OT a few comments on (Viking) fighting

This is a response I wrote to post commenting on a post somebody made about the "Deadliest warrior" show. I thought it might be of interest here as well.

The one I responded to is here:

Quote:

---

2nd Reply


There are of course several contextual problem to such a comparison. A warrior is a product of his environment. A viking in pre-meji Japan would be just as out of place as a samurai in pre-modern Europe.

First, as I understand it, mineral resources are quite scarece in Japan, where as in Scandinavia, iron ore could be picked up from virtually any marsh and there would be plenty of fire wood to make charcoal to work it. A viking could therefor make all the armor he could he could care to carry while the Japanese samurai probably would not feel the cost worth while. This also explains why Scandinavia, quite low revenue and population compared to larger continental medeval kingdoms, could field substatial armies right up until the early modern period (Gustav Adolf - Charles XII). Also a

The natural environment is of course also a matter of consideration. Temprature is not the main issue. While king Harold Hardrade lost at Stamford Bridge (1066) because his men had dropped their armor in the mid day heat, remember that crusaders kept their on and fought well with it in the blisering sun of the Levant. However, anything worth figthing for in medeaval Europe would be surounded by pastures and farmland. This, I would guess, would favour a warrior in armor, figthing in formation (firm, clear ground). I am not that familiar with Japanese topography, but I picture that craggy hills and rice paddies are not suitable for heavy infantry and massed cavalery charges.

The physique of vikings and pre-meji Japanese may also have influenced how they would dress up for a night out. Scandinavian diet of the early medeval period were quite similar to a modern western one nutrition wise - rich in fat and heavy protein, while the japanese mostly ate, vegetables, rice and fish. Adding genetics, the average viking would look more like your average biker or truck driver, about 175-180 cm tall and 80-90 kg (sligthly less that modern Scandinavians). At least this is what grave finds suggest. What stature the Japanese warrior of the period where am not sure, but I would guess 160-165 and 55-60 kg given diet and genetics - taken into account that their diet probably were considerably richer than that of an ordinary farmer. My prejudice is that a large bulky man would prefere to use his strength to carry protection, while a slimmer one would not let it hamper is agility.

Fgthing style is also important. While the samurai as far as I know fougth as an individual, Europeans fougth in massed formations (quite a paradox concidering modern day conceptions on eastern collectivism vs occidental individualism). Also, consider the pin point horseback oriental bowmanship vs the hail of arrows released by the English longbows. Traditional viking figthing style was forming a thigth box with 360 degree cover, much like modern day units do after landing from helicopter or disembarking from a vehicle. This would allow for swift, yet coordinated movement back to the ships after a raid. But when figthing pitched battles or siges, vikings would adopt more continental styles. Both would give the individual back and side cover which is crucial because of the restrictions of vision, hearing and movement created by armor. For a samurai relying on individual agility and speed, such formations would only handicap him.

Frode Lindgjerdet, Archivist, Freelance historian,

---

My response

There is much right in the assertations here, and much that is evident to scholars.
However, Frode Lindgjerdet also states certain things as facts that needs clarification.

1) "In Scandinavia, iron ore could be picked up from virtually any marsh and there would be plenty of fire wood to make charcoal to work it. A viking could therefor make all the armor he could he could care to carry while the Japanese samurai probably would not feel the cost worth while."

This may be true in Frode's beautiful Norway, AFAIK, it is true of Norway; lots has been written by archeologists on iron production in pre-historic times around Skien in fact. And Sweden I know little about, but seem to recall that at least in the later middle age and rennaissance that Dalarne produced much iron from actual ore veins. However, in my flat and fertile Denmark iron is more scarce; only present as bog iron in the region of South West Jutland. Coincidentally an area roughly corresponding to what was not covered with ice during the last ice age, but I am unaware if there is any connection between the two.
So, the most populous and fertile, oldest and likely wealthiest of the Viking kingdoms (and possibly the most active with its greater populace and crop yield, but that is hard to prove), is in fact pretty low on iron. However, I also seem to recall that it was less the scarcity of iron, but rather the very large quantities of charcoal necessary that inhibits the extraction of bog iron in shaft ovens, again this is especially inhibiting in Denmark where large stretches of forests has probably not been much in evidence since full exploitaion of all available land was reached in the 2nd century AD.

