a new spin on an old subject

[Douglas L. Meek]

Now the samurai vs. knight thing has been fought over and argued to the point where its no longer any fun. So I was thinking of other cultures that would be cool to see a fight between..

a frank vs. a native American-at tomahawks

I have my money on the frank here, I have thrown a stone native American tomahawk and I have thrown a reproduction of the frank franchise (how is that spelled?) and the franchis or whatever its called seems to fly further and hit with more accuracy.

a Scottish highlander vs. Hawaiian-at hand to hand

I think that Hawaiian would give the Scott a run for his money, I was watching some Hawaiian warriors on discovery and they look pretty tough..

a Viking vs. African tribes man- spears

the Vikings probably had better gear, but from what I hear the Africans where pretty good at spear throwing
I don’t have a clue who would win on that one...

a roman slinger vs. an aborigine slinger

another hard one..

so who’s your money on?

[DaveSmith]

Just making a quick post here...

Native American vs. Frank- All that was mentioned really had to do with different technology as opposed to fighting styles. So we need to consider their styles themselves as opposed to the weapons. Also, in staying with the vein of this forum, the two fighters would need to be in close-combat as opposed to just hurling axes at each other.

Highlander vs. Hawaiian- no comment, don't know a thing about Hawaiian fighting styles.

Viking vs. African- Again, it's much more interesting to suppose they're fighting mano y mano instead of just hurling spears. I believe the Viking would have a severe upper-hand if for no other reason than his armor. Also, might be interesting to think about where they're fighting... snow and ice? or sweltering savannah?

Roman slinger vs. Aborigine slinger- again, dunno... don't have enough info.

Well, it was SUPPOSED to be short, but I rambled some. Anyway, those are opinions, take them or leave them.

[Bill Tsafa]

The Franks fought as knights charging with lance, stirrups, highback sadel, and mail. This is the advantage Charlemaign had and was able to sudue the German area. He fought against indian type german tribes and forced christianity. I don't think any Indians would stand a chance against charging knights. In fact the only people who can defeat charging knights are those people who use gunpowder, greatly outnumber them, or exploited cival wars. Even in a jungle situation where the knight is unable to charge on a horse, he still has the advantage of armor.

The Mongolians might have defeated the western knights. The Mongolians were more unified and better organized. Their armor was a bit lacking, but organization is key. The Vikings caused havoc to the late Carolinian Dynasty of the Franks. Luie the Pius who succeded Charlamaing was caught up in a civil war between his sons. He was imprisoned twice in the constant drama durring his reign. The civil wars were fueled by other Nobles looking for oppertunites to grab land too. This lack of cohession among the Franks created opertunites for the Vikings in France, and Germany between 813 and 966 AD.

The word vikin was originaly a verb, not a noun. To go "viking" was to go"raiding". The vikin people where low class northerners from Sweeden, Denmark, Norway. They had the advantage of small, shallow bottom ships that they often dragged accross land between rivers. This allowed them to travel down the German rivers deep into Europe.

[s_taillebois]

The caveat here, is what is usually considered a tomahawk, was a combination of something like a light 16th/17th century axe and native handles and mounts. Stone implements, such as war clubs and such, were often not thrown. They had archers for distance weapons+the breakage issue. And what group of native americans? (Incidentally, one of the reasons Charlemagne was so effective agaisnt the various Saxon groups, was planned massacres of prisoners and captured leaders. A morale issue as much as anything else)
Aztecs, Toltecs, Maya, could have given the Franks some trouble due to large unit tactics and effective archers. The Aztecs did almost beat the later conquistadors despite the armour, horses and firearms.
Other societies, there are some fairly shadowy references to NA and European fights prior to 1492. The 'skrealings' (some have argued these were the early Iroqious(sp)-or another group much farther north) did manage to make the Norse occupation of Vinland untenable. Apparently in one saga, the fight consisted of archery, a moose bladder frightening the Norse, and a bare breasted woman beating herself to instill courage in her men. Not much mention of axes, if I recall.
The spear situation. Very, very, emote potential it did happen, if the meaning of African is North African. (There were spearmen to deal with the late period Persian war elephants) The Byzantine empire did hire some of the Rus as mercenaries, but I do not know how far from Constantanople they were deployed. And anyway, by the period in question, the late version of the Persian empire, had gone under.

