Are clubs and maces the best melee weapons?

>Ease of manufacture
Can be made from a simple stick, stick with a knot/ball at the end, stick with a metal or stone mace head, hollow steel shaft with mace head.
>Ease of use
Generally bonking is the most effective. Requires little training, but some can be effective as blunt thrusting weapons.
>Durability
No sharpening. Wood can break, but a well made club can take a lot of abuse. All-steel maces are nearly indestructible and can be bent back into place.
>Effectiveness
Blunt trauma is more lethal on average than penetrating trauma from edged weapons. Blows to the head will often cause unconsciousness, skull fracture, and internal bleeding in the brain. Difficult to block or parry with other melee weapons because of the inertia. Against shields, results may vary. Can be effective against medieval plate armor and can dent it badly enough to make limbs immobile.
>Versatility
Can be effective with one or two hands. Wooden clubs can be carved into practically any shape.

The only con is that they tend to have less reach for a given weight than most weapons.

>>64063049 (OP)
why not a light axe, it has the blunt impact of large amount mass forwards but also has an edge

>>64063105
I think axes are a good trade off. You keep the simplicity and most of the impact force of a mace/club with the benefit of sharpness. They are definitely better against wooden shields.

The disadvantages are that you need edge alignment, and they're more likely to break the handle on a bad hit. All-steel battle axes were less common than steel maces in the West.

Clubs are time honored, we were clubbing each other into oblivion before we even had written history, it just fucking works.

Best? Feels like a subjective thing, and really depending on what you're looking to do and what you need.
Like, if you need to pierce hard armor, then the only really good kind of blunt weapon is one which has a sharp spike tip or some other secondary function like that. If you needed to engage someone riding a horse, you'd really want the reach of a spear or a claymore instead.

>>64063049 (OP)
they suck against any real armor
>muh denting
significantly less of an issue than getting stabbed in a gap

>>64063557
>they suck against any real armor
>is literally the best melee weapon against armor.

>>64063557
for armored fighting maces really excel in the opening stages of a fight where neither of you is winded yet, before you can get to the 'wrestling on the ground with daggers' stage. a solid mace hit to the head/chest/limb joint has very real impact even with armor and padding.

maces definitely are more unwieldy and exhausting to use than a well balanced sword or weapon you hold in both hands, thats for sure

>>64063049 (OP)
If people were happy with clubs and maces they wouldn't had bothered with edged weapons.

>>64063049 (OP)
They're basically shitty war hammers. Anything you can do with a mace you can do with a war hammer and there's a couple tricks you can do with a warhammer that you can't do with a mace.
>Blunt trauma is more lethal on average than penetrating trauma from edged weapons.
No. Cuts and punctures lead to bleeding and bleeding is the #1 cause of battlefield death. They can also lead to infection but that's less of a concern these days.

In addition to this, cuts can also sever tendons and nerves. A strike to the hands can permanently fuck up someone's ability to hold a weapon.

I have a dim view of maces and clubs.

>>64063717
War Hammers.

Pollaxe.
That is all.

Bec De Corbin

>>64063049 (OP)
The big advantage of swords and the like over blunt weapons is the far superior weight distribution. As a condescending you are far more nimble with the weapon and can quicky feint and abort swings.
>penetrating trauma from edged weapons.
Those usually cut quite deeply which is fuxking dangerius

>Generally bonking is the most effective. Requires little training,
You're completely ignoring everythign about the fight prior to the hit. Without edge or point you basically just have to hit hard, making for slower attacks, more telegraphing, and slower recovery when you miss. Add to this that your weapon is more tip-heavy and with greater apparent mass out at the hurty end, ie less nimble, shorter reach, or some combination of the two and you're not looking at a beginner friendly weapon.

>Blunt trauma is more lethal on average than penetrating trauma from edged weapons.
One would think you'd know better, given that you're still alive despite all the blunt head trauma you appear to have suffered, but I guess that also explains why you don't.

