Let someone hit you in the face with it to test out if it's a meme.

>>98573812
Against softer armor, weak points in heavier armor, or bopping them on the head. Hammers were better.

>>98573812
Depends on the armor.

If you're wearing a chainmail, a mace will absolutely wreck you, with your armor offering almost no protection. If you're wearing plate armor, less so.

try tanking a hit to the head with mail armor, you will look cool

>>98573838
The vast majority of warhammers were polearms.

>>98573812
My only credentials are that I've seen a shitload of weapon testing videos on youtube, including at least three for maces and other blunt weapons. In other words, I'm talking out my ass, but here's my opinion anyway.

Seems to me like they're not nearly as effective against rigid armor (esp. "platemail") as games tend to portray them, however they do work exceptionally well against flexible armor (not just gambesons and chainmail, but also brigandine, which is unfortunate bc there's a special place in my heart for brigandine). When it comes to maces, the armor might as well not even be there if it's flexible. Piercing weapons are also really good against flexible armor. In fact, flexible armor is only particularly beneficial against bladed weapons. Bladed weapons do seem to be preferable for self defense in civilian life and against armies with an armor deficit.

>>98573908
flexible armor actually will protect somewhat against blunt weapons by padding you against the impact
textile armor with a rigid external covering would provide about as good a protection as you can get against a hammer

>>98573848
>If you're wearing a chainmail, a mace will absolutely wreck you, with your armor offering almost no protection.
Not really. Mail is not some kind of fragile fabric that easily gives to any blunt force. There's a reason why piercing weaponry was preferred against mail rather than maces. Also, it's just called mail, or maille if you want to use the French to make it more clear you aren't talking about letters.
>If you're wearing plate armor, less so.
You're pretty close to the truth about maces but not quite there yet. Maces are not anti-armor weaponry, period. They were for braining peasant levies first and foremost. If you wanted to fight a man in maille or plate armor, lances were favored first and foremost (cavalry was king). But if for whatever reason you, a knight, were not on horseback (AKA a retard, a tournament jockey, or fighting indoors), you would go for polearms, followed by stilettos, followed by swords (which could deliver deathblows to armored opponents more easily than maces via half-swording and mordhau strikes). The effectiveness of a mace against pretty much any kind of armor is immensely overrated; they are too short to generate the centripetal force required to kill an armored foe in one or two direct strikes like a warhammer can, and are completely incapable of delivering deathblows unless you first knock out your enemy. But if you're just bashing them over the head over and over, you might as well be using a sword, since once you've incapacitated them with blunt force trauma you can then use the aforementioned techniques to drive whatever part of the sword you deem appropriate through their visor.

File: large_m_15_1946_1_201311_(...).jpg (23 KB, 1024x411)

23 KB JPG

I'd bonk the fuck out of any of you

>>98573969
>short reach
>needs a fully committed strike each time

>>98573977
did I mention that I'll be straddling your chest

>>98574055
how will you be able to do that when you telegraph every strike?

>>98574055
w-what happens next?

>>98574068

telegraph are you fucking stupid what is this the 1800's i'd fucking steam engine you

>>98573812
Neither. Maces were useful sidearms if you weren't able to do edge alignment and for whatever reason didn't have something fit for stabbing, or if you were a cavalryman who wanted something easy to draw and good at smashing heads (Which, when you're on horseback, are at a much more convenient and difficult-to-protect height.)

If you want the actual "best" weapon against armor in a dueling format that isn't a meme non-answer, history tells us it was between thin and pointy daggers, poleaxes, and two-handed swords.
Between poleaxes and swords, I think it comes down to preference and local custom. However, most of the writings we have attest to swords being preferred, and Fiore's manuscript explicitly emphasizes swords and specially made armored-fencing swords. In addition, of the few modern practitioners who try to use largely historical techniques in largely historically accurate armor, all the ones I've seen believe the sword is superior.
The dagger is just an auto-take because you can easily carry it and use it when you need to, and it's of an ideal length once you're grappling.

