Question on various armours and weapons

[Peter Goranov]

First of all hello everyone!

I read several fine articles in this site and decided to join your forums since i have always been fascinated with medieval warfare and arms. I make no distinctions between Japanese and European sword masters and such, for me the seasoned warrior was good no matter where he hailed from. (i don't know why some posters here regard katanas and Japanese swordsmanship with disdain and label it as commercial though). So, on with my questions:

I know that when it came to steel armour, western warriors had a choice of mail (chainmai), scale or plate. It is a widespread "fact" (?) that plate is superior to the other two. My question is what was each type of armour created for, which weapons it countered best and how available was it to anyone but nobility. And of course how easy it was for one to move in it when not riding a war horse.

My second question is about maces, especially two-handed maces and war hammers. Were they designed solely for use by mounted warriors? If not, than how does one go about carrying it around? Strapped to his back maybe? Furthermore how does one parry the enemy's blows using such a weapon? Having one end much heavier than the other would make it hard to use when deflecting blows from a lighter weapon (a cutting sword, for example a broadsword). I know that these weapons perform well against plate armour, but did it matter where the blow landed or not? (excluding bashes to the head of course )

My third and final question is on two handed swords (greatswords?). What were they designed for - a counter to cavalry and formations of pikemen? How effective were they when used in actual war, not duels or jousts and such?

Thank you for reading trough my (rather long) first post and thanks to all the responses in advance!

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

Welcome Peter,

Right off the bat, you sure better make a distinction between Eastern and Western styles of martial arts. They are vastly different, like apples and tomatoes. As far as commercialization of the eastern style, well, watch old television westerns and you will see somewhat what we are saying. People (in large part) think of martial arts and think immediately to the Eastern styles of Karate and Kung Fu. That with the fact that you can look in any airline flight magazine and find Katanas for sale, that is what we are getting at about the commercialization fo the Eastern style. As for disdain of it, well, it is not us, in any way. We do not want to be compared to it. Since they are completely different, it has no place here. that is the summing up as far as I see it, maybe someone else can say it better. Moving on...

Your premise of armour seems flawed. Plate armour is not necessarily superior. When dealing with different situations plate might not be the best choice of wear, I think especially of the Vikings and their water travels. The heavy plate would make them sink (as would the maille, but I digress). All armour had its advantages and disadvantages. A short answer: they all failed against puncturing projectiles.

You really have asked questions that could form a book, dealing with the scope of military preperation. For your polearm question, the manuals deal with fighting effectively with them. I would search those for answers if I were you.
As to the Zweihander, well, of course it was effective. If it wasn't they wouldn't have used it. Again, the manuals are our friends and shall enlighten you more on their proper usage.

Welcome to the forum again man, I hope that you are encouraged in your studies.

-Jeremiah

[LafayetteCCurtis]

(i don't know why some posters here regard katanas and Japanese swordsmanship with disdain and label it as commercial though)

Not Japanese swords and swordsmanship--I think what most people rail about here is just the representation of Japanese swords and swordsmanship in popular culture, which does justice to neither European swordsmanship nor real Japanese swordsmanship.

I know that when it came to steel armour, western warriors had a choice of mail (chainmai), scale or plate.

What period are you talking about? If it's the Middle Ages proper, I don't think scale (in the meaning of small metal pieces attached to a backing with each scale overlapped by the one above it) was a widespread method of protection among European warriors. However, lamellar (where the individual small plates are attached to each other rather than to a backing, usually with each scale overlapped by the one below it) saw fairly widespread use among Eastern European warriors, and brigandine (small metal plates riveted to an outer fabric/leather covering) was quite popular from the 14th century onwards.

Of course, this is only valid for the Middle Ages, and other periods definitely used different standards.

It is a widespread "fact" (?) that plate is superior to the other two.

I'd echo Jeremiah here. Plate might give the most solid protection, but it wasn't the "best" or the most "superior" for any and all conditions. Even after plate armor became widespread, mail was still frequently used to cover the gaps in plate protection. Not to mention that the flexibility of mail made it handier for certain purposes, such as concealed protection beneath a coat or doublet.

My question is what was each type of armour created for, which weapons it countered best and how available was it to anyone but nobility.

Get a good book. The answer ot the question is too long and vast to be contained within a discussion forum like this. The [url="http://www.thearma.org/reading.htm"]Research & Reading[/url] section of this very site contains many good bibliographic recommendations for the study of European arms and armor.

And of course how easy it was for one to move in it when not riding a war horse.

Generally speaking, very easy--at least when we're talking about field armors of the kind used in campaign and on the battlefield. In the later Middle Ages, there was also a different, more specialized kind of jousting/torunament armor that gave more protection for less mobility, but these were worn only for tournaments, not the battlefield.

