tbf, it's too specialized. They're heavy so they can hurt through armor, which makes them slow. Terrible weapon vs an unarmored opponent, who can more easily just get out of the way or stay out of your reach.
A spear is at least good everywhere but indoors.
Like, what is the absolute last medieval weapon you would ever want if you were fighting 3 unarmed guys? All fast, all know what they're doing. I'd say mace is solidly last.
Now, are they all wearing heavy plate armor like knights? Then mace becomes really, really good, it'll break your bones through that steel, dent the steel inward so it compresses your body and the joints stop working properly, all sorts of shitty things. And you're too slow to get out of the way.
source: I like maces.
I've always found them the most scary. If someone has mastered one, able to control and time the weight, opening up opportunities for blows, you're fucked. A light blow with a blade or spear, you're taking shallow damage and can scamper back. But with a mace? You're off-balance now or quite stunned and that's exactly what leads to the skull being crushed in a second later.
So, sure they're slower and harder to land, but patiently, just one good hit and it's game very quickly and violently over. Not to mention, the wielder doesn't have to worry about their weapon being stuck in the dead guy.
Good plate armor was nowhere near as ungainly as many people imagine. A knight wearing a well-made suit would actually retain a surprising amount of agility and speed. The downside was that they obviously had to be custom made and were so expensive that only the wealthiest nobles could afford them.
While true, it doesn't take much speed reduction to make a mace, or anything else, no longer miss you. Inertia is what it is, and the margins are not always large. The armor can deal with a lucky sword stroke, unless it's really, really lucky. It can't deal with a lucky mace stroke, you're a casualty. Broken arm, leg, skull, something.
Otherwise maces wouldn't have much of a point, anyway. Tiring to swing, shorter reach, yeah it hurts, but so does a sword if there's no armor in the way. Takes minimal training, but so does a spear, and spearmen can stand in close order and poke. A maceman can't do that, you gotta swing that thing. It's not much of a poker, like say, a roman gladius is.
If there's no heavy armor on the field, leave your mace at home. If there's heavy armor, bring the mace. Battering through that shit is what it's for.
Maces tended to be lighter and shorter than equivalent swords.
Maces aren’t as good against unarmored opponents, because unarmored opponents bleed and get incapacitated from a few well placed cuts. Swords tend to balance their weight closer to the handle to offer precision to make those cuts.
Maces specialize in delivering nearly the entire energy behind a strike. They were balanced to the tip of the weapon for that reason. Which is great against cut resistant armor due to energy transfer. Note that this places maces utility well before invention of plate armor.
If it’s heavy and slow, it’s not a weapon. Slow weapons kill their weilders. Rare armor rendered the user so slow as to let you swing in a game-like “lumberjack dealing with a stubborn log” fashion. There are plenty demonstrations around that show how fast and deadly an armored swordsman is.
The statement about spears indoors is game logic. The variability in spears and swords designs is such that most swords and spears would be equally dogshit indoors, but those that wouldn’t would all work quite ok. In a narrow, defensibly built passageway, thrusting attacks are nearly the only attacks available to combatants. A short spear then can offer a good deal of utility that sword wouldn’t, and vise versa. Short maces are nowhere near being useless there either.
Even if you're armed with the choice weapon, and skilled, 3 knights on foot looking to fuck you up are gonna do so lol. Those guys were brawlers more than anything else
A recurve bow and a horse.
But yea, probably accurate. lol
tbf, it’s too specialized. They’re heavy so they can hurt through armor, which makes them slow. Terrible weapon vs an unarmored opponent, who can more easily just get out of the way or stay out of your reach.
There's just one lesson in mace school: "come at them from behind".
Walk softly and carry a big stick
I think most weapons, including lack of weapons, benefits from surprise attacks from behind.
What's your opinion on flails?
The haft with a long chain and ball on the end is fantasy. However, I fought with one for a couple of years as a combat actor/choreographer and ren-faire reenactor and would say that the flail is a duelist's weapon only. And in a duel its chief function is to remove your opponent's shield.
A well placed flail strike will go around the guard of your opponent and potentially break fingers, hand, wrist, or arm.
