| Author |
Message |
Thom R.
|
 Posted: Tue 21 Jul, 2009 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Axe,mace,flail, and warhammer, why are they left out? |
 |
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | The simple reason why there isn't a lot of material on the weapons you've discussed is because they're a lot simpler to use than a sword. ........................So we really don't need that much on these weapons, because they're not that complex to use. If you're good with fighting with a long sword or single handed sword, there isn't a whole lot that you won't be able to do with an axe, mace, warhammer, or flail. |
In the specific case of the flail, especially the single hand versions, I am afraid I have to disagree with you........... based on my experience flails imo are among the hardest weapons to master effectively and run the greatest risk to yourself and any of your mates around you if not wielded properly. tr
|
|
  |
 |
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jul, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In the specific case of the flail, especially the single hand versions, I am afraid I have to disagree with you........... based on my experience flails imo are among the hardest weapons to master effectively and run the greatest risk to yourself and any of your mates around you if not wielded properly. tr |
A couple things to consider:
First, it was often, though not always, the case that historical flails had short chains. So that has an impact on how difficult they would be to use. Secondly, you're right that flails are more difficult to use than swords when starting out. It does take time to get used to having a chain with a weighted metal end attached to it, and it takes time to get used to how it moves when you're striking, and how it can recoil from a blow.
But once you've become experienced with that, what more is there to say about a flail? There's not really a whole lot else inolved in their usage. With a sword, by contrast, you have a whole series of cuts with the long and short (or true and false if you prefer Italian terms) edges, then actions in krieg, ringen am schwert, displacements and deflections, halb schwert, and so forth. It's true that in terms of basic usage, a sword is probably easier to work with than a flail. Once you've figured out how it handles, however, there's not a whole lot else to know about using a flail. So, while the sword may be easier to use generally, there's a lot more by way of techniques and actions to become adept with when employing a sword.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jul, 2009 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Michael Curl wrote: | Hmm, do you think that longsword use in war differs greatly from judicial duels?
Are our recreations applicable to warfare? |
The simple answer is that we can't be sure because we don't have precise information since there are no books that teach us how to use a longsword in warfare. When you look at the non-Fechtbuch iconography you see longswords used both by holding the hilt to swing (which Ringeck says is done by "those who know nothing of the art") and, more rarely, for halfswording.
But all of this misses the primary point, which is that the longsword wasn't really much of a weapon of war. It was a weapon for civilian self defense and for judicial combat and even for friendlier deeds of arms, but by the time of the longsword, most swords were very much secondary or backup weapons on the battlefield (which doesn't mean they didn't get used; lots of soldiers on the battlefield today end up having to use a pistol for things on rare occasions, and the pistol is *not* a primary weapon of war). The primary weapons of dismounted men at arms (i.e., fully-armored men who fought and were equipped as knights) were the spear and the pollaxe.
Having said that, using a longsword for halfswording as taught in the Fechtbücher is problematic, especially when most of your opponent's will be using poll weapons: In the first place, it just doesn't have the reach, and in the second place, a lot of halfsword material is tied to grappling techniques--something dangerous and doubtful on a battlefield where your opponent's buddies can easily kill you while you're entangled with your opponent.
On horseback a sword would be a valid choice for a backup weapon, and was probably fairly effective. After all, Dom Duarte tells us that the motion of the horse adds to the impetus of your sword stroke to make it effective, almost like a mass weapon. But you have to learn to use it en masse, and no one tells us about how that's done.
