[Randall Moffett]

knights DID learn how to use crossbows and arrows. They seem to have thought it important but use it for hunting as far as I can tell. There are a few pictures of knights (men in surcoats with arms) using crossbows in battle but it could just be amusement of the artist but we know Richard I loved the crossbow very much.

I do not think they had a specific you can or cannot use weapon a and b but can use weapon c and d. I think some weapons were more symbols of knighthood though (sword and lance), but not limited to them. Heck in 14th century London tons of londeoners have silver spurs, limited by laws of the land to nobility.


RPM

[Geoff Wood]

[Craig Peters]

Geoff,

You have a point here- logically speaking, one does not cause the other. Perhaps I'm not following a good line of reasoning here, but hear me out. I think it's reasonable to suggest that, in part, a weapon's popularity has something to do with whether it's associated with a certain group of people or not. For instance, axes were used during the Middle Ages by knights along with swords. Yet few would dispute that swords are more "knightly" weapons than axes, and to a large degree, this is because swords were more popular with knights than axes were. I'd argue that this same line of reasoning also applies to daggers and maces.

Now that I think about it, it's not that the dagger being popular makes the mace less of a knightly weapon in an absolute sense, but rather that the mace is less of a knightly weapon in comparison to the dagger.

Have I articulated something that makes more logical sense?

[Bob Burns]

Why would a mace "not" be a knightly weapon, since it is obviously a weapon that will cause great impact trauma through armor? I'd say a mace strike upside a helmet or great helm would rattle some brains, or even to a chest plate would cause impact vibration through the chest cavity, or perhaps knock a sword out of a knights hand by impact to the armor covered arm. For that matter, I would think a mace would be more effective "if" impact was gained against any armor covered vital area like the cranium etc., than per say a sword. With a sword, you have to find and gain access to be able to thrust between plates.
It's like I said to one of my former martial arts instructors "Keith Hackney" of UFC fame, a finger gouge to the eye socket and the fight is over. His reply: "Yeah, but you've got to be able to get it there"!
So, would not a percussion weapon have more of a chance of "getting there" than a sword thrust between armor gaps?

Not that I would recommend one knight fight with a mace against a knight wielding a sword, but if he has that mace for a "back up" weapon, he's got quite a viable weapon in his arsenal.

Bob

[Randall Moffett]

Craig,

I think if you are saying that the mace is less of a knightly weapon as it was not as popular as the lance(spear), sword and dagger, I suppsoe it makes sense but not sure if I would say it is not a knights weapon any les than a axe or hammer were but perhaps less than the sword and lance. I think it may be somewhat leaving the point that a knight could use what ever he liked and found effective and as plate armour came in maces, hammers and war axesare in vogue. I personally have knocked holes in a 2mm breastplate with little problem with my hammer and figure the force behind it would equal done for poor soul inside. I think effectiveness would make it a knights weapon.

RPM

[Geoff Wood]

[Bob Burns]

[R. Lillquist]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I think the mace would probably be used like a sword of the time, but the balance might make certain things, like a high to low feint, a little more difficult.
I think that it could go either way with being a knightly weapon. A poorer warrior could more easily afford a mace (although it wouldn't be an all-metal flanged type) over a sword. But then again there is the fact that the scepter was a symbol of power, so I don't know.

[Bob Burns]

Just to qualify my posts, just before I fell apart from old age (arthritis of spine diagnosis) in late 2004 I earned a black belt in karate in a school and from an instructor where getting that belt is a very hard thing to do, there are a number of schools that are what we call "black belt factories". Just some info for anyone considering training in karate, check the school out thoroughly.

I am "no" expert in swordsmanship , all I can speak of are the application of certain principles that would apply to any martial art.

There are a number of sword instructors in this forum that I would absolutely "love" to train under! Because I can do non impact sports.

I would classify myself as a beginner who has only had access to sword instruction books so far, in other words I am a "tenderfoot" !

Bob

Oh yeah, after you get the stances, balance and body mechanics in harmony then you get to focus on "timing"! Now this is a tough one! At least it was in what I studied. LOL

[Bob Burns]

Oops, forgot one very important principle. "Commanding control of the distance"!

I sure hope I am not getting senile too!

Bob

[Randall Sanchez]

Hey there, new to the forums and all but I wanted to throw in my two bits.