You can also try to use it to disarm their primary weapon but it's less reliable in this regard as it becomes a tug of war strength contest.
Use your flail to break their hand and make them drop their shield and then drop the flail and draw your side sword or whatever else you happen to have.
Too slow and clumsy of a weapon to fight against a group or near allies.
One handed flails were never used in warfare. They were made for decoration. There was a 2 handed flail that couldn't reach the user but it was still not very effective.
Hits really hard. Probably kinda hard to use. If I picked up a real one I'd probably end up giving myself a concussion somehow.
I guess I don't know very much about flails... I thought they were more of a cavalry weapon irl, but I'd have to look that up. Unless it's the old makeshift farm implement version that some peasants probably picked up at different points.
not sure i agree people tend to wield baseball bats the same just swinging for the fences but a quick jab with the base or top is the most effective way to use them.
i think it's all technique
A baseball bat is a two handed club anyway. Maces are shorter and heavier.
Modern conceptions of medieval warfare drastically overestimate the amount of usage that swords saw in battle. At least that’s a thing I’ve heard.
The sword was a sidearm. It was a trusty companion you had on you everyday to demonstrate your wealth and power and to be drawn in your defense if need be.
When it was time for battle, your sword would still be at your side, but in your hands would be some sort of polearm or perhaps an axe.
Also, commonly used but often forgotten about is a falchion. It was a sidearm that looked like a sword but did not require all the training in swordsmanship to be effective. Instead of being balanced like a sword to enhance the point control, a falchion was point heavy (like a machete) and swung like a hatchet.
Swords were the handguns of old time. Easy to carry, usable in confined space but for actual war you'd want something bigger.
They’re so easy to carry that anyone who could afford to own one and knew how to swing the boat basic form thought they were a professional. Now, when an incompetent person owns a weapon it’s point and click so there’s less steel clattering against the floorboards and more corpses piling up.
I wouldn’t be surprised if technology was pushed towards ranged weapons like bows, crossbows, catapults, and trebuchets
I mean I’m sure there would be a good amount of swords or other close quarters melee units the keep the enemy at bay while everyone else is relatively safe from getting stabbed firing from a distance
I have no source just pure speculation
As far as my understanding, it was. Long bowmen were far more valuable because the costs associated with losing a knight was high. Infantry were given various polearms, and cavalry (or knights on horses) were given lances and spears. The kinetic energy from horseback functioned as good or better than trying to wind up swings of a weapon. Also human mobility is less than that of a horse before even accounting for armor, so being demounted from your horse mean almost certain death.
Swords were a last resort. A "running away is better" type of option. Being good with your sword is like being good with martial arts today - better to have it even if you may not use it.
Wasn't the spear also one of the easier weapons to learn? Which is why a big part of a medieval army was made out of spear carriers?
Stick them with the pointy end.
From eight-plus feet away. That part is pretty important, you don't even give them a chance to get close.
From what I understand spears popularity comes from
-
Being the easiest weapon to craft in prehistory, get a stick and sharpen the end to a point, add some plant fiber for a grip and boom you have one of mans earliest killing tools.
-
Spears have a great reach and can target pinpoint locations
-
With proper technique you can throw them as a limited range weapon
-
Can be wielded easily while managing a shield
-
Spears are probably cheaper to make too
In no way, shape, or form am I an expert in martial arts or combat. I would imagine however it depends on the situation. An army with spears and an individual with a spear are two very different things. Armys equipped with swords vs spears, spears win. Individuals fighting with a sword and a spear probably comes down to individual skill more than the specific weapon.
You might like this video, https://youtu.be/LX3n4XIwHZo?si=9KC7upiLOFaR0ddN
At 8:50 the guy says that traditionally one person with a spear was roughly as good as two equally skilled persons with a sword.
Generally also beats a sword except in pretty specialized circumstances.
Bow > spear > sword (and shield, ofc) > whack.
Range ftw.
No shit ranged weapons were good for warfare but producing good arrows and bows was expensive and most of the time it was needed more for hunting rather than fighting. Plus it doesn't work against shielded formations. The spear is still the undoubted king of weapons as a cheap and hugely effective way to outfit an army.
Mace became playstation
