PDA

View Full Version : Is a mace a more versatile, reliable sidearm than a sword?



Amaril
2018-05-17, 03:09 PM
So when the function of different weapons comes up, I usually see it argued that a sword, while not a primary battlefield weapon like many people believe, is ideal as a personal sidearm and/or general-purpose adventurer's weapon in a game. This sort of makes sense to me, because it's relatively light and easy to carry, and can be used for several different kinds of attacks (slashing and thrusting, and possibly bludgeoning if gripped by the blade) depending on an opponent's armor and resistances.

However, thinking about it, wouldn't a mace be preferable in pretty much any situation where you'd want a sword? From what I know, it's cheaper, of comparable size for transport, easier to use with less training, requires less maintenance (no need to keep it sharp, and generally more solidly constructed), better against any armor I can think of (not stopped by mail and can cave in plate), and just as damaging against an unarmored target. The only disadvantage I can think of is probably shorter reach, but that would depend on the individual mace and sword, right?

I can understand why axes would've been more popular sidearms than swords in certain periods--cheaper, possibly throwable, and useful as a tool outside of combat. But I'm not aware of any time or place in history where swords and maces existed side-by-side, and maces were more popular. Why is that? Is there something I'm not getting about the two weapons?

denthor
2018-05-17, 03:16 PM
My view only

Sword can disable a shield/sword arm if it is cut tendon your strength is gone you are not using the arm/leg

A mace is like a baseball bat. You are hurt but still using both arms/legs due to adrenaline is some cases barbarian rage was real.

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-17, 03:19 PM
Hm - swords are balanced, and can parry. That's all I got =)

Zen
2018-05-17, 03:44 PM
It really depends on your foes, if they are armored or undead maces are better.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-17, 03:54 PM
A sword is a more versatile weapon. It has more effective fighting ranges, it can cut thrust and parry, and it's more effective against unarmoured opponents.

The only advantage a mace has is that it's better against armour.

Deophaun
2018-05-17, 04:10 PM
Hold the sword by the blade and it's now a mace.

Amaril
2018-05-17, 04:27 PM
A sword is a more versatile weapon. It has more effective fighting ranges, it can cut thrust and parry, and it's more effective against unarmoured opponents.

The only advantage a mace has is that it's better against armour.

The only thing I don't get is the last point. Are sword cuts really that much more damaging to an unarmored body than blunt-force trauma from a mace? I imagine any mace heavy enough to cave in plate would have little trouble shattering bone, and I fail to see how that's less incapacitating than a cut (maybe less fatal, since you're less likely to bleed out, but that's not necessarily a priority).


Hold the sword by the blade and it's now a mace.

A sword hilt is a lot lighter than a mace head, isn't it? I know it can bludgeon, but wouldn't a mace hit way harder?

Deophaun
2018-05-17, 04:33 PM
A sword hilt is a lot lighter than a mace head, isn't it? I know it can bludgeon, but wouldn't a mace hit way harder?
We would hope, as that's what the mace is designed to do. But it doesn't change the fact that, if necessary, a sword can do a mace's job but a mace cannot do a sword's.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-17, 05:18 PM
The only thing I don't get is the last point. Are sword cuts really that much more damaging to an unarmored body than blunt-force trauma from a mace? I imagine any mace heavy enough to cave in plate would have little trouble shattering bone, and I fail to see how that's less incapacitating than a cut (maybe less fatal, since you're less likely to bleed out, but that's not necessarily a priority).

It's not necessarily about damage, it's about the fact that a sword is better as a weapon as long as you don't have to worry about armour. A mace needs to hit somewhere with a deliberate focused strike where a sword has a nice long blade and the reach to use it. It's also faster and more maneuverable. Basically, either weapon can kill someone, but it's much easier to land meaningful hits with a sword.

Mr Beer
2018-05-17, 06:03 PM
- Sword beats mace in a fight where both combatants are unarmoured.
- Sword is lighter than a mace to carry around.
- Swords are more of a status symbol because they are more expensive.
- If you want a cheap 'ultimate weapon', walk around with a quarterstaff.

Nightcanon
2018-05-17, 06:06 PM
Are we talking about RPGs, or real life? The real-life maces I've seen (excluding ceremonial ones) have been one-handed weapons with a handle about a foot to 18 inches long, generally with a flanged head. I can imagine them punching through armour pretty effectively, or through a skull or inflicting a flail chest, if you can land a solid blow. Good luck landing a blow with one against someone with a longsword, though. In real life holding a sword by the blade is likely to loose you fingers unless the hand is armoured, in which case grip is probably slippery. I've never seen a game that had sufficient granularity of reach weapons such that a mace was treated as similar to a longsword. In earlier editions of DnD magic swords were far more common and had more exciting effects than maces (the mace of disruption, plus various rods that inflicted damage as maces are the only cool maces I recall from 2e, against pages of flametongue/ dancing/ vorpal/ life-stealing swords.

RazorChain
2018-05-17, 06:09 PM
There are so many things to account for here.

Mace is only superior than sword in blunt trauma against heavy armour, that comes at a price. The heavier the mace the more unbalanced it is.

The other thing is it's cheaper.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-05-17, 06:13 PM
In real life holding a sword by the blade is likely to loose you fingers unless the hand is armoured, in which case grip is probably slippery.
Medieval fencing manuals show said technique being used pretty frequently.

http://www.thearma.org/pdf/Dl24.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/pdf/Dl15.jpg


I imagine a mace would be more difficult to use in cramped quarters than a sword-- it would require more in the way of big swings, while a sword can be used to thrust.

Deophaun
2018-05-17, 06:16 PM
In real life holding a sword by the blade is likely to loose you fingers unless the hand is armoured, in which case grip is probably slippery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo

Jay R
2018-05-17, 06:18 PM
Hold the sword by the blade and it's now a mace.

But not a very good one. Your grip is worse, and the head weighs less. It's a vastly inferior mace.

You can bludgeon with it, but it won't do much against plate. If I had to fight somebody in plate with a longsword, I would

1. use the blade and try to slip in under the plates by halfswording,
2. try to trip and immobilize, and
3. use my sword to try to disarm my opponent, and, yes,
4. occasionally try to bludgeon with the crosshilt, using a two-handed grip,
as shown in Fiore dei Liberi's Fior di Battaglia.

Corneel
2018-05-17, 06:18 PM
It seems that the people for whom this was actually an important question (all those people carrying sidearms over the centuries and across different cultures) overwhelmingly chose the sword over the mace. Now we can argue about why that was, but it more or less settles the question of the thread.

Deophaun
2018-05-17, 06:25 PM
But not a very good one. Your grip is worse, and the head weighs less. It's a vastly inferior mace.
Great. Now how tell me how good of a sword a mace can be.

Mechalich
2018-05-17, 07:12 PM
I imagine a mace would be more difficult to use in cramped quarters than a sword-- it would require more in the way of big swings, while a sword can be used to thrust.

This. You have to swing a mace, and you have to put some real power behind the swing to do damage. That's not always an option. A sword can thrust, in a pinch, even if too long for common thrusting attacks, and thrusts require less force to kill, which is important if you're wielding your weapon awkwardly such as during a bar fight.

Also, with a sword you can stab someone through stuff. Medieval walls were mostly wattle and daub between support timbers in common dwellings - like modern drywall, you can put a sword through that and viably kill someone on the other side. I struggle to see how you could do that with a mace.

A third thing, a sword is a functional, if not ideal, mounted weapon. You can use a long sword like a cavalry saber - riding down standing enemies and clipping them in a way that just isn't happening with a mace because the balance is wrong. Sidearm use among trained warriors included mounted combat in skirmishes and chevauchees (mounted raiding, essentially) where a sword was an obvious secondary weapon.

Dimers
2018-05-17, 07:17 PM
better against any armor I can think of (not stopped by mail and can cave in plate), and just as damaging against an unarmored target.

A sword has advantages against many forms of armor because it can be aimed at unarmored spots. A heavy bludgeoning weapon really doesn't do that. And I wouldn't say maces are just as damaging against unarmored targets. Having a legbone crushed is bad but having an artery cut is probable death; a smashed muscle might still function but a sliced one will not.

Zebalas
2018-05-17, 08:20 PM
Just use a spear and have a dagger as a sidearm. OP combo.

Mike_G
2018-05-17, 09:11 PM
No.

A mace is good for bashing people in armor, but it is usually shorter than a sword, heavier, and because the mass is far from your hand, less nimble and easy to use.

Now there are lots of different swords and a few different maces, but most swords can cut, they can stab, and most can parry better than a mace, since they're more wieldy, and it's harder for your enemy to grab you sword blade than to grab the haft of your mace.

Swords were used as a sidearm from prehistory up until the end of the 19th Century. Maces were common during the late middle ages when armor was relatively common. If a mace was better, it would have been carried for longer as a standard sidearm.

A mace is good at one thing. Much better than a sword at that one thing. A sword is good at many things. So really, the exact opposite of your question.

Esquire
2018-05-17, 10:18 PM
As a vast oversimplification: a mace is better against plate; a sword is better against pretty much everything else.

Doorhandle
2018-05-17, 10:39 PM
Some other factors in the sword's favor.

While maces were more helpful on the actual battlefield, sword would be useful for self-defence in day-to-day life, as it was less likely your opponents were well-armoured. That said, so could a good walking stick.

Swords were lighter, so again, easier to carry about. Plus, you could strike faster which is a massive plus against anyone who wasn't in full plate.

A good pommel-bash could do as much work as the sharp end of the sword, basically making swords semi-effective maces in addition the the varieties of thrusts, parries and cuts.

They could also be a status symbol in some parts of the world, ex. Samurai, apticlty with the expense of a decent sword school. This has given the sword the mystique it receives in much fantasy fiction.

There seems to be many schools of swordsmanship, but very few schools of macemanship: while the latter could have existed and simply has been lost to time, it indicates there are just more usable techniques for swordcraft.

Marlowe
2018-05-17, 10:43 PM
Maces are cavalry weapons for bashing in infantry skulls from a height advantage. One-handed maces weren't very common among footmen.

Lord Raziere
2018-05-18, 12:01 AM
Well here's the thing:
In real life, you didn't go traveling around the wilderness in armor. neither did anyone else. Most just used gambeson and that was good enough. heavy armor was a big battle thing. It was something you put on when you had warning of something big coming and you need all the protection you can get.

when your traveling around and just killing bandits however, sword and some gambeson is generally better. Simply because while mobility in armor is not a concern (people can do all sorts of athletic stuff while in it) heat and getting tired IS. going without armor is actually the option when you want the endurance advantage, while being in armor is supposed to be the combat option when your so well protected that you can end the fight as quickly as you can. after all, you can go up to them and afford to have their sword bang off your armor before you stick your sword into them, the armorless enemy however doesn't have that luxury.

but when just traveling, swords your weapon because most people generally don't have the heavy armor that was expensive to build and tiresome to use, especially since you need to be fitted up beforehand with helpers often to make proper use, and its probably just better to use than a mace, because maces are kind of a bit heavy like a cudgel. which means they're bit a slower and have more weight to their swing, so its a little less controllable. A sword you can swing with more control and faster, and more reach, so its better to catch people off guard with, and keep hitting them before they can kill you. that and a Sword can STAB while a mace can't, and that is actually pretty important, because you have more reach, a lot of damage over a small area much like a spear, so if someone is coming at you with a mace, you can just stab them and kill them because you got a long pointy tip and they don't. and because its lighter, you can swing more before your arm gets tired and you have to stop

now does this change in a fantasy where armor is a lot more common? well unfortunately in fantasy you start getting super-swords that can cut through things that swords definitely should not and thus the point is moot because super-swords that can cut through metal armor. hope you have super-armor to counter that! and probably the required super-strength to wield these fantastical weapons and armor.....so a sword is probably still the best bet, because fantasy heroes have rare expensive materials for their stuff and their swords are often things of legend, so you can't exactly have specialized tools for every forged from these fantastical things, so you got to work with the most versatile sidearm anyways: the sword, and as for getting through enemy armor well.....there is always daggers and the right techniques to get through the slits, so doesn't need to pierce when its not supposed to hit the armor at all, so doesn't need to be super.

