Yes, what defeated Sauron was getting his fingers (and the "one ring to rule them all") cut off with the sword.

@@perniciouspete4986 And only after (in the movie at least) Sauron decided not to use the mace to kill Isildur but instead try to grab him.

now the witch king on the other hand, one of the best fighteres in middle earth, thousands of years old was killed by two untrained peasants because of his horrible weapon choice lmao, quit fucking around with magic daggers and giant flails, just cut their head off with a longsword. bam, ringbearer killed and not murdered by a pair of chumps.

@@guildedcharr7459 In the books, Sauron can burn things by simply touching them. I'm guessing that's what he was trying to do in the movie when Isuldur killed him, though it was clearly the wrong move.

​@@thgsMASK Prepare to feel the back of my glove, rascal; no one calls Eowyn, Lady of Rohan, a peasant (admittedly, without context, being killed by a noble woman is kind of worse).

Decent chance he is one in this universe just shaves daily to hide it

That hat he's wearing makes him look rather dwarfish (sans beard).

Afaik the reason the Lich kings Flail and Saurons Mace where made so obviously, massively and impractically oversized was just specifically to make them *look* intimidating for the movie the Weapons were purposefully made oversized, despite some on set wanting otherwise for the sole purpose of looking imposing. In other words; Saurons Mace isn't build for fighting, it's made for looks. He'd be a lot less scary looking with the mace tod is holding! XD

@@afmb9096 Todd and all of us know that. You have to put yourself into the movie for the joke to be funny. Notice Todd said "Sauron is terrible at designing weapons" not "the propmaster is terrible at designing weapons".

*Sauron cares not for design intentions, only for results!* **smacks another hundred free peoples into bags of broken flesh and bone**

Nice

Something tells me the Vikings had a much better understanding of what works best to kill someone in medieval combat than a bunch of modern era couch potatoes.

@@41tl exactly. look also at the depiction of warhammers in medieval fantasy versus what they actually looked like in real life.

@@wesjanson6979 as always people like BIG things but nobody think about the fact that not all Vikings were from Strongman competition and people were just people, big metal things weigh a lot, and big war hammers would just exhaust you very fast

I have a splitting axe that weighs 4 pounds (all in the head) and I dare anyone to try to swing it one-handed. These weapons had to be small it's the only way they could be wielded at all.

not that much force hes a fat old man

Yeah, that mace will fuck up anyone, even armored people due to the force.

@@xXCREEKSTARXx Not really

​@@EQOAnostalgia Well, full plate would protect you quite well from that unless you've got hit in the head. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that mace wearing only mail though, I'm pretty sure it could easily break a rib or two and cause some serious internal damage.

My dad is a retired blacksmith. Blacksmiths are much stronger than they look as well. Nothing like a body builder look, but swinging steel for hours a day will definitely give you some big arm muscles.

Ouch, right in the walnuts!

It's like a monkey hiding in a piñata beside the candy hoping the kids don't break through with the bat

@@Priapos93 why it calls the skull splitter lol

He is right ... and wrong... the flanges act like football cleats giving traction and sticking on say ... the helmet of another knight instead of glancing off.

Then again, IF a weapon is designed to penetrate armour, doesn't it also do that by concentrating the force on one point? So calling these maces "force concentrators" is redundant and misleading.

Agreed

Agreed. Ballistic dummies would be the dream but at $2 000 USD I can see why they don't.

@@handroids1981 It's possible that Tod's subscriber base is approaching the point where he might be able to land some sort of product placement deal with makers of said ballistic dummies. I doubt Garand Thumb is going out of pocket for the dummies he's shooting to pieces most videos.

@@handroids1981 No need for ballistic dummies. Basic modelling clay is a cheap, reusable medium.

@@vanivanov9571 Agreed and the ballistic dummies wouldn't show anything anyway, they're intended provide a consistent medium to measure bullet wound cavities, not stabbing/blunt weapons.

I think mainly what hammers and maces were probably intended to hit a targets head. This makes me wonder now if helmets were made the same thickness as the rest of the armor. I heard once that picks were designed for horseback and the rider could go around hitting everyone in the head very easily but so far I've only seen one video where even one with a long handle couldn't go through plate. Maybe it was only for the unfortunates who didn't have helmets.