>>98573851
Part of why they're better.

Worth remembering that mace injuries might be worse than most cuts. We didn't get good at setting broken bones for a very long time, and a complex bone break gave you a choice between amputation or death.

>>98574208
other way around
medieval medicine actually did know how to treat broken bones
but without knowledge of bacteria, cuts had a bad habit of developing infection

while a truly bad compound fracture couldnt be fully healed, they did have stuff like traction benches at the time that at least let them set the bones in place
but a comparable blade injury like disembowling was likely 99% lethal even with prompt medical aid

>>98573812
It was good against armor that was primarily designed for dulling a slashing blade, while being somewhat effective against plate. But the real advantage was ease of use: it was much less cumbersome to use as a hammer due to both the weight and the universality of attack. hammers want to hit the enemy straight on with the head, and the bigger the swing the better. Maces you can sort of just flail around with them, because its equally dangerous on all sides. As long as you have a firm grip on it you're good to start swinging.

A mace is like a worse hammer, a worse pick, and a worse axe all in one. Inferior to any of those three in their chosen field, but a solid jack of all trades weapon as a result.

>>98573837
OP's face isn't armor.

>>98573812
Ask /k/, the weapons board.

>>98574223
This is also why spear wounds were so deadly. It wasn't just the organ damage, a small but deep wound was begging to create an infected abscess that was too deep to treat with the simple poultices and the like they had available that MIGHT clean a shallow wound.
This is also what lockjaw is, for the record. People associate it with rusty nails, but the important part is actually not the rust (as most people assume) but the nail. Small wound, deep puncture, leaves common bacteria that forms a deep infection that later causes severe problems after weeks or months of infection. The bacterial infection doesn't kill you itself, the bacteria just creates a toxin as a waste product in your system that builds up and builds up until it starts causing muscle paralysis, which is a real bitch even for modern medicine because killing the bacteria with antibiotics doesn't neutralize the poison thats already in your system and is much harder to get rid of.
This is why we get vaccines for that, because preventing it in the first place is VASTLY more successful than trying to treat it after its become a problem. So given the trouble even modern medicine has with such a simple wound, you can imagine how deadly that was even a couple hundred years ago.

>>98573812
A good bonk to the head will certainly take anyone out of the fight, helmet or not
t. has been struck with a blunt weapon while wearing a helmet

>>98573934
>here's a reason why piercing weaponry was preferred against mail rather than maces.
That's false, and a gross oversimplification.

Maile was incredibly effective against arrows. There's even reports of soldiers wearing maile returning from battles decorated like porcupines but unharmed.

The idea of rapiers and other thin swords defeating maile is also not very well documented, largely because they were tools for very different forms of warfare.

As for spears, pikes, and lances, that's less to do with them being piercing weapons that could break mail linkages or slip through them (who even comes up with that kind of stuff) and more to do with them being able to concentrate the enormous force of a man charging or even a horse+man charging into a single point, and in the case of a cavalry charge even if it the armor held together it would still mean the guy dies from his organs being mashed into chunky gravy. You could probably get a similar result with just a wooden stick. The key advantage of rigid armor was being able to deflect that force somewhat, and maile did none of that.

>s (which could deliver deathblows to armored opponents more easily than maces via half-swording and mordhau strikes).

Don't meme.

>>98574548
That doesn't sound like a spear-exclusive thing, that sounds like something that comes free on anything that has a point.

>>98574691
spears, and by extension polearms as a class, have the weight of the pole behind the point
so a spear is going much deeper than a dagger of comparable size to its tip

>>98573812
Speaking from experience, no it isn't unless you get hit in the head or a soft armored spot but even then you'll have padding under chain and it won't be as bad as an axe or pick of the same weight. The reason is those little spikes won't go in far enough to break a rib or do a lot of tissue damage and a head on hit with one is unlikely. Personally I think maces were used very defensively and to just break other weapons more often than not, medeival martial arts is notoriously poorly documented. Probably because at the time people were down to earth enough to intuit a tools use just by looking at it and didn't need much explanation on how to use it properly.

