Hi
this is mace heads from Rus X- XIII century

---

 Attachment: 19.19 KB



 Attachment: 76.23 KB
[ Download ]

 Attachment: 76.13 KB
[ Download ]

Wow ! Thanks Piotr .... they're fantastic.....I have never seen Mace illustrations like them before ! I said in another post recently that, to us in the West, we dont have access to the many wonderful East European books which are full of great Arms & Armour illustrations ........ there are many treasures to be 'discovered' by us in the Museums and books of Eastern Europe.

Thanks again and cheers !

came across an image in a polish book; can't read the text, and i hope one of our more mulit-lingual forumists can assist here, but the image looks like it might have a flight mace in the lower right corner? There is also a more conventional looking mace head.

---

 Attachment: 104.02 KB
[ Download ]

Russian arming X-XIII.
a. heavy-armed rider XIV- b. sword from Gniezdowo X. c. Sabre from Goczew 1 half of XI. d. spear from Sachnowka XII/XIII, e. spear from Rajki XII/XIII, f. javelin from Novogrod X, g. battle axe from Gniezdovo X, h. battle axe from kurhan Perejaslawia X/XI. i. mace from Bukryn XII/XIII,
j. I dont know how he is kiscien in English but this is something like mace

I am apologizing for my English:)

Look thise foto http://www.museummilitary.com/?p=10&s=19

getting back to the so called "flight-maces", do we have any idea as typical dimensions on them? Maybe the chain was used to trip up opposing cavalry? Think bola.

I'm wondering why brass/bronze seems to be a popular material for these maces...when the armour theyre likely to encounter is iron....wouldnt the softer mace head deform?

A page or so back "flight-maces" were brought up, I believe in an Eastern context...admittedly I didnt read into the posts in detail, I had thought it had been simple flails they were discussing, but apparently there is a seperate weapon completely defined as a flight-mace which has many things in common with a flail.

As to brass/bronze mace heads being used versus lightly or unarmoured combatants, if that were the case, there being numerous combatants with little or no armour, then why wouldn't the sword or lance be used instead? The point of mass weapons in general is to defeat armour. Now I'm not so ignorant to think a heavy piece of metal isn't going to hurt regardless of protection, but a mace certainly wouldnt be the primary choice on the battlefield would it? If it did seem to be the case that you're dealing with lightly armoured enemies.

Dave

Alternatively, the choice of brass or bronze instead of iron may be technological; copper alloys are widely used in casting. Cast iron certain exists, but I don't think it was widely used in the medieval Middle East, and the iron maces of Europe seem to have been often forged.

There seems to be an opinion among some that brass or bronze is so soft they will basically melt (or shatter) when they strike something hard. :) While they are softer than steel, they are metals that have seen long use in real weapons of war. They wouldn't have been used if they didn't work.

As a trombonist, I know a little something about brass. In thin areas, it is pretty dent prone. However, you have to dent it badly for it to split. Items like a mouthpiece are heavier and thicker, but with a maximum thickness of only 0.3 inches or so. In my youth, I hurled a mouthpiece at an old oak door in extreme frustration (I'm not proud of that). The door took a perfect mouthpiece-shaped dent while the mouthpiece itself was undamaged, even in the thinner parts measuring 0.1 inches thick or so. While our ancestors didn't use "flight-mouthpieces" against oak-door clad opponents ( :) ), I think this shows that the right concentration of a cuprous metal can dish out damage to harder surfaces without being compromised.

Then you can save your good steel for armour and blades...

I see where you're coming from Geoff, and I agree...but I was thinking more along the lines of "developed" or "modern" (for *their* time that is) societies, where iron and steel are much more prevelant, not more primitive ones. Naturally in a culture with little or no metallurgy, metallic armour (specifically, rigid plate defenses) and the weapons needed to crack it would not be present, so a good melon basher would be adequate, and cheap to make and simpler to learn how to use (though I suppose that point could be argued as well) than bladed weapons.

Everythings relative I guess, isnt it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent most if not all bronze/brass mace heads solid, while most if not all steel mace heads are hollow, especially eastern examples? Something else to think about. Of course, I've always preferred the flanged maces over the knobular (excuse the word, I couldnt think of a better one ;) ).

On horseback I can definately see the advantages of a mace, even a very small one, but do we know how often these smaller maces were used on foot?

I just want to say this has been a really great thread, I've learned a lot here about some things I've been wondering about for a long time. Just wanted to put in two cents of my own.

