Help support TMP


"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 Interest

Medieval

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA)


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Battle-Market: Tannenberg 1410

The Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.


Featured Profile Article

Report from Bayou Wars 2006

The Editor heads for Vicksburg...


Featured Book Review


940 hits since 19 Nov 2016
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

redcoat19 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

Cerdic19 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 Ace19 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………..

redcoat19 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:

picture

picture

Druzhina19 Nov 2016 8:37 p.m. PST
redcoat20 Nov 2016 9:45 a.m. PST

Wow, Druzhina, what an amazing resource! Many thanks!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.