>>98573812
There's evidence to suggest that maces were originally used as a throwing weapon, so basically 'throw rock' combined with 'leverage'

>>98574736
Nah.

>>98573812
It’s selling pony was being able to break bones through sheer force not necessarily destroy the armor itself

>>98573812
My understanding of OP Pic was that it wasn’t that it was good at piercing the armour, but the flanges on that particular style of mace were used to snag on the helmet and drag the force of the blow with it. The sudden wrench on the neck or head bouncing your brain around in the pan doing more concussive force than a bonk that bounces off the armour, a bonk that rattles the wearer a bit but otherwise does nothing.

That most blunt weapons against armour was to dent and deform the armour so it would inhibit the occupant’s movement so they could be stabbed with the pointy bit.
Or damage the armour so much that it cannot protect against the blows.

Armour was designed so that if you tried to punch through the plate with a single point it would glance off, so you would have things like the pole axe with its 4 pronged hammer head,
And anything looking war pick like was used for unarmoured peasants or to hook behind a leg or arm and drag an armoured opponent.

But what do I know? I wasn’t there.
Still wouldn’t wanna get hit with original pick though

>>98573812
It's not that effective against the armor and more effective against the dude behind it.
Although, it has the potential to put a dent into someone's armor, which is more than many other weapons can claim.

>>98575500
>Although, it has the potential to put a dent into someone's armor, which is more than many other weapons can claim.
Not really, you can do this with almost anything.

>>98575555
harder than you might think, unless you have a very broad definition of dent
most plate armor is designed to glance blows off with angling in addition to the metal thickness, so a spear stab or sword swing will slide off without transferring any energy to the armor to dent it
even earlier maces would slide off the armor instead of having a long enough time of contact to even allow denting, to say nothing of penetration, which is why maces became flanged to allow for 2 points of contact that would prevent slippage

you would need a polearm or battleaxe to deliver enough force to crumple the armor on impact before it had time to slide off, if you arent using a flanged mace or warhammer

>>98573812
not against plot armor

>>98575499
Nope. Just completely the opposite of what flanges do.

Nope. If you could dent armor enough to inhibit movement (Which you objectively couldn't), you'd already be breaking limbs. Same for damage.

Poleaxes had a variety of heads. Most of our surviving examples have flat hammerheads, blades, and long spikes. The spike is for actually killing people in armor. The rest is at most, used to try and get there.

You wouldn't be fighting unarmored peasants.

>But what do I know?
Not much.

File: kastenbrust.jpg (34 KB, 447x447)

34 KB JPG

>>98575567
>harder than you might think
Not really.
>unless you have a very broad definition of dent
I go by the textbook definition. No doubt you have some kind of retarded image in your head for a more narrow definition though.
>most plate armor is designed to glance blows off with angling in addition to the metal thickness
Depends on the design and quality, and it only works against certain blows from certain angles.
Will Pic Rel's angling make a downward swing glance off it? No, not really. An upward thrust? No, not very well. It's good for stopping someone's lance from punching through your torso though.
>which is why maces became flanged
Flanged maces existed before plate armor did and were even more common in regions without it.
>you would need a polearm or battleaxe to deliver enough force to crumple the armor on impact before it had time to slide off
Not really.
t. Have seen someone's custom order hardened steel breastplate get dented by a forceful spear thrust (Not an uncommon story either btw.)

>>98573812
Yes, however you need to know how to use it. Some armor is useless against it. Some armor have slight protection but still effective if you know how and where to hit.

>>98575607
>Some armor is useless against it.
no armor is "useless" against it
even the simplest chain armor will provide at least token protection against it

>>98575619
is That True?