My second question is about maces, especially two-handed maces and war hammers. Were they designed solely for use by mounted warriors?

No. Medieval illustrations also show them being used on foot, especially the two-handed variety.

If not, than how does one go about carrying it around? Strapped to his back maybe?

In two words: "baggage train." Knights and men-at-arms at the time usually traveled with a considerable number of pages, servants, and attendants. and these people took care of giving the men-at-arms the right weapon for the right situation.

Furthermore how does one parry the enemy's blows using such a weapon? Having one end much heavier than the other would make it hard to use when deflecting blows from a lighter weapon (a cutting sword, for example a broadsword).

Armor and/or shields. A little time spent browsing medieval illustrations will show you that, medieval European maces, warhammers, and poleaxes were mostly wielded by men in more-or-less complete armor.

I know that these weapons perform well against plate armour, but did it matter where the blow landed or not? (excluding bashes to the head of course )

It did. Most examples of genuine historical plate armor did not exhibit a uniform thickness throughout its surface, and hitting one of the thinner pieces or portions would give a better chance of wounding the enemy. Another factor that has to be taken into consideration is padding and suspension--when the men could aim their blows at all, they were naturally trained to aim at the portions where the padding or suspension systems would be least effective for absorbing the blow.

My third and final question is on two handed swords (greatswords?). What were they designed for - a counter to cavalry and formations of pikemen? How effective were they when used in actual war, not duels or jousts and such?

Well, it depends on which two-handed swords. Perhaps you could start by looking at articles that attempt to define the characteristics of various sword forms, such as http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm (ARMA's own) and http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_euroedge.html (myArmoury's).

[Peter Goranov]

Thank you both about the swift and thorough replies! I will look at the references you gave me but i fear that the books might be a bit too hard to find where live.. Still I'll make an effort.

On katanas and the eastern style - i make a distinction in the sense that the sword is different and the whole style of wielding it is different. What i meant was that i don't try comparing knights to samurai or some such nonsense, because to me both were professional warriors and both were deadly. Simple as that. I have had some basic training with a bokken and i agree that the flashy Hollywood battle choreography is indeed exaggerated and much too unrealistic. I won't even go in to the whole "sword goes trough solid steel plate and comes out unscratched" thing.

One line by Jeremiah caught my eye though:

A short answer: they all failed against puncturing projectiles.

I had a discussion on another board recently, trying to convince two other posters that a heavy steel crossbow bolt or an arrow tipped with an armour piercing tip shot from a longbow would go trough plate if shot at medium range or less. I gave an example with the infamous battles of Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415) in the Hundred Years war where the English Longbows decimated the French heavy cavalry. I gave a good argument but still i wasn't that sure that i was completely right. So indeed plate could be pierced?

[Andy Spalding]

The tip of a longsword could pierce armor on a thrust if it didn't glance off. The pollaxe could pierce armor as well. It was like a medieval can opener.

Nothing offered perfect protection. Sometimes even plate couldn't stop the blow of a heavy bludgeoning weapon even if it stopped the direct contact. The percussion set up inside the metal shell could often be enough to cause internal injury.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well, plate could be pierced but it's hardly the most efficient method of causing injury. And if we're talking about projectile weapons, none of them--not even the much-vaunted clothyard shaft loosed from a 120-pound longbow--can equal the impact of hand-to-hand weapons like the warhammer or poleaxe. It may penetrate plate with a square hit at very short ranges (about ten or fifteen meters). However, at longer ranges it wouldn't defeat plate armor by penetrating the solid plates (which were, anyway, designed with sloping/curving surfaces to deflect piercing blows), but by hitting in the gaps and the less well-protected areas. Mind that "longer ranges" probably includes your definition of "medium range" and much of the "short range" as well. When the enemy is close enough for your arrow to penetrate his plate, he's usually also close enough to catch you unprepared with a swift charge. Not to mention that the padding worn beneath the armor can do a great deal to help prevent the arrow from doing any real damage even if it managed to penetrate.

The longbowmen were such formidable warriors not only because of their longbows, but also because they were not unwilling to engage in hand-to-hand combat. And they seem to have done at least as much carnage in hand-to-hand as in their archery volleys.

[Peter Goranov]

I agree that bashing one's opponent with a solid mace or warhammer is much more effective than flinging arrows at him. The same goes for gripping your sword's blade and thrusting it in the weak joints (a technique i discovered thanks to this wonderful site). However the very best suits of full plate were available only to the noble knights, am i wrong? And the majority of the French cavalry that fought in the aforementioned battles was lightly armoured (although i have no idea how lightly), and that was the main reason the English Longbowmen mowed them down with ease.

