Are Medieval Maces BAD Weapons in Armored Combat? with @dequitem
scholagladiatoria・23 minutes read
Maces are less effective than swords in armored combat due to their inability to penetrate armor, with swords being better at targeting gaps in armor. Historical significance highlights maces' effectiveness against chain mail, but in modern reenactments, mace weights are restricted, indicating their potential for harm.
Insights
- Maces are less effective in armored combat against full plate armor due to their inability to penetrate or cause significant damage, making swords more practical for exploiting gaps in armor.
- In the 14th and 15th centuries, maces lost prominence in foot combat as larger two-handed weapons like poleaxes and long swords became preferred due to their superior effectiveness against armored opponents, with maces being relegated to horseback combat.
Get key ideas from YouTube videos. It’s free
Recent questions
Are maces effective in armored combat?
Yes, maces are less effective against full plate armor.
Related videos
Shadiversity
The TRUTH about BATTLEAXES!
Kentucky Ballistics
Medieval Weapons vs The Modern Warrior (How Lethal Are Medieval Weapons ???)
Lindybeige
Spears are better than swords: scientific proof
scholagladiatoria
Viking Era Swords - Why weren't they more pointed for armour penetration?
Sideprojects
The Biggest Misconceptions About Historical Warfare
Summary
00:00
Effectiveness of Maces in Armored Combat
- Maces are considered easier to use in armored combat due to their ability to bash through armor, unlike swords which require precision.
- In a response video, it is argued that one-handed maces, warhammers, and axes are ineffective in armored combat on foot.
- The expert specializes in armored fighting and highlights the inefficacy of maces against full plate armor.
- Plate armor is highly effective in protecting against weapons, making many weapons, including maces, less effective.
- Swords are deemed more effective in armored combat due to their ability to stab into gaps in armor, unlike maces.
- The historical significance of maces against chain mail armor is highlighted, showcasing their effectiveness in earlier eras.
- In modern reenactments, mace weights are restricted for safety reasons, indicating their potential for causing harm.
- One-handed maces are not commonly used on foot in the 14th and 15th centuries, with larger two-handed weapons being preferred.
- Bashing armor with a sharp-edged sword can damage the blade and increase the risk of breakage, making it impractical in combat.
- Swords in the 15th century are primarily used for thrusting and leveraging, rather than bashing armor, showcasing their effectiveness in combat.
15:10
"HEMA: Blunt Swords, Armor Rings, Horsemen's Maces"
- Using sharp swords to thrust into armpits or towards someone's face is not practical in historical European martial arts (HEMA) as blunt swords are typically used.
- Scoring a point in HEMA involves not just hitting a target but also bursting through armor rings and preventing the opponent from retaliating simultaneously.
- Scoring points in HEMA classes by thrusting into gaps may not necessarily be effective as the true impact of the strike is hard to determine without penetrating armor.
- Short maces and warhammers in the 15th century were primarily used by horsemen, known as Horsemen's maces or warhammers, due to their effectiveness on horseback.
- Horsemen carried short weapons like maces and warhammers as they were more percussive and less likely to break compared to swords when striking armored opponents.
- In armored duels in the 15th century, weapons like spears, poleaxes, long swords, and rondel daggers were preferred for fighting on foot, while maces were more suited for horseback combat.
- While maces were effective in earlier periods against opponents with mail and shields, they became less important in the 14th and 15th centuries for fighting on foot, with other weapons like poleaxes and long swords taking precedence.