[Allen Johnson]

the problem with matching up two generic "fighters" like this is that there are too many variables. Almost all the same questions you have to ask for knight vs samurai are the same that you would have to ask for any other matchup. Since Scottish stuff is my forte I'll deal with that:
Scot Highlander vs Hawian
First off you have to say what time period. All cultures evolve or change in weapons, armor and fighting styles. A Scot Highlander in 1300 is going to be a different beast that a Highlander in 1745. Not being familiar with Hawian fighting history I'd have to guess that they evolved as well. Although I'd probably have to argue that they would have evolved at a slower rate given their isolated location. The British Isles saw a whole lot more cultures and peoples come and go than the Pacific Islands during the sword ages.

Once you assign the time period you can look at any armour and weapon matchups. Polynesians may be tough people but from what I have seen, thier weapons seem to be much more club-like in nature. Ive seen some of their spears and "swords" that have obsidian or animal teeth worked into them. (sharks teeth seems to have been common). They also werent very long. Now a Highlander from the 16th century could be armed with a two handed sword. The reach factor favors the Highlander a great deal. What was the armor of the two? Is there any at all? What is the physical conditioning of each fighter? Is it rainy or sunny? Is the fight taking place on a hot beach in Oahu or has the Islander wandered into the foggy Highlands? What is the purpose of the fight? The questions go on and on. The only real answer to any of these match ups is the same...Whoever is better, or whoever get lucky.

[Douglas L. Meek]

i only wanted to test one thing

the frank with there axes and the native americans with there axes

the scott in hand to hand and the hawiian-Both where big strong men

and so on sorry if i was not specific ill try to be more so in any of my other posts.

[Gene Tausk]

With the exception of hte aborigine slinger and the Roman slinger, you are talking about cultures that had a vast technology difference between them. The Frank/Scots Highlander/Viking all had metalsmithing technologies. The Native American and Hawaiian were using Stone Age technologies (I don't know about the African tribes so I can't comment). Stone impact against a man protected by armor will produce negligible damage to the man - this is one of the reasons for the Conquistadore's successful invasion of the Americas.

This produces a much different set of circumstances than the knight/samurai, which as already discussed, is already a very broad topic.


-------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[Stacy Clifford]

Some Native Americans would do quite well on horseback, I think. The Comanche Indians in the late 18th - early 19th century scored numerous victories against the professional European-style armies of Spain and Mexico and were considered by some to be the most effective cavalry in the world at that time. They did have some firearms, but I believe their primary weapons were still bow, lance and axe. They defeated nearly every other tribe they came in contact with and were a huge threat to Texas and Mexico up through the 1840s. Repeating firearms eventually turned the tide against them (among other things), but they were highly respected warriors in a time of advancing technology. This timeline provides some interesting highlights:

http://www.runningdeerslonghouse.com/webdoc175.htm

[Gene Tausk]

OK.

However, I believe the question was if a Native American, armed with a tomahawk (and I would presume whatever armor Native warriors used to protect themselves with) went up against a Frank, who I would guess (given the very broad parameters) would be armed with an axe and shield or sword and shield as well as being protected by maille armor and a helm.

It is extremely difficult to put a conclusive answer on this, as already discussed ad nauseum in the "knight v samurai" discussions. However, given the fact that the Native American is wielding essentially a stone age weapon and has no protection (I don't know really what armor, if any, was used by Native Americans but since they did not have metalsmithing technology, I would conclude the Native American warrior would not have maille or plate armor) against an individual with a metal weapon, a shield, and protected by armor places the Native American warrior at an extreme disadvantage.

This is, of course, also assuming that both individuals are trained fighters, which I guess is also presumed in the original question.


------------------->>>>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[TimSheetz]

Hi GEne and Stacy,

The indian vs the Frank is even more interesting since I don't thik that there were horses in Norht America at the time the Fanks were tromping about.

PEace,

Tim

[Bill Tsafa]

Yep, that is corect, horses had been extinct for many centuries in North America before Europeans reintroduced them. The wild broncos in the southwest are having a hardtime dealing with the changing enviornment. It seems that the North American land is too soft and does not wear down their hoofs fast enough. At one point it was more rocky. All those broncos would die if not for human intervention. Funny thing is untill recently no one knew the cause of the horse extinciton in North America. We do now. The hoofs on wild horses grow so long that they can no longer walk. Europe and South Europe in particular is much more rocky.

[Randall Pleasant]

Bill

Please endure an ex anthropologist/archaeologist. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> This is the first time I have ever heard of this theory about the extinction of the horse in North America and util I read real research on the subject I must strongly disagree with this theory. North America has just as many, if not more, different types of enviornments as Europe and Asia. How is it that the hoofs of horses were affected but not the hoofs of other hoof animals, such as deer, bison, etc.? Also keep in mind that in most cases there are many factors that lead to an extinction, not just one. Always beware of theories that are based upon a single prime cause/factor, such theories share the same basic problem as the "Great Man" view of history.