Nifft
2018-05-18, 12:38 AM
Swords make you look like a noble or officer.

Looking like a noble or officer gets you more attention from the ladies.

Swords are therefore far more reliable in the situation that matters the most, which is social combat.

Xuc Xac
2018-05-18, 01:36 AM
Swords make you look like a noble or officer.

Looking like a noble or officer gets you more attention from the ladies.

Swords are therefore far more reliable in the situation that matters the most, which is social combat.

Never heard of a swagger stick or scepter? Swords are knightly but maces are kingly.

Nifft
2018-05-18, 01:45 AM
Never heard of a swagger stick or scepter? Swords are knightly but maces are kingly.

I concede that scepters & rods can out-swag a sword.

However I don't think every mace is a scepter or rod.

Cespenar
2018-05-18, 02:31 AM
Crude analogy time.

"Is a hammer a more versatile, reliable tool than a screwdriver?"

Answer: Depends on where you're planning to use it, but mostly no.

Clistenes
2018-05-18, 03:08 AM
Mmmm... I am no HEMA practitioner, and I can't fight at all, but for what I have read:

-Given the same weight, swords usually have longer reach.
-Swords usually require less force to do the same damage against unarmoured foes.
-You can stab with a swords, and stabbing attacks are more difficult to parry
-A sword is usually way better for parrying.
-A sword can attack from more angles and in more different ways.

And most important of all: Historically speaking, full plate covering arms and legs and all is rare; partial armour combined with shield was more common, and swords are better at going around shields...

Also, horsemen who used a sword as a main weapon had more range than horsemen with maces. Also, swords can cut reins and can wound horses way more grievously than maces (horses have thick bones).
As for horsemen who used them as sidearms/defensive weapons if you are a lancer, horse archer or retier and you get surrounded by infantry trying to grab you, a sword that can cut your hand is scarier than a mace that can break your wrist...

Chijinda
2018-05-18, 03:27 AM
The only thing I don't get is the last point. Are sword cuts really that much more damaging to an unarmored body than blunt-force trauma from a mace? I imagine any mace heavy enough to cave in plate would have little trouble shattering bone, and I fail to see how that's less incapacitating than a cut (maybe less fatal, since you're less likely to bleed out, but that's not necessarily a priority).

The important factor here is that the sword is longer and nimbler. In a strictly sword vs mace unarmored fight, the swordfighter will dominate the mace, because the sword can attack the mace user from out of the mace user's range (seriously, even a single handed sword could be almost double the reach of a mace), and can actually quickly recover after failed attacks. The mace fighter is basically allowed one attack. If that attack misses, the mace fighter is dead, because the swordsman is going to capitalize on it, and the mace has far too much mass and momentum to actually bring it back up to defend the user in time.

Sword also has a lot more angles of attack-- specifically thrusts, which are excellent control tools against an unarmored opponent (all the swordsman needs to do against the mace fighter is essentially put the point in his face, and the mace user is basically unable to advance, since his weapon is ill suited to engaging the swordsman's blade, like another swordsman or a polearm user could).

So it's not that the sword "hits harder"-- any weapon actually designed to BE a weapon should be capable of killing someone in one blow. It's that in an unarmored duel, the sword is almost certainly going to land that hit first, due to its reach and speed advantage. The mace was basically NEVER used as a standalone weapon because of this. It was almost always paired with a shield, which really cuts down on its use as a sidearm when you need a secondary piece of equipment to make it viable.




A sword hilt is a lot lighter than a mace head, isn't it? I know it can bludgeon, but wouldn't a mace hit way harder?

A mace may hit harder, but that distinction is almost irrelevant, unless you get to plate armor. It'll cave in someone's head whether they're wearing a helmet or not, and in fact, the murder stroke (as the technique is called) is flat out banned in almost every HEMA and SCA competition because of how lethal it is, even with training weapons. It is a plenty lethal technique, so saying "a mace does more damage" is irrelevant unless you're talking about extremely heavy armor.


As others in this thread have pointed out, the only place the mace outdoes a sword is in situations where fighting against multiple armored opponents, or against extremely heavy armor. In an average day-to-day self defense? The sword is much better at unarmored or lightly armored dueling. And in the battlefield? The versatility of the sword, along with its defensive viability and light weight makes it a much better sidearm-- you don't want to march for hours with a mace clunking around on your leg in ADDITION to carrying some giant polearm or another.

NRSASD
2018-05-18, 09:02 AM
Something I think that's been understated in this discussion is just how bad maces are at parrying. One handed maces were almost always paired with shields, even by knights in full armor when shields were falling out of favor. If you wanted to use a mace as a personal sidearm off the battlefield, you'd have to carry a shield as well to get the same level of defense a sword alone could provide.

Gravitron5000
2018-05-18, 09:57 AM
Have you ever tried opening a bottle of champagne with a mace? It's a big old mess.

War_lord
2018-05-18, 10:08 AM
Maces (and axes) aren't really suited to parrying, and lack the range of an Arming Sword. An important concern when it comes to unarmored and unshielded combat.

Nifft
2018-05-18, 10:34 AM
Have you ever tried opening a bottle of champagne with a mace? It's a big old mess.

Less messy than using a ship.

Jay R
2018-05-18, 11:29 AM
The sword is superior, and anybody experienced in their use agrees.

A mace has only two advantages:
1. It's easier to use correctly without much training, and
2. It can crush plate.

There is no period document suggesting that the mace is a superior weapon. If it were that much better, everyone would have used them, because maces are much cheaper to make, and much easier to care for.

[I have won a bout using single mace against sword and shield, but that's not because the mace is superior. It's because I was experienced and he wasn't.]

Hand_of_Vecna
2018-05-18, 02:15 PM
Hm - swords are balanced, and can parry. That's all I got =)

If we're talking real world weapons this can't be overstated.

Also in addition to being able to cut, slash or bludgeon you also can use a sword at more "ranges". ""Reaches" might be a more clear term to someone who knows d&d better than real like weapons. Every weapon and attack is effective only at certain reaches. With a sword you can lunge forward while thrusting, make wide cuts and slashes, regular cuts and slashes, cross cut (kind of like Iaijutsu draw, but without the draw), and you can stab from very close drawing the handle back behind your body to allow the tip to get between you and your opponent. You can also hold the weapon with a second hand for close in grappling.

With a mace your options are equivalent to wide slash and regular slash and I suppose you could do some grappling techniques though I think the off balance weight would hurt you.

Hand_of_Vecna
2018-05-18, 02:22 PM
The only thing I don't get is the last point. Are sword cuts really that much more damaging to an unarmored body than blunt-force trauma from a mace? I imagine any mace heavy enough to cave in plate would have little trouble shattering bone, and I fail to see how that's less incapacitating than a mace.

A mace is really devestatibg when it hits the head or body, but against a limb or on a glancing hit it lacks "bite" and much of the force will slide off rather than transfering to the target.

Also anything heavier than an arming sword hits has a lot more blunt force than many expect.

TheFamilarRaven
2018-05-18, 03:01 PM
While I'm no expert. I'd still rather have a sword as my back than a mace. Even if I were were expecting to fight people in full plate. I say back up 'cause if I was expecting to go against plate I'd carry a poleaxe or something big.

But here is why I say no to the mace. Plate armor (to my knowledge) is typically padded underneath, which seriously reduces the effectiveness of mace strikes. In fact, if you want to guarantee a disabling blow with a mace, I would think you'd need to land a vertical swing on one of the shoulders or a solid strike to the head. And given the short reach of a mace this becomes exceptionally difficult when fighting a trained combatant, as glancing hits become much more common.

Now you might say a sword shares the same disadvantages, and you'd be right. But with a swords I have to potential to initiate a grapple, and slip the blade between the armor chinks. Not to mention maces are far more clumsy, in that you have to really commit to your swings and let the momentum carry your arm, else you risk tiring yourself out much faster than if you had used a sword.

jayem
2018-05-18, 04:52 PM
Where do cudgels fit in? in many ways they seem functionally similar to the mace but are for use on unarmoured people.
Is it purely a question of them being much cheaper making up for the mace weaknesses.

Are they seen as more benign (I can't imagine a group being scared of one man with a cudgel, whereas a sword)?

elanfanboy
2018-05-18, 05:23 PM
The only thing I don't get is the last point. Are sword cuts really that much more damaging to an unarmored body than blunt-force trauma from a mace? I imagine any mace heavy enough to cave in plate would have little trouble shattering bone, and I fail to see how that's less incapacitating than a cut (maybe less fatal, since you're less likely to bleed out, but that's not necessarily a priority).



A sword hilt is a lot lighter than a mace head, isn't it? I know it can bludgeon, but wouldn't a mace hit way harder?

*heavy enough*
Swords are lighter, can parry, catch a blade as it comes down towards your hand, and have more reach. Also, 1 inch of sword in the flesh is enough to win, either by death, or disabling them from the battle; whereas the mace requires wide swings which leave you open to said 1 ince piercings by swords.

Knightofvictory
2018-05-18, 07:03 PM
Much easier to do serious damage with a sword. Takes much less effort to poke a hole in someone, or cut apart something vital with a glancing blow. There is a reason swords are so popular in real history. Maces are more effective at smashing things, but for general purpose, accuracy, and not tiring your arm out with multiple strikes, Sword is better bang for your swing. Plus, if you hit something full on with a mace, shock goes up your arm, possibly stunning or injuring you (try hitting a metal pole with a bat to see what I mean). Sword stabs and cuts if done correctly can be fluid strikes not absorbing as much shock.

People are fragile, you don't really need to pulverize something when a small slash would do.

Knaight
2018-05-18, 11:08 PM
If you wanted to use a mace as a personal sidearm off the battlefield, you'd have to carry a shield as well to get the same level of defense a sword alone could provide.

Maces are pretty bad as defensive weapons, but a mace and shield is vastly better than just one one handed sword. Shields are incredible defensive tools, and there's a reason that basically every culture developed them and that they were used all over the world as the primary defense for millennia.

Mike_G
2018-05-19, 09:31 AM
Maces are pretty bad as defensive weapons, but a mace and shield is vastly better than just one one handed sword. Shields are incredible defensive tools, and there's a reason that basically every culture developed them and that they were used all over the world as the primary defense for millennia.

But I'd say mace and shield lags way behind sword and shield, so long as we're not fighting heavily armored enemies.

Lapak
2018-05-19, 11:36 AM
Once you're carrying a shield with either, you're no longer talking sidearm but rather primary battle kit, which takes it beyond the realm of the discussion I believe.

Pleh
2018-05-19, 12:19 PM
Much easier to do serious damage with a sword. Takes much less effort to poke a hole in someone, or cut apart something vital with a glancing blow. There is a reason swords are so popular in real history. Maces are more effective at smashing things, but for general purpose, accuracy, and not tiring your arm out with multiple strikes, Sword is better bang for your swing. Plus, if you hit something full on with a mace, shock goes up your arm, possibly stunning or injuring you (try hitting a metal pole with a bat to see what I mean). Sword stabs and cuts if done correctly can be fluid strikes not absorbing as much shock.

People are fragile, you don't really need to pulverize something when a small slash would do.

"It takes less than a pound of pressure to break the skin." - Inara training Mal for a fencing fight to the death.

Maces have the advantage of power, but when a mostly superficial cut can just about blind an opponent with pain (and in a large part of history, threaten the recipient to a slow and painful infection), the extra power just isn't necessary UNLESS they've got their skin covered.

I'm not personally experienced, but I've heard that combat in a knife fight is pretty much over after one of the fighters gets cut a second time.

Vitruviansquid
2018-05-19, 12:21 PM
Imagine you take two boxers and they are going to have a bout. One boxer must knock the other down in order to win this bout, however the other boxer only needs to land a punch of any kind, no matter how light, to score a win.

When people think of the damage a sword could cause or the damage that a mace could cause, we tend to think about a fully powered swing that would be used under ideal circumstances, like you'd see on test cut videos. In that circumstance, both sword and mace can instantly kill or incapacitate your opponent. But while a mace needs that circumstance, a sword could also kill or incapacitate in many other circumstances. The person wielding a sword is like the boxer who only needs to land a quick jab to win while the person wielding a mace is like the boxer who must land a blow powerful enough to knock his opponent out.