I am an SCA player. I also practice real swordfight technique and try and incorporate it when I can to SCA fighting (two hand stuff sucks with the 90degree rules). I have worked with live steel weapons in the past including maces both the cast iron and cast bronze types. Both of which are historically accurate (surprisingly little changed over 600yrs with mace design). I've also used some replica warhammers. Most of all were practiced on wooden or tire pells.

My experiences with the mace contrasted steeply against using a sword. The maces were felt heavy and somewhat ackward with the weight distribution but so far up front. It was very uncommon to see a counterweight on a mace so you're sorta suck with the weird feeling.

Striking with a mace was MUCH different than striking with a sword. The initiation is the same as the sword in that you power it through a half arc and then "let it fly" meaning let the weight and momentum finish the rest of the arc with your arm directing where it will land. When a sword strikes you use a firm wrist to pull up ,and with a slight slide, pull out and above to reposition for another strike. This ensures that if you do penetrate armor or flesh that your weapon will not be lodged or wedged from the damage it inflicts. With a mace its literally a straight yanking motion straight back with an arm turn to reposition. This is the most efficient way to effect multiple strikes as well as the least tiring. Using the sword's method tires your arm out QUICKLY and you'll start to notice your attacks slowing down.

Attacking with a sword requires full follow through but it takes a shorter distance and less effort to reposition after a complete miss. Maces on the other hand require a looping flowing sort of follow through. Imagine me using striking from my right side and from above. If I miss the follow through requires my arm to travel almost the entire length of my body (arm is laid across my chest now) then looping up to reposition for another strike. Any other method is hard on the arm and espcially the wrist. There is a method to the madness though and some guys I worked with who work with mace alot looked almost artistic with some of the moves they were doing.

Feints are something I would not recommend except in the strongest of fighters. The head weight once again comes into play here and you put alot of stress on your wrist doing so.

Remember a mace is not a sword. Its not a spear. It has no finesse when it hits. Blocking a mace attack is not for the feint of heart. The power it puts out when it lands is amazing. I was able to snap 2x4's easily. In attempt to recreate an attack on a shield we tried a 1/4 inch plywood panel. I left fist sized cracks and in one case a full hole in it. I could see medieval made shields disintegrating under that kind of attack. The mace use was cast bronze with 4 "arms" with 2 large studs on each arm. The head was about 3 inches maybe.

Hope this helps some.

[Sergio Duarte]

[Sergio Duarte]

The only negative consideration I remember is about the first crude maces used before plate armour being associated with ppeasantsbut when plate armour developed and weaponsmiths started to make more elaborate or "artistic" maces they became symbols has well as weapons, uusefulweapons to crush plate.

[Sergio Duarte]

Sorry again... this is a bit dificult... I hope I become used to this quotes in order to prevente mistakes

[Ed Toton]

Heh, I didn't see this thread before it got resurrected, but I'll throw in my $0.02.

I was under the impression that the mace was a knightly weapon. Not just because of the symbolism of strength and power, and its evolution into the scepter, as others have mentioned. But more-so because of its usefulness against armor, particularly the heavier flanged designs.

I don't really have much to back me up, but it would seem to be an effective knight-vs-knight weapon, would it not?

[James Barker]

As a guy who studies WMA and does living history I will toss a few things into the discussion.

There is a late 16th c maybe early 17c Portuguese text that states in which order to use your weapons. The mace is before the sword while on horse and he does not recommend using it on foot.

I think there is a simple logic to why the mace makes a poor foot combat weapon; it has a short reach meaning you get into grappling range to throw it and it only has a small striking area which means I do not have to worry about getting cut when I close the distance to grapple you unlike a sword.

It makes a fantastic back up on horse. It needs no orientation to hit with it and it gets added mass from the speed of your horse moving.

[Craig Peters]

[Guilherme Dias Ferreira S]

In a fight between a fully armoured knight with a mace and another fully armoured knight with a sword, probably the first would win. Against unarmoured opponents, it's obvious that a mace is a less lethal weapon than a sword. But, you know, the mace concentrate the almost of the all kinetic energy of the movement in one spot, allowing the mace to crush the armour. So, when the knight knew that he would fight with a fully armoured enemy, he would choose a mace rather than a sword. It's not casually that many photos of the gothic knight (many regard them as the ultimate knights) show them holding a mace. Example: www.arador.com/gallery/15c-3.jpg
[/img]

[Sergio Duarte]

It is interesting to note that the Inca knew bronze but they never used it to make swords or daggers. They fought with star shaped maces. Some of those things used to fasten barbells have that kind of shape

[Dan Howard]