Hi Ben, I was editing while you were typing. I added that it is possible that Barrett's maul was purely for combat. That doesn't mean that the same thing was done earlier, when archers relied on wooden stakes for defense.

I agree. As I've said, it's quite possible such two-handed mauls were a later development. Five to six foot polearms of all kinds seem to be especially popular with the English in the 16th century. Sir John Smythe and George Silver, for example, wrote highly of such weapons. They packed armouries full of holy water sprinklers.

By the way, Smythe doesn't mention mauls when he describes the ideal gear for his archers on horseback. Of course, using a five foot maul while mounted would be rather hard. And yes, Smythe's archers on horseback were meant to fight mounted, as strange as that may seem.

Here's some more evidence for mauls being a common sidearm for archers in the middle of the 16th century, this time from Roger Ascham:

Quote:

And herein our archers of Englande far paffe the Parthians, which for such a purpofe, whe they fhall come to hande ftrokes, hath euer redy, eyther at his backe hangyng, or els in his next felowes hande a leade maule, or fuche lyke weapon, to beate downe his enemyes withall.

Ascham was a cleric with no first hand experience of battle and it is just as likely that his opinion and indeed much of Tudor comment is based upon the popular account of Agincourt, where improvised use of mauls is reported, and which had a disproportionate influence upon Tudor thinking and commentary in the declining years of longbow use.
In the time of Henry VIII, Agincourt had already assumed a special significance in the mythology of English identity.
That English yeomen in the golden era of Henry V should have crushed the flower of French chivalry with a common tool is both the probable source and the reason behind the longevity and popularity of this story.
At Agincourt the line had advanced, driven in stakes and shot to provoke a French advance, so mauls would have been immediately to hand and in such a fray anything to hand might be seized.
Show me one contemporary illustration of archers so equipped for fighting or supporting first hand battlefield accounts which significantly mention mauls as a weapon of choice rather than as a tool used as a weapon of opportunity.
Archers are commonly depicted having a falchion or sword backed up with a knife.
Rod.

Going back to the beginning of this thread, there is one clear case of a maul being the weapon of choice for going into combat. This was the famed Combat of Thirty during the HYW, in Brittany. One of the fighters on the English side bore a maul, as is atested to here:
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/M...yntoun.htm being a Scots chronicle:

"Ane Inglis man had apon a staff / Ane hammere heid, and thare-with gaif / Syc pay, that at thare assembling / He slewe ane wyhout recowering." (see after # 492)

and from the French: http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/M...nswort.htm

" ...Walton and Belifort. / The last-named giant knight an iron mallet bore / Its weight was twenty-five pounds - yes, twenty five and more!" part VI, first verse

This doesn't prove archers used mauls by choice; but for a man of unusual strength, it was certainly a possibility.

Well, I just made this for fun, and, where its definitly a fight ender, its a one shot weapon. Too unwieldly to try any parry or defence.
http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y201/Osterberg/conan/hammer/

It seems that this one will run and run with selective quotes being picked out. It will be interesting to see a full list of contemporary reports concerning the use of mauls (and other hand weapons) by archers at Agincourt, putting the maul in it's proper context.

With regard to the possible high end weight of mauls and maces etc. look at the weights given for Islamic heavy maces in the "Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour".
These are definitely "one decisive stroke" weapons. Not something that you will miss with and recover in time to ward off a response.

Regarding Barrett, his was a proposal written in 1562, not a report of previous practice. Regarding the use of mauls in the heyday of the longbow, it is not really relevant, so enough of Barrett as evidence for earlier use.
It is no more indicative of customary use than the later proposal for the "double armed man".

That mauls should be stored is not surprising, they were issued for the driving in of stakes. Other use optional according to circumstance.

Rod.

Folks,
Let's make sure we don't slip any farther down the slope toward sniping and bickering. Thanks!

From Agincourt where the myth of the maul or mallet as an archer's particular weapon began.

"When the archers came within long bowshot of their enemy they drove in their stakes.
(Which accounts for mallets being to hand).

Gesta:
"... seizing up axes, swords, stakes and spear heads that were laying about, they (the archers) struck down, hacked and stabbed the enemy."

Religieux of St.Denis:
"...as they (the archers) were lightly armed and their ranks not too crowded, they had freedom of movement and could deal mortal blows with ease."

Waurin:
noted that the archers used "Swords, hatchets, mallets, axes, falcon beaks and other weapons to good effect."

While Monstrelet:
"also mentions their use of the heavy bladed falchion."

Religieux of St.Denis:
"... many of them adopted a weapon until then unknown, great lead covered mallets from which one single blow on the head could kill a man or knock him senseless to the ground."

Given the circumstances, sure sounds like improvised use to me.

But IMO too much has been made of the use of the maul as a "standard" side arm.
That it is a tool which can be used offensively there is no doubt, but does it appear on any roll as a required weapon of array?

