I think I'll just stop watching documentaries

I'm not sure but I think it was good against heavily armored dudes.

Good against armour. Top heavy and strikes with a lot of force, making it better at hurting someone in heavy armour than a sword, and you don't run the risk of getting it "stuck" in your opponent, like say a crow's beak (which was also a weapon developed to deal with armour). The flanges are there to help it "bite in" and not just glance off when you hit someone in armour, but of course, if you hit someone without armour, it will still seriously injure the person (but not as badly as say a sword).

no reason, just a update version of a big wooden stick

They were good against well armored opponents. While swords would have problems against armor because they couldn't penetrate it easily, maces could break opponent's bones if you hit him hard enough with a mace regardless of what kind of armor he was using.

They were also cheap and easy to make. You didn't need to be very skilled at weapon-making to make a useful mace.

it was the logical progression to heavy stick used to beat things?

I hate you, I hate you so much ;_;

Damn you Q_Q
Why nobody ever thinks of arachnophobic budgies?

Thank you guys for taking the hit, now I won't click this ]:->

:D

Lol, I love this xD

This is pretty great actually.

No, TLC just shows programs about fat people getting married (yes, they have a program like that, I'm not making it up), rich people getting married, rich people having nannies, or people getting hurt while having sex (I think that sums up all the shows I've come across when I've zapped past the channel) and I don't have Discovery channel.

Does Discovery even have documentaries anymore? In my country it's only some dudes buying things from auctions.

And the best part about those is the amount of commercial breaks that just don't happen. "Will little Billy get rescued from the well?!" 3 seconds black screen. "Billy is in a well! Will he be rescued?" Repeat every 5 minutes and every third break actually play the commercials, works perfectly.

Before I realized what is going on I was genuinely concerned that American producers think we are retarded and/or lacking short-term memory.

And the recommended documentary from that one is "Hollywood Exposed: witchcraft, satanism, pedophilia in Hollywood and government". Sounds like you've found the source of a lot of good stuff!

I really want to make a snarky remark about "typical Danes" as I'm from Sweden, but there have been blunders like this over here as well :(

it's inside, so it's not vulgar

You know, I have my doubts about the pawnshop one. It shows gunfights, and I highly doubt the cameramen would be willing to put themselves in the line of fire when a gunfight spontaneously happens in order to get a good shot, while everyone else lazily stand behind car doors (like that will stop a bullet...) and aim in the general direction of the other guys. So something tells me that they might not be entirely honest about that one

Yep, I looked it up, it was originally from History Channel

It was from The History Channel

I've looked into it in the past (this is not the first time I heard this very thing being mentioned). There is actually a source making a mention of it. A source from the 19th century (in other words, not a contemporary one), but it was D&D that "popularized" this myth, as the source is a rather obscure one, and it's unclear if Gygax knew of this, or if it (like the weight of weapons) were just there for the sake of balance. To my knowledge, there are no other "serious" sources making any mentions of this.

Debunking the myth is actually quite easy though, even if we don't look at the weapon itself. There were fighting clerical orders, they used swords (and many other weapons). Their weapons evolved at the same pace and in the same direction as those used by other soldiers.

See my reply above. There are no known historical sources that mention priests not being allowed to use swords because they could not draw blood, there were fighting clerical orders that used swords, a mace could easily draw blood so the whole idea fails on its very base premise and people during the middle ages were not stupid, they could tell that using a weapon like say a mace would not stop you from drawing blood. Also, there are mentions of priests using weapons that did draw blood (see for an example the accounts of Anna Comnena)

Conquest, Episode 2 (Weird Weapons of the Middle Ages)

The show was called "Conquest", and according to wikipedia, it was episode 2.

Wow, I need to read the D&D rules more closely. Reach, the ability to trip your opponent and the possibility of disarming them, how have I not been using this thing before?! (Well, I guess the 2D4 damage might have been the reason)

The spiked chain powergamer is the bane of every DM

While early weapons were indeed mainly blunt ones (not counting spears, those were always common), once people started learning how to work metal properly, cutting weapons were starting to see more use. We can see these in the Egyptian bronze weapons (bronze did become blunt very easily as it was relatively soft, yet they kept using bronze swords). Maces like the ones we have during the middle ages were more of a response to other weapons in that general size category being ineffective against armour. It was not because swords got blunt with use (of course they did, but it was not the main reason why people used maces when going up against armoured opponents)

You are correct about it not being a good idea to kill noblemen, but the reasoning was generally a bit different. A nobleman was worth money, if you could capture it, you could ransom it back to its family. And a mace was meant to harm people in armour, something that a sword had issues with. It was not designed as a non-lethal weapon, in fact it was made because other weapons were not lethal enough.

While armour was not light, it was generally not that cumbersome to use. If it was made for you, it would not limit your mobility much, and you could even swim in it! (Here is a video of someone doing some light acrobatics in one, and here is a slightly more serious video) A set of "full plate" (as we would call it today) would weigh roughly 10 kg less than the weight that you listed (so in the 15-25kg region). Of course, an ill fitting armour would encumber you, but you would not actually use ill fitting armour.

Most swords would be sidearms, and you would preferably have a weapon with more reach. While you had what's clumsily is referred to as "greatswords" (i.e. a zweihänder), those were not super common on the battlefield. They were also a lot lighter than most people would imagine them being (~1,8-3kg), and by the time they did see prominent use in battle the medieval battlefield was quite different from how people tend to imagine them (they were mostly going up against pike formations, and those were usually not as heavily armoured as "knights" (knights is a problematic term, but I think most people understand what I'm talking about when i say "knights").

No, I've obviously seen more than one. And I quite often get annoyed with how inaccurate they are, this was just one of the worst examples I've seen in quite a while. It was so bad that I almost got upset.