Talk:Mace (club)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
The references in this article would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking.
  • Shock* No mention of Ancient India's addiction to the Mace!

Very Funny vandalization, stupid idiot!

The article says "A variety of mace called the morning star had its spiked metal ball suspended from a chain attached to the handle, rather than being directly mounted." But the morning star article says this is incorrect and such a weapon is really a flail. I have no idea which, if either, is right - can someone who knows please make this consistent, or at least weaken the wording if there's no general consensus about naming? -- S

The "morning_star_(weapon)" page says that the one with a chain is a flail.

The morningstar part refers to the spiked head. A mace is a shaft with a metal ball on the end, a flail is a shaft with a chain and a ball on the end of the chain. If spikes are given to the ball then the weapons would be called Morningstar Mace and Morningstar Flail respectively. If you want to be pedantic about it then technically only a Morgenstern should be called a Mornignstar but as far as common usage is concerned the above description is correct. -Daniel

Contents

[edit] Maces and Shedding Blood

What exactly is the evidence for the Mace being employed by the Clergy to avoid shedding blood? As far as I know this is entirely derived / inferred from the depiction of Odo in the Bayeux Tapestry and the Roman de Rou, niether of which makes this assertion. Also, as far as I know, Arch Bishop Turpin uses a sword called Almace, not an actual Mace, as well as a lance. If this is a myth, as I suspect it is, it might be worth not only removing the claim, but indicating why (i.e 'contrary to popular belief...'). If, however, there is evidence to support this claim I will be interested to hear it.--M.J.Stanham 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. I have long thought that this was yet another myth started by AD&D, for the simple reasons that there are plenty of counter-examples, and also a blow from a mace is quite likely to draw blood. I have corrected the claim about Bishop Turpin (every source I can find agrees that he had a sword, and some even describe its sharpness in detail e.g. [1]), and added a "dubious" tag to the relevant line.-- Securiger 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Another assent here. Blunt impacts can easily shed blood; just watch a boxing match or a schoolyard brawl. There is a biblical passage that would imply that a priest should not use a sword (and if looked at as many people do, to be interpreted 100% literally) but does not ban anything else. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."

No, "He who lives by the sword..." is not to be taken literally, unless you're trying to find loop holes in the Gospels in order that you can kill.

Agree with the comment regarding the biblical quote "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" (Matthew 26:51-56, Mark 14:47-52, Luke 22:49-53). It is true, that today one would not interpret this literally- or at least, the vast majority of believers would not. However, in the middle ages, many biblical passages were taken extremely literally, and a great deal of time was spent on arguing exactly what the loopholes were. Remember that this was the time when there were serious philosophical discussions about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and when popes endorsed crusades (which takes some interpretation, given a religion where one of the central teachings is to turn the other cheek). I don't know whether there was an actual church rule against taking up the sword, but many of the clergy did use alternative means of killing- in my family there was a cardinal who wielded a morning star, precisely because the bible, or at least the New Testament, disapproved of the use of the sword.

Interesting, any evidence for this assertion about the Cardinal in your family? I would be quite interested in this if it is true. Swords and living and dying not withstanding.--M.J.Stanham 14:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I had thought this was based on a Catholic dictum about priests fighting in the Crusades, though I don't have a specific source. A good topic for research, though.

Priests were technically forbidden to bear arms of any kind, but in practice they often did, Crusades not withstanding. There was no special provision forbidding Priests from using edged or pointed weapons with regard to the Crusade experience, to the best of my knowledge. The Military Orders, who could be described as militarised monks, certainly had no such strictures preventing them from functioning as Knights.--M.J.Stanham 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The 1911 Brittanica seems to have believed it -- see for instance the article on Archbishop Absalon of Denmark. --Chronodm 15:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was around about that time that this idea was being propagated; no doubt the article is referring to Odo of Bayeux. Of course, if there were some other evidence to support this idea, I would be really interested to hear it. It all just collapses back to the same source at the moment, which says nothing of the kind, so far as I know. --M.J.Stanham 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm no expert, I agree about the supposed limitation to blunt weapons. I don't think priests often ran around on the battlefield to begin with, even if they did levy troops from the lands they owned. If someone can find an edict or other document describing rules for members of the clergy who wish to go to war, that would satisfy the requirement. Unless such a document can be found, this doesn't really belong in the article. I'm going to remove it for now. --GenkiNeko 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this page and other medevil weaponry needs a template?:
That probably wouldn't be a bad idea, though strict categorization of weaponry could lead to huge arguments (i.e. setting a single term closed definition for weapons without an accepted typology - maces, shields, rapiers, etc.) I think that there would definitely be some support for a good flexible template from the various weapon-related task forces and groups around.
Also, please sign your comments (use the tilde [~] key 4 times in a row to do so). This way, we know who is speaking (or writing, as the case may be) and can more clearly address and understand conversations. -- Xiliquiern 04:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maul

Is their any sourcing for two handed maces being called mauls? A maul is a tool for splitting wood, like a sledgehammer with an axe-head. Theblindsage 02:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC) After looking it up, the idea that a maul is a 2 handed mace seems to have come from Diablo II, and spread from there. The idea is false. A maul is a type of hammer. Theblindsage 02:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mace (Club)

This article should be moved to Mace (Club), and Mace (disambiguation) should be moved here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.16.217 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Doing that now, although it appears the limitations on the move function will require an administrator to make the final move. - toh 00:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceremonial Maces

The section on 'Paramilitary Maces' includes too much specific detail on the mace of the Scottish parliament. Unless there is more general information for other Westminster-styled parliamentary maces it should be removed and placed in another article; either dedicated to itself or included with the article on the Scottish parliament.--Black Orpheus 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PIC

We should include this. 84.56.48.188 (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bit of cleanup, perhaps?

Happened across this page just now and noticed a slight problem pretty early on, under the heading Ancient World: "n ancient Egypt, stone mace heads were first used nearly 6,000 years ago in the preu sukdynastic period." I'd actually correct this myself but for the fact that I'm not entirely sure what is intended by this. If it's "pre-dynastic" then that's one thing but the overall juxtaposition of letters should be looked at by someone with credentials, etc. and fixed, please. 68.2.39.252 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says "predynastic" two paragraphs farther down, so I think you must be right. I changed it accordingly.--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)