Re: mauls

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

> First off, let me say that I can probably deal with a maul doing a d8, but
> I gotta tell you, Wright, I love your last statement; "Hince [Hence?] why
> the maul never saw any battlefield use out side of the movie Braveheart."
> What kind of statement is that?  Do you have _any_ supporting evidence
> for that or are you expecting us to just take your word as the God of
> Historical Weapons Usage?  Please, you've been reasonably credible
> enough; don't destroy that with an obvious falsehood in an effort to simply
> support your argument.  To support my observation of your falsehood:

a) read the weapon description...novel concept there...its a block of
	wood on a stick.
b) to support my 'false hood', "A Guide to Weapons 5000BC to 2000AD" and
	"The Medieval Soldier",  
> 
> 1)  (From Webster's online dictionary)
> 
> Main Entry: 1 maul
> Pronunciation: 'mol
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English malle mace, maul, from Old French mail, from Latin
>     malleus; akin to Old Church Slavonic mlatu hammer, Latin molere to
> grind -- more at MEAL
> Date: 13th century
> : a heavy often wooden-headed hammer used especially for driving wedges;
>     also : a tool like a sledgehammer with one wedge-shaped end that is used to
>     split wood

c) Again, read the weapon desc.  its a block of wood on a handle, which
	fits quite nicely with what it was historically.

> 
> NOTE - That says often wooded-headed, so it may actually have sometimes
> been iron-shod; I'm certain the wedge-shape didn't appear until long after the
> head of the maul was purely metal.

rah rah..so its metal shod?  Doesn't change the fact that a solid chunk of
metal designed for war, and not for driving stakes is going to do more damage.


> 
> 2)  Farmers who took to the field of battle were known to use any 'tool' they could
> get their hands onto; sometimes the bigger was viewed as the better.  Period
> representations of peasant skirmishes showed the peasants armed with a wide
> array of farm implements: sticks (clubs), scythes, mauls, rakes, plow blades, etc.

So?  I don't see your point here?  Of course they used anything they
	could.  But that still does not in _ANY_ way change the fact
	that these were tools first.  Hince why those with access
	to real weaponry did not use them.  True soldiers, not peasents
	who got dragged out of their homes to fight, did not use
	farm impliments to fight with.  Therefore things like
	mauls, clubs, scythes, rakes, plow blades, ect... might work
	in a pinch, god knows its better than just using your hands
	in a fight, but they are not true weapons.  That is why the
	damage onthem is low.  You cannot wield them effectively, and
	the damage they cause will not be compareable to that caused
	buy true weapons of war.

You failed to refute anything Lyle.  Your attacking post, in contridiction
to what you agreed not to do again on Saturday, is not a valid one.  If
you want to try and bring up more arguements, I'll be happy to bandy and
shoot them down.  However you have not come up with one here.  

So thanks, here's your happy meal, please drive through.


Wright


> 
> Now, despite the ease with which I can refute your obviously silly claim, if you
> wish to define the maul in AQ as a not quite so large block of wood at the end
> of a pole (say, oh, 6' or so in length) and have it do a d8 damage, fine with me.
> But we aren't talking about a block of wood that is all that large in this case.
> 
> Lyle
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Wright Frazier [SMTP:khelek@ns1.cioe.com]
> 
> regardless of what DP is, a block of wood on a stick is not going to
> do near the damage as a block of metal on a stick, esspecially one
> that has a convex head with a slight pointing so that it will increasingly
> nulify the effects of armor.  the 'block of wood' just won't do that.
> Further, as I stated before, a maul is a tool, not a weapon.  Tool's
> make horribly in effective weapons when compared to things truely 
> designed to kill.  A maul will not have the combat effectiveness of
> a long sword, bastard sword, battle axe, greatsword, etc...
> It cannot strike blows as quickly nor as lethally as a any of these weapons.
> Hince why the maul never saw any battlefield use out side of the movie
> Braveheart.
> 
> Wright
> 
>