Talk:Mace (bludgeon)

message: I hope this is the correct spot to add this: The article states, "The maces of foot soldiers were usually quite short (two or three feet, or sixty to ninety centimetres). The maces of cavalrymen were longer and thus better suited for blows delivered from horseback. Two-handed maces could be even larger." However, the article for flails says, "There are two broad types of flail: a long, two-handed infantry weapon with a cylindrical head, and a shorter weapon with a round metal striking head." This seems contradictory. I suspect that the reality is a mix, but are there any sources that clarify this? So far, I have not been able to find any. - Mith Mithalwulf (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel nailed it. Mace, Flail, Morningstar Mace, and Morningstar Flail are the four official terms. As for Morgenstern, nobody really thinks a spiked club was first invented by the Europeans, and it's just as likely the term was simply a folk term they translated. Bullzeye  (Ring for Service) 07:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maces, flails and morning stars 

message: What exactly is the evidence for the Mace being employed by the Clergy to avoid shedding blood? As far as I know this is entirely derived / inferred from the depiction of Odo in the Bayeux Tapestry and the Roman de Rou, niether of which makes this assertion. Also, as far as I know, Arch Bishop Turpin uses a sword called Almace, not an actual Mace, as well as a lance. If this is a myth, as I suspect it is, it might be worth not only removing the claim, but indicating why (i.e 'contrary to popular belief...'). If, however, there is evidence to support this claim I will be interested to hear it.--M.J.Stanham 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. I have long thought that this was yet another myth started by AD&D, for the simple reasons that there are plenty of counter-examples, and also a blow from a mace is quite likely to draw blood. I have corrected the claim about Bishop Turpin (every source I can find agrees that he had a sword, and some even describe its sharpness in detail e.g. ), and added a "dubious" tag to the relevant line.-- Securiger 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Priests were technically forbidden to bear arms of any kind, but in practice they often did, Crusades not withstanding. There was no special provision forbidding Priests from using edged or pointed weapons with regard to the Crusade experience, to the best of my knowledge. The Military Orders, who could be described as militarised monks, certainly had no such strictures preventing them from functioning as Knights.--M.J.Stanham 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it was around about that time that this idea was being propagated; no doubt the article is referring to Odo of Bayeux. Of course, if there were some other evidence to support this idea, I would be really interested to hear it. It all just collapses back to the same source at the moment, which says nothing of the kind, so far as I know. --M.J.Stanham 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I'm no expert, I agree about the supposed limitation to blunt weapons.  I don't think priests often ran around on the battlefield to begin with, even if they did levy troops from the lands they owned.  If someone can find an edict or other document describing rules for members of the clergy who wish to go to war, that would satisfy the requirement.  Unless such a document can be found, this doesn't really belong in the article.  I'm going to remove it for now. --GenkiNeko 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maces and Shedding Blood 

message: :Maybe this page and other medevil weaponry needs a template?:
::That probably wouldn't be a bad idea, though strict categorization of weaponry could lead to huge arguments (i.e. setting a single term closed definition for weapons without an accepted typology - maces, shields, rapiers, etc.) I think that there would definitely be some support for a good flexible template from the various weapon-related task forces and groups around. 
::Also, please sign your comments (use the tilde [~] key 4 times in a row to do so). This way, we know who is speaking (or writing, as the case may be) and can more clearly address and understand conversations. -- Xiliquiern 04:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templating 

message: Perhaps some kind of redirect for the mace chemical spray at the top?
Theblindsage (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mace

message: In the second paragraph of the overview, centimeters is misspelled. It is spelled "centimetres", which is incorrect. The correct way is "centimeters". i thought i would just point this out.
    Huslig
     2605:6000:1025:39:2D88:1C28:1F92:EAA6 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't incorrect. Please see WP:ENGVAR as to why we aren't going to change it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  misspelled word 

message: There are no swords, including two handed, in 7 to 10 kg range. Anything heavier than about 4 kg is not real weapon but decoration or ceremonial purposes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.136.161 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mace as exercise equipment 

message: It seems a bit more natural and more likely that people will understand Mace (weapon) to be about this article than Mace (club) which makes the article seem to be about a Social club rather than a weapon. I am going to be a bit bold and move the article since this doesn't seem contentious, but feel free to revert if you oppose but let me know why on the talk page please, not in an edit summary. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any particular reason that this article is redirected from [[Mace (weapon)]]? 

message: It says mail armor was very effective against edged weapons. It is hyper-linked to the mail wiki entry, where, under the effectiveness section, it is stated that:
Mail armour provided an effective defence against slashing blows by edged weapons and penetration by thrusting and piercing weapons; in fact, a study conducted at the Royal Armouries at Leeds concluded that "it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon."[39][40]
This is a pretty well established fact, and someone calling for a citation when they were too lazy to click a provided link and read a little bit seems petty.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6040:3A:6D82:F605:2D9D:3BDB (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the opening sentence in the European Middle Ages section really need a citation? 

message: "Bludgeon" is a poor choice of rename, as it implies that maces were blunt. Their main function was to be a pointed, armour-piercing weapon against plate armour - hence the typical "radiating plates" design.
Also, don't we discuss renames before acting on them? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed rename 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mace (bludgeon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012095655/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/president_national_symbols.html to http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/president_national_symbols.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Medieval archaeologist and historical european martial art teacher Matt Easton argues that flanged maces are in almost all circumstances comparatively blunt and not capable of nor designed for penetrating medieval plate armor. Instead they are designed to create traction and avoid glancing blows thereby transferring more energy into the target. He likens it to molar teeth or studs on a football boot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4U72OGqCM0
While still a weapon designed to fight against persons in armor, I would suggest that the current wording in the article is misleading readers on the design and function of the mace and the flanged mace in particular. Martcx (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armor penetration of flanged maces