OT a few comments on (Viking) fighting

[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.

[Macilrille]

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...

[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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[athanaric]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[athanaric]

Thanks for sharing, Macilrille.

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.

[VIPERLORD]

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

[satalexton]

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.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

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......

[Badass Buddha]

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.

[Macilrille]

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.