I’d honestly prefer a sword against armour, you can stab into the chainmail, weakpoints or force it through the gaps. Whereas a mace basically can’t do anything to plate armour, ignoring the rest of course, unless they hit the head which would force them to be very predictable.

​@pyrrhusofepirus8491 You know most maces we think of were designed specifically for plate. We're talking organ shattering concussion damage alone. But even still, the accounts talk about knights basically beating helmets into tin pulp and watching the blood & brains ooze out the cracks. There's a reason in armored combat swords were considered a sidearm.

@@joeytodd795 Maces weren’t designed for plate they’d already existed long before it, moreover, as I said, the head, rest of the body I don’t see much happening at all nor them feeling it much at all if that. Moreover, I’d like to ask whether these knights were in full helms and in combat stance as opposed to being incapacitated and unable to fight back, at which point the mace wielder just starts wailing on them. I don’t really see maces as anymore of a “sidearm” than an axe or sword.

@@pyrrhusofepirus8491 maneuvering a sword in close combat to effectively stab into weakpoints is, frankly, unrealistic and too difficult to accurately achieve repeatedly against struggling enemies. Whacking dudes with a mace on the other hand, quite easy especially under duress. Even if a mace doesn't warp the helmet, you are ringing their bell and you can still break bone past armor... ask any fans of bohurt why maces have limitations on their weight and why they often use heavy 'blunt' blades that don't have weight restrictions. In close quarters, using a sword against an armored opponent would be far less effective than a dagger because of the ease of maneuvering and the fact that if you tackle an enemy certain daggers have been known to be able to pierce mild steel just by pressing down with your mass... let alone the ease of stabbing weakpoints at that range far outclassing a sword. Once you are within a weapons range, using a weapon better suited for close in, you've negated your opponents advantage... which armor already negated if you are using a sword.

he's British, they're American, why should he even be aware of them...

@@benlepoidevin7047 bit harsh! It's just a pun mate

@@benlepoidevin7047 - Because, over here, ignorance is not really seen as a virtue . . . especially when judging others.

That would have been amacing

@@loddude5706 You literally arrest people for free speech; you're excused from all academic conversation.

Maces and general blunt weapons are my favorite. Axes close second. Swords are just MEH for me.

I was thinking ...A lot of his exclamations in this vid cud be taken waay out of context for some hilarity🤣

The mace didn't need to be very large to split skulls. But it did need to be handy enough to swing for hours on end on the battlefield. Anything much larger, and it wouldn't have been viable

I was wondering the same thing. All of that force concentrated on one point - surely underlying tissue and bone would take a pounding. Would certainly be a cool experiment with ballistic gel or similar..

Thanks and I do read as much of this as I can!

The real prime targets are hands.

I also tend to think, at least later when armor became more and more intricately articulated, that the point wasn't to pierce the armor but to seize it up. You could see how the longbow was capable of it in the arrows vs armor update they did. You didn't have to kill or even wound an enemy knight to remove him from the battle; if he couldn't move his arm he couldn't swing a sword and thus was a non-factor from that point on.

@@tacothunderking4558 "A fine victory indeed, please do remove your helmet Sir Ulrich" . . . . . "Er, I can't." : )

@@tacothunderking4558 your point is coherent but I doubt armour was that tight fitting and knit together as to be able to be rendered inoperable that way. You are thinking about Tourney suits instead of field ones.

Gear grinder - I would say that some of the impacts in Arrows vs Armour 2 caused curls of material to be pushed in and in the way of the plate articulation. It would have been distracting to the wearer for certain and possibly would have hindered movement. Big dents and deformations at the elbow and shoulder joints from this mace would certainly cause movement problems to some degree

Even hands and arms - a well landed blow would incapacitate it and give you a snowballing advantage in a fight.

@@DzinkyDzink Yeah, especially if you manage to hit their hand. You're pretty much garrantees to break SOMETHING in there.

@@raccoonking7566 Another aspect is that you will likely dent the thinner part of the armor to an extent that will limit movement severly.