Knaight
2018-05-19, 01:47 PM
When people think of the damage a sword could cause or the damage that a mace could cause, we tend to think about a fully powered swing that would be used under ideal circumstances, like you'd see on test cut videos. In that circumstance, both sword and mace can instantly kill or incapacitate your opponent. But while a mace needs that circumstance, a sword could also kill or incapacitate in many other circumstances. The person wielding a sword is like the boxer who only needs to land a quick jab to win while the person wielding a mace is like the boxer who must land a blow powerful enough to knock his opponent out.

A mace doesn't need that circumstance though - it takes only a small fraction of the power of a full strike mace swing to do serious damage, and while you're not getting that with a small flick of the wrist you can easily get it with a pretty normal swing and not the fully powered test cut swing.

There's also the matter of how the damage a weapon could cause is fundamentally not the major component of what's going on here. Basically every weapon was made on the assumption that you're dealing with at least some armor pretty often, and is completely excessive for an unarmored opponent. Similarly a bad hit with basically any weapon doesn't do much - that quick jab with a sword in particular, given that while it might kill an opponent through blood loss eventually, is fairly unlikely to disable quickly unless you hit something critical - though this does get into matters like blade width.

Instead it often comes down to who is able to get the first decent hit at all. Sharpness does help here, as you've pointed out, but I'd argue that it's actually a really minor factor on its own. It helps mostly because of what it enables - because a sword is sharp it can be lighter, it can be balanced further back, and thus you get a more nimble weapon with better reach, where it being more nimble and having better reach is what actually tends to provide the advantage.


But I'd say mace and shield lags way behind sword and shield, so long as we're not fighting heavily armored enemies.
I'd largely agree, though I'd drop the "way", given just how good shields are at mitigating reach disadvantages - though the bigger the fight gets, the more those reach advantages start counting again. My point of contention was solely against the idea that a sword has an edge against a mace and shield, given just useful shields are.

Heck, they're the bane of my existence in sparring, and I favor a two handed spear - a weapon with an advantage against a single sword or mace that's less "major" and more "hilariously lopsided".

King of Nowhere
2018-05-19, 02:48 PM
a factor that has not been stressed enough here is that the sword is lighter. The middle age were dangerous times, but even then most people managed to due of natural causes. situations where you needed to defend yourself were still not everyday occurrences, and even then in most cases the simple capacity for resistance was enough to avoid conflict - people rarely fight to the death in front of determined opposition.

So, you had the prospect to lug around this weapon every day for years without ever using it. A lighter weapon then is clearly the choice. Same reason people who carry a weapon for self defence (in places where it is permitted) prefer handguns to assault rifles.

hymer
2018-05-19, 02:57 PM
I'd largely agree, though I'd drop the "way", given just how good shields are at mitigating reach disadvantages - though the bigger the fight gets, the more those reach advantages start counting again. My point of contention was solely against the idea that a sword has an edge against a mace and shield, given just useful shields are.
I don't know about maces, but a warhammer could be used to hook a shield. While that would be more useful in something other than a duel, perhaps such a manoeuvre could be useful in narrowing the gap between the two combos?

Corneel
2018-05-19, 04:22 PM
Imagine you take two boxers and they are going to have a bout. One boxer must knock the other down in order to win this bout, however the other boxer only needs to land a punch of any kind, no matter how light, to score a win.

When people think of the damage a sword could cause or the damage that a mace could cause, we tend to think about a fully powered swing that would be used under ideal circumstances, like you'd see on test cut videos. In that circumstance, both sword and mace can instantly kill or incapacitate your opponent. But while a mace needs that circumstance, a sword could also kill or incapacitate in many other circumstances. The person wielding a sword is like the boxer who only needs to land a quick jab to win while the person wielding a mace is like the boxer who must land a blow powerful enough to knock his opponent out.
Thing is, a sword is usually not meant to do damage that way. They're for thrusting and drawn cuts, not hacking or chopping like you would with an axe to chop wood (and which would be a similar swing as with a mace). So more like how you'd use a butcher knife to cut meat or a kitchen knife to cut a tomato - that's why you have such a long cutting edge for swords (that are not just for thrusting) : you draw or push almost the full length of the blade along the place you are cutting thus going deeper. The fact that a sword still deals some significant damage when "hacking" is a bonus.

Jay R
2018-05-20, 09:33 AM
The crucial real-world observation is this:

Throughout history, swords have been more expensive to make and more work to maintain than maces.

Nonetheless, most people who had a choice used a sword.

The people whose lives depended on them clearly believed that swords are superior.

Mastikator
2018-05-20, 01:30 PM
But I'd say mace and shield lags way behind sword and shield, so long as we're not fighting heavily armored enemies.

Proper half swording technique beats maces vs heavily armored people. Getting your sword into the little gap in your armpit or your eye slit is pretty much game over. A mace bash is devastating if and only if you hit the head dead on. If you go for the body your opponent can absorb the blow with the armor. That's what armor is for.

Vitruviansquid
2018-05-20, 02:11 PM
A mace doesn't need that circumstance though - it takes only a small fraction of the power of a full strike mace swing to do serious damage, and while you're not getting that with a small flick of the wrist you can easily get it with a pretty normal swing and not the fully powered test cut swing.

There's also the matter of how the damage a weapon could cause is fundamentally not the major component of what's going on here. Basically every weapon was made on the assumption that you're dealing with at least some armor pretty often, and is completely excessive for an unarmored opponent. Similarly a bad hit with basically any weapon doesn't do much - that quick jab with a sword in particular, given that while it might kill an opponent through blood loss eventually, is fairly unlikely to disable quickly unless you hit something critical - though this does get into matters like blade width.

Instead it often comes down to who is able to get the first decent hit at all. Sharpness does help here, as you've pointed out, but I'd argue that it's actually a really minor factor on its own. It helps mostly because of what it enables - because a sword is sharp it can be lighter, it can be balanced further back, and thus you get a more nimble weapon with better reach, where it being more nimble and having better reach is what actually tends to provide the advantage.



Thing is, a sword is usually not meant to do damage that way. They're for thrusting and drawn cuts, not hacking or chopping like you would with an axe to chop wood (and which would be a similar swing as with a mace). So more like how you'd use a butcher knife to cut meat or a kitchen knife to cut a tomato - that's why you have such a long cutting edge for swords (that are not just for thrusting) : you draw or push almost the full length of the blade along the place you are cutting thus going deeper. The fact that a sword still deals some significant damage when "hacking" is a bonus.

Yes, swords can have all these advantages of being lighter, longer, balanced further back because, once again, the sword can cause damage on more different kinds of hits than a mace. A sword has more possibility for "good hits" than a mace. Yes, these "good hits" includes draw cuts and thrusts that maces cannot deal good damage with (being thrust with a mace in the right place probably also hurts a lot, though).

I'm not sure what hairs you guys are trying to split here because it seems like you just told me I was wrong, and then followed up by saying exactly what I said in different words. :smallconfused:

hamishspence
2018-05-20, 02:15 PM
In cases of heavy armour protection- isn't one of the advantages of the mace - that it does damage through armour - it doesn't actually have to break all the way though - it still leaves deep bruises, possibly internal injuries, underneath dents, in a way that a sword isn't so good at?

Mike_G
2018-05-20, 06:03 PM
In cases of heavy armour protection- isn't one of the advantages of the mace - that it does damage through armour - it doesn't actually have to break all the way though - it still leaves deep bruises, possibly internal injuries, underneath dents, in a way that a sword isn't so good at?

A mace is better for fighting an armored foe. I think we all more or less agree. With a sword you need to stab through a gap to have any real effect, where a mace can be less precise and still have an effect.

It's not that blunt damage hurts the tissue under the armor more than an edged weapon would, it's that a mace delivers more energy, since the mass is concentrated at the striking end, so yes, it does hit harder, which can transfer energy through the armor. A sharp weapon that hit as hard would do the same or more damage.

Against a guy not in armor, that doesn't matter nearly as much. A mace hits more than hard enough to break stuff, but a sword which hits much less hard still hits hard enough top cut or stab and get the blade into him. The edge or point pretty much allows the sword to be lighter and quicker since it can hit with less force but still inflict serious or fatal wounds, which a blunt weapon really can't with a light hit.

A mace can also dent and damage plate, making it hard to move your joints, and stun or knock you down, which is good if you're trying to capture a knight to ransom him and not just kill him.

John Campbell
2018-05-20, 10:13 PM
And most important of all: Historically speaking, full plate covering arms and legs and all is rare; partial armour combined with shield was more common, and swords are better at going around shields...
I don't know that I'd say that. Swords and maces handle very differently, because the balance of a sword is typically fairly close to the guard, while the concentration of mass in a mace's head puts the balance point significantly further out. But while this means that a sword is more agile and handier in close, on the other hand it makes maces better at the kind of looping shots that roll around shields.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

You also don't really have to care exactly how the mace-head hits someone, where with a sword you have to make sure it hits edge-on if you want to be effective. This opens up some options with the mace that aren't available to a sword.

Lack of an effective thrust is the biggest drawback of a mace. While getting jabbed in the face with a mace-head isn't a lot of fun, and some of them had thrusting spikes on them, it's a lot harder to get a bulky mace-head through the gaps in a defending opponent's guard than it is a narrow sword or spear. (This is a problem with things like halberds, too.)


A mace may hit harder, but that distinction is almost irrelevant, unless you get to plate armor. It'll cave in someone's head whether they're wearing a helmet or not, and in fact, the murder stroke (as the technique is called) is flat out banned in almost every HEMA and SCA competition because of how lethal it is, even with training weapons. It is a plenty lethal technique, so saying "a mace does more damage" is irrelevant unless you're talking about extremely heavy armor.
The reason the "murder stroke" is banned in SCA combat is because the "blades" on SCA longswords are rattan sticks, while the guards are generally steel. When you're hitting someone with the steel parts of an SCA weapon, it doesn't much resemble a training weapon anymore. It's just a weapon.

Pommel strikes are SCA-legal (assuming you have a thrusting tip on the butt of the weapon instead of a metal pommel), but I find that their utility is limited (at least with swords... butt-spikes on pole weapons are another story). The problems are pretty similar to thrusting with a mace.


Shields are incredible defensive tools, and there's a reason that basically every culture developed them and that they were used all over the world as the primary defense for millennia.
Pretty decent offensive tools, too.

Which is another thing the SCA bans because it's not a training weapon; it's just a weapon.


I don't know about maces, but a warhammer could be used to hook a shield. While that would be more useful in something other than a duel, perhaps such a manoeuvre could be useful in narrowing the gap between the two combos?
It's a thing you can do. The question is always: Then what? You've gotten some control over your opponent's shield, but you've committed your weapon to doing it, and the instant you move your weapon to attack, their shield is free again. And their weapon is still free, which is a problem.

In a melee, if you can move their shield offline, or even just hamper it a bit for the right moment, one of your buddies can kill them, but a pole or spear with a hook or crossbar is a lot more useful for that sort of thing.

And note that you can do this with the guard or pommel of a sword, too. Or even just your elbow, which is one of my go-tos when fighting a shield in close with my polearm.

What I've found to be more useful is using the mace-hook to snag their weapon and drive it down to where I can get my shield on it - preferably drive it down into their shield so I can sandwich it between theirs and mine, and control both their shield and their weapon with my shield, while my own weapon is then freed up to bludgeon them with.

On the flip side, I've taken mace-wielders on more than one occasion by stopping their first shot and grabbing the haft of the mace before they could get it back out of my reach. And then just ganking them while they were trying to wrest their weapon away from me. You can't really do that to a sword, at least not if you're a fan of having fingers.

Kane0
2018-05-20, 10:22 PM
So what if you’re fighting something that isn’t a dude?
Lots of things you might come across arent dudes. Dire rats, oozes, undead, orcs, dragons...
At that point the differences between certains weapons might seem a bit inconsequential.

