Talk:Splitting maul

"Combat Maul" Image Removal

The caption of the image stated it was used in combat. The image was taken from this page here. It is a part of an online museum. The particular maul was used at Alcatraz, apparently for driving spikes (as in a railroad, or concrete construction). Not quite combat. The image also lacks proper copyright information. -- Xiliquiern 19:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

I believe the entire section on "Combat use" is yet another piece of fiction created by RPG designers. A real war hammer bears almost no resemblance to a maul, and neither resembles the "mental image" of large, either plain or ornate metal or stone blocks, usually longer than they are tall, mounted on a long, two-handed handle in a "T" shape which in fact seems to come from the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game and/or the movie Conan the Barbarian. In my reference books I find no reference to such a weapon, which is not surprising since a great lump of stone on a long handle would be totally impractical in combat. -- Securiger 12:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Securiger. The title of the page is "Splitting Maul", and I am unable to locate any reference to formal use of a splitting maul in combat. Boarding axes, hatchets, etc., are readily found in the literature, but a splitting maul used this way is not only not found, but is a tactical liability. The mauls described on the page, should be restricted to wedge-headed tools. Furthermore, all images of warhammers that I found resemble a fireman's axe or perhaps even a roofer's axe, with a small hammer end, and a spike or small blade. Other images of warhammers resemble an engineers hammer or mini-sledge. Combat presents no use for a splitting maul, as even breaching fortifications have generally included axes, spikes, hammers, or rams. Yankee-Whiskey-Papa 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The maul is certainly a well-established historical weapon, however, the use of the word "maul" to refer to what is now called a "splitting maul" is recent and irregular. A maul proper is nothing more or less than a big hammer.

War mauls were carried as secondary arms, for example, by English longbowmen at the battle of Crécy. These are described as having heads of iron-banded lead, which probably weighed about 4 lbs, and served as camp and fortification tools as well as arms. It is not quite proper to call these "warhammers", as they lacked the sophisticated steel construction, complex "armor-breaking" striking surface, top spike, and backhook normally associated with that term.

Certainly, peasant levies would also sometimes march to war with their workaday mauls, of crude, all-wood construction.

None of this belongs on the splitting maul page, but perhaps maul deserves its own page. 24.79.68.142 (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Maul Rings?

A book on pioneering tools used by Australian settlers refers to 'maul rings', as well as mauls and wedges.

I can't find exactly what this term 'maul ring' means, but I'm guessing it is an iron or steel collar placed behind the head of the maul to prevent the damage to the handle.

From the 'Splitting Maul' Wiki article:

'This is also the easiest way to break a maul's handle because the wedge is a very small target as opposed to the whole log, and can be overshot, resulting in the handle hitting full-force onto the wedge. This greatly weakens the handle, and can cause it to break after only a few over-shots.'

So, a maul ring would help to prevent the damage from 'over-shots'? I have a modern maul with a rubber collar that does just this. If this is correct, can this info. be added to this article?

Bluedawe 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not heard the term. Handles are certainly protected here, but it's usually done with a couple of curved plates (or else something flexible), otherwise it would be hard to fit a ring to the handle.

Another possibility would be the iron rings sometimes fitted to the head (not the handle) of a large wooden maul ("beetle" or "commander") used for assembling timber-framing. These mallets are made on-the-job by the carpenters who use them, as they're a somewhat consumable tool. The heads are often made circular and reinforced with a shrunk-on iron band. These bands are rolled and welded by blacksmiths and are re-used between mauls. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Safety

The argument that one can hit one's feet with the maul even if swinging using an open stance is inapplicable to all but the tallest humans, as the maul + arm length + lean of the body ensures that the head of the maul is more than waist distance away from the body, ensuring that it gets buried in the dirt before it hits the foot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.99.10 (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A full lift over the head with a stuck mall is very common in Australia. It’s done in a continuous circular motion like bowling in cricket, but the back of the mall hits the chopping block with the log being split on top. ie upside down. The circular motion ensures that if the log becomes free during the swing, it either falls behind you or in front of you as the mall is between you and the log as it comes over (upside down remember). Instead of the mall supplying the weight, the log is the weight. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Safety section contains much that has no citation or source. Also, it is not a logical part of an encyclopedia. Pete unseth (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)