their purpose. I tend towards the belief that they were taken on campaigns as tools, and were only used as weapons by those who either hadn't expected to fight in melee or had lost their usual melee weapon because they were convenient and heavy enough to do some damage.
Posts: 3,641 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 7:36 pm
| D. Bell wrote: |
| While I am convinced that mallets were used as weapons, I'm not convinced that that was their purpose. I tend towards the belief that they were taken on campaigns as tools, and were only used as weapons by those who either hadn't expected to fight in melee or had lost their usual melee weapon because they were convenient and heavy enough to do some damage. |
Exactly my opinion. I do however acknowledge that mauls were modified over a period of time to make them more effective as weapons. This doesn't mean that they were ever intended to be used soley as weapons nor even that their primary use was as a weapon.
Posts: 614 Location: Atlanta Ga
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 8:47 pm
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
As for the 25 pound maul in your sigline, there are "historical references" which claim that this sword...
[ Linked Image ]
...was used to slay a dragon. In England. I'm not sure if I believe that is actually true.
J |
It's true. Sir John Conyers slew the Sockburn Worm with that Falchion. Doubt this not! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Posts: 11,553 Location: San Francisco
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 8:50 pm
Guys-
If your comments aren't adding substance to the conversation, please save 'em for other sites. This isn't really what I'm trying to have accomplished with this site. At worst, save this stuff for the various off-topic forum posts that are outside this site's main mission. For topics that are more on-target to our goals, I ask that you keep it there.
Should any questions arise regarding this, please feel free to contact me privately about it.
Thank you.
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 8:53 pm
| Quote: |
| These mallets certainly sound like they were used as weapons to me. Note that a few of the mob used axes to break into the storehouse, so they already had tools that could double as weapons and wouldn't need to take a mallet themselves. Yet they still wanted to get their hands on lead-tipped cudgels so that everyone else could join them in bashing in doors and the skulls of unarmed men. |
You only come to this conclusion because you believe lead-tipped cudgels couldn't be dedicated weapons. Everything in the passage suggests that they were. Replace "lead-tipped cudgels" with "swords" or "spears" and there'd be no argument.
What evidence do y'all have for insisting they were tools before weapons? William Gregory listed mallets of lead along with bows, swords, glaives, and axes, all of which are dedicated weapons. Henry Barrett and Roger Ascham only mentioned lead mauls as weapons. As far as I know, they didn't write anything about driving stakes.
Bills and axes can also be used as tools, but that doesn't mean they weren't dedicated weapons.
Posts: 614 Location: Atlanta Ga
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 11:43 pm
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
You only come to this conclusion because you believe lead-tipped cudgels couldn't be dedicated weapons.
|
Would lead be a particularly effective tipping material? It's heavy, but soft. Wouldn't iron be a better choice well... for just about anything?
Posts: 1,576 Location: Bergen, Norway
Thu 25 Jan, 2007 5:17 am
While soft, lead is very easy to shape or cast.
A "lead tipped maul" would probably be a wooden hammer, with a sheet of soft lead wraped around the striking surface. A lead tipped cudgel simply a sheet of lead wrapped around a stick. Such a weapon would very simple to make in deed.
It would still be a quite inferior weapon, when compared to swords and spears., but after all, the difference between 0 and 1 is infinite....
As for the efficient use of these weapons against knights, it is a oft neglected fact that tactical advantage, morale, momentum, and other factors are usually a lot more important than the actual weapons used.
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Thu 25 Jan, 2007 10:12 am
| Quote: |
| Would lead be a particularly effective tipping material? It's heavy, but soft. Wouldn't iron be a better choice well... for just about anything? |
Probably, but lead may have been cheaper. Henry Barrett's lead mauls had steel spikes, so perhaps lead was effective enough for causing blunt trauma. I certainly wouldn't want to be hit in the head with a mallet of lead.
| Quote: |
| It would still be a quite inferior weapon, when compared to swords and spears., but after all, the difference between 0 and 1 is infinite.... |
Depends entirely on the length of the haft. Something like a goedendag would have odds against the one-handed sword or longsword.
