Indian Mace

[trajan]

a few more ...

[trajan]

i agree with arial..the variety is infinite. in both ceremonial and functional examples.

[trajan]

from ornate ceremonial demon head to simple sonta type.

[Emanuel]

Hello,

From a purely physical perspective, the more spikes, the less penetration, no?

This is akin to walking or laying on a bed of nails. The force imparted by the swing is distributed over multiple points of contact, thereby reducing the force in any one point. Furthermore, the many angles of all the spikes would prevent any one spike penetrating too far as they would catch on the exterior of the wound.

My take is therefore that using such a weapon on unarmoured bodies could certainly cause nasty surface damage and probably blunt trauma as well but it would not be as effective on armour as the round ball, heavy stick, hammer/pike variety.

In regards to ceremonial use, the more decorated the offensive part of the weapon, the less likely it was used in combat. High maintenance and generally less resistant. So heavy koftgari/inlay/carving/engraving on the mace head or the blade, particularly close to the edge indicate less likely combat use. The bull/demon head maces are basically hollow and are relatively thin sheets of metal - will likely deform on impact, dispersing much of the force

Emanuel

[Jim McDougall]

This is an absolutely 'textbook' thread!!! and Brian, thank you for posting this very scary looking mace which has brought the term 'discussion' back into the mainstream here.

I must say that my initial reaction to this profusely spiked sphere mace was as with others, not necessarily a combat weapon but more parade or ceremonial. In searching online, I found the khanda hilt form of one of these on the Oriental Arms site (the one with blue background in the photos). In this it is described as Rajasthan, 18th c., and in many years of experience with Artzi, his descriptions are typically pretty reliable,so that seemed a good benchmark.

Estcrh showed a perfectly supported rebuttal to indicate that these were indeed probably quite combat useful, and the suggestion of the spikes preventing deflection off armour seemed reasonably plausible. I think Emanuel added a most valid view concerning the dissipation of penetrating force with more spikes, which are dynamics often not considered in looking at many weapon forms.

At this point, I am inclined to reconsider this may well be a combat form of mace, however, the rather open means of holding this with simple bulbs on the haft rather than the more substantial sword hilt or more pronounced hand stops remains suggestive of a more votive piece.
Many weapon forms were somewhat vestigially produced for use in temple ceremonies and processional instances.

The main purpose of the mace as I understand it is to crush and compromise armour, either to render the wearer immobile or unable to defend himself, and often to break or open the armour to gain an opening for stabbing. Clearly this would apply to plate type armour, but in India, oftenwe would be looking at mail or heavily padded cloth protection. With mail there would be a distinct threat of this becoming lodged, as well as with cloth. This returns to the case of losing the use of the mace by its being lodged in the victim, but does not preclude the concept of its use in combat. In the case of most of these warriors, they were of course armed with numerous weapons, and arms are often 'staged' in battle situations .

In many cases 'shock' action initiated attack, and often the weapons used in this opening action were often discarded as combatants moved to their secondary weapons. I would think that a line of infantry warriors charging forward with these horrifying spheres would create a most disheartening effect on their opponents.

Fascinating piece Brian!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The main purpose of the mace as I understand it is to crush and compromise armour, either to render the wearer immobile or unable to defend himself, and often to break or open the armour to gain an opening for stabbing. Clearly this would apply to plate type armour, but in India, often we would be looking at mail or heavily padded cloth protection. With mail there would be a distinct threat of this becoming lodged, as well as with cloth.

A mace could also give you a concussion right through armor without having to damage the armor and in the case of mail and cloth armor bones could be broken. One of the reaons you see such a wide variety of weapons in India is the wide variety of armor that warriors would be facing depending on their opponent. From cloth based armor such as peti (quilted armor) and chilta hazar masha (coat of a thousand nails), mail armor, mail and plate armor and plate armor. Weapons had to be chosen based on what type of armor your enemy would be wearing, weapons were designed to circumvent the particular strength of each type of armor, it was a vicious circle.

[kronckew]

the vicious circle continues in military armoured vehicles and infantry anti-tank weapons. a never ending circle indeed.

the oddities are that occasionally the past comes back.

the last recorded instance of an english longbow killing an enemy during a declared war was in ww2. it was a german sergeant sentry, who may have been wearing a MP's steel gorget as a badge of office., which might count as an ancient anti-armour weapon defeating an ancient form of armour.

col. 'mad jack' churchill (apparently no relation to wsc) not only carried and effectively used his longbow (it was him above). but carried his claymore into battle. he was known to say that no officer should go into battle without his sword. he also had a playing piper accompany him as he charged into battle.

, “Mad Jack,” as he came to be known, survived multiple explosions, escaped a couple of POW camps, captured more than 40 Germans at sword point in just one raid, and in 1940 scored the last recorded longbow kill in history. he said after the war “If it wasn’t for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another ten years.”

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

In regards to ceremonial use, the more decorated the offensive part of the weapon, the less likely it was used in combat. High maintenance and generally less resistant. So heavy koftgari/inlay/carving/engraving on the mace head or the blade, particularly close to the edge indicate less likely combat use.

