Are Medieval Maces BAD Weapons in Armored Combat? with @dequitem
scholagladiatoria・2 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