>>98575619
When I say useless, I don't count token protection. That like saying simple clothes can protect you against a axe or sword. (Not padded, thick, etc)

One of the things I've appreciated with modern testing is establishing that armor is really, really tough. Way tougher than most people thought. So many people would laugh at katanas cutting through breastplaces and then say that a mace would instantly crush their chest though. There's basically nothing a human can realistically carry that will actually render armor useless unless you're carrying a jaws of life.

>>98575716
Ever heard of guns?

>>98574223
Cut good, puncture bad.

File: Face is my shield.jpg (44 KB, 738x414)

44 KB JPG

>>98574521
>his face isn't his shield

>>98573812
Supposedly they were used as cavalryman's sidearm.

>>98573934
>francophile
>knights are heavy cav and never ever fight dismounted
>a mace cant concuss through armour just hold your sword backward trust me bro
Comically wrong

>>98573812
Footballers get knocked out all the time as part of an unarmed sport and their armour is never penetrated. There's a lot to be said for a light fast striking weapon you can wield one-handed and strike an opponent nearly anywhere with. There are better anti-armour choices, but they're not one-handed

>>98575973
>Footballers get knocked out all the time as part of an unarmed sport and their armour is never penetrated
if it takes an entire persons weight beiong rammed into you only to knock you out, then the armor did its job
since the alternative is being dead

>>98573812
You're supposed to use it to smash joints. It is effective.

>>98573812
Weapons are for fight but only daggers are for kill

>>98573812
I mean, hitting an armored knight on the head with hard enough something heavy or blunt will kill them. Not by cracking the armor or cutting the guy inside, just by the head trauma of getting their head slammed around inside their own helmet.

That’s how NFL players get concussions, their own helmets slamming onto their heads.

>>98575973
>There's a lot to be said for a light fast striking weapon you can wield one-handed and strike an opponent nearly anywhere with
Anon if this applies to a mace then this applies to nearly every single one-handed weapon.

File: Flails_on_straps_10.jpg (263 KB, 400x1333)

263 KB JPG

>>98573969
Right up to the crown, you can tell this is a weapon of monarchic authority. It's meant to be wielded with one hand from horseback, a field replacement for a royal scepter at court. It's a kingly version of the flexible flails that other riders used, pic related.
For general armored combat, lance on horse or poleax/warhammer on foot.

>>98574633
>That's false, and a gross oversimplification.
There are no maces that were made for killing through mail. There are, on the other hand, an assortment of piercing blades designed for killing through mail.
>Maile was incredibly effective against arrows. The idea of rapiers and other thin swords defeating maile is also not very well documented, largely because they were tools for very different forms of warfare.
I am very clearly talking about stiletto daggers and other specific mail-piercing weapons. Not weapons that are obviously not designed for penetrating armor. This isn't a video game, 'piercing' is not a weapon category in real life.
>As for spears, pikes,
Neither of these are particularly effective at penetrating armor. Again, not what I was talking about.
>and lances, that's less to do with them being piercing weapons that could break mail linkages or slip through them (who even comes up with that kind of stuff) and more to do with them being able to concentrate the enormous force of a man charging or even a horse+man charging into a single point, and in the case of a cavalry charge even if it the armor held together it would still mean the guy dies from his organs being mashed into chunky gravy. You could probably get a similar result with just a wooden stick. The key advantage of rigid armor was being able to deflect that force somewhat, and maile did none of that.
Mail is not made of fucking rubber you utter imbecile. It is incredibly rigid when struck, that's the entire point of it as armor. Lances are effective against all forms of historical armor, plate as well is very poor at deflecting a joust, that's why I brought it up as the obvious king of anti-armor warfare.

>>98575973
>francophile
Maille as an alternative to mail is common throughout the anglosphere, has been for centuries, you stupid fucking retard
>knights are heavy cav and never ever fight dismounted
Are you now going to try to argue knights primarily fought on foot by choice throughout history, dumbass? Please do, so I can laugh at your retardation.
>a mace cant concuss through armour just hold your sword backward trust me bro
A sword can concuss through armor just as easily as a mace does, dumbfuck. Maces were never preferred weapons in armored duels on foot, but on the other hand swords were almost always brought as backup weapons for when the initial polearms of choice broke or were disarmed.