Posts: 1,420 Location: New Orleans
Thu 25 Jan, 2007 11:16 am
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Quote: | | Would lead be a particularly effective tipping material? It's heavy, but soft. Wouldn't iron be a better choice well... for just about anything? |
Probably, but lead may have been cheaper. Henry Barrett's lead mauls had steel spikes, so perhaps lead was effective enough for causing blunt trauma. I certainly wouldn't want to be hit in the head with a mallet of lead.
| Quote: | | It would still be a quite inferior weapon, when compared to swords and spears., but after all, the difference between 0 and 1 is infinite.... |
Depends entirely on the length of the haft. Something like a goedendag would have odds against the one-handed sword or longsword. |
Thats a matter of opinion. I think one-on-one a godendag isn't all that well matched against a longsword. It's not long enough to get the most out of the reach advantage wielding it like a staff or spear, and (probably) too heavy to be very agile. If you made it heavier by adding lead, I think you would have a quickly diminishing value as a weapon.
Anyway such weapons were probably used in groups. If everyone is on foot, 8 peasants with clumsy mallets are going to easily overwhelm one knight a longsword for sure.
Jean
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Thu 25 Jan, 2007 1:32 pm
| Quote: |
| It's not long enough to get the most out of the reach advantage wielding it like a staff or spear, and (probably) too heavy to be very agile. |
Well, the custom goedendag A&A made is about four and half feet long and weighs around four and a half pounds. That gives it a bit of reach over most longswords, and it certainly isn't heavy enough to be considered clumsy.
The weapon Henry Barrett described is five and half feet long, exactly in the middle of the range Silver suggested for weapons of weight. Though the heads were made of lead, I serious doubt these weapons weighed more than others of the same type. Perhaps seven or eight pounds at the most, with most exaples coming closer to five. I think Henry Barrett's maul would have been functionally equivalent to the short halberds described by Silver and Smythe, though perhaps less effective against unarmored men because of the lack of a cutting edge.
Posts: 1,420 Location: New Orleans
Thu 25 Jan, 2007 4:01 pm
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Quote: | | It's not long enough to get the most out of the reach advantage wielding it like a staff or spear, and (probably) too heavy to be very agile. |
Well, the custom goedendag A&A made is about four and half feet long and weighs around four and a half pounds. That gives it a bit of reach over most longswords, and it certainly isn't heavy enough to be considered clumsy.
The weapon Henry Barrett described is five and half feet long, exactly in the middle of the range Silver suggested for weapons of weight. Though the heads were made of lead, I serious doubt these weapons weighed more than others of the same type. Perhaps seven or eight pounds at the most, with most exaples coming closer to five. I think Henry Barrett's maul would have been functionally equivalent to the short halberds described by Silver and Smythe, though perhaps less effective against unarmored men because of the lack of a cutting edge. |
Thats precicely what I mean. A four and a half, or even five foot polearm does not have the same effective reach as a four foot longsword does. You don't grip a polearm, especially a heavy one, by the first ten inches like you do with a longsword. In most guards you are probably going to have one hand at least a third to half of the way down the haft. That means yor 56" staff is projecting about 36" of 'business end', roughly equal to the blade on the 48" longsword. And from my experience with fencing, that lead hand makes a pretty good target. I'm pretty sure thats why most of the Masters used to insist that quarter staves needed to be so long, and why spears were often in the 7-12' range. If the principle advantage of your weapon is reach, you should have a lot of it.
So back to your four and a half foot godendag against a longsword, you really aren't starting with an advantage initially, and then after the first bind your 8 pound weapon is probably going to be at a disadvantage to the 3 pound, close to the hilt-balanced longsword of your opponent. Of course you can slip-thrust to gain back some of that reach advantage, but thats only one gambit, and a good longsword fencer will be able to counter that, again especially against a heavy weapon like a godendag (it's harder against a light and nimble spear or staff).
Bottom line, while the godendag is a neat weapon, as are the others in the family, and so probably is your theoretical lead lined mallet, but I think given the option i would go with the choice that most knights who could afford swords made, and arm myself with a sword, maybe as back up to a longer polearm like a nice 7' or 8' Bill or Halberd.