John Campbell
2018-05-20, 10:35 PM
So what if you’re fighting something that isn’t a dude?
Lots of things you might come across arent dudes. Dire rats, oozes, undead, orcs, dragons...
At that point the differences between certains weapons might seem a bit inconsequential.

Then it's just a question of what bypasses their DR. Zombie? Sword. Skeleton? Mace. Dragon? Crew-served automatic weapons firing explosive shells. (At least that's what we used last time we fought a dragon...)

More seriously, historically, if you're going to fight a big critter, you don't use a sword or a mace. You use a spear or a bow.

War_lord
2018-05-21, 01:11 AM
So what if you’re fighting something that isn’t a dude?
Lots of things you might come across arent dudes. Dire rats, oozes, undead, orcs, dragons...
At that point the differences between certains weapons might seem a bit inconsequential.

A Dire Rat is an animal, so a Spear or a Bow. A walking Skeleton is going to have a bad day against a Lucerne hammer, because there's nothing to absorb the shock. For a Zombie, you'd probably use an axe, because it only "dies" when hacked apart (although if it's a more modern "brain bug" Zombie, head trauma might still be effective). Orcs don't really require different weaponry, you just have to take into account the skill, strength and toughness advantage the average Orc will have over the average man. With a Dragon, you're going to need either ballista, or enough Crossbowmen that someone is going to get in a lucky hit that hits something with no scales.

Brother Oni
2018-05-21, 01:57 AM
Where do cudgels fit in? in many ways they seem functionally similar to the mace but are for use on unarmoured people.
Is it purely a question of them being much cheaper making up for the mace weaknesses.

Are they seen as more benign (I can't imagine a group being scared of one man with a cudgel, whereas a sword)?

Generally they're more benign, but don't underestimate the damage a good cudgel can do to unarmoured opponents, especially the longer ones that are basically a staff with a nobbly bit on the end.

There's an Irish style of fighting specifically with sticks or shillelagh, known as bataireacht (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataireacht). There's a number of other stick based martial arts as well like eskrima and jodo/jujutsu, but they're with more developed weapons (short poles/sticks) than well shaped knotted sticks like the shillelagh.

gkathellar
2018-05-21, 09:30 AM
So what if you’re fighting something that isn’t a dude?
Lots of things you might come across arent dudes. Dire rats, oozes, undead, orcs, dragons...
At that point the differences between certains weapons might seem a bit inconsequential.

You bring an appropriate weapon, and still keep a sword for a sidearm. :P

ngilop
2018-05-21, 10:44 AM
The sword is superior, and anybody experienced in their use agrees.

A mace has only two advantages:
1. It's easier to use correctly without much training, and
2. It can crush plate.

There is no period document suggesting that the mace is a superior weapon. If it were that much better, everyone would have used them, because maces are much cheaper to make, and much easier to care for.

[I have won a bout using single mace against sword and shield, but that's not because the mace is superior. It's because I was experienced and he wasn't.]

I am just going to say this, but the opposite of the bracketed part. The first time I participated in a medieval combat duel reenactment my lot was drawn against the local champion guy. He had a mace and shield and I was like "I'll take a sword and shield please" I won (5 to 2 hits), literally my only experience from sword fighting is 1) watching movies and 2) running around going YA YA YA YA YA swinging a wooden sword as a young child. while the guy was actually trained in weapon combat. After talking I was told by him that most people don't use the shield and weapon combat because ' dual wielding looks cooler' I just was able to bring the sword int more postions to either defend that flank as well or do attack. While his defenses on the weapon side consisted of stepping backwards a few steps to regain control of the mace on its missed swing, or even worse parry.

Knaight
2018-05-21, 11:01 AM
I am just going to say this, but the opposite of the bracketed part. The first time I participated in a medieval combat duel reenactment my lot was drawn against the local champion guy. He had a mace and shield and I was like "I'll take a sword and shield please" I won (5 to 2 hits), literally my only experience from sword fighting is 1) watching movies and 2) running around going YA YA YA YA YA swinging a wooden sword as a young child. while the guy was actually trained in weapon combat. After talking I was told by him that most people don't use the shield and weapon combat because ' dual wielding looks cooler' I just was able to bring the sword int more postions to either defend that flank as well or do attack. While his defenses on the weapon side consisted of stepping backwards a few steps to regain control of the mace on its missed swing, or even worse parry.

This sounds like a case where the local group is just largely incompetent though - the combination of most people using two weapons, someone using a shield that apparently didn't protect the weapon side at all (which implies a pretty tiny shield strapped to the arm), and a really bad mace analog which needs control regained after every missed swing just doesn't sound good, and if that's the local champion it implies worse about the rest of the group.

I'd generally favor sword and shield over mace and shield, but I've done enough mace and shield to know that it's still pretty effective, and that it generally doesn't work out as described here unless you're fighting someone either very bad or very new (that deliberately going forward to try and choke up the sword on the shield and take advantage of the shorter mace didn't even make the list of defensive techniques says a lot).

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-21, 11:15 AM
As others have said, swords are far better defensive weapons than maces.

When it comes down to your sidearm, on the street or in battle, you want a weapon that's good at defense, too.

Especially on the street, where you're unlikely to be wearing much if any armor (at most, something like the fancy brigandine vests that were popular in "Italy" for a time, a chain shirt under your outer clothing, or even a gambeson shirt or vest), your main defense will be your sidearm, not your armor.

War_lord
2018-05-21, 02:03 PM
I am just going to say this, but the opposite of the bracketed part. The first time I participated in a medieval combat duel reenactment my lot was drawn against the local champion guy. He had a mace and shield and I was like "I'll take a sword and shield please" I won (5 to 2 hits), literally my only experience from sword fighting is 1) watching movies and 2) running around going YA YA YA YA YA swinging a wooden sword as a young child. while the guy was actually trained in weapon combat. After talking I was told by him that most people don't use the shield and weapon combat because ' dual wielding looks cooler' I just was able to bring the sword int more postions to either defend that flank as well or do attack. While his defenses on the weapon side consisted of stepping backwards a few steps to regain control of the mace on its missed swing, or even worse parry.

I guarantee you that was a bunch of LARPers playing with poorly made mockups (it shouldn't take STEPS to regain control of a mace.). Most people "duel wielding" is a dead giveaway you're not dealing with HEMA or anything like it. There's a very small number of historically attested very specific fighting styles with two weapons and the only Western one that springs to mind is Rapier and Dagger. Which was specifically developed because the Rapier was originally a civilian weapon and a Parrying Dagger is easier and more fashionable to carry out on the town then a Buckler.

Knaight
2018-05-21, 02:17 PM
I guarantee you that was a bunch of LARPers playing with poorly made mockups (it shouldn't take STEPS to regain control of a mace.). Most people "duel wielding" is a dead giveaway you're not dealing with HEMA or anything like it. There's a very small number of historically attested very specific fighting styles with two weapons and the only Western one that springs to mind is Rapier and Dagger. Which was specifically developed because the Rapier was originally a civilian weapon and a Parrying Dagger is easier and more fashionable to carry out on the town then a Buckler.

Even by LARP standards this seems unimpressive - there are LARPers who can hold their own in HEMA environments, including some who generally favor two swords.

Wardog
2018-05-23, 05:14 PM
So what if you’re fighting something that isn’t a dude?
Lots of things you might come across arent dudes. Dire rats, oozes, undead, orcs, dragons...
At that point the differences between certains weapons might seem a bit inconsequential.

Alternatively it could make the differences even more significant.

If you're fighting a giant (or any very large creature) then the extra reach of a sword, and the ability to penetrate deeper, would probably be really critical.

Seto
2018-05-23, 05:27 PM
I'm no fighter, but from my understanding : a mace relies on momentum. To make the best use of it, you need to be constantly swinging it in patterns, or you risk being thrown off-balance by your own swings, especially if you're mounted. It just tires you out more quickly than a sword.
Plus, as others have said, a sword gives you much more mobility, adaptability, and reach. Including the ability to stop your weapon in mid-swing to redirect and feint, or the ability to parry more easily. A mace is scary in a pitched battle where you can just crush skulls left and right, but a sword wielder will probably have the advantage in a duel.

Concrete
2018-05-24, 02:11 PM
a factor that has not been stressed enough here is that the sword is lighter. The middle age were dangerous times, but even then most people managed to due of natural causes. situations where you needed to defend yourself were still not everyday occurrences, and even then in most cases the simple capacity for resistance was enough to avoid conflict - people rarely fight to the death in front of determined opposition.

So, you had the prospect to lug around this weapon every day for years without ever using it. A lighter weapon then is clearly the choice. Same reason people who carry a weapon for self defence (in places where it is permitted) prefer handguns to assault rifles.

Not to mention keeping a sword so that you can easily draw it into your hand is way easier than carrying a mace.
A sword in a sheath can quite easily rest against your leg as you move about your day. A mace, assuming it has even the most plain head shape, must still be carried head-up, or you'll have it knocking against your knee as you walk.
An axe could be tucked into your belt, but if you did that with a mace, you'd have its striking surfaces constantly poking into your squishy bits.

So you'd need some kinda loop to hang it in, but that'd make it awkward to pull it out quickly if you need to defend yourself. It's just too fiddly to keep with you all the time.

Xuc Xac
2018-05-24, 03:06 PM
A mace, assuming it has even the most plain head shape, must still be carried head-up, or you'll have it knocking against your knee as you walk.
...
So you'd need some kinda loop to hang it in, but that'd make it awkward to pull it out quickly if you need to defend yourself. It's just too fiddly to keep with you all the time.

Do you think gentlemen carried canes with heavy metal heads because their entire social class had bad legs? When swords went out of style for daily civilian wear, they were replaced by canes which were essentially maces. You don't need to attach it to your body. You just carry it because a gentleman doesn't need two hands. Eating, drinking, reading, and writing only require one hand and a gentleman does no manual work.

Hand_of_Vecna
2018-05-24, 03:23 PM
If we're talking about a world with the standard fantasy monster like D&D, but with Riddle of Steel level simulation combat; I would imagine warriors having either sword and shield with mace and dagger as backups or using poleaxes or fantasy/exotic two handed weapons which offer reach, diverse combat maneuvers, multiple damage types (cut/slash/bludgeon), and big one hit kill potential with a arming sword back up as well as a dagger. In every case the backups would be have different exotic materials and enchantments if possible.

Basically the same tactic you often see from pragmatic D&D players with adamantine maces and silver daggers.

hymer
2018-05-25, 03:43 AM
So you'd need some kinda loop to hang it in, but that'd make it awkward to pull it out quickly if you need to defend yourself. It's just too fiddly to keep with you all the time.

How would that be any more fiddly than a sword in a scabbard? When I'm doing something practical once in a great while which involves carrying a hammer, I have a belt with straps for this precise kind of thing. I don't have loads of practice at all, but I can pull out the hammer without looking or falling down the ladder, and make a quick, one-handed movement that lets me grasp it by the bottom of the haft. It's easy. Lots easier than drawing a sword would be.

Wardog
2018-05-25, 03:56 AM
Do you think gentlemen carried canes with heavy metal heads because their entire social class had bad legs? When swords went out of style for daily civilian wear, they were replaced by canes which were essentially maces.
I'm not sure canes and maces are that comparable. The length, weight and balance would be notably different. At least according to Wikipedia, they require different styles of combat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick-fighting

Stick-fighting, stickfighting, or stick fighting is a variety of martial arts which use simple long slender, blunt, hand-held, generally wooden 'sticks' for fighting; such as a staff, cane, walking stick, baton or similar. Some techniques can also be used with a sturdy umbrella or even a sword in its scabbard.

Thicker and/or heavier blunt weapons such as clubs or the mace are outside the scope of "stick-fighting" (since they cannot be wielded with such precision, so sheer force of impact is more important);

Xuc Xac
2018-05-25, 04:27 AM
I'm not sure canes and maces are that comparable. The length, weight and balance would be notably different. At least according to Wikipedia, they require different styles of combat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick-fighting

Try telling a professional baseball player or cricketer that a heavy club can't be wielded with precision. Many maces had heads the size of a golf ball and would have had identical balance to a metal topped cane of the same length.


http://ancientpoint.com/imgs/a/i/p/v/l/early_medieval_english_nobleman__s_bronze_mace_hea d_effective_side_arm_obsolete_1_lgw.jpg

Mike_G
2018-05-25, 12:39 PM
Try telling a professional baseball player or cricketer that a heavy club can't be wielded with precision. Many maces had heads the size of a golf ball and would have had identical balance to a metal topped cane of the same length.