So I don't know what kind of reenactment combat you're doing, but what you're doing is probably accurate to some extent, you probably just use a lot more longswords than would be seen in a real medieval battle because most reenactment rules make the longsword as effective as a poll weapon, and they weren't--not even close--and the longsword is so quick and easy to use that it seems artificially valuable. |
True, however a poleaxe is only useful on foot, and if you think about even when the axe or mace was used, they always had a sword on hand. My question (coming from the bias of a passionate sword lover) is rather or not the superiority of technique and speed one gets from a longsword (or arming sword) could trump the percussive force of a mace or axe. And would this transalate into mass single combat.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jul, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: |
True, however a poleaxe is only useful on foot, and if you think about even when the axe or mace was used, they always had a sword on hand. My question (coming from the bias of a passionate sword lover) is rather or not the superiority of technique and speed one gets from a longsword (or arming sword) could trump the percussive force of a mace or axe. And would this transalate into mass single combat. |
Well if full 15th or 16th century armour is worn by both, I would think the guy with the mace, axe, bec de corbin would have a huge advantage over a guy with just a sword ! The guy with the sword would probably be best off dropping the sword and grappling up close using a stout rondel dagger.
If little armour is used or large areas are available as targets the quickness and reach of a sword might be better than a short mace or axe ? A 5' to 7' polearm would again have the advantage over a sword with or without armour. ( NOTE: Opinion, speculation, so don't take my words as authoritative proof or facts even though I think my guesswork is logic based and tactically sound.  ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jul, 2009 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: | | True, however a poleaxe is only useful on foot, and if you think about even when the axe or mace was used, they always had a sword on hand. My question (coming from the bias of a passionate sword lover) is rather or not the superiority of technique and speed one gets from a longsword (or arming sword) could trump the percussive force of a mace or axe. And would this transalate into mass single combat. |
And what advantage does that speed accrue in fully-armored combat? Personally, I expect that the relative fragility of the sword rendered it less useful in combat on horseback. Dom Duarte tells us how to make it hit hard enough to be useful, but plenty of sources point out how often swords broke in combat. I rather suspect maces broke less often than swords, making them more valuable in mounted combat. And, as you pointed out, the pollaxe was a much better choice in foot combat.
But that's not what you asked originally: You asked why none of the existing books dealt with the hand axe, mace and warhammer, and I explained it was because they weren't used in judicial combats (except the mace and Langenschilt of Franconian judicial combat).
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
  |
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jul, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hugh, I don't see much evidence that folks considered maces more valuable for mounted combat. In the sixteenth century, at least, heavy horsemen carried both weapons as backup for the lance. Yet the sword appears more often both in art and surviving texts of all sorts. If I recall correctly, one Iberian source even suggests using the sword before the axe, a similar mass weapon. I don't completely understand it, but I don't think maces and the like granted as much advantage in armored mounted combat as we would expect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2009 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Hugh, I don't see much evidence that folks considered maces more valuable for mounted combat. In the sixteenth century, at least, heavy horsemen carried both weapons as backup for the lance. Yet the sword appears more often both in art and surviving texts of all sorts. If I recall correctly, one Iberian source even suggests using the sword before the axe, a similar mass weapon. I don't completely understand it, but I don't think maces and the like granted as much advantage in armored mounted combat as we would expect. |
Benjamin, I didn't mean to imply the mace was superior in an absolute sense, I meant only that being less likely to break, a mace was superior in that one aspect. I wrote that poorly, however, so I can see why you think I meant the mace was considered the better weapon overall. In fact, as you say, swords continued to be used throughout the period, so there must have been some perceived advantage to swords in the eyes of at least some men at arms. It needn't have been a real advantage--perhaps the mere iconic nature of a sword was enough--or it may have been something we don't know about.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2009 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, the mace forces one to focus on bashing through armor rather than bypassing it. With the sword you at least have the option of thrusting for the face or some other gap. That strikes me as significant. Despite assuming half to three-quarters harness for infantry, no 16th-century military writer that I know wanted maces for foot soldiers. With somewhat lower armor coverage and without the added power of the horse, the mace apparently wasn't even worth carrying.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
True but the 16th century battlefield is different from the 15th, the 16th had much more lightly armored troops (especially by its end).
As far as maces vs swords, I am well aware of the advantages that a mace could give, but it still seems like it was always carried. What I meant when I said that a sword had more speed was not that a sword is just faster, but think of it like this, once an opponent has blocked or parried a mace, it take momentum to use it again, you can't just turn a fail strike into a trust like you can with a sword, in which case you can simply change the strike into a trust to the armpits or face. Additionally it opens up a lot more opportunites for winding and grappling tha a mace would. Not to mention that a mace has all of its weight at its head (the weak) how easy would it be to simply push it aside.