>>98575573
What’re you talking about, denting armour to inhibit movement or going for joints was the way to take down a guy in full plate.

You go for the joints where the armour is either weakest, or as with later examples of 16th century articulated armour, where the armour needs to move,
if the opponent can’t move to swing their weapons correctly or draw a dagger you throw them to the ground.

Thicker flanged maces would concentrate the force into the strike sure, but their design is so they don’t just skip off a curved surface. The one that looks like it’s got thinner blades on the other hand, either for lighter armour or for snagging shit

>>98579136
>A sword can concuss through armor just as easily as a mace does, dumbfuck.
not as easily
a mace concentrates all of its mass at the tip, giving it more inertia
a sword has its mass evenly distributed along its length

you would need an axe to deliver a comparable concussive force

>>98579392
>What’re you talking about, denting armour to inhibit movement
No lol.
>or going for joints
With a sharp pointed weapon, sure.
>Thicker flanged maces would concentrate the force into the strike sure, but their design is so they don’t just skip off a curved surface.
They still do glance off. Again, you have no idea how flanges work.

>>98579413
>not as easily
Yes it can.
>a mace concentrates all of its mass at the tip
No it doesn't, retard. Do you think the handles are massless?
>a sword has its mass evenly distributed along its length
No it doesn't, retard.
>you would need an axe to deliver a comparable concussive force
No you wouldn't, retard.

>>98580112
>No it doesn't, retard. Do you think the handles are massless?
almost all of the mass is above your hand, and the heaviest portion of the weapon is the head

>No it doesn't, retard.
it slightly tapers at the end, which moves the balance point further down to the handle, if anything
but the general point is true, its balance is more even rather than concentrated

>No you wouldn't, retard.
an axe has the weight distribution of a mace, most of the mass at the end which approximates a mace better

>>98580138
>almost all of the mass is above your hand
The same is true for swords and now you're contradicting yourself. Is it ALL or ALMOST ALL? It can't be both, retard.
> which moves the balance point further down to the handle, if anything
No it doesn't retard.
>but the general point is true, its balance is more even rather than concentrated
No it isn't, retard.
>an axe has the weight distribution of a mace
No it doesn't, retard.

Can't imagine being this much of a grass-free shut in.

>>98580146
>No it isn't, retard.
if you want a sword slash to have the same angular momentum as a mace, you would have to build it like a machete or the master sword so that it bulges out at the tip

>>98580154
>Blah blah blah
So you admit you were wrong and had no idea what you were talking about. Lol, fuckin retard.

>>98573812
The type of armor that could protect you from this is naturally difficult to carry around, difficult to move in, and not something you're likely to be wearing in the kind of situation someone would be carrying this in.

The only reason it doesn't dominate is the same as most other short range melee weapons. They will always be inferior in battle to a long pointy stick.

We had to invent industrialization in order to fully nerf the dominance of long pointy sticks. Everything prior to industrialization that isn't a long pointy stick is a meme weapon in comparison.

>>98574193
>Ignoring shields
This is why you're dead

>>98580218
>Everything prior to industrialization that isn't a long pointy stick is a meme weapon in comparison.
if this was true, no one would have bothered to make any other weapon
the long pointy stick was an effective weapon for arming whole armies at once and fighting in large formations but other weapons did have a legitimate battlefield purposes otherwise no one would have brought them along

>>98574182
>If you want the actual "best" weapon against armor in a dueling format that isn't a meme non-answer, history tells us it was between thin and pointy daggers, poleaxes, and two-handed swords.
This is the answer. You can find armour testing all over the internet, and the standard plate+gambeson combo is really effective at softening practically all weapons, this means the best way to take out a knight is by getting a nimble weapon through the eyeslits (and that is still quite difficult).
If knights were easy to kill with a ball on a stick then you wouldn't see knights on the battlefield at all.

