> In message <20040827134409.43679.qmail_at_...> Chris Lemens writes:
>
> >On the question of mace v. shield, the mace would tend
> >to bounce off (just like a hammer off a wooden plank),
> >but that might not stop the arm underneath from
> >breaking. That's the reason to angle the sheild so
> >that it does not absorb the impact perpendicularly --
> >better to let the force of the blow slide off to the
> >side.
>
> Well the re-enactors I saw seemed quite happy to demonstrate
> full force blows with a mace (and morning star etc) onto a
> held wooden shield. As they'd obviously done the demo before
> the chances of breaking an arm must be pretty low.
>
> 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.
Some archeologists and researchers seem to classify the advent of the hard helmet as the time when maces start losing their dominance as a weapon.
Of course the medieval Steel mace is a more menacing weapon than the heavy wooden clubs of Egypt.
-Adept
Powered by hypermail