Historical usage question: Why take a blunt weapon to the battlefield?

[Ed Rybak]

I know that historical sources and modern practitioners offer a lot more information about swords than about "impact weapons" like axes and maces. But maybe there's nowhere better than this forum to bring up a point of curiosity about those latter weapons.

For discussion, let me clumsily refer to two categories of these: sharp clubs (axes, picks, maces with sharpened flanges or spikes, etc.) and blunt clubs (blunt maces, hammers, etc.).

I know that both types can strike devastating blows, with more than enough wallop to take down even an armored opponent. No argument there. But as deadly as a blunt club can be, it would seem that a sharp club of the same proportions (mass, length, etc.) would be even more effective against a foe. Better able to pierce armor (a pick's spike), or better able to cut deeply (an axe's blade). (After all, if sharp clubs didn't offer these advantages, I don't see why people would have bothered with the work and cost of making them...)

Yet it seems that maces saw a fair degree of use among knights and soldiers. So, I wonder: Are there any ways in which a blunt club is actually better than a sharp club on the battlefield?

Here are some ideas and guesses. Do any of these make historical or practical sense?

1) Cost: I assume that a blunt club, all else equal, is cheaper and easier to make than the same club with an edge or point. (This alone, it seems to me, could perfectly explain historical use of maces over axes and picks, especially when lots of men need to be equipped.)

2) Ease of care: An edge will chip and dull, and a point may bend, but a blunt club seems as trouble-free as a weapon can get...

3) Ease of use: Perhaps a blunt club is easier to use, in that there's no need to properly align an edge or point to maximize effectiveness. (I have no idea whether this is actually a point of difficulty with axes and picks. Any practitioners with insight into this?)

4) Handiness outside of combat: A soldier's camp always needs hammers! (Then again, that's also true for axes, so this may not mean anything...)

5) No sticking: I've always heard that picks (and maybe axes too?) can get "stuck" in a foe, while a blunt club would normally never face this problem. (Did axe and pick users really have to deal with forcibly wresting their weapons out of enemies' armor or bodies? Do historical sources mention this?)

6) Less overkill: Perhaps blunt clubs were just as effective as sharp clubs at taking foes out of a fight, without killing them quite as often. That would leave more downed foes alive for interrogation or ransoming. (I don't mean to downplay the deadliness of a mace, but I imagine the weapon would leave fewer foes dying from severed arteries... Any backing for this?)

7) Ideal vs armor: Perhaps blunt clubs were actually better than sharp clubs at hurting a foe encased in steel armor. (I don't see why that would be, if the weapons were equal in length, mass, etc., but maybe there's a reason?)

8) Batter up: By not diverting energy to penetration of armor and flesh, it seems blunt clubs would impart more momentum to foes, possibly knocking them around more easily. (Again, I assume that sharp clubs deal more harm to flesh – otherwise, why invent them? – but knocking foes down is still a mighty useful effect.)

9) The old je ne sais quoi: Perhaps there were cultural, social, symbolic, or other reasons why a knight might select a mace when an axe or pick would actually be more potent on the battlefield. (Any merit to this?)

Looking at that list, I definitely see 1) cost, 2) ease of care, and maybe 3) ease of use as likely reasons for selection of blunt clubs over sharp counterparts. The rest, I'm less sure about – do any of those, or something else entirely, represent actual advantages of a blunt club over a sharp one? Or is the answer simply that knights and soldiers typically didn't choose blunt clubs over sharp clubs if the latter were available?

I don't know. Does anyone have information or insights?

[Stacy Clifford]

All of those are good possible answers, although it's difficult to find any historical sources that directly answer this question. I would add one thing to your #7 argument: plate armor is well designed to cause sharp weapons to deflect and skip off, reducing the force of impact. Because blunt clubs and maces deliver force to a larger surface area, they may be less likely to deflect and thus deliver force more reliably, even if it's less concentrated. Crushing precision-crafted armor joints is a great way to make it hard for the other guy to move and fight.

Clubs wouldn't have stayed in use for 100,000 years if they weren't effective, and even modern police still use them today. Even when newer and better things come along, people still tend to hang on to tools that work reliably, and we tend to like things that are simple and easy to use.

[Ed Rybak]

Thank you for the reply! As you say, blunt clubs must have some good advantages, to explain their use all throughout history. Just curious as to what the main ones are...

You make a good point about the greater possibility of armor deflection when striking with the smaller surface area of a sharp club. That also addresses #3 on my list (ease of use): it suggests that sharp clubs need to be wielded with a bit more precision to ensure a head-on strike that won't easily glance off. So I'll take that as a good candidate for a real-life factor: Greater ease of use, especially when it comes to scoring a solid hit against plate.

Oh, your mention of police is a good reminder that a small blunt club is definitely the right choice for a subset of cases – i.e., when the intent is to disable or disperse, without necessarily leaving targets bleeding out and dead.

In the end, if I were a knight with the skill to make accurate strikes with my weapons, I imagine I'd still much prefer an axe or pick over a mace on the battlefield. But I'd make sure my town constables were armed with sticks, not axes. : )

[Stacy Clifford]

In the end, if I were a knight with the skill to make accurate strikes with my weapons, I imagine I'd still much prefer an axe or pick over a mace on the battlefield.

Also worth considering, even though knights were well trained to make precision strikes with edged weapons, battle fatigue can greatly reduce accuracy and control in even the best of martial artists, and blunt weapons are much more forgiving of such errors.