You're not trying to fool the ball with a feint, then attack it from a different angle.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-25, 01:04 PM
You're not trying to fool the ball with a feint, then attack it from a different angle.

The ball is also, usually, not actively trying to avoid being hit or actively fighting back.

(I say usually because of some very well-thrown and very poorly-thrown pitches I've seen...)

John Campbell
2018-05-25, 01:19 PM
I'm no fighter, but from my understanding : a mace relies on momentum. To make the best use of it, you need to be constantly swinging it in patterns, or you risk being thrown off-balance by your own swings, especially if you're mounted. It just tires you out more quickly than a sword.

If you're competent, and your weapon is a realistic weight (i.e., not the 8 pounds 3.5 puts the heavy mace at), being thrown off-balance shouldn't be a problem.

It is true that maces don't like to switch direction quickly. It's not going to knock you over, though; it's just slow and awkward and costs you all your momentum. If you miss with a mace, you're generally better off just going with it. It'll come back around, and it'll bring all its momentum with it for the next blow. And this is probably faster than stopping it and bringing it back.

Done properly, mace combat flows... it's a lot of loops with the weapon in constant motion. If you're working with the momentum rather than against it, it's not really any more tiring than sword-fighting.


(Why does 3.5 even have the heavy mace? The morningstar is just straight-up better. It's cheaper, lighter, has an additional damage type, and is in all other ways identical.)


Plus, as others have said, a sword gives you much more mobility, adaptability, and reach. Including the ability to stop your weapon in mid-swing to redirect and feint, or the ability to parry more easily. A mace is scary in a pitched battle where you can just crush skulls left and right, but a sword wielder will probably have the advantage in a duel.

Even with a sword, you don't want to stop it in mid-swing. It's easier than with a mace, but it's still a huge waste of energy. Feints are more about moves that don't go where it initially looks like they're going, or just aren't the move your opponent was led to expect. Most of my favorite ones, it's not even my weapon that I feint with. It's my body. Sometimes even just my eyes. I'm deliberately telegraphing a blow, but then throwing a different one. Or even throwing the one I telegraphed, but a half-beat after they're expecting it, which gives time for their block to go up, and then come down just in time for the shot to actually arrive.

One of my favorites, I just bring my weapon shoulder and elbow up. My opponent tends to interpret this as the beginning of an offside, and their guard comes up and over to ward against that. But what I'm actually doing is cocking to drop my weight and hook my weapon down and under their shield, into their shield-side leg. Which they've just kindly lifted their shield away from.

This works just as well with a mace as with a sword. Possibly better, because dropping shots are particularly nasty with a mace, because gravity and the heavy head are on your side.


Do you think gentlemen carried canes with heavy metal heads because their entire social class had bad legs?
The brass knob on my cane is the pommel of the sword within.


You're not trying to fool the ball with a feint, then attack it from a different angle.
I'm reminded of a baseball game in high school gym, where there was a kid who I had some issues with pitching. He threw the ball (deliberately, I think) directly at my head. My bastard-sword reflexes kicked in, and I hit it with an offside... which drove the ball straight back at him, to - by hilarious happenstance - nail him in the crotch.

Mike_G
2018-05-25, 01:44 PM
If you're competent, and your weapon is a realistic weight (i.e., not the 8 pounds 3.5 puts the heavy mace at), being thrown off-balance shouldn't be a problem.

It is true that maces don't like to switch direction quickly. It's not going to knock you over, though; it's just slow and awkward and costs you all your momentum. If you miss with a mace, you're generally better off just going with it. It'll come back around, and it'll bring all its momentum with it for the next blow. And this is probably faster than stopping it and bringing it back.

Done properly, mace combat flows... it's a lot of loops with the weapon in constant motion. If you're working with the momentum rather than against it, it's not really any more tiring than sword-fighting.




Even with a sword, you don't want to stop it in mid-swing. It's easier than with a mace, but it's still a huge waste of energy. Feints are more about moves that don't go where it initially looks like they're going, or just aren't the move your opponent was led to expect. Most of my favorite ones, it's not even my weapon that I feint with. It's my body. Sometimes even just my eyes. I'm deliberately telegraphing a blow, but then throwing a different one. Or even throwing the one I telegraphed, but a half-beat after they're expecting it, which gives time for their block to go up, and then come down just in time for the shot to actually arrive.

One of my favorites, I just bring my weapon shoulder and elbow up. My opponent tends to interpret this as the beginning of an offside, and their guard comes up and over to ward against that. But what I'm actually doing is cocking to drop my weight and hook my weapon down and under their shield, into their shield-side leg. Which they've just kindly lifted their shield away from.

This works just as well with a mace as with a sword. Possibly better, because dropping shots are particularly nasty with a mace, because gravity and the heavy head are on your side.

.

It's less about stopping the sword mid swing and more about quickly making a parry after you're made a thrust. Or making a cut with the false edge, then a quick cut with the true edge. Or feign a cut and make a thrust. Or disengage under a parry and complete the trust in another line. You can do that really quickly with a well balanced sword.

Not so much with a mace. Without a shield, I'd be very concerned about defending myself with a mace. I'm perfectly comfortable using a one handed sword for both attack and defense.

Concrete
2018-05-26, 02:11 AM
How would that be any more fiddly than a sword in a scabbard? When I'm doing something practical once in a great while which involves carrying a hammer, I have a belt with straps for this precise kind of thing. I don't have loads of practice at all, but I can pull out the hammer without looking or falling down the ladder, and make a quick, one-handed movement that lets me grasp it by the bottom of the haft. It's easy. Lots easier than drawing a sword would be.

The last sentence was meant to summarize all the reasons not to carry a mace, not just the one you replied to.

Mike_G
2018-05-26, 08:16 AM
As we go further into the weeds here, I think it's important to remember that the question wasn't "Is a mace any good?" it's "Is a mace better than a sword?"

And most of the time, the answer is "no." It's situationally better against people in armor, where a sword isn't optimal.

Nobody's saying you can't feint with a mace, just that a weapon where all the mass is \near your hand is easy to manipulate quickly and precisely, and one with all the mass out at the striking end is harder to use that way.

That's a bug when fighting a lightly armored man, because it's harder to land a hit, but a feature against a heavily armored guy because it delivers a lot more force, which you may need to hurt a guy who is wearing a lot of protection.

Hand_of_Vecna
2018-05-26, 01:54 PM
Re: carrying a mace in something like a carpenter's belt.

This is actually a really solid idea that hadn't occurred to me. Probably just as good as a sheathed sword for ease of carrying. However, it now loses out in the ability to be readied quickly. A sword can be drawn directly into a cut or a block in a smooth motion. A mace in a hammer loop would need to be lifted out of the loop by the head and then you need to either toss it up or tilt your grip and let the mace slide down to get your hand on the grip. This takes less than a second, but it could be the deciding factor in a fight.

wumpus
2018-05-29, 01:33 PM
As others have said, swords are far better defensive weapons than maces.

When it comes down to your sidearm, on the street or in battle, you want a weapon that's good at defense, too.

Especially on the street, where you're unlikely to be wearing much if any armor (at most, something like the fancy brigandine vests that were popular in "Italy" for a time, a chain shirt under your outer clothing, or even a gambeson shirt or vest), your main defense will be your sidearm, not your armor.


I guarantee you that was a bunch of LARPers playing with poorly made mockups (it shouldn't take STEPS to regain control of a mace.). Most people "duel wielding" is a dead giveaway you're not dealing with HEMA or anything like it. There's a very small number of historically attested very specific fighting styles with two weapons and the only Western one that springs to mind is Rapier and Dagger. Which was specifically developed because the Rapier was originally a civilian weapon and a Parrying Dagger is easier and more fashionable to carry out on the town then a Buckler.

I've often wondered if a mace (ideally a "sword breaker*", something like a jitte or sai. A hand axe would probably work as well, but I'd really want a hand guard) would make an ideal "dual wielding weapon" that would make more sense when paired with an arming sword than a long (two handed) sword alone. I doubt it would be better than a shield (including a buckler) and probably only used in places that couldn't produce a (hand bossed) buckler. The idea is a "point heavy" weapon ideal for parrying which need only threaten the occasional attack (ok, I'm a lefty and could see switching my offensive and defensive hands at will. But most people won't do that, especially with weapons specialized for the task).

I'm assuming that the buckler needs special hardened steel, while the sword breaker can be stout wood, possibly with an iron guard (to catch the thing during a full force swing) and probably an iron point, which adds both the threat of stabbing/whacking and moves the center of mass out towards the tip for better parrying along the whole distance while not interfering with your own sword. Nearly all the benefit here is cost/tech (not sure about weight). A two handed side arm *looks* fancy, but if you break your spear (spears were what you brought to battle, the sword was the sidearm for pretty much anyone outside the Roman army) you can't really use it with your shield (although if you have time to draw the thing, you probably have time to pick up another spear). In town, I still think the "dual wielding" (with the secondary weapon almost exclusively defensive) beats the two hander.

I suspect the social aspects might be enough to justify the two hander (only if you could afford, of course. But it only has such cachet because plenty of people *can't* afford it. And they should be carrying sword breakers as well). They do look more impressive. And the "sword breaker" won't be all that light. Probably more than the difference between a one handed and two handed sword. An important thing since you'd be mostly carrying them around. And they probably be on the same side and banging into each other.

* I really don't expect the "sword breaker" to break the sword. If it traps the thing for a few tenths of a second it won't matter to the owner of said sword either.

TheGreyWolf1600
2018-05-30, 01:30 AM
No.

A mace is good for bashing people in armor, but it is usually shorter than a sword, heavier, and because the mass is far from your hand, less nimble and easy to use.

Now there are lots of different swords and a few different maces, but most swords can cut, they can stab, and most can parry better than a mace, since they're more wieldy, and it's harder for your enemy to grab you sword blade than to grab the haft of your mace.

Swords were used as a sidearm from prehistory up until the end of the 19th Century. Maces were common during the late middle ages when armor was relatively common. If a mace was better, it would have been carried for longer as a standard sidearm.

A mace is good at one thing. Much better than a sword at that one thing. A sword is good at many things. So really, the exact opposite of your question.

I have an argument. About the mass from hand thing, that actually would give an advantage, assuming you new how to properly wield a mace. By flicking the wrist in mid swing, the weapon would go faster, and strike harder.

As for why maces didn't last as long, I have yet another argument. Around then, unless I'm mistaken, gunpowder was coming out, muskets and other similar weapons were being made, which rendered armor useless. Therefore, the fact that the mace mostly ignored armor was irrelevant. And swords were being utilized from horseback for the skewering effect.

I personally feel that a mace would be more damaging with successful blows, due to the fact that the metal head would easily break bone, whereas to chop off limbs with a sword (as seen in movies), you would need an insane amount of strength and a very sharp sword to slice through the layers of muscle, flesh, bone, and tendons holding it on. Even then, the sword would be greatly dulled.

And to grab an enemies mace shaft, you would have to either be carrying a shorter weapon in one hand, and have the other hand free, or have nothing in your hands. And there are two things you could actually do.
A). Either use both hands to grab the mace and try to pull it away, rendering yourself vulnerable, or
B). Grab the mace with one hand and keep it away, while attacking with your other hand.
And this is a tactic that could only work in a one-on-one duel, and even still, it's a stupid idea. Because by trying to grab the mace head, you are disarming yourself, and when you go to grab it, they could easily do in your face, or charge you, or a number of other attacks.

And a sword is much heavier than you think. Let's take a standard longsword. The handle itself is one foot pole of leather-bound metal. That's not too heavy, about, let's say, 1 pound. Then the crossguard is another pound. And then the blade. It's a three-to-four foot long blade. That overall, is about 3 pounds, and 4-5 feet long. It would be fairly cumbersome. You need much more training and skill with it to avoid cutting yourself, whereas with a mace, you are less likely to wound yourself.