This is not to say that a mace strike to a helmet is not more powerful than a sword to the helmet.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
One difference for emphasis in manuscripts could be that the manuscripts we have seem to focus on one on one and dueling type encounters. The sword tended to have a solid place in these types of tournaments and duels. Its true that there were progressions of joust/ spear, axe, and then sword, or sometimes just the sword. There are clearly specialized shelds and weapons besides the sword in some of these manuscripts. The standard flanged mace, glaive, battlefield pikes, etc just don't seem to have been used in these one on one match ups as much as the sword.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jul, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | True but the 16th century battlefield is different from the 15th, the 16th had much more lightly armored troops (especially by its end). |
The two writers I'm thinking of, Fourquevaux and Smythe, both wanted considerable armor for their infantry and expected to find it on opposing troops. They gave specific instructions on how to bypass half and three-quarters harness with the sword.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jul, 2009 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
What did they write? Military treaties or drill manuals? I am unfamiliar with them I'm afraid.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
  |
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jul, 2009 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Military treaties. Guides on how to organize, equip, and lead soldiers to war. Both are available from Early English Books Online, but you need an account. Many universities provide access.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jul, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Well, the mace forces one to focus on bashing through armor rather than bypassing it. With the sword you at least have the option of thrusting for the face or some other gap. That strikes me as significant. Despite assuming half to three-quarters harness for infantry, no 16th-century military writer that I know wanted maces for foot soldiers. With somewhat lower armor coverage and without the added power of the horse, the mace apparently wasn't even worth carrying. |
Maybe one other way to look at it is that a solid hit to plate armour with a mace could still be effective so that one didn't have to be as selective about where to target one's blows but on the other hand a hit by a mace on maille or an unprotected area like the face would be devastating in breaking bones and causing extreme pain that would be " distracting " to say the least.
As to speed a mace is not that much heavier than a longsword but it does concentrate the weight in the head: Recovering from a missed blow might be slow or slower than with most swords but if the opponent has blocked your mace it has also lost it's momentum so there is no need to work to stop one's mace and one can simply redirect to another angle for a strike.
The cost to the one doing a hard stop on a mace is in absorbing the blow fully and even risk some damage !? At the very least one should deflect a mace rather than try a hard stop parry.
One handed use of a mace versus the use of a mace with two hands as a short polearm also changes how fast one can recover from a missed blow or one that was successfully parried !? ( One may start one handed for a strike but one could also use both hand to speed recovery ).
One disadvantage with the mace is that there are no " sharp " edges so a mace can be grabbed with lest danger by an opponent going into wrestling mode compared to a sword or knife ( Although those where often grabbed also ): So a mace just held in front of one is not menacing and must be kept out of reach until swung or risk being immobilized/grabbed. I think someone armed with a mace could be more easily rushed or out-timed safely than an opponent with a sharp weapon.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jul, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True, but the point I was trying to make is that once a blow has been deflected (which should be easy since most blows would be overcommited) your only option is to pull back the mace for another blow, and then it is a matter of nachreisen to follow and strike him.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jul, 2009 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: | | True, but the point I was trying to make is that once a blow has been deflected (which should be easy since most blows would be overcommitted) your only option is to pull back the mace for another blow, and then it is a matter of nachreisen to follow and strike him. |
Not if I can give a strait thrust from the point the mace was stopped and one never has to overcommit a blow with almost any weapon ( I think ): Even a mace like the A & A Iberian mace can give a thrust like a short battering ram instead of only be pulled back for a VERY telegraphed blow. A warhammer with a top spike has a top spike for a reason.
http://www.arms-n-armor.com/pole005.html
Just because a mace is a blunt weapon doesn't mean that one has to use it wildly/crudely without control or finesse. 
Short mace or long poleaxe I see both as polearms where all the techniques of " Le jeu de la Hache " or other spear/axe techniques can be used even though there would be some adaptation of specific polearm techniques if the weapon is short.