Throwing maces. This is something quite prevalent in a lot of soucres I've run across over the years but seems to be discounted or glossed over in a lot of analysis, seems like it would be a pretty dangerous weapon a thrown mace. Clubs were used this way as well going back to the neolithic. The idea of some sort of wierd flail-like throwing mace is very interesting to me, reminds me a bit of a bola.

More generally on maces. I do agree with the theory (while agreeing that it's only a theory) that these are indeed an adaptation against armor. I have a little pet theory that is also why they are so frequently associated with kings, who does a king have hassles with on a regular basis? Aristocrats more likely to have armor...


I agree with felix about casting the heads, I think that could be part of it. Also perhaps weight, in Central Asia they seem to like light maces in this context, seemingly usually using wooden hafts and quite small striking heads. I don't think this is due to them not being able to 'afford' a heavy mace. It seems to be the preferred weapon type quite intentionally.

Another thing to consider, notice the shape how round they are. Heavier flanged or spiked maces (beyond a few corners or bumps) are better for causing injuries, but would be much harder to hold on to IMO when riding by someone at a gallop and smashing them in the head (notice we also almost always see a wrist-thong on these weapons as well). Weapon retention is a big deal with cavalry sabers of course for example as we all know. Plus a recoil issue of a mace bouncing around after a hit, perhaps dangling from a wrist strap, you probably don't want spikes or even flanges to injure you or your horse.



For spikes or flanges iron might be better but for a round striking head copper alloys would work fine.

I also having played the trumpet for years agree about how tough brass mouthpieces are. :)

As for African and Egyptian mace-like weapons, don't forget these would be pretty good at crushing shields too, particularly your light wicker or hide on a frame type shields I would guess.


Just a few scattered thoughts. Again much appreciate the images and links and intelligent thoughts posted to this thread so far, this is the kind of thing I come to this forum to see.

Jean

I have read that the item carried by Bishop Odo at Hastings was called, in English translation, a "Holy Water Sprinkler" and was an iron studded wooden club carried by clergy participating in armed combat because they were not supposed to be shedding the blood of their brother Christians. Conversely, I have read of it being called a 'bacula" or baton of office. So you "pays your money and takes your choice," I guess. :) Of course, it just might be both. :D

This whole discussion reminds me somewhat of the famous bronze Buddha found in, IIRC, Hedeby. Does that mean that there were Bhddhist Vikings or, more likely, that the item had wandered that far West and North through trade routes?

Jean, you too answered a few things I'd been wondering about, AND gave me some things to think about as well :D

To bring things back in line with the original thread title, I pose this question: Have we come to a consensus as to wether or not so called "viking maces" were more a symbol of rank, or were they more combat oriented?

In either case, I would expect to see a much more varied representation of said item in grave finds, if a status symbol, then surely they would have been interred along with the other often rich appointments of an upper class Norse grave. If more a weapon, then still, since we find axes, swords and spears as well as archery equipment in graves, then surely this weapon would have been no different.

Now, on the other hand, after Christianity becomes widespread in Norse lands, you see grave goods all but disappear. Can we infer from this that perhaps maces didn't come into prominence until well after 1000AD (give or take a decade or so depending on area)? I also don't recall seeing any Saga references of maces, and given the fact they were recorded a couple of centuries after the viking age (when the mace was becoming much more prevelant weapon) that also says something to me.

Is it also possible that we're not seeing certain artifacts for what they really are? Some of those images that were posted looked more like croziers than "mace" heads. Other small cast items that may look like mace heads may have been knobs of a decorative nature for any manner of non-weapon item. Just throwing it out there.

It seems we've also narrowed this all down to a more eastern viking (Rus) idea...which in my opinion clinches the answer to the question of "viking" maces. For me, that answer is no, since the vikings who settled Kiev, Novgorod and the like did not retain their identity for long, becoming more akin to Slavs than Norse, and eventually Russian.

I can appreciate the desire of some folks wanting the concept to have more validity than it appears to have though, I myself have been hunting for evidence of a lamellar armour prescence in Scandinavia during the Viking Age...to no avail...all I have to go on are the Birka plates which I dont personally count as a valid source given their suspected origin and a Saga reference of Spangabrynja and a few other Saga references of armour that *might* be something other than mail. So I can empathize with any of you that fnd the notion of viking maces enticing.

Dave