2) Bikers and truckdrivers are not necessarily physically active. It is almost certain that Viking warriors were; whether they were free farmers working physically or warrior aristocrats spending their time honing their skill with martial training, they did not live sitting down or have the bellies both bikers and truckdrivers often evidence. A more apt comparison would be to boxers, gymnasts, old-style carpenters (I was once one- never been more strong and fit) etc. I can personally testify that even fit men in the prime of life (which I have not forgotten yet it only ended with sword-use injuries four years ago), get slowed by wearing a chain shirt, but can easily wear it all day despite it being pretty unpleasant. If you get the choice you emulate Harald's men and enjoy some sun (mostly the added weight hurts your lower back and heels. Curiously, it is much worse wearing it in winter when it sucks all heat out of your body and into those ice-cold rings while it also tires you as usual. Even when dripping sweat it only takes seconds before you freeze in a chain shirt. Definately not your choice of wear for winter warfare.

3) I have a friend in the re-enactment group who was once an elite swimmer and water-polo player, and who did lots of combat swimming in the Danish army (that is, in gear). So he has lots of experience of swimming weighted down and of Viking gear I just had a phone-conversation with him about swimming in armour and gear. He concludes the following:

* if you are a trained swimmer you can easily swim in armour, but you get very tired. and sprinting is probably impossible beyond 25 m. But slow progress or staying still in the water is not too difficult according to him.
* It is not as much the weight as the way a chainmail hinders shoulder movement that will drain you. Trained swimmers nowadays train wearing weights all the time. We can assume that at least some Vikings- being maritime warriors (and the Batavians Romans say could swim in gear), would do so as well.
* Woolen Viking clothes soaking up water and an additional gambeson will drag you down as much as the chainmail, waterlogged wool is heavy.
* It is possible to take off a chainmail under water if you are a trained swimmer, just like on the ground the weight will help. Clothes might prove more difficult actually depending on design (a tight-waisted kyrtle is not actually that easy to take off).
* We believe that aboard ships armour was not worn when the enemy was not in sight, for it is more difficult and tiring to wear and work in than not.

What are my points with this? That though possible to wear aboard a ship and not the equivalant of a watery grave for trained swimmers in water, armour was probably not worn on ships. In the army today a policy of "never more than a step from your gun" is used, we assume the same for Vikings aboard ships.

4) Traditionally, as few finds of armour has been made and few clear depictions are seen, it is believed that Vikings functioned as light-armoured raiders with only the chiefs and very few elite warriors wearing any armour.

5) Looking at Viking swords and spears these do not seem to my recollection to be designed for penetrating armour, rather to cut as effectively as possible through unarmoured flesh, creating large wounds. Thus hinting that most Vikings did not wear much armour. However, I would have to look through all the finds to be certain as I speak from vague recollection.

This rambling leads me to the main first point: Frode's and the program's assumption that all Viking warriors wore chainmail need not be right- in fact it counters the traditional view. My own is in fact that more Vikings wore armour than the traditional view claims, we just have no evidence of it, though some should be evidenced in the graves from pre-christian times. However I cannot in any way prove or support this as of now with anything but common sense and the lack of sources (if we removed the written sources and church murals from the Danish 11th- 13th century we would believe that era too an armour-low one).

Further, Frode also writes, "Fgthing style is also important. While the samurai as far as I know fougth as an individual, Europeans fougth in massed formations (quite a paradox concidering modern day conceptions on eastern collectivism vs occidental individualism). Also, consider the pin point horseback oriental bowmanship vs the hail of arrows released by the English longbows. Traditional viking figthing style was forming a thigth box with 360 degree cover, much like modern day units do after landing from helicopter or disembarking from a vehicle. This would allow for swift, yet coordinated movement back to the ships after a raid. But when figthing pitched battles or siges, vikings would adopt more continental styles. Both would give the individual back and side cover which is crucial because of the restrictions of vision, hearing and movement created by armor. For a samurai relying on individual agility and speed, such formations would only handicap him."

1) We do not know in what formations Vikings fought. It is likely that they mastered formation fighting, but it is also very evident in the Frankish Annals and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that they very definately mastered the art of scattering into woods and wilds in the face of superior force and reassembling when that force had moved or elsewhere. They also mastered mobile warfare and lightning raids overland not just on sea, and combining sea-rivers-land. However, again the traditional view is that with little organisation the assembled warbands would not actually be able to execute complicated and coordinated formation fighting. I can testify that at least up to 4-500 fighters that is possible with a week or so of training, and I believe the same applies for larger groups as well. It all comes down to trained fighters and subleaders (we would call them NCOs, the Vikings if would be the ship's captain). The largest battles I have been in has been with 420-ish people, but I hope to try larger. It is much fun.
However the traditional view is that Viking armies were little more than an armed and belligerent mob with high morale that could only perform the simplest of maneuvres (I exaggerate, but not much), not the well-coordinated force Frode describes. Again I personally believe from experience that with a little training together before departure and especially as the campaigns progressed and the crucible of fire and steel hardened them, the warbands could perform any maneuvre that a standing army could, but the point is that we do not know. No tactical manual, detailed memoirs or accounts of battles for that time exists...