>Blows to the head will often cause unconsciousness, skull fracture, and internal bleeding in the brain
Sufficiently strong blows to the head will. A sufficiently strong blow to the head from a sword meanwhile will "pop the top" and leave you with significant external bleeding of the brain.
Cutting and piercing are simply more efficient ways of inflicting injury, which is why people bother with honing edges and sharpening tips in the first place.

So while wooden clubs could be made very easily and cheaply, nearly anyone who had a real choice in the matter would choose a proper weapon instead.

OP here My collection pic related.
A little off topic but anyone know what kind of sword this is? About 38-40 inches overall, more of a one handed grip but easier to swing with two hands. It's a fairly heavy blade and cuts very well.

>>64064424
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-53398-1
>Patients with blunt mechanisms of injury had significantly greater 24-h mortality (18.6% vs. 10.7%, p=0.04) and 30-day mortality (29.7% vs. 14.0%, p<0.01) as compared to those patients with penetrating mechanisms of injury (Table 2).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7637572_Comparison_of_Wound_Patterns_in_Homicide_by_Sharp_and_Blunt_Force
https://www.menoufia-med-j.com/journal/vol31/iss1/23/
>No mortality was found in penetrating trauma patients, whereas five blunt trauma patients died, mortality rate 6.9%; four of these deaths were associated with traumatic brain injury.

grain flail is best because you can use it thresh grain and bonk people
utility is king

People are ignorant that helmets are actually quite effective at deflecting blunt damage, as long as they're curved it will bounce off

Sure your ears will be ringing but you wont suffer concussion as long as the helmet isnt from the early middle ages

>>64063049 (OP)
bonkers are the premiere anti armor weapon for sure. Armor is pretty great at stopping bladed weapons and arrows. But a bonk stick to the head or elbow or hand is going to fuck you up no matter what.

>Blunt trauma is more lethal on average than penetrating trauma from edged weapons
absolutely disagree with that though. An edged weapon against an unarmored person can remove digits or disable limbs with a mere light pressure draw cut; you don't even have to swing it. It is superior in every way when there is no armor

>>64063105
actual axes used against people are surprisingly delicate and light. They are not a crushing weapon like a fantasy game would have you believe.
The true best of both worlds is a polearm like a bec de corbin or something along those lines

>>64064050
>They're basically shitty war hammers. Anything you can do with a mace you can do with a war hammer
If war hammers were better than maces, people wouldn't have kept using maces. There were elite units who preferred using maces over war hammers despite having the option to use both.

>>64064529
Alright, why would you take a mace when you could take a war hammer of similar weight and balance.

>>64064539
I guess you dont have to aim?
You can just swing wherever it ends up swinging

Also much easier on horseback

>>64064539
not that anon but off the top of my head, easier edge alignment. Maybe preferable on horseback?

>>64064499
Those studies are meaningless.

Studies 1 and 3 only included patients who lived long enough to receive medical attention. Anyone who was stabbed in a major artery and bled out before paramedics arrived or before they presented to hospital wasn't included in the data. That alone makes them useless for this topic. They're also isolated to trauma cases, and blunt weapons don't generally result in a trauma code. You're not comparing knives and guns to clubs and hammers - you're comparing them to fucking motor vehicles (motor vehicle accidents make up 78% of the blunt trauma cases in study 1 and 76.4% in study 3).
Study 2 is also irrelevant, for pretty much the opposite reason to studies 1 and 3, it was based on autopsy reports - it only included people who died. That's not particularly helpful when you're trying to work out the chance of death.

Try actually thinking about a study when you read them, don't just glance at the abstract and copy a single line that supports the conclusion you want.

Even metalworking on the scale of a hammer head would have been expensive in the Middle Ages.
Maces could have been given to squires or foot soldiers.

>>64064705
>You're not comparing knives and guns to clubs and hammers - you're comparing them to fucking motor vehicles
>Try actually thinking about a study when you read them, don't just glance at the abstract and copy a single line that supports the conclusion you want.

You're nit picking about vehicles when the penetrating force injuries were mostly firearms? Getting smacked by a steering wheel at 35 mph is probably less deadly on average than taking a 9mm to the face. Both can kill you.

