I've frequently seen mentions of denting armour being used as an anti-armor technique. Especially denting it with the intention of immobilizing some part of the wearer.

But I have not seen period manuals or contemporary descriptions of such manuevers.

Is there a historical basis for this tactic, especially the disabling of articulation aspect (as a dent in my breastplate likely isn't that big a deal)?

Or is it more 19th century Victorian misunderstanding or armor :p

I don't think the goal is to hinder articulation (I can't imagine how that would work anyway) but rather to cause blunt force trauma to the tissues beneath the armour.

As too the chest or back area, it would seem if it were dented bad enough it could press in against the ribs or what-have-you. Could something like a warhammer strike hard enough to dent this severlly??

Assuming the armour fits snugly, I'm not sure the metal would actually have to be significantly deformed for a blow to cause terrible damage to the body. Just guessing, fortunately. On the other hand, those points on gothic maces aren't just for show. They concentrate a huge amount of force on a very small surface. I'd like to see some experiments along these lines.

We have to keep in mind that there would still be at least one layer of cloth beneath plate, a shirt. In many cases, you'd likely have an arming doublet over that which could be made from a layer or two (or more) of fustian. How much the clothing would help is debateable, of course. :) Would it mitgate any of the force?

I have no doubt that padding would absorb some of the shock and, especially, help prevent injury to the upper torso. But think about all the force of a mace coming down on an armoured and padded arm, hand or head.

I keep dimly recalling something I heard about modern ballistic body armour--that a projectile doesn't need to penetrate the armour to kill the wearer--the shock of impact alone can destroy organs and kill. I'm not equating a pistol round to a mace, mind you, just pointing out that one doesn't necessarily have to severely damage the armour to severely damage the armour-wearer.

I'm also thinking of the deep pistol proofing marks on 16th & 17th c. breastplates. Since those were left on the plate, they obviously weren't expected to interefere with or discomfort the wearer. And, of course, the purchaser understood that if he were to be shot, the plate would dent to the degree indicated by the proofing.

MORAL: Don't get hit.

In some fight books there are indications on imobilization by deforming the joints, mostly the elbow and the knee. Think of it as boxing or something. It is hard to get a kill on a man in full armour right away, you take the hits you know you can get away with. If he cannot move his leg or arm, makes the next hit all the more easier. I will find some examples for you. I have fought full armour and it seems to work (seems as in my friends and I were not rying to kill eahc other).
As far as blunt force trama... yep you die if you get a heavy blow over certain organs, heart lungs etc. Head inmpact as well. The padding will take some of it but a forceful blow of a hammer or mace and it could be bye bye. I read that it is only 12j force (w/out armour) over the heart and you can have cardiac concussion.

Randall

While searving in the Armed forces I was involved in some tests done by those of us who did not wish to have the .45 switched over to 9mm. A good friend of mine had access to a number of video tapes of various battles as well as police shootings. In these videos you could see "bad-guys" getting shot in various situations. With the light caliber weapons, sure they still make holes and can deffinately kill, but the impact is miminal when one is shooting at a adrenalin-fueled target out to survive another day or worse get to you despite his wounds. On the other hand scenes invoving the .45 revealed a very drastic difference in the innitial impact of the injury. It's nothing like the movies of Hollywood, but still, the impact gave that extra Umph! From the large calibre, that causes alot of added shock to the person being hit. Survivers of both types of injuries will tell you there is a big difference. (Of course this is not speaking of shots to the head or vitals.

It would seem the same with the mace v's say a sword strikeing ones armor. One would likely rattle your cage if not knock you flat off your feet, the sword even if it did break through may lack that extra mass and force needed to incapacitate the target.

At the ARS conference the Chicago Swordplay Guild specifically addressed this question. Yes, there is evidence in the 15th century fight manuals supporting attacking the articulations of armour as an option in defeating it in combat - not necessarily your first option, mind, but an option all the same. The practical application comes in attacking the joints - elbows, knees, and gauntlets in particular. In these areas, although dilligently reinforced as best they can be, the metal used for the armour is fairly thin (16-18ga at the edges of the larger joints plates, 18-20ish ga. in the small parts of the gauntlet as an off the cuff average).

Being fairly thin, and assuming you can find no other better opportunity in attack at the time, deforming these armour areas means at worst you slow your opponent's motions and gain an advantage, at best you can knock the articulation so out of line that the body undeneath can't move at all or would be injured by a misplaced plate edge in trying to do so. Imagine for a moment how you would feel if in a fight for your life using a sword suddenly the elbow of your dominant arm was stuck at a 45 degree angle. Another, imagine that before you had a chance to swing your sword the visor of your helm was not only knocked down enough that you couldn't see, but the hinge was bent so badly you couldn't raise the visor out of the way or even remove the helm at all!

Failing most other things, a sword can be used as a club in a pinch :)

In sword fights, or with any weapon where you aren't thrusting, most of the cuts seem to land either on the head or the arms. I've read many knightly epics, and histories, and they all describe sword on helmet action with helmets being bashed, dented, and creased. A blow severe enough to dent a helmet should deliver a fair amount of its concusive force directly to the head under the helmet. Instead of having the force of the blow being felt through the compression of the entire helmet on the skull a blow which causes a dent would be felt first and foremost on the dented portion of the helmet, if the dent is sever enough it may even cut the scalp a bit.

So you could also potentially use a sword, a mace, a warhammer, or any another object with enough weight to dent your opponents helmet and daze him.

Any way here are some videos which contain some helmet on sword tests with modern replicas

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testing...erials.htm

Yeah I've know of people who can do imbobilise the arms by aiming for a particular part of the elbow, and I had it shown to how your supposed to do it. However I've never actually seen it done.

Awsome vids. Thanks for sharing.


If i remember correctly, I believe I read somewhere that the Guals would use heavy wood clubs against the Romans with devistationg results to the armour and the soldier as well.

I believe Fiore mentions the use of the poleaxe to compromise armour. I don't know of any references for swords damaging armour in any fencing manuscripts, though.

Gordon Osterstrom (the mailsmith) has personal exerience with wearing a great helm and being smacked hard in the back of the head with a steel mace. It didn't knock him out. A horseman's mace is a poor weapon to use on foot. Hits like a bus when used as intended, from the back of a moving horse.