>>98580228
nta
Other weapons did have battlefield uses, but mostly as sidearms and for filling small niches.
The king of weapons is the pointy stick in it's many forms. Spears, poleaxes, and swords are all different variations on pointy sticks.
It is worth noting that many weapons were dual-use. Peasant militias and raiding parties would be likely to use things like axes and such, since those would be what they had on hand already (it's an efficient way to use limited resources). Standing armies would mostly be equipped with pointy sticks.

>>98573812
There is no such thing as a "can opener" anti-armor weapon. Even le warhammer was just "good" against the likes of plate, and any "anti-armor" weapon was going to still fuck up an unarmored person way worse. Anti mail it's decent, but to reliably get through plate you're basically going to need to engage in dagger wrestling or get a lucky chink between the armor with a halfsword. And honestly longswordfags really overestimate how easy that actually is.

What's slept on about the Mace is as a cavalry weapon. It's why it was associated with aristocrats. It's a genuinely goated cavalry sidearm, delivering CTE to anyone unlucky enough to be in bonking distance.

>>98580228
Anon I have way too many things in my kitchen designed to chop, grate, or mince things like garlic, but I still end using a knife more than half the time without thinking.

You can get a lot of use out of a bunch of guys with hand cannons positioned properly in your army, but once they fire a volley the pikes move up in front of them.

>>98575721
Yes.

>>98580218
>The type of armor that could protect you from this is naturally difficult to carry around, difficult to move in, and not something you're likely to be wearing in the kind of situation someone would be carrying this in.
Wrong on all claims.

>The only reason it doesn't dominate is...
Because it sucked cock.

>They will always be inferior in battle to a long pointy stick.
This is because maces sucked, not because [reddit meme] is good.

>>98580262
>nta
Samefag using the same dumb reddit meme terms without understanding anything about the subject he's waffling about? David and Justin can't stop winning.

>>98580356
>Anon I'm fucking retarded and proving your point
gg ez, everyone would indeed still default to the all-around most useful and effective tool rather than something specialized which often ends up being less useful anyways. Hence we can say maces were not actually useful or effective once the stone age ended.

>>98573812
>Guys, is blunt force trauma real or a meme?
Ask me how I know you never, ever, not even once, were in a physical scuffle, not to mention a fight, you limp-wristed faggot

>>98581888
>Samefag
Not a samefag, you are a lolcow.
People have tried to explain things to you politely, and you have chosen to keep eating feces instead.

>>98573812
I'd bro, I don't remember.
I mean, I totally wasn't there. How could I?

File: 1000321.jpg (278 KB, 1023x1023)

278 KB JPG

>>98573812
I hope so. Plate mail was padded on the inside. So, it would be like hammering someone wearing an armour made of pillows and nerf foam. Technically it's going to hurt less than if they were naked ...but bones can break.
And some parts are vulnerable, even if they are covered and padded: even sword strikes can break fingers despite being covered in a gauntlet. Now imagine the sword's whole mass times three and entirely on a single point.
It won't pierce, but it can totally break the bone beneath.

>>98584522
right in the asscrack...now is that clubbing or penetration...?

I propose we put OP in baseball helmet then hit him in the head with a bat so he can tell us his experience.

>>98573812
This always devolves into people saying the most retarded shit which I simply cannot take seriously

>Erm actually even hitting someone's helmet wouldn't work
You can't know that. It's impossible to test this without risking serious injury. You'd need to test several different helmet and mace types. A guy in the heaviest frogmouth might not feel it but someone in a kettle helmet is fucked

>It's not an anti armor weapon
Now people probably mean it wasn't created with the intent of defeating armor, but they also make it sound as if it wasn't better at it than a bunch of other weapon which it certainly was

>>98573908
Anon, a mace doesnt just harmlessly bounce off the plate after bonking it. It dents the plates which interfere with the opponents movement. Also, getting hit with a mace, especially in the head, is going to daze, if not concuss, you even if you're fully kitted out in the sturdiest helmet money can buy

>>98573969
>>98574055
Hot!
>TFW no mace-wielding Goth gf

>>98580284
So what I'm getting from this thread is that the purpose of a mace is for after cavalry's done their charge, lances are done, and they're stuck in. That's when you pull out a mace, and you start swinging for heads, because you're high up on a horse and you hope to be fighting dudes who are down on the ground, and even if their noggins are protected, the noggin is still easy to mess with.