I have never used a real mace against human targets, but I was trained in riot control using a riot baton. Aside from the legally banned targets of the skull, face, throat (and the whole neck), solar plexus, groin and over the heart... There were the recommended targets such as knees, elbows and wrists. Striking a joint with concentrated force inflicts a lot of pain (and can inflict a moderate injury) and that pain will at least momentarily take the rioter out of their violence. Then you drag them behind the front line for the support lines to do the cuff and transport. - So it seems that using a mace in combat would be similar, with the riot control 'illegal' targets back on the menu. And the point is not the mace kill, but the reduction of your opponent to a stunned ball of pain who will either surrender or be the victim of your rondel dagger depending on your rules of engagement.

Knees would've also been a target

Thanks - glad you like them

@@tods_workshop yeah, it's good stuff. You do hella good work, keep it up :)

well damn. I need to get one when I get the money to spare now lol.

@@5peciesunkn0wn you do! His stuff is good. I only bought the nace heads and hafted them myself, but you can buy the fully assembled versions too :)

I just noticed he had a workshop. Gonna get me some Daggers. Love if he made warhammers.

Extremely far off, or not so much - depending on the game you pick to analyse. Once you dig up some specimens and gather your sample and all stats, then try to see how that would compare to whatever character you are playing (or seeing) in the game it will give you a good enough idea :)

@@AKRex "Extremely far off, or not so much" .... brilliant.

@@papalaz4444244 sometimes she goes, sometimes she doesn't. thats the way she goes.

That would be an interesting thing to look at

@@googlename3859 Wise words, Ray.

That's a good point. You wouldn't want them digging in or bouncing off your knee as you walk. I wonder how maces are generally transported? I guess that they are a weapon of war rather than ever-day-carry.

@@euansmith3699 This? Just my EDC mace. Why do you ask.

@@euansmith3699 for mounted soldiers, they were attached to the saddle.

@@euansmith3699 I'd guess a belt loop would suffice in the field, so you'd just have the shaft bouncing around. But you'd be wearing thick padding all around you, doubt the shaft would hurt that much. But this got me thinking - did knights wear all of their armour all the time, or would something like gambeson, mail and sidearm suffice when on a march with a big army? Then dress up in plates and full war gear when a battle was imminent. I'm in the understanding that knights had assistants with them, who would lug around most of their stuff and help gearing up; I'd keep the mace with the other weapons and gear until gearing up for battle. I think in the crusades knight would wear full gear while on the march, as horse archers could use hit-and-run tactics etc, but was this the norm back in Europe? Did they need to be ready for action all the time? Field battles were pretty rare anyways. E: Of course levies and lower ranks of soldiers would carry pretty much everything they have all the time.

​@@euansmith3699 There is a thing called a "frog" used for axes and maces. Its basically a piece of leather that hangs off your belt (much like a belt pouch would) that would have a ring on it. You drop the haft through the ring. The version for swords/daggers had laces to secure a sheath/scabbard. Though you could also just jam it in your belt it wouldn't be very comfy or easy to draw.

Thanks and glad to help

@@tods_workshop do any of your demonstrations test the armor damage, when a broadsword is held by the blade and the hand protection bars used as a mace?

@@george2113 a murder stroke? Check skallagrim's channel, pretty sure he has done a few tests against armor.

I agree. I'd rather take a hatchet into a fight than a woodcutter's axe. They dodge your slow, clumsy swing and suddenly you're eating their counterattack.

@@dmtaboo_truth7052 in a similar way I like the light camp version of the bush ax, tho it probably wouldn't work on an armored opponent. I think your reasoning is sound.

That was always my assumption as well, like the teeth on a warhammer face they bite in and concentrate the force. In a modern context of applying batons to arses, this is called 'Pain Compliance' and it really does the job on basically anywhere but the head and neck, in which case they will probably be very ineffective in short order. Everyone wants to play, but with enough broken fingers, smashed elbows and knee caps or a nut shot and its soon no fun at all.

Partially, yes, but if that were its purpose you'd see them coated to increase friction i'd reckon. The main focus I think was on bone. Skulls are quite hard to break for example, as the force is spread around like the breastplate. If it is concentrated though, it will shatter. Same is true for the other bones. The flesh helps spread the force, so concentrating it makes it easier to break it. And that's what you want with a mace, shattered bones and internal bleeding, and maximizing debilitating pain.

