Castle Quest - Reply to Topic

Forum:	In The Movies
Topic:	blunt instruments=bad guys?

Want to register?

Who Can Post?	Any registered users may post a reply.
About Registration	You must be registered in order to post a topic or reply in this forum.
Posting Tips:	You will receive a much better response to your questions if you include your age and as much detail as possible. Both of these things allows a person to give you an answer specific to your question and age group.
Your UserName:
Your Password:	Forget your password?
Message Icon:
Your Reply: HTML is OFF UBB Code is ON [IMG] UBB Code Not Allowed!
Options	Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

T O P I C R E V I E W
bent one I was watching the Lord of the Rings and I noticed that all the heros always carry swords or bows or axes but never a mace or flail or war hammer.
Just wondering why is that? considering the enemies that the heros encounter lightly armored foot soldiers, the occasional heavy soldier. Wouldn't a good flanged mace or morning star be very effective? Harder to parry and kills just as good as a sword. Why do you think that they seem to never use these weapons and the enemies do. In the Return of the king watching the attack on the city in Gondor several scenes depict soldiers being killed by Orcs with mauls and bashing type weapons.
Why do you figure blunt weapons are bad guy weapons?
Maria Yes. We are talking symbols here, and a hero is supposed to kill his opponent in a clean, fair way. To slice him, not crush him to death. Blunt weapons just aren't noble enough.
bent one Ah well, I guess I'm just not noble cause I like warhammers ; )
do you think that one more reason they use swords is because you can sort of fence with them ? I know you can fight two on two with a maces or other blunties but there isn't as much "skill". I've watched some guys dress up in armor and show how maces were used on the history channel. To my eyes other than hitting vital areas and dodging your opponents blows there's not a lot of aesthetic style to it. You know what I mean? When you pull out a sword you can do cool moves with it you can, defend, flash it around etc. but with a mace your just there to beat some poor guy to death.
Peter And I'll think you will find that this type of weapon was used by someone on horseback normally. With a lance you only got one chance. A sword may not carry enough clout to unhorse someone. But a good wack would, then the footsoldier had him lockstockandbarrel.
I have a repro war axe, which is pretty dam heavy. So you need to be moving to get any wumpf behind it. Not a close combat weapon.
Peter
Steve-O-Gerst The funny thing is, all this is a modern take on things! In the Middle ages, clergy were not allowed to kill, and therefore would never touch a sword. Therfore, "Holy" fighters, such as warrior-monks, or lordly bishops would take to the mace.
Since the healers of the day were lousy with treating infections, but not so bad at setting bones, an attack with a mace was more likely to be survived.
However, our current society seems to feel that there is something malevolent about maces and flails. Ever been at the Renaisance faire, and seen someone pick up a mace? They always heft it for a minute, and then say "Wicked!" With the sword? Not so much, it's usually a "Wow..."
Peter Just remembered, we have a repro flail hanging on the beam in the lounge (Yes, we do have a funny cottage). An old friend brought back from Spain some years ago. Well before the days of not carrying a nail-file. And got pulled up by customs. Let him take it home though!
Hope nothing falls off those beams, not sure if my house contents insurance would cover damgaed heads as the results of!
Peter
bent one about the heaviness thing the axes were always pretty heavy because they used the mechanical advantage of the wedge and they had to have a good deal of weight so that you didn't have to swing it super fast to do some good damage remember that momentum is related to the wieght of something and the speed that the something is moving at. Like a football player who is lighter can take the legs out from under the heavier player because he's moving faster.
If you look at a lot of the war hammers and flails are much smaller than you would think. most of these movies the maces are used with both hands and very large. most of the real things fit in one hand. The warhammers I've seen on the history channel look like the hardware store hammer except with a metal handle.
Steve-O-Gerst Small war hammers, yes!
Some English Longbowmen equippment lists required the soldier to pack a maul with a 5 foot long handle. Some modern sources claim these were attached to a 25 pound head.
I was discussing this with someone else, and it seems pretty clear that a soldier would not be able to use that in a battle for long. I suspect that the "Maul," rather than being a military weapon, was in fact a sledge hammer for driving in the palisades of wooden stakes to protect them from the horses.
Of course, after the main battle, it might have been useful for mopping up the downed knights.
bent one Mauls were pretty big but they were made out of wood. the heads had steel bands reinforcing them so they wouldn't splay at the ends after repeated use but they were still wood construction. This is one of those things about the movies you see all metal mauls and you think if the wooden ones had 25 pound heads I can't imagine the strength you'd have to possess to wield a metal one.
Interesting that longbowmen would carry them, I thought that they had people that protected them like short spearmen and pikemen. I didn't know that they carried a secondary weapon as big as a maul. I think that you've got the right idea that they were most likely used as tools and then as weapons. besides that was pretty much all a maul was a common tool made into a weapon. similar to the evolution of the axe in warfare.
Also in the movies especially in Lord of the Rings none of the good guys use halbreds or voulges. Only pikes (Gondorian) and calvary lance (Rohirrim). It seems the enemy is very fond of the real polearms. Not that I dislike pikes and lances I just find the halbred and the other weapons as more versatile. the halbred was supposed to be a broadaxe blade with a pike and a crowbill on the back. Think about the applications, devestating to lightly armored footsoldiers (axe blade), good for heavy footsoldiers (pike), and good for the knight on horseback (crowbill to pierce plate). An the amount of leverage with having a long handle could give some devestating blows not to mention the added range a polearm gives you.
Steve-O-Gerst Well, in this book I have, they claim that the longbowmen had to carry their own pikes as well.
Perhaps so, I guess maybe the good archers made the bad ones use the pikes to protect them...
bent one Hmmm. I'd like to read this book you've got. is it about the longbow or longbowmen? Sounds like iot's got some neat stuff in it.
I do remember watching a show on the history channel about longbowmen and their equipment. They did carry a lot of stuff with them but I never remembered seeing pikes. I could bet that they traveled in the supply train and were transported tha way on spear racks and then swiftly distributed when they met the enemy. I wouldn't want to tire the arms of my archers before a battle by carrying all those weapons.
Above you mentioned them driving defences into the ground to prevent them being charged by calvary. what were these exactly were the just short spears or sharpened stick put in at an angle?
Maria Well... I suppose Hollywood can take part of the blame.
Queuxgropius I guess part of the thinking here is that swords are "noble" weapons due to their aesthetic quality (a notion common to Japan too)and this thinking wasn't unknown in the past too. But remember the most evil guys of all in the movies-the Nazgul-carried swords.
Ricky A mixture of reasons I guess...
Swords are a 'noble' weapon to most people. While this is true, it is mostly for practical reasons - good swords are just plain expensive to produce.
More importantly for the film, a crude mace etc looks more 'thuggish' and unsophisticqated, thus reinforcing the point that the bad guys are dumb brutes.
Oh, and clergy were not allowed to shed blood. The idea was that maces would crush & kill without actually breaking the skin.
Queuxgropius "...But remember the most evil guys of all in the movies-the Nazgul-carried swords"
now, I have to qualify that. Looking again at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in "The Return of the King" I noticed-and I had forgotten -that the Witch King in his last fight wielded an enormous Morning Star.