The reason most people don't die from blunt weapons is because the intent is usually to inflict non-lethal injuries or knock the victim out. On the other hand, you see mass stabbings every day and very few of the victims actually die. Firearms and blunt weapons cause more damage to surrounding tissues because of the kinetic energy, which in bladed weapons (especially thrusts) is quite small.

>>64064947
A full swing from roided out Barry Bonds (he could swing his 32 oz bat at up to 85 mph) would be 654 J. (up there with some .357 Magnum loadings.) An average guy would be more like 450-500 J which is 9mm to .45 ACP. A baseball bat is going to be less concentrated than most purpose-made blunt weapons.

You don't have the penetration and hole causing direct damage and traveling through the body like a bullet, but the damage to surrounding tissues is nearly as bad.

>>64065011
>A full swing from roided out Barry Bonds
Barry Bonds with a wooden club and the best steroids money can buy vs the Mountain from Game of Thrones with his usual weapon, who wins?

>>64064055
imo:
https://youtu.be/4X19dwgm8xc

>>64063049 (OP)
I hesitate to say they're the best melee weapon for all purposes, but I think a strong argument can be made for them being the best personal defense weapon, for all the reasons you cite.

But in actual war, range > anything but superior tactics. Hence the meta for grunt infantry men being spear -> pike -> gun.

>>64064516
Depends on the helmet and the time period. I don't think a migration era helmet is going to take a mace very well. You're just not gonna have a good time.

>>64064145
My nigger.

>>64064947
>you see mass stabbings every day and very few of the victims actually die
Very few of the weapons used are swords. A knife is not a sword, full stop.

>>64063049 (OP)
They are mini trebuchet commited to swinging. It would be pretty shit to deflect attack like swords but you can technically hold near the hammer end at the expense of the handle getting shaved.

>>64063049 (OP)
Considering all warriors out there armed themselves with swords and daggers if they could then clubss are not.

>>64065131
>Considering all warriors out there armed themselves with swords and daggers if they could then clubss are not.

I think that's more of a status and tradition thing. By the Bronze Age, clubs were already primitive weapons and were associated with barbarians, tribal people, etc. On the other hand, you have untrained civilians in the English Civil War and Finnish Cudgel War using clubs effectively against soldiers armed with pikes and matchlock firearms.

One notable case where an armored force was destroyed by clubs (in this case Goedendags which also have a spike for thrusting) was the Battle of Golden Spurs in 1302, where the Flemish obliterated the French knights that had full face helmets, and mixed plate and mail armor.

I don't think we can ever have a real answer to this question since it's rare to see them directly pitted against each other by warriors of equal skill.

>>64064947
>You're nit picking about vehicles when the penetrating force injuries were mostly firearms?
No, I'm saying you're an idiot for acting like any of those studies add anything to a conversation about blunt vs penetrating melee weapons.
No shit, plenty of the penetrating injuries were firearms rather than bladed weapons, that makes the studies less useful, not more. I dunno why you're acting like it's a rebuttal.

>>64065181
>I think that's more of a status and tradition thing. By the Bronze Age, clubs were already primitive weapons and were associated with barbarians, tribal people, etc.
You're fucking retarded. Are you honestly saying the reason people moved from clubs to edged weapons is because they were a bunch of hypebeasts who didn't want to get caught without the latest drip?

>>64064947
>kinetic energy
Who cares how much energy is involved? What matters is the damage inflicted. Blades inflict more damage with less energy. You can slice open someone's carotid with a few hundred grams of force, there might not be a bunch of bruising to surrounding tissue but the person will still be fucking dead.

>>64063049 (OP)
>talke shytte
>gaet hytte

>>64065236
>You're fucking retarded. Are you honestly saying the reason people moved from clubs to edged weapons is because they were a bunch of hypebeasts who didn't want to get caught without the latest drip?

