[Tom Fitzgerald]

I have been lurking on these forums for a while and have been considerably impressed by the general level of expertise around here. As such, I've decided to try to start some discussion about my favourite class of weapon, one much overlooked in favour of the more glamorous sharp and pointies, I am speaking of course of bludgeons.

As I see it impact weapons were very common in stone age cultures where there was not much in the way of armour to soften blows and there was no way of creating and maintaining a sharp edge. Australian Aboriginal and Polynesian cultures had a wide variety of elaborate war clubs. Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian warfare also seems to have utilised copper and stone maces but as the Iron Age really kicks in people (in Europe) seem to have abandoned impact weapons. Am I wrong or is there no real examples of Greek or Roman mace-like weapons? Where these people so enamoured of their swords and spears that they saw no reason to break the limbs and crack the skulls of there adversaries?

A kind of mace comes into use in late antiquity among (I believe) the Parthian and/or Sassanid cataphracts. An interesting weapon which I can't seem to chase up an image of right now. It's flat and has a wheel-shaped iron head.

Following this there is a long hiatus of no impact weapons until the clubs and maces start showing up in the Bayeux Tapestry. After this, through the high mediaeval and into the renaissance impact weapons have their golden age, going out of fashion with heavy armour.

What I am trying to get at here is, what was the role impact weapons played that edged weapons could not do? There is an obvious correlation between impact weapons and widespread armour use but, considering how heavily armoured some of the armies of antiquity were, why didn't some Romans use maces?

The hypothesis that I am working with is based on perhaps too brief and flippant a consideration of the evidence but here goes; The Parthians used maces because they wore heavy laminated limb armour and fought against other heavy horseman with similar armour. The maces were useful for busting wrists and elbows through iron plate -those guys were probably fairly invulnerable to swords. The infantry of the classical period were generally without limb armour making them sufficiently vulnerable to cutting weapons that impact weapons didn't need to be deployed.

Jump forward to Normandy and Bishop Odo's famous cudgel and the probable maces depicted on the Tapestry and we are returning to another era with arm defense, long-sleeve hauberks. As limb defense improves into the renaissance the prevalence of bludgeons increases until when armour is gone, bludgeons are gone.

Of cousre this neglects the arms race in asia and elsewhere in the world but is there something to what I have written? Is this already an established hypothesis written of in all the treatises on impact weapons that I can't seem to find?

[Steve Fabert]

I think there may be two related practical reasons why the use of heavier armor and the use of impact weapons seem to go together in many eras. The first one you mention, the relative ineffectiveness of edged weapons on a heavily armored foe and the need for an impact weapon to defeat that armor. The second is the flip side of the same coin. Impact weapons require the user to stay in close proximity to his foe, and to commit to some directed blows that will expose the user to a variety of counterattacks. Without reliable protective armor it would be unwise to choose an impact weapon as the primary personal weapon because using it would result in too many blade injuries from counterattacks. So the defensive need for enhanced protection may have tended to limit the use of impact weapons to more heavily armored troops.

I am personally unfamiliar with the use of impact weapons by mounted warriors. Perhaps the extra mobility of a man on horseback made it reasonable to use impact weapons without relying as heavily on defensive armor. As I recall the Normans were more reliant on horsemen than their adversaries, and so it is not surprising to see them experiment with impact weapons from horseback.

In medieval Europe one additional consideration was the religious scruple of clergymen against the use of edged weapons. A bishop would choose a mace in preference to a sword to avoid criticism for bloodletting.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Hmm...actually there are some (rather doubtful) accounts of Roman forces under Aurelian hiring some Palestinian with clubs or maces, presumably for fighting against the heavily-armored Parthian horsemen. Indians (from the Asian subcontinent, that is) also seem to have used clubs and maces continuously from antiquity until quite recently. Greek hunters often used clubs because they are easy to replace when stalking beasts in the wilderness--but I don't think I know any instances of them being used in warfare.

Maces, hammers, and axes are also (if I remember correctly) present in the Steppes throughout the ages.