Anyways, I'm just arguing some points.

Brother Oni
2018-05-30, 02:24 AM
I'll break up my rebuttals into sub-points:



As for why maces didn't last as long, I have yet another argument. Around then, unless I'm mistaken, gunpowder was coming out, muskets and other similar weapons were being made, which rendered armor useless. Therefore, the fact that the mace mostly ignored armor was irrelevant. And swords were being utilized from horseback for the skewering effect.


Armour lasted up until the 18th Century Napoleonic Wars, swords just about lasted up until the 19th Century American Civil War, while the medieval style mace went out of fashion long before*. Skewering the enemy from horseback is a very good way of losing your sword in a dead or dying enemy - driveby (horseby?) slashing was the most common use as it used the horse and rider's momentum to add to the power of the blow.

*WW1 trench warfare saw a revival of mace like makeshift weapons because they could be made very short and the environment favoured easy to handle in very tight quarters. As an example of how close the trenches and no man's land environment was, the British Army tried issuing 2-3ft long Roman gladius type swords which were discarded as they were found to be too cumbersome. Given the close quarters that legionaries fought in normally, trench combat is even tighter.



I personally feel that a mace would be more damaging with successful blows, due to the fact that the metal head would easily break bone, whereas to chop off limbs with a sword (as seen in movies), you would need an insane amount of strength and a very sharp sword to slice through the layers of muscle, flesh, bone, and tendons holding it on. Even then, the sword would be greatly dulled.


Except you don't need to dismember someone with a sword to kill or incapacitate them. Anything more than 2-3 inches worth of penetration to the torso or head with a blade is generally fatal although not always incapacitating. As an example, there's a scene in one of the older Game of Thrones series where Arya kills a prone opponent with her sword, by placing the tip over his throat then just leaning forward.
Cavalry sabres generally weren't that sharp either as the additional height/momentum advantage made the extra sharpness unnecessary and it was easier to maintain a duller edge.

In comparison, you will always need a minimum amount of force for a mace to inflict damage as even with its ridges, it won't cut into an opponent.



And a sword is much heavier than you think. Let's take a standard longsword. The handle itself is one foot pole of leather-bound metal. That's not too heavy, about, let's say, 1 pound. Then the crossguard is another pound. And then the blade. It's a three-to-four foot long blade. That overall, is about 3 pounds, and 4-5 feet long. It would be fairly cumbersome. You need much more training and skill with it to avoid cutting yourself, whereas with a mace, you are less likely to wound yourself.


3lbs is not especially heavy (it's the same as a cricket bat) and as a sword is not a crowbar, that weight is distributed non-uniformly, so that it's weighted more towards the grip, making it very easy to handle. Take a look at this longsword duel as an example: Adora longsword fight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn36Pb8z3yI). These would be at the heavier end of the sword scale, yet I don't see anything particularly cumbersome about them.
If you're not convinced by that, take a look at some HEMA longsword competitions or Battle of Bohurt full contact events (although I concede that the Bohurt weapons are closer to crowbars than a properly weighted weapons and maces are prohibited as they're more effective against armour).

In comparison, a mace is entirely weighted towards its head by design. Simple physics dictates that the further away the centre of mass is away from the point where force is being applied (ie the grip), the more cumbersome it is. I'm not saying that a mace is a cumbersome weapon, it's just more cumbersome in comparison to a sword.

TheGreyWolf1600
2018-05-30, 10:34 AM
Well, Brother Oni, I can definitely see that logic. I'm just saying that swords are not the lightning fast death rods everyone thinks they are. My point there is that it's heavier than people think. As for charging horseback with sword, I understand it was usually used for slashing as you go by. I just had used that example because I know that there were sabres designed to be used from horseback in such a way. Besides, it's been a while since I took history class.

As for the logic of limb-severing, I was pointing out the inane ridiculousness of that move. I well know that it's easy to kill with a sword without severing limbs, but that was not my point there. Anyways, I'm not per say trying to brainwash anybody:smallbiggrin:, but simply making some points.

Mike_G
2018-05-30, 03:06 PM
Well, Brother Oni, I can definitely see that logic. I'm just saying that swords are not the lightning fast death rods everyone thinks they are. My point there is that it's heavier than people think. As for charging horseback with sword, I understand it was usually used for slashing as you go by. I just had used that example because I know that there were sabres designed to be used from horseback in such a way. Besides, it's been a while since I took history class.

As for the logic of limb-severing, I was pointing out the inane ridiculousness of that move. I well know that it's easy to kill with a sword without severing limbs, but that was not my point there. Anyways, I'm not per say trying to brainwash anybody:smallbiggrin:, but simply making some points.

I have fenced with a lot of different swords, from Olympic style foils and sabres to accurately weighted steel sabres, rapiers, arming swords and longswords. I'm not a very big guy, and I'm strong enough, but no power lifter.

Sword are relatively light, and they are balanced to be relatively nimble. All swords are not equal. A smallsword can weigh just about a pound and still be deadly. Even the heavier swords don;t run much over three pounds. Most one handed swords run around two to two and a half pounds. Four pounds is a very very heavy sword, and it will still have most of the weight in your hand. They are absolutely lightning fast.

Weights of various swords: (This guy is all about grams, so Americans need to remember that 1000 g=2.2 pounds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03HIYgLWGu0

Focused on Napoleonic era swords

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MY5Sdwp5cU

Jay R
2018-05-30, 06:38 PM
As for the logic of limb-severing,...

It's not a goal. Once the tendons are muscles are severed, I simply don't care if my enemy's useless limb still hangs from the shoulder.

-----

The basic historical argument still stands untouched.
Maces are cheaper than swords.
Maces are far easier to make than swords.
Maces are much simpler to take care of than swords.

And throughout history, people who could afford swords used them.


If maces were superior, any competent noble would have armed his warriors with maces. And they never did.

Brother Oni
2018-05-30, 07:21 PM
To support Mike G's comments on fast a sword can be, here's some Japanese iaido battojustu (strikes while drawing the blade): link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Njh-P0iXY).

I concede that it's iaido rather than iaijutsu (ie fencing rather than a battlefield style), but the principle remains that the sword can be lightning quick, and as the blade is sharp, the speed contributes to lethality.

While a katana is comparable in weight to a western one handed sword (0.9 - 1.4kg), they are shorter and lighter than a western two handed sword, so any comparison to western blades/styles should be made with caveats.

Clistenes
2018-05-31, 02:29 PM
Armour lasted up until the 18th Century Napoleonic Wars, swords just about lasted up until the 19th Century American Civil War, while the medieval style mace went out of fashion long before*. Skewering the enemy from horseback is a very good way of losing your sword in a dead or dying enemy - driveby (horseby?) slashing was the most common use as it used the horse and rider's momentum to add to the power of the blow.

It was assumed that you would eventually lose your lance during a battle, and if you charged with an estoc, koncerz or similar weapon, you would probably lose it too, so you would keep an arming sword, mace or warhammer as a sidearm in addition to your lance and estoc. Some people would even carry a lance, an estoc, an arming sword and a warhammer, just in case you lost your first three weapons while charging...

TheGreyWolf1600
2018-05-31, 05:22 PM
I, personally, think it is a much more reliable and convenient weapon. And the argument of "A sword lasted longer, so it's better" has become overused on this thread. Just saying. My reason is that it's cheaper to obtain and upkeep, is good against heavy armor, and is harder to accidentally hurt yourself with it. Whether or not it managed to last the test of time, that is another thing. As things went on, it simply became easier to make a sharpened piece of steel rather than a metal head attached to a wooden rod. It was quicker. Of course, I might be wrong. That is something that applies to 50% of my posts. At least.

Calthropstu
2018-05-31, 05:39 PM
Having wielded both I have this to say:
The mace sucks. No seriously, it is unwieldy and top heavy. You have to swing it widely to really affect any damage leaving you wide open to counter attack and dodges.
A sword point is deadly with a quick jab. A mace requires significant force behind it. Swords are faster and more maneuverable. The only advantages a mace enjoys is the fact that it is very easy to block with and it won't lose its edge. With a sword, blocking with it will cause all kinds of nicks in the blade. With a mace, it just causes some scratches and nicks don't decrease its effectiveness.
But I'll take a good longsword or shortsword over a mace any day of the week.

TheGreyWolf1600
2018-05-31, 05:45 PM
Having wielded both I have this to say:
The mace sucks. No seriously, it is unwieldy and top heavy. You have to swing it widely to really affect any damage leaving you wide open to counter attack and dodges.
A sword point is deadly with a quick jab. A mace requires significant force behind it. Swords are faster and more maneuverable. The only advantages a mace enjoys is the fact that it is very easy to block with and it won't lose its edge. With a sword, blocking with it will cause all kinds of nicks in the blade. With a mace, it just causes some scratches and nicks don't decrease its effectiveness.
But I'll take a good longsword or shortsword over a mace any day of the week.

I can understand that. Of course, a two-handed sword or greatsword (E.G. Final Fantasy VII) would be more cumbersome even then. And I just realized something. We are arguing over the merits of weapons that have sadly become outdated and obsolete in this world of technology. Of course, in some respects, both have survived to this day. Some people use machetes as weapons, which are similar to a falchion, in some respects. And many people today use large, one-handed bludgeoning weapons (E.G. Billy clubs, nightsticks, batons, baseball bats) as well. Others use a variety of sword-like weapons as well.

parryhotter
2018-05-31, 05:50 PM
The only reason to have a mace instead of a sword is because your too poor to own a sword. Lol.

Calthropstu
2018-05-31, 05:55 PM
I can understand that. Of course, a two-handed sword or greatsword (E.G. Final Fantasy VII) would be more cumbersome even then. And I just realized something. We are arguing over the merits of weapons that have sadly become outdated and obsolete in this world of technology. Of course, in some respects, both have survived to this day. Some people use machetes as weapons, which are similar to a falchion, in some respects. And many people today use large, one-handed bludgeoning weapons (E.G. Billy clubs, nightsticks, batons, baseball bats) as well. Others use a variety of sword-like weapons as well.

All true. If you are planning violence, a gun or tazer is obviously preferred. But those are expensive and hard to access. Meanwhile, a well placed bat or large kitchen knife can mean all the difference between losing everything you own and beating back an intruder.

I actually have swords in my apartment as well as a well placed cyclone knife, a dagger and hunting knife. I have a gun, but it's well hidden due to the fact that I regularly have kids over where I live.

TheGreyWolf1600
2018-05-31, 06:32 PM
All true. If you are planning violence, a gun or tazer is obviously preferred. But those are expensive and hard to access. Meanwhile, a well placed bat or large kitchen knife can mean all the difference between losing everything you own and beating back an intruder.

I actually have swords in my apartment as well as a well placed cyclone knife, a dagger and hunting knife. I have a gun, but it's well hidden due to the fact that I regularly have kids over where I live.

Impressive arsenal. And another point on this argument. Often, t=the choice of weapon depends on the personal preference of the wielder. For example, there might be those who would rather use a sturdy, albeit slower, mace, whereas some like the swifter, more fragile, sword.

Mr Beer
2018-05-31, 06:35 PM
I, personally, think it is a much more reliable and convenient weapon. And the argument of "A sword lasted longer, so it's better" has become overused on this thread. Just saying. My reason is that it's cheaper to obtain and upkeep, is good against heavy armor, and is harder to accidentally hurt yourself with it. Whether or not it managed to last the test of time, that is another thing. As things went on, it simply became easier to make a sharpened piece of steel rather than a metal head attached to a wooden rod. It was quicker. Of course, I might be wrong. That is something that applies to 50% of my posts. At least.

Most of your post is questionable, this is just silly. I personally could make a mace given access to a hardware store for a few days and I'm the least handy person I know. Making an actual sword is non-trivial, I wouldn't know where to begin. You need a forge and a craftsman...someone could possibly guide me through the process, but I'd require expert help. Conversely, the internet is sufficient to teach me how to attach a metal weight to a stout handle.