Well duh. Why wouldn't they all just use spears if combat effectiveness was the only priority? The only civilization that used swords as a primary battlefield weapon were the Romans, and they had to rely on large shields and fight in very tight formations to make it work.

>>64065236
>You can slice open someone's carotid with a few hundred grams of force, there might not be a bunch of bruising to surrounding tissue but the person will still be fucking dead.

Reliably hitting the neck of a moving target is not going to be as easy as you think. The chest is by far your best bet assuming the target is unarmored. Your only option above the neck is to jam it in someone's eye socket or maybe if they are nice enough to open their mouth.

>>64065272
>The only civilization that used swords as a primary battlefield weapon were the Romans
That's not even close to true
>Reliably hitting the neck of a moving target is not going to be as easy as you think.
If that's your take-away from that comment then we're done here. You're too dumb to waste any more time talking to.

>>64065287
>If that's your take-away from that comment then we're done here. You're too dumb to waste any more time talking to.

The point is that you have to aim for soft non-bony targets to do anything with a thrust, and the clubman can inflict crippling damage hitting you just about anywhere. Getting hit in the kneecap will make it impossible to even stand up, the fight's pretty much over. A sword to the knee will definitely inflict severe injury, but it's not going to break every bone that gets in the way.

Imagine how poor the understanding of human anatomy was back then, they probably thought like you until they started dissecting corpses, and by that point they had musket and pike square tactics. The bizarre tactics like half-swording that were used during the plate armor era were just trying to force a square peg in a round hole.

>>64063049 (OP)
>Can be effective against medieval plate armor and can dent it badly enough to make limbs immobile.
>>64063717
>is literally the best melee weapon against armor.
>>64063777
>a solid mace hit to the head/chest/limb joint has very real impact even with armor and padding.
>>64064527
>bonkers are the premiere anti armor weapon for sure. Armor is pretty great at stopping bladed weapons and arrows.
Get out of melee threads hasguns.

https://youtu.be/l8YVh0O1aFA?si=lE96HGRbDQG993ve&t=67
>a mace is not a weapon for an unarmoured soldier (You)
>each time ended up reaching for a sharp weapon to bypass armor
>wooden maces broke so much in battle that metal shaft maces were common
>was using a mace that's on the heavier side of historical maces
>striking simplistic hardened armor like in the video will not break the bone, it will not injure you
>spikes on the maces is used to prevent slipping because a cylindrical end (like a club) fails to transfer weight on slopes (like armor)
>sweet spot means you get whiff punished or amount to a thirdie using rod
>throws you off balance for every effective strike
>my helmet piece of 2-3mm hardened steel does not have a single dent after years of fighting including after the mace fight
>it was a popular weapon among mounted horsemen (like knights that wear armor) as a mace can strike and ride without losing grip or requiring edge alignment
>not first choice in duel

https://youtu.be/X0zQl8UXD6Y?si=0r_Yfi8bWNeN4GkH
6 years old footage of a russian blacksmith failing to break a highly ventilated version of his bascinet called topfhelm 'griffon', one of the most based helmets to exist, although it comes from manuscripts and not real museum pieces. It's so effective that HMB banned it in 2019 for "lacking historical accuracy" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw-GA1twCck).

I'll give my 100 guys spears while your 100 guys have clubs and we'll see how things end up, OK?

>>64065334
>years old footage of a russian blacksmith failing to break a highly ventilated version of his bascinet called topfhelm 'griffon', one of the most based helmets to exist, although it comes from manuscripts and not real museum pieces. It's so effective that HMB banned it in 2019 for "lacking historical accuracy" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw-GA1twCck).
Is this guy dead?

>>64065412
>Is the youtuber dead?
His activity lowered after the war, the tournament scene had lots of Ukrainian craftsmen and fighters.

>Is the dummy wearing the helmet dead?
The concept of a moving combatant is a conspiracy theory. Swords are way too light and thin that they get stuck in gaps of armor instead of hitting the harness 60 times before knights perform a takedown.

