Bludgeoning weapons vs. plate armor?

[Kevin Reicks]

From decent resources, I am reading that large Renaissance maces and pollaxes were "affective" against plate armor, but how affective are they? There are a lot of forum posts on the web and companies selling their weapons that they tare up plate armor or even puncture through breaking skulls and ribs. They point to a specific knife and sword company which will go unnamed, with a video of particular bludgeoning weapon that dents with a hammer and penetrates with the back hook of it. I have a suspicion that armor is much to soft, possibly too thin. There is another video on youtube of Mike Loads hitting a far more believable good chest piece with a similar weapon and it barely scratches the armor but makes ballistic jell underneath wobble, showing that shock would transmit and passably hurting the person underneath. No definitive amount of force of shock was given. I pointed out in the weapon product test video on youtube how the armor might be too soft, pointing at the Mike Loades video, but was told since the product test video had no backdrop, the armor would be more easily destroyed.

Again in my Ewart Oakshott book, I only gleam they are affective but no specific type of damage. I always thought "affective" meant "hurt" or stun a person just enough to throw them off a little. More so then a sword, but the armor would still give good protection. I thought a one handed mace might again stun if hit in a plated helmed head, but would not do much if hit in the chest that was covered in plate. Different on a pollaxe, concussion or kill if hit in a plated helmed head, but still would only hurt and not cause severe trauma. I would think neither would destroy the armor, at worst breaking a joint of the face protector on the helm but not the severe crushing of it or a back spike penetrating.

How wrong am I? Mind you, I am speaking of direct hits on to plate. Anybody have enough experience with the treatises to give an informed opinion or historical accounts of what happens to direct bludgeon on plate? I am not an ARMA member and not nearly as well read as I should be

[Kevin Reicks]

Argh. I am sorry. After a little more reading I found more on this discussion

http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23917

and here

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm

At least my hypothesis that plate armor did offer good protection against bludgeoning despite some of the product hawking on the Internet. Please forgive the noob.

[Anthony R. Camacho]

You should also consider the medieval flail. On page 178, of "Medieval Swordsmanship," John Clements states: "The flail was effective against plate armor as well as more lightly armored fighters. Powerful blows can be made with a deceptive whirling motion or just a quick whipping action. It has the unique capacity to strike around, over, and behind shields and attempts to block." He is absolutely correct. However, you need the right flail to appreciate its potential. The cheap, and usually hollow ball, flails sold today simply can't perform as well as a solid ball flail. If flail type weapons are legal in your state, you can find a machine shop to produce the flail described in ablacksmithsview.blogspot.com/.../this-week-ive-decided-to-fabricate... This flail uses a solid 1 7/8 inch towing hitch ball and, with keystock spikes, is absolutely lethal. I have used the my flail against an abandoned car and I am confident of the damage it could inflict on plate armor and those wearing it. Like any weapon, it takes a bit of practice to master, and it requires head, torso, arm, and leg, especially knee, protection to practice with. I believe that the combination of this flail with a shield, would pose a great threat to plate armor and a greater threat to mail armor.

[s_taillebois]

Might also consider the closer nature of warfare of the period. A maul such as used by the yeomanry, or a warhammer (not a bec de corbin type) or etc may not have fully compromised the armor. But as noted the blow could be disorienting, or disabling even if by the means of wrecking the articulation of the armor. "Only Hurt' could be disorienting and hence very dangerous given the close nature of pre-firearm conflict.

Men in such cases would be likely down, dazed or etc and as such would have been secondary targets in melee or as a adversaries line broke through, would have been killed by the second passing ranks.
Or even later during the end time of a battle where all too often 'men of no worth' who were wounded were killed. A disorienting concussion would have been more than enough to ensure a man could not get clear of the battle area, and dependent on the time, conflict, and individual nature of the enemy (for example the viscious nature of the "Wars of the Roses") even being moderately cognitively or mobility compromised would be enough of a liability to be killed eventually...

Modern perceptions of chivalry hardly match the manner in which most behaved in the past...

[Kevin Reicks]

"But as noted the blow could be disorienting, or disabling even if by the means of wrecking the articulation of the armor. "Only Hurt' could be disorienting and hence very dangerous given the close nature of pre-firearm conflict. "

Thats what I was trying to get at. Again, people see videos of -blade company that will not be named- and other tests done on 12 or 16 gauge soft steel and think thats how armor was. You have documented evidence of that not being the case. I just see people generally speaking I have similar mindsets and interests, and I hear untruths that frustrate me. One of the reasons I am trying to get in to ARMA, be part of an organization that espouses truths that too often go unmentioned or put down.