Am I kind of grasping things, or am I yet completely plagued by smooth-brained retardery?

>>98586092
most mounted troops carried a sword for hacking people after the initial charge and they no longer had their spear or lance

There is a guy on youtube that tried a stationary siege crossbow against plate in ideal conditions and it didnt do shit
You're not killing a knight without stabbing through gaps no matter the weapon

File: this-is-what-the-us-depar(...).jpg (105 KB, 780x438)

105 KB JPG

>>98586709
>>98586055 said it right - the concept of more force-based "anti-armor" weaponry was less about cinematically breaking through the armor like it's some gay-ass Souls-like game and more about dazing opponent via concussive force and limiting their movement through denting it. Even a small dent can block some joints and you just lost the precious and crucial mobility.
An armored opponent can maybe take a single hit but a dazed opponent in an armor compromising their movement will not be dealing with one hit but repeated bashing till they drop dead.

>>98573812
Maces are for clerics to smash skeleton's bones with.

They should've put a stiletto-like blade as a point on the top.

>>98575788
>mfw it isnt a shield
missed the goddamn lay-up anon, get your act together

>>98585356
It's OP's friday night plans

>>98586055
You can daze someone and eventually knock them out due to the way force carries through armor to the body, but no, you absolutely aren't denting plate unless you land a blow of near-superhuman force. It's not really possible without being on horseback for the momentum, or the opponent being on the ground and you double-fisting the mace for a deathblow (or attempted deathblow). In an ongoing fight, committing to the brute force you need to dent steel plate is simply not going to happen if you're also trying to block your opponent and your opponent is actively maneuvering around you as he should. People seriously underestimate how durable good steel is.

>>98585980
>they also make it sound as if it wasn't better at it than a bunch of other weapon which it certainly was
The mace is in the same category as most weapons, which is the ability to bash someone in full plate until they get tired or knocked unconscious, at which point setting up for a killing blow with some other weapon (or first divesting them of their armor) allows for a kill. There's absolutely nothing special about what a mace does against armor that other weapons cannot also do, while it has a number of inferiorities to other options such as spears for having reach. You can still knock a knight out with a spear just fine, in fact the length of a short spear (6-8 feet) is excellent for using like a big lever to shove someone off their feet like a crowbar. While you aren't going to end a fight by knocking a knight over, it puts them at a massive disadvantage for a few seconds and sets you up to land a devastating knockout blow. The mace has no particular strengths in unbalancing an armored knight; it has no particular strengths against armor period. Blunt force trauma is what 99% of weapons do against armor. Maces aren't special for that.

>>98573934
>knights not on horseback were retarded, tournament jockeys, or fighting indoors
Anon when the fuck do you think stirrups were invented?

>>98587289
4th century BC. Now it's time to inform you that the definition of a knight is a cavalier, since apparently you don't know what words mean.

>>98586092
More or less. Cavalrymen didn't want to be stuck into melee at all, but that wasn't the only purpose of a sidearm. Lances break, or get wrenched out of the rider's hands. They're still a good sidearm for ride-by attacks. And since modern pistols are useless for 99% of actual combat troops today, we don't realize how important sidearms were back in the day. A secondary weapon was almost certainly going to be used at some point in a battle.

Depending on the place, time, and individual knight, the sidearm could vary wildly. Maces, Swords, even a few axes were made for use from horseback. Each had their own pros and cons as a sidearm. Some knights would even carry multiple sidearms just to have their pick when the shit hits the fan.