Blunt weapons aren’t more effective against armor than equivalent edged weapons. They’re less effective.
I believe that this meme comes from the fact that most blunt weapons are weighted towards the end, while swords (the default edged weapon) are mostly weighted towards the grip. It just feels like it “should” be better, or something. It’s hard to say without being retarded myself, but that’s my best guess.

You need a spike if you want any chance of penetrating armor.

>>64065467
>all armor ever made is renaissance era plate
why does all discussion always come to this.

A mace is going to fuck your shit in maille, and a sword is going to do not much.

>>64065016
If the mountain is bare handed my money's on Barry bonds.

>>64065482
>If the mountain is bare handed my money's on Barry bonds.
Anon said 'with his usual weapon', pretty sure that's a big ol sword.

>>64065471
Maybe because the OP image features a 15th century drawing of a man-at-arms being overwhelmed by a crudget.

And also because a rock or a glass shard is enough to 1 tap someone who isn't protected at generic targets.

>>64065511
>A Japanese drawing showing a guy with demon eyes holding 30 weapons at once is just as believable as a drawn picture of two people fighting

They were originally a go-to choice in warfare (stone/bronze age) then they ceased to be. I'm not entirely sure why. I remember reading theories that included the introduction/usage of helmets, but that feels like something you'd want to do some historical re-enactment testing of to verify if that's an accurate assumption or not. It might be that our modern D&D influenced thinking is "blunt weapon even better against a helmet" but helmets show up and then you start seeing swords appear.

Know what gives me the big thunk? Took so long for halberds and the like to show up in Western Eurasia. China got pretty early on with the ji or whatever their dagger-axe is called, but you'd think something like that would have been quickly considered in Europe since it's all the benefits of a spear with the addition of a bit to fuck with cavalry or allow you to swing it.

You could go "They didn't need it until the armor showed up" Except the Chinese weren't dealing with super-giga-armored dudes, so why dagger-axe there.

>>64065272
I am too lazy to save the picture and post it, but google "Pharaoh smiting mace". The motif of a Pharaoh grabbing a bunch of savages by the hair and smiting them with a mace was such an iconic motif for Egypt I can't think of a modern day comparison - maybe rambo hip firing. Egypt tended to refer to their barbarians as bows/bowmen even though they used it themselves.

I've never encountered anything in the Mycenaean or Canaanite or Hittite area that suggests the mace has that stereotype.

>>64065236
>Are you honestly saying the reason people moved from clubs to edged weapons is because they were a bunch of hypebeasts who didn't want to get caught without the latest drip?
Is that really such a strange notion? Militaries still issue pistols, despite them serving zero practical purpose in modern conflict.

>>64065272
You're one stupid motherfucker.

>>64065577
I'm sorry, did he make that argument or are you imagining things?

>>64065272
>they had to rely on large shields and fight in very tight formations to make it work.
So did the people using spears you know.
>uh only Rome, one of the most successful empires of all time used swords!
what kind of argument is this even

>>64065590
>I am too lazy to save the picture and post it, but google "Pharaoh smiting mace". The motif of a Pharaoh grabbing a bunch of savages by the hair and smiting them with a mace was such an iconic motif for Egypt I can't think of a modern day comparison - maybe rambo hip firing. Egypt tended to refer to their barbarians as bows/bowmen even though they used it themselves.
>I've never encountered anything in the Mycenaean or Canaanite or Hittite area that suggests the mace has that stereotype.

A lot of the fancy mace heads were just ceremonial in ancient Egypt. Stone maces are questionable, they break more easily than wooden clubs and don't really have the advantages of even a bronze mace.

>>64065600
Samefagging because you're still mad 2 hours later is still samefagging

>>64065598
90% of all pistol usage in modern militaries is by MPs at the base side.
Don't be such a goddamn idiot.

>>64065610
Nigger, you goddamn said that Rome is the only nation which used swords as their primary infantry weapon, don't act like people aren't gonna line up to call out your bullshit.

>>64065590
>They didn't need it until the armor showed up"
It most likely was both that and the direct opposite. They couldn't utilize it until better armor appeared for the user to wear and they didn't get much value out of it until armored targets were more common.