That it was adopted in Tudor thinking as an archer's weapon can be traced it's role at Agincourt, but since the last major engagement was probably Flodden in 1513, a proposal of 1562 is not particularly relevant to actual use as a standard side arm.

What evidence is there of actual use as a side arm in the 16thC, if any?
Not storage, not a written proposal, but actual use.
Rod.

And the significance to the Tudors of Henry V at Agincourt and the English yeoman crushing the flower of French chivalry with humble tools, and it's place in the mythology of Englishness and the political reasons for this significance (resurrected by romantic authors at the turn of the last century and again on film during WW2 with the Olivier "Henry V") is a whole other topic...
Rod.

Couldn't there be two types of mauls in use or mentioned in historical texts that unfortunately don't make a clear distinction between the two ? A lead maul used primarily as a tool for driving stakes being used as a weapon of opportunity makes sense to me. It's also possible that after a successful use in a major battle some form of weapons dedicated maul might have become popular as well as various maces or warhammer that could be confused or mislabelled as mauls in certain texts.

I remember seeing illustrations, but not a photograph, of something that looks like a very big and long double headed hammer that looks like it belongs to the pollaxe family in usage, if not literally: A strong thrusting spike and two cylindrical hammer heads on either side ( symmetrical ). The hammers being waisted i.e. starting wide, narrowing and then becoming wider again. And each having a spike in the middle of the otherwise flat face of the hammer.

The A & A warhammer has one of these spikes in the face of the hammer part and a bec the corbin on the other side: Just think of two hammer head instead of one that look a lot like giant aluminium push pins in shape.

For practical use a simpler description would be one thrusting spike and two side spikes in the faces of twin cylindrical hammer heads, the whole mounted like a pollaxe with languettes and a handguard a couple of feet from the head.

The weight of one of these should be consistent with a pollarm as opposed of a mounstrously heavy lead maul: Mounstrous at least for weapons use and fast recovery is concerned.

In any case I'm just trowing this out as a speculation. :D

As I understand it Archer weren't amoung the wealthiest of soldiers (of course I am sure that there were exceptions). Given that metal was extrememly expensive to me it makes since that the 'back up' weapons of Archers would also be inexpensive as well. In my opinion a massive wooden hammer would be handy and would be extremely field servicable. Additionally, as mentioned before, it would be handy around camp; driving tent pegs, and pounding fortifications and obsticals into the ground. It's not a far logical leap to think it would also come in handy for bashing the crap out of shields. Again, I am betting that most foot soldiers had pretty rudimentary equipment ,wooden shields for example. A big wooden mallet would probably bash wooden shield to splinters, not to mention the arm of the guy holding the shield. Lets also not forget that even though there are few references to their use that doesn't mean that they weren't.

As a Medieval re-enactor, English Archer I own an archers Maul. It is a hammer which does look like the circus hammer which has a wooden head and metal bands round the head for strength. It also has lead nailed onto the two faces to improve the hitting surface. It was not of any use in one to one combat but if used with others it could be used to hit the joints on armour to prevent the joint moving and immobilising the person in the armour. The they could be killed by sword, axe or just a number of blows again to the head or chest from the maul.

It's almost amusing that this conversation has turned from a 'did these exist' conversation to a heated debate over the use of archer's mallets. Evidence is how people have been ignoring felix's posts.

Felix very clearly answered the original question with a yes. The combat of thirty is a well documented event in which a well-equipped man-at-arms used what seems to be a 25lb sledgehammer to great effect. If you actually read the piece, which is in the book 'Deeds of Arms' by Stephen Muhlberger, the guy was one of the most effective men on the field, killing several opponents. And unlike the majority of his conpanions he survived the fight.

So YES, really frickin' heavy sledgehammers could be and were used in combat with good effect. Were they used often? Doubtful. Could they be used by an average guy? Also probably doubtful. But they were used, and not just by poor archers without anything else to fight with.

It is my guess that a sledgehammer would be probably best used in an armored situation in which openings created by big motions could be compensated for with armor. In turn, it can't be denied that a single blow from a hammer of that weight would end the fight right then and there. The effectiveness could also be increased if you fought in a team of a few men in which one man wielded the hammer for haymaker blows while his companions covered him. This would require a lot of training, but is possible.

One quite significant issue:
Just how would a longbow archer carry a wooden sledgehammer in addition to his bow and arrows?

He allready has his hands full, so he would have to somehow pass it through his belt, which would be awkward at best.

Efficient or no, a large hammer doesn't make for a very good personal backup weapon, as its to cumbersome to carry on the move.

However, they would be around in the baggage train, along with the rest of the supplies, be brought out to drive down the stakes, and could be picked up along with other impoviced weapons if one needed something to enter close combat with.