Also, while not unpopular in Europe at all, Maces were more popular in the middle east.

>>98573812
It was very effective.
The goal wasn't to damage armor though, it was to transfer kinetic energy through the armor and damage the soft human inside it.
The flanges on the top helped transfer the force by concentrating the kinetic energy through a single point.

>>98587355
>it was to transfer kinetic energy through the armor and damage the soft human inside it.
This isn't entirely true, blunt weapons could disorient a knight, but they were unlikely to do much serious damage through the gambeson and other padding. You usually want to kill a knight with the ol' wrestle'n'stab.
I say this as someone who's been hit in the head while helmeted before, and who's IQ is still 99.9th centile.
Maces are just horseback headpoppers.

>>98587390
It would transfer a lot more force than an arming sword, though. Maces, like swords, were sidearms but they were sidearms for fighting well armoured foes, as opposed to fencing off skirmishers or rabble.
Though as you say a mace from horseback could ring someone's bell very effectively.

>>98589480
Most methods of taking down a knight revolve around controlling their movement or wrestling them to the ground so you can hold them for ransom or get a coup de grace with a rondel.
When you evaluate a weapons effectiveness against a knight, you need to consider the fact that the knight also has a weapon that they're currently swinging towards your chest. A mace could absolutely ring a knights bell, but you'd need to get a full baseball swing directly onto their head, which they're just not going to let you do, so the mace wouldn't be very effective. Of course it's much better while on horseback, since you can just drive-by bonk people while they're not looking.

>>98587355
>The flanges on the top helped transfer the force by concentrating the kinetic energy through a single point.
the flanges were there to prevent glancing, since a perfectly smooth head would slide off on impact before it could transfer force

>>98573812
it's good enough as a backup weapon that doesn't break easily

>>98590265
>controlling movement
Really good point, and one that raises a question in my mind. Obviously the dagger is the killing weapon in a fully armoured scrap, but the mace must play a role. Could there be merit in trying to beat down the enemy's weapon/arm? So you're swinging your mace before you've closed to wrestling range and you're just swinging through their sword/dagger/hand to aggressively counter their attacks? Beat them back and down, tire and shock them, injure their fighting arm if you can, and once they're driven back you can jump them for the kill. Hell, once they're all fucked up you can capture them, even.
I'd the other guy has a sword then their blade has reach and nimbleness but will struggle to parry you and they can't threaten you much with the point if you're in plate so the traditional sword Vs hammer problems don't signify.

>>98591036
the problem with this is that a sword can easily lunge at you when they see you open up for a swing
you need fully committed strikes with a blunt weapon whereas stabbing and slashing weapons can go for quick cuts and thrusts with very little wind up
the main advantage you would need to press is that the sheer force of each strike cant easily be parried or blocked, but you would need to have little sense of self-preservation to try and run someone down with your mace in the hopes they can neither dodge nor parry you

>>98591083
They can't go for quick cuts if you're in plate. Not with any chance of success. Let them glance off, hoof them in the bollocks and then resume operations with the bonking stick.

>>98591108
If it's two combatants in plate, then theres a good chance you'd rather just knife wrestle eachother.
A good rondel can be jammed into mail while a knight is still standing (though not far enough to actually stab them) and be used as a lever to help get them down. Then, once they're down, you can "CPR" the rondel through a patch of mail, or you could just lift their visor and get at their face (assuming you aren't just going to hold them for ransom).

>>98591124
Yes, but when you're closing to that distance the mace guy can try to beat you with the mace until you can't wrestle good. I have been trying to explain this for several posts now.

>>98591036
>>98591353
Maces have crap reach. They're usually pretty small, one hand weapons. They're not stopping you from being tackled or controlling at range like a polearm might. This is part of why consensus has been pivoting to them being mainly horseback weapons. They're just not usually big enough to be used like big clubs bonking people around.

>>98592049
They outreach a dagger and a swung mace can definitely deter even an armoured man from bulldozing you.