[John Cooksey]

Parthians, Sassanians, and their medieval Muslim martial descendants used a variety of different types of maces: solid and round, solid and disc-shaped, flanged, spiked, horned----all quite common.
I believe that one reason that the mace was never a popular weapon in "classical" cultures was that it's used required a significant "swinging" motion that necessarily exposed the body from behind the large shield. These guys all fought in dense formations, essentially shield to shield (at least in the opening order)---leaving no room to swing a substantially-sized weapon. They used weapons that, ideally, minimized the bodies' exposure from behind the shield line----thrusting weapons like the spear and the short-sword.

At the same time, there is no reason that a stone-age culture couldn't create practical padded/quilted armors to soften the blows of impact weapons----and some did. Not to say that nice stiff metal plate over the padding isn't even better . . . .

Also, it really isn't all that difficult, per se, to have an exceedingly sharp and relatively maintainable weapon of "stone age" materials. The famous macahuitl of the Mexica Aztecs being one example----a wooden sword with its edges lined with obsidian or chert flakes. You break a few flakes off, no problem----take your core out of your "pocket" and strike off a few replacements. Of course, that takes quite a bit of skill and knowledge to maintain one's weapon, but the real impracticality of stone edged weapons is the expense---the really good stuff, like obsidian (which is both super sharp and relatively easy to work) is quite rare and thus increasingly expensive as one moves away from the source.

Good topic.

[Tom Fitzgerald]

[John Cooksey]

At least in Iran, maces have been in use from the Late Bronze Age all the way up into the Qajar period (late 18th/ 19th centuries CE). The mace("gurz") was an important "cultural" weapon, used by some of the major heroes of the Shahnameh cycle of mythic stories.

The shield-wall formation of the Germanic tribes tended to be a much "shallower" formation than the phalanx-derived formations of the classical world (certainly shallower than Classical Greek formations)-----a long-hafted axe could be used, even if somewhat ineffectually, from behind the front rank. Not sure of that explains the disparity, tho. Could have just been a difference in military philosophy. Or it could have been a matter of cost---axes are much cheaper than swords. Even in medieval Europe, a culture very much derived (in certain ways) from the Germanic, the axe was rarely a favored weapon among the elites. There are historic examples of its use, but it never attained anywhere near the popularity in iconography and "mythology" as did the sword.

The only steppe hammers that I have seen have been the small Scythian ones, but I am sure there must be other examples. The scythian hammers were usually small-headed, of cast bronze, usually highly decorated.

As far as limb armor "allowing" impact weapons---I would have to disagree. At least generically, if that makes sense. Plenty of impact weapons (maces, clubs, stone-headed axes and warclubs) were in use throughout the world, in cultural areas that saw very little use of armor. Certainly the mace was used during the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods in Egypt, a cultural context that saw the use of almost *no* armor. A more recent example would be the widespread use of axes and warclubs in Late Prehistoric and Contact-period North America. In their favor, impact weapons like clubs, maces, and certain kinds of hammers/axes tend to be relatively cheap and easy to make. A simple weighted club or stone-headed mace can be made from a wide variety of commonly available materials in a very short time, and is quite the effective weapon against unarmored targets. As metal-working becomes more advanced or widespread, and metal armors develop, there might be a change in the relative effectiveness of impact weapons, however. If everyone has stone (or bronze, or whatever) maces and spears and axes, the ground is a level-playing field. If I, however, have a short-hafted simple mace, and you have a longsword, the field would not be very level at all (based simple on weapon characteristics).

[Tom Fitzgerald]

[Tom Fitzgerald]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Felix Wang]

The Classical record is also a little complicated. The Archaic Greeks did know about limb armour, although the greave was the only piece to survive into the classic hoplite period. Tubular arm and thigh pieces did exist, and gradually went out of use. Similarly, the Romans did know about arm armour. The legions specifically were issued arm armour (manicas) when fighting in the Dacian Wars of Trajan, apparently as a defense against the Dacian falx. Of course, various gladiator types had been using arm armour for centuries.

While the Roman legions may not have used clubs, there is a well known figure of an auxiliary on Trajan's column that is clearly wielding a club. The legionaries did have a pickaxe-type device, the dolabra, which apparently wasn't used as a weapon.