>so why dagger-axe there.
No one knows? We see dagger-axes in bronze age Europe between 2200 and 1700 BC too. I've seen them often get called halberd too but I dont think that fits.
Most likely people weren't heavily armored back then either.

>>64065617
>The only "civilization"
Big difference. That pretty much excludes all of feudal Europe.
Don't change the meaning of my words later because you still don't have a single counter example.

>>64065618
>Most likely people weren't heavily armored back then either.
You wouldn't know.

>>64065649
That's not 2200 bc europe.

>>64065649
>posts armor from the 1900s to try to prove a point about the bronze age
anon....

>>64065590
>Took so long for halberds and the like to show up in Western Eurasia.
Halberds and dagger-axes and other polearms are not a straight upgrade over spears. Yeah, you can swing/hook/hack with them but the cost of that is making them less effective at thrusting. The extra weight on the head makes them heavier and less wieldy, the extra weight also means you need a thicker shaft and that makes it heavier still, the hook and axe-head sticking out to either side makes your thrusts easier to parry or block with a shield (they can even get caught up on your buddy's weapon). The additional weight isn't necessarily a lot but at the end of a long lever it can make a difference - there's a reason halberds and other polearms never reached the length of pikes.

Halberd etc are more flexible but if you're spending 95% of your time thrusting then even a slight loss in efficacy at your main role probably isn't worth it.

>>64065577
He's only holding 2 weapons...

>>64065598
>despite them serving zero practical purpose in modern conflict.
Swapping to your sidearm is faster than reloading

>>64065650
>>64065655
My points that is stone age tech armor made by isolated from civilisation stone age tribe.
Such armors are possible to make during stone age, and bronze age and we wouldn't really know because non metals and non stone artifacts survive age poorly. And it's ws so long ago.
Such armors could exist and bronze daggers axes make perfect sense against them.

Obviously Neckbeardy McNeckbeard sitting at a sofa knows more than all those generations of stupid, dumb idiot knights, men-at-arms and other soldiers who were so stupid they used swords....

seriously. The mace (or other short hafted weapons) is seen in certain contexts - maces are often symbols of authority (and still are to this day - pic related), carried by those in command, rather than those in the middle of the fight.
The related short hafted weapons, warhammers and the imaginatively-titled horesemen's axes are most commonly used on horseback, where you want something a bit shorter and more suited to quick beatings down onto someone below you, when you're in a press. Part of their use in those sort of contexts is probably because in a saddle you cant shift your feet, to generate power by torqueing your hips with a stepping strike. all the force had to come from the shoulder. In that sort of use, a weapon that concentrates the force, which is better suited to very close-range strikes of someone below you is far more effective.

but the idea that they're better than swords, or polearms, really is just daft. the simple fact of archaeology and depiction in art demonstrates that they are outnumbered 10 to 1 at least. Its obvious that they are not the best choice of weapon -

- because if they were people would've used them all the time.

>>64065471
Most armor had thick layers of padding underneath and this is doubly true for mail. This weakens blunt weapon effectiveness and you'd usually need multiple hits to drop an opponent.

>>64064566
>>64064567
So the argument for maces is that they take less skill than a hammer? As plausible as that sounds, it really gives a dim view of mace wielders.

Maces tend to be used by armored men since they're shorter than swords and spears but armor costs money. That means either a professional soldier or an aristocrat and for either to neglect martial training is disgraceful.

>>64066077
Even if you're a perfectly well-trained fighter, not having to worry about edge alignment opens up options for strikes from angles that might not be practical otherwise.

Take a look at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCfAuuG92g

There's also the video up above (>>64065334)
A warhammer is going to be far more susceptible to being ripped out of your hand when you nail someone in the head as you ride past. Given maces and warhammer were predominantly used by cavalrymen, that's a serious advantage.

>>64065272
Romans did not fight in close formations. They might close ranks if they were getting shit thrown at them but when they got to the fight they were usually spaced out

inside me there are two wolves

>>64068236
fucking furries.