Maces and flails

Im not sure about english meaning of the word flail

flail = cep

completely agree except for the armour thing...I ahve read the exact opposite, they were not armoured at all for speed and since they were peasants, they could no tafford armor (except helmets)

Yep, you are right when it concern the peasents - my post regrd the hussite mercenaries which have much more armour then ordinary peasents..

Hussite mercenaries

Edited by TJK

This representing their key demand of Comunion in two kinds. It appeared in one form or another on nearly all of their Battle and signal standards. The other major symbol was that of a goose, often combined with a chalice

Just Hussites ( Calixtines)  won with Hussities (Taborites)...

Edited by TJK

George Podiebrad won with the help of cavalry

Yes sure (BTW was the George of Podierbrad really commander at Lipany :unsure)..but in fact it was the trick with feinged retreat of Calixtines from their tabor which was a decisive factor...

Mmm. Not exactly. Up until the middle of the 17th century the prevailing style of European military swords was suited to both cutting and thrusting, and the style lasted well into the 19th century with some English cavalry units that still carried straight backswords when most other units (both English and continental) had adopted the curved Eastern European-style saber. The explanation offered earlier--that mace was easier to use against armor--is probably the more valid one, as cutting through mail is quite difficult because it involves both getting the proper edge alignment and the right amount of strength to break through the mail. Even then, the padding under it can still dissipate much of the force of the blow, rendering it no more effective than a blunt blow delivered with somewhat less strength. Therefore, why bother with sword when you could just put your whole strength behind the bash with a mace? That was the logic followed by the knights at that time.

it was probably Prokov the great who had the command...

Well, Prokop the Great was a commander of Taborities however I have not find any name of general Calixtine's commander in my sources ("Hussite warfare" by Jan Durdik, "Hussities" by Anrzej Micha�ek and "Hussite Wars" by Piotr Marczak) 

I didn't say that I disagreed with you, did I?

However, it's more likely for a knight to aim for the opponent's chest and arms than the head for the simple reason that the head is damned small and difficult to hit. Cutting swords might be dead ineffective against solid helmets, but they could still cut through mail and the padding beneath if the cut was delivered at the correct angle and with eneough speed. And, by the way, swords could be made longer because their weight was more evenly distributed than that of maces, giving them a longer reach than could still be useful.

Of course it took that much more skill to effectively use a sword from horseback against another knight on horseback, so the mace still had an advantage like you said. It's just that the advantage isn't that clear-cut. The knights had a long history of experience of trial and error before they developed a pragmatic preference for the mace as an effective antiarmor weapon.

P.S.: It's worth remarking that the European knights had a martial tradition every bit as effective (and as convoluted) as Eastern martial arts, but much of it was lost when firearms gained complete ascendance in the Baroque era. From what I see of your post, you probably already know about it.

Edited by Hyarmendacil