Can't comment on a mace, but I've had a friend hit me on the shield (wooden, ply, painted, rawhide edging), with a full force greatsword as a demo. There was some impact shock, and I wouldn't want to keep that up all day. On one try I did move back a foot or so. But no damage to the arm.
I gather there was a technique of battering away at a shield so as to tire the shield arm: not even trying to get past it as a defence, just hammering away until the supporting arm tires from the repeated impact enough to be slowed down. This isn't something I've ever tried in demo - by definition, it would be very hard to do safely.
> I suspect the reappearance of the mace as a weapon in the
> middle ages reflects the greater use of armour and smaller
> shields. A mace would be easier to use than a sword against
> plate armour.
I believe this is the case - once plate came in, there was no longer much point in trying to cut through it. Impact shock was more important. A TV program a week or so ago showed small maces designed for this, with flanges to concentrate the impact. They also did a reconstruction of the shockwaves going through the body due to a blow on plate armour. The armour itself was undamaged - the gel "body" underneath didn't look happy.
Going much further back, wasn't there once (Roman?) a class of heavily armoured cavalry called "cataphracts"? Who had immense trouble with some unarmoured peasants with clubs? I'm sure someone out there knows more?
Powered by hypermail