I agree! If you put a pointed/spiked area it would both concentrate the force to a narrow surface area AND prevent slipping. As Tod demonstrates I don’t think they’re meant to penetrate plate or sheets of steel, but damn you’re gonna feel it through the armour 😮‍💨😅

It also turns your most recent victim into a temporary sheath when it gets stuck in a skull.

Being struck on the side of the skull is more devastating than being struck on the back or front

It is odd, but I have little interest in long swords, but love single handers, particularly falchions and maces and of course darts

​​​@@tods_workshopits ok Todd ill let it slide I've always loved the sword spear things. Think their called a sword staff or svardstav

Agreed - you are right

@@tods_workshop they may be right but will you listen? You don't seem the type, no offense intended of course, you're a lovely guy.

Only if it's one of those with the bones inside, otherwise ballistic gel is a crap analogue for human flesh against melee weapons. Ti's not even a perfect analogue vs. bullets. It's just close enough and it's a consistent medium for testing bullets. But blades tend to cut right through it, as do arrows.

@@Riceball01 thats exactly what i meant. wish there was a closer analog

the head is much harder to hit than the torso. And if you miss you're horribly vunerable

In fact the collarbone will take a lot of force from the breastplate too, so you would just have to be close if it was a powerful hit.

Well i think cavalry need much more longer weapon when racing at high speed or his horse will be first target before he can beat any enemy

it could be used in that function, when a lance was lost in the first engagement and you have to prepare for a second charge. more likely though is this is the "sidearm" drawn when a melee developed between other cavalry milling around each other or when deep in an infantry formation and you drop your lance. in both occasions cavalry vs cavalry or cavalry vs footman the horse will be fairly stationary and therefore not provide extra momentum to the blow. some momentum could be added from swinging down onto the top of infantry from the elevated position atop the horse, but in general the seated position on a horse is LESS conducive to full body power transfer than being well grounded on two feet and less stable so a stationary strike from a horseman will probably be a lot weaker than even the same man could deliver while standing on the ground. also consider that its the horsemans mace, whether that means it was "only effective or best used from a horse", or whether it meant only the rich who could afford a horse were the only people who could afford such a weapon with its fanciful construction, when a footman would more likely have a polearm with some sort of rondel dagger or multi-purpose bladed weapon as a sidearm, or just a less expensive blunt weapon

I think it really depends on the situation. First, you should remember that big battles are just a tiny fraction of all warfare - much of it is small skirmishes, sieges, etc. A knight (or any other cavalry) would have different weapons for different situations. A lance might be preferred for battle against enemy cavalry or professional footmen, but another weapon might be preferred for skirmishes, riding enemy supply lines, dealing with peasants, militia, bandits etc. Even on a battlefield the situation can vary a lot. I think with cavalry, often the assumption was that enemy will break formation when the cavalry charge hits them, at which point a short weapon was often more useful than a lance, since you can easily strike many opponents in quick succession, as they flee or attempt to fight back in a disorganized manner. This may not always work, but it often did, since commanders would send the cavalry where they expect this tactic to work. Btw. the idea that 'you just target the horse'... simple in theory, but (as many youtubers and history enthusiasts have already talked about it), very hard to pull off in practice. Imagine a car that is going fast in your direction... and you're told to just hold the line, and attack the car as it gets close. "Just shoot the tires, or the driver" or something. Yeah... some armies were able to hold their line against cavalry without breaking formation, but they were the exception, not the norm. I wonder how people practiced to get prepared for such scenarios, did they make 'practice charges' to get the footmen mentally prepared? In any case, I don't think a cavalryman would ever want a situation where their horse is 'fairly stationary' while surrounded by enemies. As a horseman, your primary defense is being on the move, as otherwise enemies could hit you from all sides, and you have no way to defend against that. So, even if you're deep into enemy lines or 'milling around' with enemy cavalry, you would still want to push forward at least quickly enough, that no enemy can get you from behind. In fact, if you end up surrounded by enemy infantry, I imagine you'd order your horse to go as fast as it can forward, trampling anyone and anything, until you can break out. So I can't really imagine many scenarios where a horseman would be stationary while fighting. That's a scenario you desperately want to avoid. And you have a horse that is specifically trained and equipped to avoid that. I recommend Jason Kingsley's channel (Modern History TV) as he makes a lot of cavalry-related content, including for example his recent practices with Lindybeige where they assess various footman vs horseman scenarios.

