Impact strength of different types of weapons.

[PekkaLuodeslampi]

I have been browsing this interesting site and I do have a one question of all different shorts tools of trade: Which of weapon type has most impact energy/power? I have heard that Flail is supposedly to be one of most hardest hitting weapons? Here is the link: http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item003.html

[s_taillebois]

Possibly so, insofar as the arm, 'staff' and chain/ball on a flail would increase leverage and velocity via principles similar to a trebuchet's throwing arm and sling. However, 'hardest hitting' would seem to be contingent on other factors such as surface area at impact, velocity, and mass. So, very probable that some of the arbalests, with the heavy crank 'weights', and narrow quarrels, might also fit quite well into this parameter.
Swords, likely more a matter of the speed+accuracy of the wielder, especially in regards to having the impact located at the best point on a given blade. In test cutting with my sword (Bastard/longsword), a good strike shows a lot of power/impact...a poor one most of the energy seems wasted in vibration. Although obviously, this is a subjective measure.
A stylet, seems to be able to project much more force than a wider bladed cutting dagger. Have punched through light steel and bone in mucking about with mine. Broke the cutting dagger's point. Bloody hard on the finish though...the stylet looks like a demonic dogs been at it.
War hammers, maces and the like, no physical experience with these, so can't comment. Nor really conjecture (as did with the flails) about the physics of it all...
Greetings from the boundary of oblivion...nee the rez 'Americas own little corner of the 2nd+3rd world'

[s_taillebois]

Might also clarify what you meant by impact energy, or power? Literal kinesthetic (sp) energy, or indirect effects?
Crushing weapons such as maces, war hammers and the like...obviously seem to have been designed as a means to make armour work against itself, and against its wearer. It appears that one of the problems which vexed Renn/Late medieval doctors, was cutting through armour (especially ie close helmets) which had been damaged by blows (either crushed or damaged in such a way that usual sectional removal of the component parts...ie visors-beviors ect...was impossible). Without incurring any more trauma to the victim.
(a weird, unrelated question...how did medieval doctors introduce pain killers (likely opiates), when a patient was unable (or inaccessible to swallow? Opening a vein like some addicts have been known to do?)
In that regard, hammers, maces and the like...may not have needed to have the 'greatest power' in a literal sense... all they needed to do was to make the armour itself a liability.
This could involve some weird research to ascertain the greatest 'power' of these type of weapons. Either locating period battle field medicinal manuals (such as they were), or doing testing on armoured cadavers. Either way, mayhaps something best to not know too much about.
Oopsie, said I wouldn't conjecture or comment on these...
couldn't resist.
Might be better for those more familiar with these particular implements to comment. Or if the moderators feel this is drifting, to close it.

[PekkaLuodeslampi]

First of all thank you for your informative reply. I was talking about the kinetic energy but thank you for telling me about that crushing armour aspect. That makes the equation of strongest weapon even more interesting.

[s_taillebois]

Maybe then, if its framed in potential kenetic energy...probably the arbalest due to its velocity.
War hammers, especially bec de corbins, for the means to concentrate a type of rotational force into a small impact area.
Swords, it would seem the estocs would take that one.
(once again due to the design concentrating force into a smaller area)
Then obviously the early hand cannons.