The Hollywood type of wild uncontrolled swinging is probably not the way a mace would be used but it does seem to match the ideas people have ( Not here on " myArmoury " ) that swords weighed 20 pounds and only brute force was involved in Medieval combat: The lack of period documentation about the use of the mace or short axe does force one to guess a lot at the usage but I think the basic principles used with the sword/spear/poleaxe/staff would apply to most all hand weapons. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jul, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Maybe one other way to look at it is that a solid hit to plate armour with a mace could still be effective so that one didn't have to be as selective about where to target one's blows but on the other hand a hit by a mace on maille or an unprotected area like the face would be devastating in breaking bones and causing extreme pain that would be " distracting " to say the least. |
I'm unsure about the effectiveness of single-hand mace against plate armor, particularly on foot. I suspect only strong, solid hits to the head would be likely to stun or disable a foe. I doubt blows to the shoulders or torso would accomplish much unless the made by Hercules. But this is all speculation based who carried maces in the sixteenth century and my reading of battle accounts. I can't recall seeing anyone seriously injured mace or hammer strokes to anywhere but the head in the age of plate.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jul, 2009 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: | | The author of Pallas Armata clearly states that he's writing about only a few weapons because those lessons will apply to other weapons. |
In my fighting experience, I have found this to be the correct answer too.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Head
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Jul, 2009 10:24 am Post subject: Re: Axe,mace,flail, and warhammer, why are they left out? |
|
|
| Thom R. wrote: | | Craig Peters wrote: | | The simple reason why there isn't a lot of material on the weapons you've discussed is because they're a lot simpler to use than a sword. ........................So we really don't need that much on these weapons, because they're not that complex to use. If you're good with fighting with a long sword or single handed sword, there isn't a whole lot that you won't be able to do with an axe, mace, warhammer, or flail. |
In the specific case of the flail, especially the single hand versions, I am afraid I have to disagree with you........... based on my experience flails imo are among the hardest weapons to master effectively and run the greatest risk to yourself and any of your mates around you if not wielded properly. tr |
Just to go back to this topic about the Flail for a second. I would suggest that the single-handed Knightly Flail was almost never used in hand to hand foot combat. It is much better suited for a mounted strike. Just hold out the Flail handle parallel to the ground and give it a swing at your opponent's head as you ride by. The Flail head would be rotating around the end of the handle in a vertical arc instead of horizontally. This makes it much less likely to strike something or someone unintentionally.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Jul, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Michael Curl wrote: | | True, but the point I was trying to make is that once a blow has been deflected (which should be easy since most blows would be overcommitted) your only option is to pull back the mace for another blow, and then it is a matter of nachreisen to follow and strike him. |
Not if I can give a strait thrust from the point the mace was stopped and one never has to overcommit a blow with almost any weapon ( I think ): Even a mace like the A & A Iberian mace can give a thrust like a short battering ram instead of only be pulled back for a VERY telegraphed blow. A warhammer with a top spike has a top spike for a reason.
http://www.arms-n-armor.com/pole005.html
Just because a mace is a blunt weapon doesn't mean that one has to use it wildly/crudely without control or finesse.
Short mace or long poleaxe I see both as polearms where all the techniques of " Le jeu de la Hache " or other spear/axe techniques can be used even though there would be some adaptation of specific polearm techniques if the weapon is short.
The Hollywood type of wild uncontrolled swinging is probably not the way a mace would be used but it does seem to match the ideas people have ( Not here on " myArmoury " ) that swords weighed 20 pounds and only brute force was involved in Medieval combat: The lack of period documentation about the use of the mace or short axe does force one to guess a lot at the usage but I think the basic principles used with the sword/spear/poleaxe/staff would apply to most all hand weapons. |
True, and a spike would be a great addition to a mace for that reason, yet not all maces had them, and for the ones that don't I just don't see how you can quickly recover, not to mention that a spear and poleaxe have little bearing on how you use a one handed mace (sorry, I think we may have been talking about two different weapons.).
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic