This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Were hammers really even effective?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I personally wouldn't swing a spear. I would use it to jab at enemies, and fend off blows. Swinging a spear is like lunging at an anemy with a hammer...
Of course. I was illustrating the point that shaft or hilt length doesn't matter.
Post by
Lordplatypus
I personally wouldn't swing a spear. I would use it to jab at enemies, and fend off blows. Swinging a spear is like lunging at an anemy with a hammer...
No, it would be whacking someone over the head with a stick.
Spears being used to club someone when you end up too close to jab is a common reality in war.
(Do you have any idea how heavy medieval armor was? getting up after being knocked down was NOT easy).
A modern soldier's gear weighs more than that of a knight or man-at-arms of the medieval era.
Badly constructed oriental armor however? No idea.
This is why IMO the Axe was one of the best medieval melee weapons, since it mixes the best of both worlds, sharpness and cutting power of a sword, with the thrust and lever mechanics of a mace.
Actually the axe is the worst weapon in the medieval world, lacking the anti-cavalry lethality of the pike, the multipurpose versatility of the sword, the brutal impaling power of the mounted lance, the anti-armor crushing force of the hammer or mace. Arguably the ultimate medieval weapons are the Halberd, Polehammer, Zweihander, Lance and Longbow.
The only thing that axes beat are lances
And all that loses to Frederick.
Axes were used because they were cheap, stupidly easy to make and simple to use.
And in that they lose to spears, which are better in phalanx anyway.
All in all, there is no advantage to using axes.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
(Do you have any idea how heavy medieval armor was? getting up after being knocked down was NOT easy).
A modern soldier's gear weighs more than that of a knight or man-at-arms of the medieval era.
Badly constructed oriental armor however? No idea.
Oh yeah, I was going to mention that too. Full plate armor of the Middle Ages generally weighed under 50 pounds with the weight being very evenly distributed over the body. Wearers could still be extremely agile in it: jumping, running, etc.
The one instance that heavier armor was used was in jousting. You wanted do be as heavy as possible so as to be harder to knock off your horse. This was, however, not the norm for general fighting as restrictive, heavy armor would get you killed pretty fast on a battlefield.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lordplatypus
If it's in that case i'd rather be using a flail.
A flail is designed especially to counteract the effectiveness of shields by bending around them. They were pretty effective at it too.
The reason axes are popular is because they're readily available and the war-version and the lumberjack's version are more or less the same.
Even a spear needs to be made especially to stick people on it. The axe is used by miltias, recruits and anyone who can't afford to get a sword or mace.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
jefflovealex
Asfar as it goes from my knowledge Mauls, Warhammers and weapons of that ilk were utterly lethal.
When it comes to plate armour you're forced to target openings, where as swinging a maul with your full bodyweight behind it causes shock damage, The kinetic energy hits the armour damaging it and then hits the body shattering bones and crushing organs.
Realistically if you were in a battle without armour , such as sweeping archers, the weapon would be a one hit kill on most targets, an un armoured man being hit by a maul would be left maimed.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Here's the thing.
You can't block a maul.
With plate armor being what it is (Nearly invulnerable to just about everything but hammers and maces.) you had a notable advantage over non-hammer types with heavy armor.
Post by
Thror
I don't think mauls, as we see them in WoW, as in "huge 12+ kilogram blocks of solid matter at the end of a stick" were ever a popular melee weapon.
These things
, very much were, but "war mauls"? Just way too impractical. You don't even get any good image results when you search for "war maul" (or "maul". or "medieval maul". or "historical maul". or "museum maul".) , it's all screenshots and fantasy replicas and pictures of war hammers.
The fact that English archers at Agincourt have used their
mauls
as improvised side arms doesn't make them a popular/viable weapon. Imagine if they didn't have mauls and would have chairs instead. Would we be discussing the weapon utility of chairs? They just used whatever was at hand to fight for their lives.
Here's the thing.
You can't block a maul.
With plate armor being what it is (Nearly invulnerable to just about everything but hammers and maces.) you had a notable advantage over non-hammer types with heavy armor.
Here is another thing. You can not make an attack that the enemy would not see coming from six miles ahead, with a maul. If you actually want to break some bones, that is.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The fact that English archers at Agincourt have used their mauls as improvised side arms doesn't make them a popular/viable weapon. Imagine if they didn't have mauls and would have chairs instead. Would we be discussing the weapon utility of chairs? They just used whatever was at hand to fight for their lives.