Then there is the program's assumption that a Samurai would not wear armour (I have seen some exellent pieces though), while the Viking would. As I have pointed out above, it is not at all certain that the viking would wear armour. Nor is it to my limited knowledge of Japaneese history a given that the Samurai would not.
There is a further assumption I believe (I have not actually seen the episode or any for the exact reasons others have stated here, it is all to artificial) that the Viking would use his Daneaxe in huge swings. This too is uncertain to my mind, though it is definately designed as a really nasty chopper that can probably kill horse and rider in one well-aimed blow as depicted on the Bayex Tapestry (a daneaxe feels good in your hands), I would like to point out some things.

* Huge swings are slow and opens you up for being "hunted" as we re-enactors call it. An opponent with a shorter and faster weapon can dodge or channel your blow with a block (not stop it, nothing stops a Daneaxe full force). Shields are for this, two weapons much less so (the dodge option is by far the best). he can then move within your reach and hurt you before you can launch your next blow- and moving forwards is faster than moving backwards. So if you use the big, heavy blows that can penetrate almost anything, you better be certain to hit him.
* However, a Daneaxe's adge is formed much like an old-fashioned buther's knife/chopper used for cutting meat. We of Ask Viking Fighting Re-enactment group believe that the daneaxe would most often be used held with its head in between you and the opponent all the time, slashing at his exposed areas and in small, fast chops at the same. The big ones saved for the final blows.

In fact a Daneaxe is, IMO, inferior to sword and shield for a duel, but very effective for breaking up enemy formations or standing against enemy cavalry as at Hastings.


Now I am rambling and am sorry for it. But many of these thoughts are not much more than half-formed yet- I called my (somewhat surprised) friend while writing and formulating my thoughts (and my head is clogged by a bad spring cold). However, I felt the clarifications (inasmuch as they clarify anything), had to be made.

My actual opinion of the show is that it would be fun to get to play with ballistics gel and such on what for us equals an unlimited budget as we have to make do with assumptions from much use of weapons and the few cut-tests on dead pigs we have been able to make, but apart from that it is not to be taken seriously in any way. It is entertaining, nothing more. I have not seen it, and I will not, for I would probably burst something from anger being both a historian and a very experienced re-enactment fighter ;-)

Best wishes, Rasmussen, Palle, Ma Hist and Viking Re-enactor.

Well said, Sir. A samurai is from what I understand trained for one on one battle which the show is based on. I get a little disgusted with the broad generalizations they make but I must admit it is entertaining and exhilerating to see these weapons of antiquity decimate a pig or ballistics gel torso. I really care little for the outcome of the fake battle just the weapons demonstrations.

Vikings trained one-on-one a lot too it seems. My money would likely be on a Huscarl against just about any opponent in melee wearing comparable armour, but it is an unrealistic thought.

But we would love to get to play with the ballistics gel and dead pigs, we have only been able to get our hands on a few of the latter despite Denmark producing 22 mil a year...

Samurai armour was doubtless designed to stop a katana, just looking at the stuff.

From what I know, the daneaxe was most effective when in constant motion, as it's a rather poor defensive weapon. You wouldn't go for a massive swing, though, as that leaves you a sitting duck for a few seconds - all you need.

Thanks for sharing, Macilrille.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonivs Silvicola

Well said, Sir. A samurai is from what I understand trained for one on one battle which the show is based on. I get a little disgusted with the broad generalizations they make but I must admit it is entertaining and exhilerating to see these weapons of antiquity decimate a pig or ballistics gel torso. I really care little for the outcome of the fake battle just the weapons demonstrations.

---

I'll second that.

Holy wall of text Batman, my eyes are bleeding. Worth the read though :)

The whole idea of Samurai doing heroic charges and sending enemy 'lings flying/dying is just stupid. They weapons and armour's designed to resist the 'cowardly' arrows, and duel each other with a minimized risk of actually killing one other.

Let's not even go into the ridiculous myth about the Katana being able to own every material and weapon in existence. It's nothing more than a curved saber given the strength and speed of 2 arms instead of one.

The only reason the Samurai were ever so revered was the fact that they literally had no competition. Now if the Mongols had successfully invaded without that storm......

While I am not an expert by any means, if we are comparing the 11th century Vikings with 11th century Samurai, the relatively heavy Viking weapons would have shredded a Samurai's laquered wood armor.