Dude, I’d love to see this demo with a ballistic dummy.

Just because a knight is carrying a weapon on horseback that does not mean the weapon is supposed to be used on horseback Following your logic they also used daggers on horseback That does not mean the mace couldn't be used but it's highly unlikely to be your first choice, and most of the literature and art we have show maces being used on foot as well, most likely it was a sidearm for foot combat We do have a lot of art for flails being used on horseback though

And sometimes even then 🙂

​@@Washeek- that's what that famous "Italian steel" was designed for - to stop shot Before then, shot would make nice little holes 😅😅

The crux here is the cost. A set of plate armor would cost more that 1000 times the cost of 1 such mace. If you have 10000 guys and you need them protected against such weapons, it would cost a lot.

@@andrew3203 Which is why only nobility and professional soldiers had full plate generally speaking.

I wouldn’t say anti-joint more the blunt force is good against hard targets.

@@allstarwoo4 You can't do much damage directly to center mass with a mace, as Todd shown in the video. Sure, it would hurt, but won't give you enough advantage over the opponent. On the other hand, hits on the joints are crippling, both from blunt impact and from spikes on the mace bending the steel armor inwards. Joints are very fragile.

@@lazyman7505 I don’t disagree just more of technicality. The clavicle is really good target for the mace but is not a joint. And I don’t mean hard targets as in armor but points where there not a lot of muscle covering bone.

Todd advises Sauron in the Second Age -> Sauron dunks on Isildur -> The Third Age sees all the lands covered in Darkness

Good news. He was scary strong and fast which is why 2 champions of the free people fell to him in combat at the same time. He was only defeated by freak incident that nobody could have foreseen.

@@acephantom903 good. baddies should be nail hard.

​@@acephantom903 Gilgalad was an Elven king, of him the harpers sadly sing... the last who's land was fair and free, between the mountains and the sea.

I'd have thought a cavalry weapon would have a slightly longer haft, but I'm no expert..

Not to say it was not cavalry, but equally not sure how they could write that as an absolute

@@snafu2350 Ye it seems too small but we're no expects. It is just the haft afterall so maybe there were variants?

​@@tods_workshop 15th, 16th, and 17th century mentions of maces are almost always about their use from horseback. Burgundian Ordonnances 1473 has them at the saddle for the men at arms (only for the saddle and only for the men at arms), du Bellay says for the mace to be at the pommel of the saddle for the man at arms, Sir James Turner says they were "ancient weapons for a horseman", Robert Barret says "and at his sadle bow, a mace" for the man at arms, and this is the only weapon that he specifies where it should be, Humfrey Barwick mentions "a Pistoll or mace" for the cavalry, but not for the infantry, Bernardino de Mendoza says "the pistoll still remayneth with the light horse, which most carrie at the saddle pummell, in steede of a mace or fawchion which they were wonte to hange thereat". In "Coll. of Arms", it says "were well doon to have a mase at the sadell". From the inventories I have personally seen (and this is anecdotal ofc), maces stop being common in the 2nd half of the 14th century (as opposed to being almost omnipresent before). In general though, i would personally argue that there is more evidence for them being specialized weapons for the mounted melee during the "age of plate" than otherwise.

The problem with striking from a galloping horse is that all of the extra energy is gonna yank on you as well. If it even gets a little bit stuck you're either getting your weapon yanked from your hand or you're getting yanked from your horse. That's why many believe it was the flail that was a cavalry weapon. All you need is enough force so you don't need the follow through a solid shaft provides. Meanwhile a flexible shaft allows the weapon to disperse energy by moving so you don't get yanked as much. Proper flail technique would have been to go for the head (not too hard from a horse), any lower and you'd risk wrapping around something.

No, they do. Concentrated force breaks bones far more easily. That's the purpose of a mace.

Hypothesis - you're supposed to hit with the space inbetween the two flanges in order to create a sturdy bite...

@@mandowarrior123 No they do-what? Of course force more concentrated will have a bigger impact, what I'm talking about is the designed shape of the flanges and how against soft targets they offer no real advantages over other shapes. As demonstrated. If the goal is to break bones behind cloth armour why choose such a complex shape? If it's to break open ring mail armour, for what purpose? Since it would only leave you back at defeating the cloth armour underneath if you succeed.

@@DzinkyDzink This is the theory I've heard. The edges of two flanges bite into the plate, preventing the mace slipping and making sure that all that force is transferred.

You should also never forget that while a mace would hurt massivly with gambison the best way is to get a solid smack to the head. And while you can catch incredibly amount of force with a good helmet and soft cap underneath, the weak link in that is the brain that starts swashing around from the impact. So yeah, that things are dangerous...

A 12 Gauge slug can EASILY go through modern body armor. Even body armor rated for 7.62mm. A 12 Gauge is insanely powerful what are you on?

Having suffered a blunt trauma injury to the forearm, I can say penetration of the armor, or even the skin, is not required. If the injured person goes into shock, or suffers a concussion, the fight is pretty much over.

@@whatamidoingwithmylife4108 he wasnt talking about 12 gauge ^^"

Blunt force trauma can cause internal bleeding, Hemorrhage, bruising, broken bones and more. It's not always what you are that can kill you. Sometimes it's what you can't see that does you in. Internal bleeding comes to mind.

Every time I hold a purpose built weapon, there's an odd sense to it. Doesn't really matter if it's a cold close weapon or firearm, though heavy close combat wepons like maces feel the best. Guess it's something genetic in humans, holding a big stick, suddenly feeling safe and in control...

I had a similar thing happen after chopping wood a while back. I have a knack for recreating sensations in my thoughts and got a sense from chopping the wood of how it would feel to get hit in a bone with an axe. It was unpleasant to imagine XD

@@matthewbreytenbach4483 Reality is worse imo. Been only hit by an axe once and it was a glancing blow, but had some unrelated surgery done with extraction of supports later. And let me tell you. A foreign object touching your bone while you're feeling it is incomparable to any other sensation. Because suddenly, things are where they're not supposed to be and you have an acute sense of wrongness. At least I did and can still remember it.

@@Washeek I can imagine, unfortunately. Now with added context! All jokes aside, thanks for sharing. You good these days?

@@matthewbreytenbach4483 Kind of you to ask. Thanks yeah I've mostly recovered, had some torn ligament tissue in my wrist and a complicated surgery to fix it. It was two years ago. I've got lasting limit in mobility of the wrist, but its nothing to cry over. I must say, I was super shocked that there was 0 painkilling effort when they were pulling out the metal braces and doubly shocked that it didn't hurt, but the feeling was quite overwhelming, both from the visual and tactile experience. 10/10 would recommend to aspiring writers that wanna write gritty close combat scenes XD XD. I'm looking into my options to get back to swinging a sword or another weapon, but things seem to keep getting in the way, probably don't miss it as much as I thought I did.

Mace looks identical to those used by Parthians (1000 years earlier)?

Tod's using the term to refer to the weapon going through the armour enough to make contact with enough of the person underneath to cause harm here it seems. Which, yeah, that's not what any of these bludgeoning weapons are for. Its a similar difference between KEP, and HESH shells, both are armour penetrating ammunition, but they get there in different ways.

I think armour defeating is used for hesh not armour penatration.

You have a good point. But rather than blurring the definition of “penetration”, I think it’s more useful to simply label maces as “anti-armour” or “armour defeating” weapons, and acknowledging that penetration is just one way to defeat armour. Consider the effectiveness of maces against mail which is fairly resistant to penetration, yet doesn’t dissapate the energy like plate.

Also, the maces can’t be very heavy at all in war games like that either. People really underestimate anything blunt. Where they glorify swords, which really are shit unless it knight vs knight or Calvary vs unarmored. Guys in WWI kept legs off and chairs and stuff to use as clubs for trench fighting. Native Americans would volley their muskets once and then rush in and use them as clubs. Honestly a sword is one of the last things I would want on a battlefield. I’d rather have the mace, a pole-hammer over anything. Unless I’m going up against a trained, seasoned veteran, they’ll probably miss their sword poke and I may be able to get in a little too close for a sword and whale on them. You want the simplest thing possible in a fight like that. You’re not going to survive many of them, and you’re going to lose all of your fine motor skills. Very few people build up/have the disposition to keep their nerve in war.

That mace on an unarmored oponent is absolutely lethal. Not immediately incapacitating only on limbs maybe. But anywhere in the torso, not to talk about the head, will bust something up.

@@kevinlobos5519 Of course not the torso (hard at least) or head! Whole point is to inflict pain and break things. Again in a country like England, if they drop everything and say "what are you gonna do, stab me?" You're gonna look bad running them through with a sword or hacking off a limb. Breaking an arm or two to the point they give up and bugger off, would be the idea.

@@kevinlobos5519 that mace is incapacitating to anyone anywhere on the torso, Head, neck or legs. The energy transfer sends an enormous shock through the system that most people simply cannot recover from quickly, if at all. Follow with a second third blow, etc. But then again we are talking about close quarters hand-to-hand. Most people have never experienced that pain and shock.

Make no mistake that is lethal force. Even with light armor burst organs such as spleen, liver, intestine, even pancreas, lungs, and heart have been documented as being ruptured by single mace strikes on unarmored or lightly armored people. Imagine two grown men closing at full sprint. 15-20 mph/35-50kph closing speeds are documented in football routinely. And double that is common on foot. Now add in a pitcher or bowler arm capable of 90mph /130kph blow. Reduce that down due to the mass of the weapon. But the mass transfer of one body to a fist-sized metal object is going to always have lethal potential energy. By design.

@@christopherneelyakagoattmo6078 Depends how hard you hit though, doesn't it. Not every blow needs to be a full on welly, or to a vital region. In comparison it's a bit hard to do a tap with a bladed weapon, isn't it?

wouldn't more weight on the end end up with a more powerful blow, not too much weight ofc

They were actually king of the battlefield (aside from spears) and knights hated them for good reason. They are easier to make than good swords, need considerably less training and while they can't penetrate armour (like a sword!) it will make gruesome dents cause concussions etc. The wielder of such a mace or warhammer also doesn't have to worry about breaking, it can't get blunt (because it already is, lol) etc. The reason we value swords so high is actually ridiculous: Because they were more expensive and harder to master, they were mostly popular among nobility. The sword is kind of the IT girl of weapons. It got romanticized early on and we kept this tradition in movies, literature and now computer games. Most games give the sword the best stats, they are the gold standard everything else is measured against - take any (pen&paper) RPG and you've got a slew of inferior weapons like daggers that are only used when your character is restricted by the rules while every weapon that does more damage comes with hefty disadvantages like less to hit chances etc. So we keep on the myth. Even the famous samurai with their fancy katanas relied mainly on their bow as the main weapon. As the joke goes, if a samurai boasts how good he is with his sword all other samurai just think "ah, dude is bad at archery" :) And their most feared opponent weren't that much other samurai, it were the common spearmen. Hence the bow, the only way to outplay them, but close range swords almost always lose to spears.

On the contrary, In Europe Maces were mostly used by horsemen, therefore mostly the social elite.

@@Puschit1 completely agree!

They do similar damage. But there's something coded in the brain to be able to pretty accurately hit with the head, unless your target purposefuly closes the distance. Your sense of touch will deal with the mass, not the looks.

If you take a big steel nut, M32 or larger, and screw it onto a wooden handle, the resluting mace would probably be ~90% as effective as those showen here ;) And basically free if you can find a nut and a stick :)

@@hernerweisenberg7052 I mean a steel pipe and a T connector if you want low effort

Definitely. Even with the plate you are shattering ribs with a mace like that.

But if it were smaller and lighter then he would increase his DPS

Indeed, though in fantasy you are also dealing with mythical races and materials - it might look unwieldy for a human when made in real world materials, but to that dwarf who is hugely dense so their COM isn't as effected by flailing it around and strong enough, so the weapon doesn't move them about as much as they move it... Well then even in steel its going to be quite handy, make some of the bits that don't need to be heavy in the magic dust coated extra light and strong materials of that world and it is even more so, and maybe even the relatively puny humans can use it just fine.

Warhammers the size of sledgehammers are actually mauls. Mauls are probably the inspiration behind the fantasy Warhammer.