TheGreyWolf1600
2018-05-31, 06:53 PM
Most of your post is questionable, this is just silly. I personally could make a mace given access to a hardware store for a few days and I'm the least handy person I know. Making an actual sword is non-trivial, I wouldn't know where to begin. You need a forge and a craftsman...someone could possibly guide me through the process, but I'd require expert help. Conversely, the internet is sufficient to teach me how to attach a metal weight to a stout handle.

I did give a warning, stating at least half my posts have a good chance of being highly innacurate. And besides, I may pride myself on being a history geek, but it's quite limited to stuff that would show up in a game of D&D.

Jay R
2018-06-02, 08:30 AM
I, personally, think it is a much more reliable and convenient weapon.

But the people who knew them well disagreed. Virtually everybody who had a choice carried a sword, not a mace. This is a historical fact.

I have sword manuals by Sainct-Didier, Fabris, Di Grassi, Saviolo, Viggiani, Dei Liberi, Ringeck, Silver, Marozzo, Capo Ferro, and Agrippa, and there are many more available. By contrast, there is some discussion of a mace (a club, really) in Tallhoffer, but much more about swords. I simply don't know of a period manual that spends as much attention on maces as on swords.


My reason is that it's cheaper to obtain and upkeep, is good against heavy armor, and is harder to accidentally hurt yourself with it.

It is cheaper to obtain and upkeep, and most people who could afford it still paid the extra time and effort for a sword.

Yes, a mace is good against armor that was worn for a fairly short period of time. The brief time that some of your enemies would wear such armor was a rare period in which a mace might be as good as a one-handed sword - but only in war or tournament.

People usually wore full plate only in tourneys and wars. The sword was still the self-defense weapon of choice. I have not found any period reference that says or implies that maces are more common than swords in any time period. Paintings of courts at pretty much any time show an abundance of courtiers wearing swords and no maces.

Also, remember that the one-handed weapon isn't a warrior's primary weapon in battle. We think of the rapier as the musketeers' primary weapon, but of course it isn't. The primary weapon of a musketeer is the musket.

In the time of heavy plate armor, you started with pike or halberd (on foot) or lance (on horseback), and drew the sword later. There's an interesting 1608 book called Mars His Field, An Exercise of Arms that shows how to carry the pike, ready it, use it, drop it when necessary (without fouling other pikes), pull the shield off your back, draw the sword, and stand in a shield wall.

And accidentally hurting yourself is a non-factor. I cannot find a reference to that in any period reference.


Whether or not it managed to last the test of time, that is another thing. As things went on, it simply became easier to make a sharpened piece of steel rather than a metal head attached to a wooden rod. It was quicker.

That's simply untrue. Tempering and hardening metal for swords is much more complicated than making a macehead and attaching it to a stick. From the visitor's guide of the Landeszeughaus in Graz: "The production of edged weapons had to balance two contradictory aims: on the one hand, the blades needed to be hard in order to prevent rapid blunting; on the other hand, they had to be flexible enough to stop them breaking. This was the art of bladesmithing, and today you will still find the hallmark of bladesmiths on nearly all of the swords, sabres and rapiers in the armoury."


Of course, I might be wrong. That is something that applies to 50% of my posts. At least.

That's all right; in the ideal internet discussion, we all pass on what we know, and we all try to learn more. I've probably been reading about swords longer than you have, having gotten interested in them in the 1960s.

War_lord
2018-06-02, 08:55 AM
Much like a modern firearm, if hurting yourself while merely wielding your sword is an issue for you, you probably shouldn't have it in the first place.

LudicSavant
2018-06-02, 08:58 AM
So when the function of different weapons comes up, I usually see it argued that a sword, while not a primary battlefield weapon like many people believe, is ideal as a personal sidearm and/or general-purpose adventurer's weapon in a game. This sort of makes sense to me, because it's relatively light and easy to carry, and can be used for several different kinds of attacks (slashing and thrusting, and possibly bludgeoning if gripped by the blade) depending on an opponent's armor and resistances.

However, thinking about it, wouldn't a mace be preferable in pretty much any situation where you'd want a sword? From what I know, it's cheaper, of comparable size for transport, easier to use with less training, requires less maintenance (no need to keep it sharp, and generally more solidly constructed), better against any armor I can think of (not stopped by mail and can cave in plate), and just as damaging against an unarmored target. The only disadvantage I can think of is probably shorter reach, but that would depend on the individual mace and sword, right?

I can understand why axes would've been more popular sidearms than swords in certain periods--cheaper, possibly throwable, and useful as a tool outside of combat. But I'm not aware of any time or place in history where swords and maces existed side-by-side, and maces were more popular. Why is that? Is there something I'm not getting about the two weapons?

One of the things a person would look for in a sidearm would be how comfortable it is to carry with them all the time.

Another thing to consider would be that the weapons are better at different tasks.

Calthropstu
2018-06-03, 02:20 PM
Much like a modern firearm, if hurting yourself while merely wielding your sword is an issue for you, you probably shouldn't have it in the first place.

Once watched a video of a firearm safety instructor shooting himself mid lecture. While hilarious, weapons are dangerous, even sheathed. I had once leaned one of my swords against a wall and tried to catch it as it fell. It had partially come unsheathed mid fall and sliced open my hand.

A weapon designed to hurt someone can hurt you too if you get careless. But I sincerely doubt it's a major concern for someone when picking a weapon.

DragonclawExia
2018-06-03, 04:02 PM
Yeah, while in an an isolated situation the Mace is more effective against Armored Foes, but it has all kinds of secondary flaws which make it bad for a Sidearm.

Remember that it's a SIDEARM, or Emergency Weapon. It's like a Handgun in the respect their supposed to be easy to carry and most importantly, CONVENIENT to carry.

Maces...are kinda cumbersome as a Sidearm. Can you imagine carrying one all day along, with no Armor to prevent it from mildly bruising you everytime you walk? Why do you think Swords have Scabbards?

In a pitched battle, the primary weapon would be Spears or Halberds, and Bows at that time period if you wanted to fight Armored Foes.

If you suddenly get attacked by a stranger at night, he's likely to be unarmored not squeaking around in Full Metal.

So as a SIDEARM, Swords are just more practical for their time period. Remember, it's a SIDEARM, not a Primary Weapon. Maces aren't that amazing for primaries either, since in Mass Battles you really need Range, so Spears/Bows/Artillery.

Gnoman
2018-06-03, 05:53 PM
But I sincerely doubt it's a major concern for someone when picking a weapon.

On the contrary. "How safe is this to carry?" is a major concern. There's a reason why there are so many safety features built into modern (1911-present) military pistols - that was the best way to get military contracts, and the emphasis has been "Thou shalt not make a gun that will go off unintentionally" for at least that long. This is why the term "negligent discharge" is preferred instead of "accidental firing", because a modern pistol is explicitly designed to never go off unless you are pulling the trigger.


I don't have sources from earlier eras, but I would be shocked if user safety was ever NOT a primary design concern.

Calthropstu
2018-06-03, 08:40 PM
On the contrary. "How safe is this to carry?" is a major concern. There's a reason why there are so many safety features built into modern (1911-present) military pistols - that was the best way to get military contracts, and the emphasis has been "Thou shalt not make a gun that will go off unintentionally" for at least that long. This is why the term "negligent discharge" is preferred instead of "accidental firing", because a modern pistol is explicitly designed to never go off unless you are pulling the trigger.


I don't have sources from earlier eras, but I would be shocked if user safety was ever NOT a primary design concern.

Oh sure, it's a concern when picking weapons for an organization. But random joe schmoe picking a weapon at a weapon show? Does it work? Does it look cool? Does it have a bad kickback if a firearm? Is it balanced good enough to use? That's random guy's concerns. Even ex military personell are unlikely to consider safety features as a top priority.

Jay R
2018-06-04, 08:51 AM
Oh sure, it's a concern when picking weapons for an organization. But random joe schmoe picking a weapon at a weapon show? Does it work? Does it look cool? Does it have a bad kickback if a firearm? Is it balanced good enough to use? That's random guy's concerns. Even ex military personell are unlikely to consider safety features as a top priority.

Not me. If the safety doesn't work, or the hammer is easily pulled back by accident, it's unacceptable. I have known a fair number of gun owners, and they are all concerned with safety.

People who own guns want them to be safe just as much as people who own cars want the brakes to work, and for the same reasons.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-04, 08:53 AM
Not me. If the safety doesn't work, or the hammer is easily pulled back by accident, it's unacceptable. I have known a fair number of gun owners, and they are all concerned with safety.

People who own guns want them to be safe just as much as people who own cars want the brakes to work, and for the same reasons.

Most people buying weapons in any era are concerned with the quality of workmanship, how safe it is both in and out of combat, how easy it is to carry around, etc, as much as they're concerned with whether it will kill stuff, and more than whether it "looks cool".

There are a lot of ugly stereotypes and tropes involved in the "but I want a bigger kewler gun" image.

Calthropstu
2018-06-05, 12:41 PM
Most people buying weapons in any era are concerned with the quality of workmanship, how safe it is both in and out of combat, how easy it is to carry around, etc, as much as they're concerned with whether it will kill stuff, and more than whether it "looks cool".

There are a lot of ugly stereotypes and tropes involved in the "but I want a bigger kewler gun" image.

So when my ex wife bought a pistol covered with flower print because it was "pretty" that was abnormal? I think not. The average person who buys a gun buys it for the sake of buying a gun.
Hell, my gun has never been fired except once. I know how to maintain it and clean it every 6 months or so, but I've never needed to fire it. And when I bought it, my concerns were stopping power, mag capacity and weight. I assumed the safety worked as it's built into all modern handguns.

Gnoman
2018-06-05, 06:08 PM
So when my ex wife bought a pistol covered with flower print because it was "pretty" that was abnormal? I think not. The average person who buys a gun buys it for the sake of buying a gun.
Hell, my gun has never been fired except once. I know how to maintain it and clean it every 6 months or so, but I've never needed to fire it. And when I bought it, my concerns were stopping power, mag capacity and weight. I assumed the safety worked as it's built into all modern handguns.

Bolded for emphasis. You didn't worry about safety because you believed it was automatically included. That isn't the same as "safety is not an important consideration".

Mike_G
2018-06-05, 07:11 PM
I'm just confused that you own a gun you haven't fired more than once.

I'm from the "Let's see what this baby can DO!" school of weapon ownership.

JellyPooga
2018-06-06, 05:30 AM
That's simply untrue. Tempering and hardening metal for swords is much more complicated than making a macehead and attaching it to a stick.

It depends on what you classify as a "sword", or indeed a "mace". Any fool can put a half-brick in a sock and call it a "flail", or bind a rock to a stick and call it a "mace", but equally anyone can take a file to a flat iron bar, wrap some string around one end for a grip and call it a "sword".

To cite a historical example, the Roman legions conquered the known world with mass produced short swords that were little more than pointy bits of metal, crudely stamped out, tempered and lashed to a wooden grip. Sure, some soldiers could afford better quality swords, but the vast majority were the ancient equivalent of a knock-off "Bolex" watch or "Hike" trainers. They worked because of their simplicity, not their complexity; cheap but able to be manufactured practically anywhere and still deadly. Not every sword has to be a masterpiece of forging, any more than a mace has to be an intricately flanged and reinforced weapon of war.

hymer
2018-06-06, 06:40 AM
To cite a historical example, the Roman legions conquered the known world with mass produced short swords that were little more than pointy bits of metal, crudely stamped out, tempered and lashed to a wooden grip. Sure, some soldiers could afford better quality swords, but the vast majority were the ancient equivalent of a knock-off "Bolex" watch or "Hike" trainers.

Are you referring to the spatha or the gladius hispaniensis, here? Also, do you have a source on the 'vast majority' bit? Because that sounds like something you can't really be sure about, so few examples having survived.

JellyPooga
2018-06-06, 07:00 AM
Are you referring to the spatha or the gladius hispaniensis, here? Also, do you have a source on the 'vast majority' bit? Because that sounds like something you can't really be sure about, so few examples having survived.

Gladius. I don't have a source off the top of my head, but there are hundreds of finds of a wide variety of quality; the majority being very poor.

deuterio12
2018-06-06, 07:18 AM
Swords are a lot deadlier than maces. You pretty much need a direct head hit to kill/disable a person with a mace, a sword just needs to slice a limb/body artery and they'll bleed out pretty fast.