BB, yes and no, Viking weapons are not actually as heavy as they look. I am an expert mostly on the swords as I have spent a lot of time with those in hand, 800- 1800 Gr. These fellows here have some fine articles on the misconception of the exaggerated weight of medieval swords. Two-handed though, but the same goes for our ideas about one-handers.

As I understand it they did not pit the 11th century Samurai against a Viking of the same time, the Katana being present rules that out as they were only invented in the 12th century; in the Viking Age, the Japanese fought largely with shorter stabbing swords. They pitted a 17th-18th century Samurai (who were largely ceremonial anyway which a Viking was definately not), against a Huscarl of the late 10th and first half of the 11th centuries.

Hannibal, European visitors of the 16th century were pretty impressed with them as well, and they would have been quite familiar with violently feuding nobles from their homes. Though of course, Vikings PWN anyone (TiC).

Thanks Viper, but I am a historian, we are well-known to be pretty wordy, if you searcyh my posts here you will see that about once every second month or so I drop a bombload of text.

Now I will go look at some 3rd Century BC belts and swords.

I said relatively. I know a Chokutō weighs around one lb/0.45 kilo, but I don't know about Viking weapons. I was under the impression they were around three lbs/1.36 kilos. Do you have any links about earlier weapons? All of that stuff is from the 14th century onward. Thanks.

Not really, we have loads of copies we fight with and most of us go for the lighter ones as we want the speed. Heavier ones are good for parrying though. Though Vikings actually only parried with the hardened edge of their fine swords in emergencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Samurai armour was doubtless designed to stop a katana, just looking at the stuff.

From what I know, the daneaxe was most effective when in constant motion, as it's a rather poor defensive weapon. You wouldn't go for a massive swing, though, as that leaves you a sitting duck for a few seconds - all you need.

---

1) Its designed more for arrows than anything else.
2) Only the torso plate is 'hardened'(metal overlays)
3) Yari is prefered just like every other society. Unless you're a crazy old Yamabushi like Musashi.

IIRC the Japanese picked up the curvy sabre from the Continent around the same time they imported horse riding, ie. around something like 9th cent AD. Would make sense for the two to come together anyway, what with sabres having developed as cavalry weapons to begin with. (IIRC it was also the "northern barbarians" the Yamato were slowly absorbing who first took to both with gusto.) The thing was called tachi back then though; there's some functional difference between those and the later katanas (though, both were made and used in like zillion different varieties like all swords), but I can't be arsed to look up the details ATM.

Anyways, the big three Japanese weapons were the bow, the spear and the glaive (ie. naginata); the sword was only ever a backup on the battlefield, though obviously a lot more relevant as a "civilian carry" sidearm for all the usual reasons. AFAIK if you had to try to kill a guy in decent armour with it (and the Japanese made their lamellar out of iron and hide like everyone else kthx; the laquering was for decoration and rust-proofing, Japan having a rather tropical climate in parts) you went for the relatively large gaps at the joints and around the throat, as sabre slashes kinda suck against armour by what I know of it.

Anyways, as for the Vikings, weren't their swords kinda light compared to the later Medieval types in the usual "Dark Ages" fashion ? I always figured the relative scarcity of metal armour at the time had a lot to do with that, plus if you had to whack a guy in mail axes were a lot better for it and quite ubiquitous - every household had at least one as an everyday tool after all, and such can pull decent duty as a weapon as needed.
Also, from what I gather trial-by-combat (ie. judicial duels) were a pretty common means of solving disputes; Holmgånga, anyone ? Between that and the usual smattering of less formal interpesonal dispute-setting the old-fashioned way, I daresay the Vikings were by and large pretty adept at one-on-one fights...

Regarding iron in Scandinavia, bog iron AFAIK used to be quite common indeed in at least Sweden and Finland (where it was still being gathered in late 1800s, though that region didn't partake overmuch in the better-known "Viking Age" stuff - the Finns seem to have restricted their activities to the Baltic), which both also have copious amounts of forest to provide the necessary fuel. I understand bog iron is kinda crappy quality-wise though, but at least it was common and comparatively easy to get hence relatively cheap. I'd imagine most smiths wouldn't have been able to make anything too impressive out of the stuff - inclusing at least the longer swords, whose blades AFAIK were for the most part imported from the more advanced parts of Europe. I know French monarchs on several occasions (which speaks volumes of the degree to which the edicts were respected) outlawed the sale of quality sword blades to the Scandinavians, and quite a few sword finds from the period bear the "trademark" inscription of one of the major German manufacturies of the period - INGELRII, CIGELIN and in particular that industry giant, ULFBERTH...