That's a silly argument. The point is that a soldier can only carry so many weapons and tools into battle, and mauls provided utility in addition to serving as a viable weapon to warrant not carrying additional sidearms. It's a historical fact that this took place as early as the Battle of Agincourt, and continued to occur for up to the next 150 years. It's not about what you feel is useful, it's what they felt was useful and what they chose to fight with when confronted with foot-soldiers trying to get through their spikes. It was a weapon, and it was viable enough to be the norm in various circles for over a century. If that doesn't quality, I don't know what does.
Post by
Lordplatypus
A medieval maul isn't a 12-kilo chunk of rock on a stick. It's more or less the size of a modern sledge, slightly more round and such since metalworking back then isn't exactly as good as it is now. the "rock on a stick" hammers were about as historically accurate as fate/stay night, which is to say wrong as hell.
A medieval maul was used to crush heavy armor and wasn't as common as an sword or axe mostly due to the small number of people with plate armor, which was expensive and required aid to get in.
Without that, there's no point to a maul (Other than the one commonly attached to it's tip).
We have to remember medieval warfare isn't like it's portrayed in most games at all, the majority of the armies were lightly armored if they had any armor at all. It were the lords and knights that had the heavy armor we now see all the time.
Mauls were used by dismounted knights or knights in locations that would disallow cavalry charges (ie. forests at the such). in such terrain, the knight would act as shock troopers in the middle of the field.
Post by
Gone
I haven't read the whole thread yet, so apologies if somebody already covered this, but as an ancient history buff, I feel the need to throw in my two cents.
First off, people drastically overestimate the protection of armor and mail. Any armor heavy enough to actually negate the effects of being hit by a mace or hammer, would be so heavy that you wouldn't be able to walk around. Plate armor can be caved in by heavy weapons, and if you get hit hard enough by even a sword, never mind an ax, mace, or hammer, while wearing mail, you can expect to break a bone. Also fantasy war hammers are much larger than they ever were in history. Take a look at this video of a replica war-hammer smashing through both mail and plate armor like soft cheese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhknaG9ifbs
Post by
Lordplatypus
Sorry, but that's wrong.
Just from what we've seen of medieval fighting styles proves otherwise, a hammer could break through, a sword could stab into the weakspots, but if you're using axes, there's absolutely nothing you could do against a man in full armor other than wrestling him to the ground.
Full armor isn't just plate or maile, there's a underlayer of leather and cloth, an undershirt and joints covered in maile as well as well designed plates, indeed gothic armors were often angled to deflect blows as well as absorb them.
Your video was an advertisement selling "Cold Steel" hammers. Needless to say, Cold Steel is nonexistant.
Post by
Gone
Sorry, but that's wrong.
Just from what we've seen of medieval fighting styles proves otherwise, a hammer could break through, a sword could stab into the weakspots, but if you're using axes, there's absolutely nothing you could do against a man in full armor other than wrestling him to the ground.
You're talking out of your ass. "From what I've seen of medieval fighting styles." What is that, watching Braveheart? I've personally hammered a hatchet through the hood of an old car. And furthermore, you think a sword could stab weak spots, but an ax couldn't chop into one? What?
Full armor isn't just plate or maile, there's a underlayer of leather and cloth
An underlayer*
This means nothing. Underlying layers are meant to protect against minor penetration from swords, knives, lances spears, etc. When something stabs through mail, but only the tip really penetrates through to the other side, then that's when leather will protect you. Having leather and cloth won't do anything when an ax or hammer caves in the plate or smashes the mail to bits.
Also it's spelled mail, or maille, not maile.
Your video was an advertisement selling "Cold Steel" hammers. Needless to say, Cold Steel is nonexistant.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by this. Is it an actual medieval weapon? No. What difference does that make? A hammer is a pretty figgin simple design, you won't see a huge abundance of performance differences between a modern or medieval version. What is your point with this? Are you trying to say that a medieval warhammer wouldn't perform the same way that the hammer in the video did? And if so, why?
Post by
Lordplatypus
You're talking out of your ass. "From what I've seen of medieval fighting styles." What is that, watching Braveheart? I've personally hammered a hatchet through the hood of an old car. And furthermore, you think a sword could stab weak spots, but an ax couldn't chop into one? What?
First off, I haven't even watched Braveheart once. Secondly, a old car is made of plexiglass and designed to crumple and absorb impacts. Axes chop into a weakspot? Don't make me laugh, weakspots aren't huge things like in Metroid, they're usually covered well enough that only a thin, stabbing sword could get at it. An axe would be pointless.
This means nothing. Underlying layers are meant to protect against minor penetration from swords, knives, lances spears, etc. When something stabs through mail, but only the tip really penetrates through to the other side, then that's when leather will protect you. Having leather and cloth won't do anything when an ax or hammer caves in the plate or smashes the mail to bits.