[Tom Fitzgerald]

[Dan Howard]

[Jean Thibodeau]

From: WARFARE in the CLASSICAL WORLD, by John Warry, St. Martin's Press, page 13 illustration caption.

Early Hoplite armour 600 B.C. showing full arm armour on legs and right arm, the left arm being bare because it is protected by the shield.

This armour looks in the illustration like greaves for the forearms, upper arms, thighs: They seem to work like the lower leg bronze greaves that old on to the limb by the spring tension of the metal.

Also a groin protector in the illustration and I've seen and read about top of the foot protection also.

Seems like this more complete armour was known and in use but I don't know how " popular " and in general use the extra pieces of armour would have been.

Later on in the Classical period mobility took priority and less and less armour seems to have been used.

The large shield plus helm and greaves should have given adequate coverage and the fuller armour may have been more popular early on when fighting would have been more localized and close to one's city state I assume. Individual duels and the use of chariots by nobles making more complete armour useful and prestigious maybe.

When one gets into the Persian wars and the Peloponnesian Wars the use of lighter and more mobile troops ( Peltast ) and fighting far from home would make lighter armour more practical.( At least that is what I understand from the books I have read and what I remember as a general impression )

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Really interesting thread guys,

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Tom Fitzgerald]

[Tom Fitzgerald]

I forgot to include the famous Zulu club, the Knobkerrie. I have seen similar African knob-ended clubs as long as staves.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Transference of ideas from India is certainly possible, but the existence of such a paradigm of the mace as a weapon of command in Javanese armies isn't even certain--so I suppose it's still to early to take a guess at its provenance in the Indonesian case.

[Jack Yang]

Seem's like you guys all did a lot of nice researches before you answered, and I've really impressed by that O.o (and to be honest, I didn't read all of that =P I'll read them all later, after I share my little bit of chattering =D )

But in answer to the original message:
Why didn't Romans use impact weapons?
As mentioned earlier by some one else, the Romans fought in a shield-to-shield tank-like formation. In this formation, spears and short swords were used because of their thrusting abilities. Also, the Romans were famous for their sturdy scutum shields. The scutums allowed them to maneuver in the Testudo formation. In this formation, soldier would be pretty much invulnerable to impact weapons, since their shields would protect them from direct damage and their comrades behind them would provide them support to keep them from being "pushed over".

Armour relating to Impact weapons?
I thought heavy amour would encourage the use of impact weapons (and by armour I don't mean shields)... Impact weapons are good for sending their "message" through chest plates and helmets, they also defy the existence of chain mails. I think the reason why people stopped using impact weapons for a while is because of their clumsiness. Think about it, hammers and maces are pretty easy to dodge compares to a much lighter sword, and in order to attack with a impact weapon, you need to first pull your weapon to the side (which leaves you open to your enemy) to allow you to swing (and if you missed, you'll be open again). So, in times when people used relatively lighter armour, it'd make sense to use lighter weapons (greeks?) because you don't need to chop through a lot to get the kill (also note that earlier armoury had a lot of holes in them that swords can slip past). And in times of heavier armoury, swords would have difficulties getting through with all that metal in the way, people could pick up their hammers. With thick amour to protect them, the soldiers can worry less about getting slashed to bits while preparing for a swing, and their impact weapons would leave a deeper impression on their enemies than swords could.
I think that's why people started picking up big weapons during the medieval times. medieval amour was much better than greek or roman amour. The Greeks and Roman had things like simple breast plates and helmets that swords could easily get around, so hammers were not needed and would only provide risk for the user. In the Mediveal times, they had plates and chail mail, and some times plates with chail mail underneath, hard to get around, so raw force is needed, and the weapons that provided the greatest amount of raw force was "teh smashies".

So yeah... whew that's a long one....
summary:
heavy armour=heavy weapons (hammers, maces, two handed swords, etc and later, of course, muskets and cannons)
light armour=light weapons (short swords, daggers, etc)

As for the part about the stone age...
well, although people didn't wear a lot of armour during the stone age, sharp stuff could be difficult and expansive for them to maintain, and they were harder to make than impact weapons... so yeah, that would be the only exception to my theory... =P

Now i'll go wash dishes... and when i come back i shall read all ur comments