Emanuel

Once again relying on Elgood, I must respectfully disagree.
Of course, richly-decorated weapons must have belonged to the upper crust commanders who, by the very virtue of their rank and military function, were less likely to find themselves in the melee. However, Indian weapons were avatars of deities and as such must have been richly decorated. A Rajah armed with a plain sword could not rely on divine assistance.
Such weapons were not intrinsically wall-hangers: they were just religiously appropriate and possessed mystical content. We see them now well-preserved not for the lack of trying, but because they used to belong to the elite and were stored in royal armories between the campaigns.
And, as in any army, it was the poor schlumps who carried plain weapons into the battle

[Iliad]

Guys,
Just a quick note to say thank you for all the comments. My tiny store of knowledge has become a little larger.
Best regards,
Brian

[Emanuel]

Fully agree with you Ariel. Ceremonial was not applicable there. By the same virtue though, those decorated weapons were not expected to be used in a melee. The cost and maintenance of preserving that gold/silver koftgari in constant use would preclude that.

Originally Posted by ariel

Once again relying on Elgood, I must respectfully disagree.
Of course, richly-decorated weapons must have belonged to the upper crust commanders who, by the very virtue of their rank and military function, were less likely to find themselves in the melee. However, Indian weapons were avatars of deities and as such must have been richly decorated. A Rajah armed with a plain sword could not rely on divine assistance.
Such weapons were not intrinsically wall-hangers: they were just religiously appropriate and possessed mystical content. We see them now well-preserved not for the lack of trying, but because they used to belong to the elite and were stored in royal armories between the campaigns.
And, as in any army, it was the poor schlumps who carried plain weapons into the battle

[estcrh]

The Met Museum has some Persian prints showing several types of mace being used in battle, I thought this would be a good thread to add them to. Images of maces being carried and used are hard to find.


From the Shahnama (Book of Kings) of Shah Tahmasp. Author: Abu'l Qasim Firdausi (935–1020). Artist: Painting attributed to Qadimi (active ca. 1525–65). Folio from an illustrated manuscript.

Links to full sized images, lots of battle scenes.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...9972ce0d95.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...56fb03b090.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...fae200fcfd.jpg

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

The bull/demon head maces are basically hollow and are relatively thin sheets of metal - will likely deform on impact, dispersing much of the force

Some info on bull headed maces.

By: Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani:
One of the most effective weapons against armored opponents on the battlefield was the mace. Gorz (mace) is mentioned very often in the Shahname. The Parthian and the Sassanian heavy cavalry made extensive use of maces. This tradition was set forth after the Muslim conquest of Iran. The Khorassanian troops of Abu Moslem Khorassani prided themselves in the usage of maces. In later periods, we also see an extensive use of the maces during the Safavid, and Afsharid periods. Beautiful maces from the Zand and even Qajar period are also extant. Maces had a double function, both as a war instrument and as a symbol of authority and power. Different types of maces were used on the battlefield, but in general Iranian maces can be divided into three different categories: a) maces with round heads, b) flanged/ studded maces, and c) human or animal-head maces (see Moshtagh Khorasani, 2006:in print). The usage of human or animal-headed maces has a very long tradition in Iran, going back to the Bronze Age. Beautiful examples of bronze maceheads with human faces were excavated in Marlik in northern Iran. Other excavated examples of human-headed maces also exist from the Parthian era. The renowned bull-headed face belongs to this category. This mace was originally used on the battlefield and later examples of it were made to symbolize the power and authority. In the Shahname, it is reported that Fereydun used a bull-headed mace to defeat Zahak. The legend has it that Fereydun ordered his smith to make a bull-headed mace since he wanted to revenge the death of the cow, which had fed him as a child, by Zahak. The interesting phenomenon is that the bull-headed mace is still used in the initiation ceremonies of the young Zoroastrians. Ferdowsi uses different terms to refer to the bull-headed mace in the Shahname, such as gorz-e gav-peikar (mace with the shape like a bull) or gorz-e gavsar (bull-headed mace):

Bar avikht ba namdaran be jang/ yeki gorz-e gav-peikar be chang
He started to fight against the renowned [warriors], holding a mace with the shape of a bull in each hand
Taken from the Story “The Kingdom of Zavetahmasp“ (see Yahaghi, 1990/1369:72)

To rafti va shamshir-zan sad hezar/ Zerehdar ba gorz-e gavsar
You went away as if ten thousand swordsmen [went away]
You the armored [one] with a bull-headed mace
Taken from the Story “The End of Keikhosrow“ (see Yahaghi, 1990/1369:347)

Maces from the first and second category are also mentioned in the Shahname and Ferdowsi refers to this type by using the general term gorz (mace). Different adjectives are used in combination with the term gorz, resulting in different collocations. One of the adjectives that occur frequently with the word gorz (mace) is geran (heavy), resulting in the very frequent combination gorz-e geran (heavy mace).

Chegune keshidi be Mazandaran / Kamand kiyani va gorz-e geran?
How did you carry the Kiyanid lasso and the heavy mace to Mazandaran?
Taken from the Story “Keikavus“ (see Yahaghi, 1990/1369:93)

Two other words that are used in the Shahname to refer to mace are gopal and amud. All there terms gorz, gopal, and amud can be used interchangeably to refer to the mace:

Cho divan bedidand gopal uy / Bedarideshan del ze changal-euy
When the demons saw his mace, their hearts were torn by his grasp
Taken from the Story “Keikavus“ (see Yahaghi, 1990/1369:105)

A very interesting collocation is amud-e khamide (literally curved mace). This would only make sense if it described the macehead that is set at 90 degrees to the handle of the mace:

Amudi khamide bezad bar sarash/ ze niru beyoftad targ az sarash
He hit him with a curved mace, making him lose his helmet with the force.
Taken from the Story “The Story of Rostam and Sohrab“ (see Yahaghi, 1990/1369:154)