As for mail, AFAIK the big problem with that stuff was the sheer amount of labour even a simple byrnie demands and the resultant high price tag and minor problems in organising the manufacturing chain. And Scandinavia being comparatively piss-poor by European standards and at the time rather lacking the kind of infrastructure needed to support such operations in any larger scale, hence such protection being quite costly relative to the wealth level and only normally found among the more prosperous warriors (and lucky looters...). Well, that's what shields are for anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The thing was called tachi back then though; there's some functional difference between those and the later katanas (though, both were made and used in like zillion different varieties like all swords), but I can't be arsed to look up the details ATM.

---

The tachi is longer and slightly more curved than the katana (or at least, differently curved). In short, a more dedicated cavalry weapon compared to the later katana all-purpose sword.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

The tachi is longer and slightly more curved than the katana (or at least, differently curved). In short, a more dedicated cavalry weapon compared to the later katana all-purpose sword.

---

With the caveat that AFAIK quite a few subtypes of the katana were quite the opposite of "all-purpose" (AFAIK there was even a rare form which was about as optimised for thrusts as a sabre can get...), that sounds about right.

Deadliest Warrior is pretty ridiculous anyway. The way they categorize and compare weapons oftentimes seem completely arbitrary.
The U.S./Russian Special Forces one was pretty ridiculous, where they tested a US grenade in open air, then threw a Russian grenade in a dryer and concluded the US one was better since the explosion covered a wider area since it wasn't in a dryer.

I always though Samurai Armor was Banded Mail, thin strips of armor bound together by leather cords. Also, samurai were an elite class of nobility, like Medieval Knights. When the Tokugawa Shogunate took control in the early 17th century, firearms had replaced archers and peasants were not allowed to own weapons. In Japan, defense never really caught up to offense, and the scarcity of raw metals only exacerbated that.

As far as I know, anyway.

"Banded mail" gah. No such thing. The closest you could semi-legitimately call that is laminate (sometimes spelled "laminar") - overlapping horizontal strips - à la lorica segmentata and its ilk, or the Sengoku period (or thereabouts) Japanese hishinui-dô and the like. Strictly speaking "mail" refers to this stuff, period.

Also, the rubric "samurai" actually covered the whole nine yards of the warrior class, from poorly armed and trained crap infantry to mounted elites. The other social classes did tend to pitch in as needed, with the ashigaru peasant infantry becoming increasingly important in the armies as the centuries went on and eventually turning into a sort of "junior" hereditary warrior class by the beginning of the Tokugawa rule, if memory serves. (Incidentally, the disarming of the Japanese peasantry was mainly effected by Nobunaga and Hideyoshi and more or less a fait accompli when Tokugawa took over.)

As for the defense-offense thingy, no. Lamellar is good strong armour (if now a bit on the heavy and expensive side) and the later laminate models only more so; already back in the o-yoroi days (when the senior samurai were armoured horse-archers first and foremost) duels more often than not had to be finished with the dagger on the ground, for the fairly simple reason it's relatively difficult to get stuff through overlapping iron plate with enough force left to do meaningful damage to the wearer. Heck, one of the major reasons big spears and polearms were the principal military hand-to-hand weapons was specifically the need to generate enough force to get through the other guy's armour, and even low-end infantry tended to have at least basic body armour (haramaki or hara-ate) already in the early days.

Imported? If you mean the second wave of settlers from the continent bringing large scale rice agriculture, walled cities, iron weapons, and better technology, and pushing the Jomon culture out of the big island over the course of several centuries. Yes.

...wot ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Imported? If you mean the second wave of settlers from the continent bringing large scale rice agriculture, walled cities, iron weapons, and better technology, and pushing the Jomon culture out of the big island over the course of several centuries. Yes.

---

Last time I checked that was some centuries before cavalry and tachi were employed.

The last I checked munky is cheerfully conflating quite a few different periods and throwing some dodgy-sounding stuff about population displacements on top. I mean I can't even figure out *who* he means by "second wave of settlers", as the imported stuff he lists off was AFAIK brought in by comparatively small numbers of immigrants from the continent settling among the Yamato during, more or less, the Kofun period...

I thought you were refering to an earlier period. Bleh, my bad for somehow skipping over the date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madoushi

Deadliest Warrior is pretty ridiculous anyway. The way they categorize and compare weapons oftentimes seem completely arbitrary.

---

lol oh yeah , how about the pirate vs knight .. the knight did not even activate his special spinning attack!

Have they done a "ninja vs. hashashin" episode?