Jean
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Thu 25 Jan, 2007 4:34 pm
| Quote: |
| You don't grip a polearm, especially a heavy one, by the first ten inches like you do with a longsword. In most guards you are probably going to have one hand at least a third to half of the way down the haft. That means yor 56" staff is projecting about 36" of 'business end', roughly equal to the blade on the 48" longsword. |
That depends. What you say is generally true, but it's fairly easy to slip the leading hand down the weapon's shaft in a thrust, granting a bit more reach. You can even thrust with only one hand. I can do this with a five-pound staff, so I'm pretty sure I could also do it with A&A's goedendag. And I'm quite weak.
| Quote: |
| So back to your four and a half foot godendag against a longsword, you really aren't starting with an advantage initially, and then after the first bind your 8 pound weapon is probably going to be at a disadvantage to the 3 pound, close to the hilt-balanced longsword of your opponent. |
As I said, I seriously doubt the majority of these weapons weighed eight pounds. A few outliers probably did, but I suspect most weighed five or six pounds. That's how much pollaxes and other two-handed mass weapons tended to weigh.
| Quote: |
| Of course you can slip-thrust to gain back some of that reach advantage, but thats only one gambit, and a good longsword fencer will be able to counter that, again especially against a heavy weapon like a godendag (it's harder against a light and nimble spear or staff). |
Sure, spears are better. The staff has the advantage a the halberd, but the halberd still has the advantage against the two-hand sword.
| Quote: |
| and so probably is your theoretical lead lined mallet |
It's not theoretical. Henry Barrett gives us the exact length of the lead mauls used in his day.
| Quote: |
| but I think given the option i would go with the choice that most knights who could afford swords made, and arm myself with a sword, |
Well, everyone should have a sword, no doubt about that. I suspect Henry Barrett's archers also carried swords, though I'm not sure he mentioned them specifically. In other sixteenth-century texts, all types of soldiers carry swords and daggers.
| Quote: |
| maybe as back up to a longer polearm like a nice 7' or 8' Bill or Halberd. |
On a weapon of weight, such as a halberd, as long shaft could be a disadvantage, at least according to those sixteenth-century English source. Silver noted this for both single and mass combat, while Smythe only addressed the battlefield.
Of course, other cultures favored longer shafts. It seems most German and Swiss halberds were a bit longer than what Silver and Smythe wanted.
Posts: 1,420 Location: New Orleans
Thu 25 Jan, 2007 5:21 pm
Like I said, the slip-thrust is just one tactic, by itself it's not going to give you an advantage over a longsword when the relative lengths are that close, IMHO.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Quote: | | maybe as back up to a longer polearm like a nice 7' or 8' Bill or Halberd. |
On a weapon of weight, such as a halberd, as long shaft could be a disadvantage, at least according to those sixteenth-century English source. Silver noted this for both single and mass combat, while Smythe only addressed the battlefield.
Of course, other cultures favored longer shafts. It seems most German and Swiss halberds were a bit longer than what Silver and Smythe wanted. |
And lets face it, the Swiss were the experts when it came to the halberd....
(and I could be wrong but I think the typical 16th -17th century English Bill tended to be fairly long too, 7 or 8 feet ..?)
J
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Thu 25 Jan, 2007 5:46 pm
| Quote: |
| (and I could be wrong but I think the typical 16th -17th century English Bill tended to be fairly long too, 7 or 8 feet ..?) |
I don't know the length of surviving examples, only that Smythe and Silver suggested a length of around five and a half feet. (Bills and halberds were interchangeable.) I suspect actual lengths varied a fair amount.
Posts: 2,698 Location: Indonesia
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 7:56 am
We keep missing the part about the difference between massed and individual use of the weapons....
Granted, I'd throw my money on the man with the longsword in one-on-one encounters. In one against a few the man with the longsword would still have a chance. If its hundreds of longswordsmen against hundreds of men with mauls/clubs/godendags, though, the equation changes. Morale counts for more than weapon or technique.
In medieval Europe the men with longswords would probably have been richer and better trained, so they probably had better morale and were therefore more likely to win--but those were the properties of the men rather than the weapon.
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum