"The 'hammer' on the warhammer / pollaxe?" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor heads for Vicksburg...
Featured Book Review
|
redcoat | 19 Nov 2016 5:51 a.m. PST |
Hi all, Was the 'hammer' on the warhammer / pollaxe primarily for: (a) breaking your opponent's bones/concussing him/fracturing his skull; (b) damaging the joints on plate armour, to immobilise the wearer prior to putting him out of action. If the answer is (a) rather than (b), were such blunt-trauma weapons (maces??) really as commonly used in warfare between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries, as warhammers and pollaxes do seem to have been in the fifteenth century (when they do seem to have been extraordinarily common)? If not, why not? Surely not because mail (over padding) was less susceptible to blunt-trauma than plate armour (over the same padding)? Was it instead because the gradual abandonment of the shield made a two-handed blunt-trauma weapon a much better proposition than a one-handed mace had been in earlier times? Many, many thanks in advance for any suggestions! Cheers, Redcoat |
Cerdic | 19 Nov 2016 7:38 a.m. PST |
Both! I think polearms were probably less common in the 'mail era' because it was easier to disable an opponent with lighter weaponry. The shield factor also comes into it. Wearing mail you want a shield for added protection. Good plate means you can lose the shield. It also gives you an extra hand. Two hands allows the use of a two-handed polearm which becomes a more needed weapon against plate. And so the circle goes round and round…. |
Great War Ace | 19 Nov 2016 9:00 a.m. PST |
Remember that single-handed hammers and maces always existed alongside the two-hand variety. The lighter, faster, handier versions never went out of vogue……….. |
redcoat | 19 Nov 2016 9:23 a.m. PST |
If blunt-trauma weapons (one-handed maces?) *were* commonly used before the fifteenth century, are they often depicted in contemporary art? These images from the Maciejowski Bible are the only examples I can think of, off the top of my head:
|
Druzhina | 19 Nov 2016 8:37 p.m. PST |
Some more examples: Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem, including a man with mace in the Rylands Beatus manuscript, Spain, c.1175 Capture Of The Beast And Of The False Prophet, by men with maces in the Las Huelgas Apocalypse by Beatus of Liébana, Spain, 1220AD A mace used in a battle in Histoire d'Outremer by William of Tyre, copy from Northern France, between 1232 and 1261, ms Yates Thompson 12 A mace used by mamluk against a crusader in Histoire d'Outremer – Saint-Jean-d'Acre, Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1280 – M.E. Saltykov-Shchredin State Public Library A Spanish knight with mace in the Cantigas de Santa Maria of Alfonso X, c.1284 Druzhina Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers |
redcoat | 20 Nov 2016 9:45 a.m. PST |
Wow, Druzhina, what an amazing resource! Many thanks! |
|