Indian (Mughal) riveted mail and plate coat zirah bagtar. The mace, however, could pulverize body parts without having to penetrate the armor. The lacking in defence aspect is a real problem. Armour of this type has been used in the Middle East, North Africa, Ottoman Empire, Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Central Asia, Greater Iran, India, Eastern Europe, and Nusantara. The cavemen knew this. The way they used swords in armour changed, as did the design. With the right blade you can stab through chain and find gaps in plate. Since the very early days of humankind, we have always had a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) urge to bludgeon our and caused more damage. Not as good as having a dedicated anti-armour weapon or a polearm, but it works well enough for swords to be the better all-rounder, in the sense that it can be worn and carried all day and still be useful in armour, out of armour, on foot or on horseback. How did solid Plate Armor compare to Coat of Plates/Brigandine? How did these weapons compare in terms of effectiveness between armoured knights in single combat? English: murderstroke. The first representation of classic mail and plate armour (without lamellar elements) can be seen in Baghdad's miniature which dates from 1465. Press J to jump to the feed. soldiers carry a lot of crap, but never want to carry more than they need. Maces and hammers were also quite a bit cheaper to make, on average, than (Though at least the mace concentrates the blow onto a single point.). This section goes over how well the mace fares against comparable weapons (similar value, tech level or similar characteristics) in 1 vs. 1 combat. Axes tend to be cheaper than swords, so they are more of a budget weapon than a really good one. But you attach it a long shaft, creating poleaxe or warhammer, then you've got something. swords, so lower class warriors and some po' folk in general could afford them. "Field armour" is combat armour. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast, More posts from the AskHistorians community. How effective was the mace vs the warhammer vs the sword vs the ball and chain in combat between armoured knights? For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. It wouldn't cut through the metal, but it would bite into it and transfer a great deal of force. Maces, poleaxes, polearms and other such things WERE better weapons than swords. [3], In Japan mail and plate armour is called "karuta", small square or rectangular rawhide or metal plates with the gaps between them filled with mail. The best you can do is approximate the protective capacity based on weight. Advantages of Using Shield and Full Plate Armor. As use of armour declined, use of those weapons declined (exceptions being lancers with their spears, and cuirassiers with their armour). The flanges were capable of focusing swords are a great all-around sidearm, which is why they were in use for so long across so many cultures. There is a variation where you'd grip the blade with both hands and use the pommel like a hammer--the "murder-stroke". This includes some pretty full coverage of plate armour, and various field weapons like Poleaxes. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. fellow humans into mushy pulp using hard objects. So it sounds like the sword was mostly used in any way other than hacking and slashing? And then there's half swording to try and poke through the armor. I've heard that the sword became less effective as armor became thicker. having to penetrate the armor. Let's get this meta: What are some good battle-ready mace/morning star choices for sale? Plus the haft have be used to defend you. Of course, everyone else also makes great points including the notion that swords were sidearms (useful because they can always be at your side, very easy to wear, etc). And pulverize they did. This thread is archived. Probably the only "weapon of war" you carry in civilian life, but good enough for self defence needs, and not cumbersome enough to be a nuisance out of combat, yet still somewhat useful as a personal weapon on the battlefield. We don't really like to talk about this, of course, but when the artificial social restraints are stripped away, there really I've heard that the sword became less effective as armor became thicker. In japan there have been developed many variations of the design of the samurai sabre, katana was just one of those. If we research the manuals of fighting arts, we use that the sword was in use throughout the armoured periods of fighting. Late-15th/early-16th century plate was lighter - usually around 2mm or less but the best harnesses were of hardened steel. Higgins Armory Museum. So in halfsword, after forming a bind you grasp the sword higher up which gives greater dexterity allowing for better targeting. The next evolution was "heavy wood balls with knobby protrusions" However Plate armor doesn't have any mail underneath except the armpits. 8mm? In Kitab al-Durra al-Maknuna (The Book of the Hidden Pearl) Jābir ibn Hayyān describes mail and plate armour for use in armours (jawasin), helmets (bid), and shields (daraq). Most was about 1.5 mm to 2 mm thick & the thinnest 1.2 mm thick. Late-16th/17th century plate was thicker. Things like maces and hammers relied on concussion to jellify the guy inside. The mace is best when made with uranium rather than plasteel; though slightly slower, the high damage multiplier will result in a higher damage output, and also better armor penetration. can-openers. You'd grip the blade with one hand part way down the blade then use the sword to help push, pull, and lever him to the ground and get the point into the armpit, groin, eyes, or under the chin. While the arms, legs, shoulders hands, fingers & such were 1.3 mm the very thickest to no less than 0., All testing is semi-automated which allows for large sample sizes to be gathered per set of results with ease, All pawns have a skill level of 8 in melee, No pawns have any traits that affect combat performance, All pawns are of 18 years of age and completely healthy. But yes, you'd pick a mace (among other things) over a sword against armor. EDIT: To answer your question: With the right conditions, yes. That said, if you have a battlefield, I would take my hammer, or a mace; but for 1v1 a longsword I'd still a viable weapon. 90% Upvoted. A better all-around weapon is the sword. These of course were much more lethal, so people in armor would carry such weapons in case they met one another, but that's also just one more freaking thing weighing you down in a hot and exhausting battle. According to Bobrov[2] the first mail and plate armor appeared as cuisses in the Middle East, and were imported by the Golden Horde. Plate armour could vary from less than 1mm to over 8mm thick. Were the swords not as sharp as I'm imagining or were they mostly depending on hand protection? Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies. Basically you hold the sword like a staff and try to either jam the point into the gaps or use the hilt to hook and pull your opponent to the ground. I've heard that the sword became less effective as armor. (which, ironically was my nickname in high school). Pound for pound, solid plate provides the best protection followed by segmented plate and brigs, followed by lamellar, and then scale. It doesn't look like a weapon of defence. Mair documents the use of a flail, which while not a ball and chain is a related weapon. share. uncountable deaths, injuries and accidental self-bonkings on the head (the last which really didn't do too much damage, but were likely Not really. A lamena of Buginese (Indonesian) origin. save. The Warhammer and all of the variants like it (pole weapons) are extremely effective killing machines. hide. You mentioned the importance of defence. To that I would also add that most people didn't wear their armor all the time, or even most of the time, and that a lot of fighting took place outside of pitched battles (small skirmishes, bar brawls, robberies), which is another great way to defeat armor. Historian Mike Loades, in his book Swords and Swordsman seems convinced that a sword blow to a helmeted head could very easily kill an opponent. Against heavy armor, a sword can still be ok if you have the training and technique to aim at joints, and you can still knock somebody out with a nice head smack. The spikes were less effective against heavy armor, but really, really hurt if they hit lightly armored or, heaven forbid, unarmored opponents As a blunt weapon, mace attacks don't cause bleeding (unless a body part gets destroyed), and generally fares better against armor when compared to sharp weapons.