It depends on what you classify as a "sword", or indeed a "mace". Any fool can put a half-brick in a sock and call it a "flail", or bind a rock to a stick and call it a "mace", but equally anyone can take a file to a flat iron bar, wrap some string around one end for a grip and call it a "sword".

To cite a historical example, the Roman legions conquered the known world with mass produced short swords that were little more than pointy bits of metal, crudely stamped out, tempered and lashed to a wooden grip. Sure, some soldiers could afford better quality swords, but the vast majority were the ancient equivalent of a knock-off "Bolex" watch or "Hike" trainers. They worked because of their simplicity, not their complexity; cheap but able to be manufactured practically anywhere and still deadly. Not every sword has to be a masterpiece of forging, any more than a mace has to be an intricately flanged and reinforced weapon of war.

To cite another historical example, humans started binding rocks to sticks and using it as maces long, long ago, but figuring how to make flat iron bars and then filing them (hard mode: it doesn't break/bend in one hit), that's a lot more recent, just a bit over two thousand years really and even then hard enough that blacksmiths were well respected in any community, while I've never heard of anybody being able to survive just by making maces.

Mass iron producing in particular took millenia to figure out, before we had the whole freaking bronze age because basic iron was utter crap until they discovered how to properly remove the impurities and harden it.

For their time, the roman gladius were indeed cutting edge high-tech, even if they look like poor quality by modern standards.

Jay R
2018-06-06, 07:25 AM
It depends on what you classify as a "sword", or indeed a "mace". Any fool can put a half-brick in a sock and call it a "flail", or bind a rock to a stick and call it a "mace", but equally anyone can take a file to a flat iron bar, wrap some string around one end for a grip and call it a "sword".

To cite a historical example, the Roman legions conquered the known world with mass produced short swords that were little more than pointy bits of metal, crudely stamped out, tempered and lashed to a wooden grip. Sure, some soldiers could afford better quality swords, but the vast majority were the ancient equivalent of a knock-off "Bolex" watch or "Hike" trainers. They worked because of their simplicity, not their complexity; cheap but able to be manufactured practically anywhere and still deadly. Not every sword has to be a masterpiece of forging, any more than a mace has to be an intricately flanged and reinforced weapon of war.

None of which changes the fact that a top-grade sword is more expensive and more difficult to make than a top-grade mace, and a poor sword is more expensive and more difficult to make than a poor mace. And the sword is more valuable, as seen by the fact that the Romans weren't making knock-off "Bolex" maces.

Your description of making poor maces and poor swords bears out my point that swords are harder to make. Compare your own two descriptions:

bind a rock to a stick and call it a "mace"
pointy bits of metal, crudely stamped out, tempered and lashed to a wooden grip.

Making the sword has more steps, and the most difficult step you mentioned is the tempering, which, even poorly done, makes sword construction harder than mace construction. But they still made swords for their armies.

JellyPooga
2018-06-06, 08:01 AM
None of which changes the fact that a top-grade sword is more expensive and more difficult to make than a top-grade mace, and a poor sword is more expensive and more difficult to make than a poor mace. And the sword is more valuable, as seen by the fact that the Romans weren't making knock-off "Bolex" maces.

Your description of making poor maces and poor swords bears out my point that swords are harder to make. Compare your own two descriptions:

bind a rock to a stick and call it a "mace"
pointy bits of metal, crudely stamped out, tempered and lashed to a wooden grip.

Making the sword has more steps, and the most difficult step you mentioned is the tempering, which, even poorly done, makes sword construction harder than mace construction. But they still made swords for their armies.

I don't disagree. I'm only pointing out that a "sword" doesn"t necessarily mean something that requires all the arts of the bladesmithing profession at the height of its heyday. A crude machete filed from an iron bar might be more complex than a rock-on-a-stick mace, but not a lot (given an adequate level of technology) and could still fall into the category of a "sword".

On the subject of the Roman gladius; it was a far cry from high-tech, even for the iron age. Bladecrafting techniques were being used by many cultures of the period that exhibited far greater levels of sophistication; even within the Roman military, better blades existed such as the cavalry spartha (akin to later sabres).

Calthropstu
2018-06-06, 10:21 AM
Bolded for emphasis. You didn't worry about safety because you believed it was automatically included. That isn't the same as "safety is not an important consideration".

Yet that is true of all eras. Most likely assume a standard of safety that is prevalent for the time period. To be fair, it likely should be given more thought.

Raimun
2018-06-06, 12:42 PM
Consider a heavy mace and a longsword.

Both deal the same amount of damage but the mace's crit range is only x2. The sword on the other hand has a crit range of 19-20/x2. The swords are therefore always better.

You might be thinking about the age old "What about skeletons? They resist piercing and slashing damage." Well, that's why twohanded fighting, Power Attack and Rage were invented. You add enough damage modifiers and the skeletons are destroyed just fine. This works well because you aren't fighting skeletons all the time. At some point, they will be all destroyed, they start to fear you or you wander off to fight evil druids or someone who doesn't have skeletons as troops.

Gnoman
2018-06-06, 02:37 PM
Yet that is true of all eras. Most likely assume a standard of safety that is prevalent for the time period. To be fair, it likely should be given more thought.

The original point being made was "a sword is much easier to secure safely for day-to-day carriage than a mace is." In other words, instead of dozens of similar weapons all held to a similar basic safety standard (although there are differences, and enormous amounts of ink are expended comparing the safety features of pistols and holsters in the appropriate literature), you are comparing two weapons with very different safety standards. Or, to use an analogy, you're comparing a compact semi-auto with integrated safety to a revolver with no transfer bar (which means that, if you carry it with all cylinders loaded, a jolt is very likely to set it off because the firing pin is resting on a percussion cap).

Lapak
2018-06-06, 03:27 PM
With regard to the safety discussion, it's worth noting that a large portion of basic military training both today and historically revolves around 'how do you carry and carry for your primary weapon without damaging it/yourself.' Sidearms and civilian weapons have always absolutely leaned towards weapons that don't require as much thought just to lug them around.

Kadzar
2018-06-06, 05:01 PM
The original point being made was "a sword is much easier to secure safely for day-to-day carriage than a mace is." In other words, instead of dozens of similar weapons all held to a similar basic safety standard (although there are differences, and enormous amounts of ink are expended comparing the safety features of pistols and holsters in the appropriate literature), you are comparing two weapons with very different safety standards. Or, to use an analogy, you're comparing a compact semi-auto with integrated safety to a revolver with no transfer bar (which means that, if you carry it with all cylinders loaded, a jolt is very likely to set it off because the firing pin is resting on a percussion cap).A further illustration of the point that safety is a priority for people who carry weapons is that, with those revolvers lacking a transfer bar, it's a very common practice to leave one chamber of the cylinder empty, so that the hammer can rest over that one and not get accidentally discharged. Safety in this case outweighs extra shots able to be fired.

deuterio12
2018-06-06, 07:59 PM
With regard to the safety discussion, it's worth noting that a large portion of basic military training both today and historically revolves around 'how do you carry and carry for your primary weapon without damaging it/yourself.'

More true than you may think since we can see polearms becoming longer and longer until we had those giant pikes. The commanders were basically going "Let's put the pointy bits of the weapon as far away from the user as possible, shall we?"

WindStruck
2018-06-06, 11:24 PM
Things you can do with a sword that you can't do with a mace:
cut rope
cut through webs
dismember limbs and behead
cut through brush like with a machete

Things you can do with a mace that you can't do with a sword:
beat a person to an unrecognizable pulp
batter, crush, & destroy harder objects
break through walls
Tap in a nail
Blunt trauma through armor (theoretically)

Foreverknight
2018-06-06, 11:30 PM
Maces were fun when I was a cleric but less damage than swords.

Calthropstu
2018-06-07, 12:49 AM
Maces were fun when I was a cleric but less damage than swords.

Obviously though mace is more useful for nonlethal combat. Why do you think they sell it in stores nowadays? Plus, it technically counts as a ranged weapon.

Nifft
2018-06-07, 01:05 AM
Obviously though mace is more useful for nonlethal combat. Why do you think they sell it in stores nowadays? Plus, it technically counts as a ranged weapon.

It's a 15 ft. cone.

You pick the cone's starting square, then you roll on the grenadelike weapon miss chart to determine the cone's direction.

Corsair14
2018-06-08, 08:53 PM
Swords were useful against unarmored opponents as has been said many times and isn't in debate really. A mace can be used as well in this role but it is admittingly slower. Ill give the points to the sword.

Against armor be it leather to chain to scale to plate a sword quickly loses its advantage. The most common armor(when worn) of the early middle ages was some form or other of padded gambeson. Most swords were not these super sharp weapons. The Vikings rarely even sharpened the points of theirs and did not use them for thrusting. Contrary to something I read earlier, thrusting with a long sword is much easier to block than people think. It takes years and years of training to get to the point of being able to thrust at a split second opening at a weak point. The most common area for injury is the head. A good leather cap or metal cap or padded chain coif will protect against a sword. You might knock the person down or out of the fight but odds are fairly good you didn't kill them. With a mace however even a light hit is stunning the target. I have seen a flanged mace penetrate a sloped 12 ga stainless steel helm on a good hit in a fight. Against leather armor or chain, forget about the sword. There's a reason swords are a status symbol and a back up weapon usually to the spear. A spear is the primary weapon for every single culture I can think of for millennia for good reason, cheap and effective against almost all forms of armor.

Maces destroy shields too and they are easier to play whack a knight in the head for someone who raised their shield as it goes over. They were common as well even in the early middle ages for the Crusades. The clergy uses them since they aren't supposed to draw blood with edged weapons. But they are very slow and cumbersome. It will tire the user out far quicker than a sword. There's a reason weapons simply either got bigger in the form of the multitude of polearms that appeared or got more refined and specialized in the form of hammers and flails.

Against light armor a sword is probably still better over all in the early middle ages. Vs the Vikings and during the crusades, your average troop wasn't wearing heavy or even medium armor. Hell, most Vikings just wore their tunics and very few had caps even. Their advantage was their really well built shields made oddly enough from relatively soft wood. Its purpose was to allow the edge of a sword or axe to penetrate with progressive give and then hold onto the weapon to pull it out of the user's grasp.

wolflance
2018-06-08, 10:00 PM
More true than you may think since we can see polearms becoming longer and longer until we had those giant pikes. The commanders were basically going "Let's put the pointy bits of the weapon as far away from the user as possible, shall we?"
But then soldiers just drag the pikes on the ground while traveling, which I presume isn't very good for the pointy bits....

Brother Oni
2018-06-09, 03:43 AM
But then soldiers just drag the pikes on the ground while traveling, which I presume isn't very good for the pointy bits....

When trailing the pike, you hold the shaft near the expensive metal pointy bit and drag the rest of it along the ground, with the NCOs, officers and his fellow soldiers making sure a soldier did it properly.

This is applicable during the English Civil War period - I'm not aware of any other formalised pike dragging from other eras.

wumpus
2018-06-09, 02:11 PM
Swords were useful against unarmored opponents as has been said many times and isn't in debate really. A mace can be used as well in this role but it is admittingly slower. Ill give the points to the sword.

Weirdly enough, neolithic history inverts that concept.

If you find a mace in a neolithic dig, you know they were willing to build specialized human vs. human weapons, and probably had something resembling professional soldiers or a warrior caste.

Eventually, the helmet was invented. This was to protect the head against the mace. I'm not sure if the spear* became the dominant human vs. human weapon at this time, but it is quite possible. Once the entire body was covered in armor, the mace was once again ideal as the head was equally as protected as everything else. Maces might make ideal wizardslayer weapons, although a falchion appears also design to hack through unarmored masses (and presents a larger range of targets than just the head).

* should we call it a javelin? Most spears by the bronze age and up (at least used by the warrior caste, and the iron age and up for common soldiers) to be able to cut as well as thrust (if not as well). While some neolithic spears might have obsidean heads, I'd expect that they could cut *or* thrust. Each spear could only do one.