|
|
|
11th June 2015, 11:20 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 692
|
Hello,
Thank you for your replies. The mace weights a little less than 2kg. The flanges are attached correctly, each inserted to its individual slot. The reiforced points are also attached individually No lenghtwise seam visible on the haft, there is some copper soldering visible at the pommel. The mace is incredibly similar to the one from HH, postet above. |
|
|
|
11th June 2015, 05:55 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,060
|
hello,
The weight of the mace is too heavy, which should have a maximum of around 1.2 kg and most are lighter than 1 kg. the shaft of this type is hollow/tubular and formed by rolling or hammering a flat section of metal around a cylindrical former, so there must be a seam at the shaft along the length direction! The flanges of the macehead of this type must be fitted in slots cutted in the shaft, from the top down through the metal, and are fixed with copper solder. Iam sorry but regarding to the weight and the lack of a longitudinal seam. I think it is a subsequent reproduction, 19th or 20thC. best regards Jasper |
|
|
|
|
12th June 2015, 12:25 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 525
|
Hello Jasper,
I am very sorry to correct you, but the average weight of a european flanged mace is around 1.5 kg and more. The mace must be so heavy, because the mace is originally intended for penetrate or at least pressing dents in a plate armour. The thickness of a tempered european plate armour is between 1.5 an 2 mm. A battlefield mace with a weight of less than 1.2 kg would be too lightweight against plate armour. Best regards Roland |
|
|
|
|
13th June 2015, 07:26 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,060
|
Quote:
you may correct me, but it must of course be supported in order to convince me.  1.5 kg average and more you have mentioned is not correct, where did you find this digit? Clive Thomas has written a wonderful article on maces in park lane arms and armor fair cataloque of 2014. I've also spoken to Clive about the weights of the different maces, because what he found was much lighter then we both expected. Quote Clive page 21 "In General it could be said that the solid shafted examples are about 52.5 cm in avarage overall length and weigh around 1,050kg, whilst the tubular types are approximately 50cm and 560g, respectively" unquote the type under discussion is oakeshott M2 and/or Clive Thomas B2 this type was usually larger around 60cm+ and heavier then the earlier ones but will average not go over the maximum weight found of 1.2-1.3 KG some examples from the article. best, Last edited by cornelistromp; 13th June 2015 at 08:20 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
13th June 2015, 04:03 PM
|
#5 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
I know nothing of these things but ...
Don't in any case, besides the number of flanges, the length of the shaft and or that of the entire mace have great influence in the weight variation ? A few examples in the Wallace collection read: A982 - seven flanges - total length 63.5 cms. - weight 1.470 Kg. A983 - seven flanges - total length 60.4 cms. - weight 1.260 Kg. A984 - seven flanges - total length 63.5 cms. - weight 1.540 Kg. A985 - eigth flanges - haft length 45 cms. - weight 1.860 Kg. . Last edited by fernando; 13th June 2015 at 04:18 PM. |
|
|
|
|
13th June 2015, 06:33 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,060
|
yes like i mentioned in post #12 this type M2 was usually larger around 60cm+ and heavier then the earlier ones.
Wallace A985 is 0.86kg, not 1.86kg, the heaviest mace in Wallace is A979 with 1.67 KG. best, Last edited by cornelistromp; 14th June 2015 at 06:26 PM. |
|
|
|
|
13th June 2015, 07:23 PM
|
#7 | ||
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