An axe
cannot
even dent Plate. Stop pretending otherwise. You also cannot smash maile to bits unless it's being stretched, which is stupid. Maile is flexible. that's the reason you put it over joints in the armor. Leather and clothe spread out the impact from a weapon hitting you.
This isn't some japanese samurai movie. Armor is literally impossible to simply hack through. Go learn some real facts.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by this. Is it an actual medieval weapon? No. What difference does that make? A hammer is a pretty figgin simple design, you won't see a huge abundance of performance differences between a modern or medieval version. What is your point with this? Are you trying to say that a medieval warhammer wouldn't perform the same way that the hammer in the video did? And if so, why?
Anything naming themselves both innacurately (It's cold iron thats mythological not cold steel). and having what's strecthed butted maile (You can tell it's butted from the way it failed, a rivetted maile piece wouldn't have spazzed out and shattered).
It's about as accurate as deadliest warrior.
Post by
Adamsm
Armor is literally impossible to simply hack through.
Top Myths of the Renaissance Martial Arts & Swords
:
18. Some swords could cut through plate armor.
False. Although maile armor ("chain mail") was not foolproof against strong sword cuts, a fighter in full plate armor was however effectively immune to the edged blows of swords. There are no real-life accounts of edge blows effectively cutting through an armored harness; that is one reason why plate armor was so popular and so much effort put into perfecting it. Though swords were not capable of cutting through plate armor, a fighter would not avoid striking edge blows against an armored opponent if it might bruise or stun him, knock him about, tear into or crack open his helmet or visor, slice through straps and tear off pieces, or otherwise weaken his defense against a more effective technique such as a thrust. While sword cuts that would have been debilitating or lethal on bare flesh might have no effect against soft or hard types of armor, if delivered with great force they could sometimes traumatized the tissue and bone beneath and thereby incapacitate a target. Although, to be accurate, not all armor was of equal quality and some type of helms could indeed be partially split by edge blows from swords. While there are many images from Medieval sources of swords cutting into armor or through helmets, nothing in the historical accounts of actual armored combat or the voluminous instructional texts on armored fighting supports this as being common. Modern experiments, when performed under realistic conditions with historically accurate weapons using proper technique against historically accurate reproduction armor, have yet to convincingly duplicate what is depicted in such images.
An armored fighter was still vulnerable to sharply-pointed tapering swords and other weapons employed in thrusting as well as to crushing from specialized anti-armor weapons. Yet even thrusts against plate armor were difficult to succeed with because it was intentionally designed to deflect and resist them, thus gaps and joints were typically targeted. Yet descriptions of fights with specialized weapons designed for fighting plate armor, such as pole-axes and maces, reveal even they were able to pierce through armor only infrequently. More often they were effective in simply denting and cracking armor to stun and bruise the wearer into a vulnerable condition. But, given strong effort and a hit to the right spot, a rigid point stabbing strongly could puncture armor even if its cutting edge would not. (See: "Medieval Armor: Plated Perfection" in Military History, July 2005).
Hard to, but not impossible.
Post by
Gone
snip
You're falling into the same fantasy hole that a lot of people do. Assuming plate armor is some unbreakable failsafe. Helmets and shoulders were the thickest plate that most people wore. The chest, girdle, and leg protectors were dramatically less thick, so that people could actually move around. People that wore full body plate as thick as you're describing had to be lowered onto their horses because they couldn't walk with it all.
And let's even assume for the sake of argument that you're right. That medieval armor is made out of the same #$%^ as Wolverine's bones or something and it can't be smashed. What do you think happens to the person underneath it. If you get smashed in the head with something the size of a sledge hammer, it doesn't matter how thick your helmet is, it's probably going to snap your neck.
You know there have been cases of armored men being killed after being kicked or stepped on by a horse, right?
Anything naming themselves both innacurately (It's cold iron thats mythological not cold steel).
Dude. Two things. 1) It is a knife company that also manufactures replican medieval weapons. Their primary product is cutlery, which is made of steel. 2) It's just supposed to be a catchy name, it doesn't matter how accurate it is. If somebody said they bought a Mustang would you assume they were talking about a horse?
@Adam. I don't think anybody ever said that swords could cut through plate here. I was speaking of axes and hammers, which would smash through thinner armor, or at least deliver enough blunt damage to break and fracture bones through the force of impact.
Post by
Adamsm
@Adam. I don't think anybody ever said that swords could cut through plate here. I was speaking of axes and hammers, which would smash through thinner armor, or at least deliver enough blunt damage to break and fracture bones through the force of impact.I'm agreeing with you there Ryja; Plate wasn't some unstoppable force, and while you couldn't hack through the 'good' stuff, not a lot of people would be wearing that, so it would be possible to destroy it around the body of the person....which in turn would fairly obviously destroy the fleshy bits underneath.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.