Note that when the Spanish re-introduced the horse to North America in the 1540s they quickly mulitplied into very big herds because they were back in the same enviorment in which they first evolved - - - and there were fewer animals able to make a meal of them than it was 10,000 years before. The two most natual places on Earth for horses is the plains of North America or the plains of Aisa.

[JeanryChandler]

a frank vs. a native American-at tomahawks

I have my money on the frank here, I have thrown a stone native American tomahawk and I have thrown a reproduction of the frank franchise (how is that spelled?) and the franchis or whatever its called seems to fly further and hit with more accuracy.

Depends a lot on the era. If you are talking about the earliest known Franks, late Classical era to the 'Dark Age', say the period from the Decline of Rome to Charles Martel, most of them probably wouldn't have either armor or horses either. In fact according to Tacitus and Germanicus, in the earliest part of this period many didn't even have iron weapons. A lot of them used stone! It's a little known fact that in Northern Germany and around the area of Denmark people seem to have gone directly from the stone to the iron age, since bronze or other copper alloy weapons were not locally manufactured. Thats why some of the finest stone weapons in the world are found in this area. Many Germanic tribes remained "iron poor" until acquiring substantial amounts from the Romans and Celts through trade and conquest over a period of a couple hundred years.


(some stone daggers from Denmark)

So I think might be quite a close fight, both being barbarians. The Fransisca is a good weapon, as are the pilum like Angon and other bits of Frankish kit, but I wouldn't be too sure the stone tomahawk you tried was real authentic. Weapons from the North American tribes were often quite sophisticated, with very aerodynamic shapes.

One major weapon would be the so-called Gunstock warclub,



thought by later Europeans to resemble a gunstock but it predated contact. These were hardwood clubs very effective, and similar weapons were probably used by a lot of German tribes.

Franks of the early Medieval era, say Charles Martel to the Crusades, would of course would be an entirely different matter. Armed in mail and on horseback, lances, iron swords and crossbows, I think they would be hard to face.

a Viking vs. African tribes man- spears

the Vikings probably had better gear, but from what I hear the Africans where pretty good at spear throwing
I don’t have a clue who would win on that one...

I think you actually did have some warfare between Visigoths who are probably ancestors of the Vikings, and Numidians fighting for the Moors in Spain around 700 AD.

Later in the Viking Age, Vikings raided Moorish Spain several times and also North Africa.

[/quote] a roman slinger vs.[/quote] I think the Romans hired their slingers as mercenaries from places like the Baelaric isles where they practiced the sling as a local hunting weapon.

Jeanry

[Stacy Clifford]

Granted, armor makes all the difference in the world. I probably responded to the wrong post. Someone said that no Indians could defeat a Medieval cavalry, but that the Mongolians might have despite less effective armor. Of course, the Comanches had much less armor, if any at all, than the Mongolians, but I believe their tactics and use of horse archery were quite similar in some respects, and I have read enough to believe that Native American archery skill and equipment has always been underestimated. They still wouldn't have done too well against heavy armor, but since the Comanches could be considered this continent's best of the best, I figured they were owed their due for skill at least. In an unarmored fight, they could probably stand with anybody who spends their whole life fighting, but of course all things are not equal in history.

[s_taillebois]

Well, mail or plate armour was unknown. However the Aztec and other city civilizations did develop forms of quilted armour.
NA archers, when organized into large units, could be a serious factor. When the conquistadors went into southern Mexico, the post classic Maya gave them a fair amount of trouble with their archers. In central Mexico, the Aztec/Mixtec heavy infantry, and skirmeshers caused the Spanish casualties and on 'night of sorrows' almost wiped them out.
NA did have metalwork, ie in the south with precious metals, and in the great lakes with copper and meteorite derived iron.
But in general, it wasn't alloyed (ie with tin) so was of little use for weapons.
And quite true, the 'gunstock' warclub was quite effective for its intended use (and some still make those here as collectors and trad items). The Iroqouis type of ball war club, might have been fairly effective agaisnt some of the lighter gauge plate armour. But can find no record of such events.
In Newfoundland, at the only clearly provable Viking site in N. America. There didn't seem to be a lot of broken mail rings, axes and swords about, although there was evidence of metal forging at the site. (although it's been a while since I read any articles about the 'meadows find') So it's possible, the Vikings took these with them when they left, or may have been lighter armed than would be expected. Although they did find some mail remnants and such at Native Greenlander sites. So far, the only indirect evidence of conflict between the Vikings and NA, was in the sagas. And that's obviously very subjective stuff.