RE: mauls

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

Please see below for my only comment on this...

-----Original Message-----
From:	Wright Frazier [SMTP:khelek@ns1.cioe.com]

[ you can read Wright's post if you want to see what I've deleted ]

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.

------------  My comment here

So, you agree, then, that at least with regard to the peasants (i.e., the
conscripted troops of the middle ages), mauls _did_, in fact, see "battlefield
use out side of the movie Braveheart."  That's all I was getting at, Wright.
Don't get your bowels in an uproar.  As I said, I can deal with the damage
you specified for the maul, I just couldn't deal with your crazy statement
that mauls were _never_ actually used in battle.  I believe your very words
in fact support my refuting comments. Thank you.    ;-)