And the fact that they were used en masse, sometimes as many as 9000 men in a single battle. Firing volleys rather than aimed shots proved to be frighteningly effective too. I don't know the details about how the archers were protected in said battles, but usually a wall of wooden spikes or a good number of spearmen/pikemen will make it hard for the enemy to charge in. Your statement that longbowmen engaged in melee is news to me though. I knew that often men-at-arms or other melee soldiers were stationed usually in the middle of a Longbow formation to help in case the enemy broke trough the central lines, maybe you are referring to those?

About halberds and other polearms being the medieval can opener - i couldn't agree more Even simple poles with hooks attached to one end can be deadly if used right.. As king Kaloyan proved when he obliterated the Latin Crusaders in 1205. Plate is good and all, but it's hard for one to get up in time and defend himself when knocked off his horse..

[Stacy Clifford]

Plate armor was indeed very well made for deflecting piercing blows, but when there are ten thousand arrows raining down out of the sky at you, the odds of one skipping into the gaps in your armor or just getting a lucky square hit go up considerably.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

However the very best suits of full plate were available only to the noble knights, am i wrong? And the majority of the French cavalry that fought in the aforementioned battles was lightly armoured (although i have no idea how lightly), and that was the main reason the English Longbowmen mowed them down with ease.

Well, "lightly armored" compared to the richest knights and nobles who could afford more-or-less full plate coverage, yes. But lightly armored in absolute terms? Not at all. At the very least their whole body was still covered in mail with plate reinforcements, since complete body armor was part of the definition for "man-at-arms" at the time.

Not to mention that the English longbowmen did not "mow them down with ease" by any stretch of the imagination. In all cases the French still reached the English line in sufficient strength to engage in prolonged hand-to-hand combat, and even managed to come close to victory in several cases. The victory at Crecy was due to the fact that the French attack was hopelessly disorganized--it would have failed even if the English had no longbowmen at all. At Poitiers, the initial mounted attack was undermanned and easily cut down, while the main attack by dismounted men-at-arms was defeated by the combination of an English counter-charge on foot (yes, they came out of their defensive emplacements and charged, longbowmen included) and a flank attack by a small English mounted contingent. At Agincourt the English did substantial damage with their arrows but it still took ferocious hand-to-hand fighting to break the main French battles, and we have reason to believe that the English either charged first or met the French charge with a countercharge rather than waiting passively for the attack.

Later battles like Verneuil showed that a mounted charge by Italian men-at-arms could rout the longbowmen on one wing of the English formation, for which the English commander executed 300 of these longbowmen. At Patay, a force of longbowmen unsupported by men-at-arms was quickly wiped out by a massive French charge, arrows notwithstanding.

I don't know the details about how the archers were protected in said battles, but usually a wall of wooden spikes or a good number of spearmen/pikemen will make it hard for the enemy to charge in.

The wooden stakes were not meant to stop the enemy, but to 1) slow them down so that the longbowmen would have more time to shoot at them and 2) break up their formation so that the English would have a better chance of success upon engaging them in hand-to-hand combat. This is supported by the accounts of the battles themselves; they make it clear that the stakes never entirely stopped the enemy and were not meant to do so in the first place. Remember that at Poitiers and Agincourt, the English eventually left the protection of the stakes and hedgerows to charge the French!

Your statement that longbowmen engaged in melee is news to me though. I knew that often men-at-arms or other melee soldiers were stationed usually in the middle of a Longbow formation to help in case the enemy broke trough the central lines, maybe you are referring to those?

No. The longbowmen waded into hand-to-hand combat. Most eyewitness accounts on the battle of Agincourt mention this quite explicitly, and there are also statements to this effect for some of the earlier battles. In the later battles this fact was very much taken for granted.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to read Philippe Contamine's or J. F. Verbruggen's overviews of medieval military history if you want to dig deeper into this. Alternatively, you coudl check Matthew Bennett's article on the development of English and French military tactics throughout the Hundred Years' War: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett2.htm, Jean Froissart's account of the battle of Crecy: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Crecy.html, and Enguerrand de Monstrelet's account of the battle of Agincourt: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/agincourt.htm. A more complete version of Froissart's Chronicles--an important primary source for the history of the Hundred Years' War--can be had here; http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/FroChro.html.

Ah. I nearly forgot to link to the myArmoury feature article on the battle of Poitiers: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_battle_poitiers.html.

[Jason Taylor]

First of all hello everyone!

(i don't know why some posters here regard katanas and Japanese swordsmanship with disdain and label it as commercial though). So, on with my questions:

I'd have to echo the thoughts of a fellow poster who suggested that we do not view the weapon or the art itself (when taught right) with disdain, but rather the popular conception of the weapon. For example:

A katana was so sharp it could cut a warhorse's head off with one blow!
A katana can cut completely through a man in full European plate armor with one cut!
A katana can cut your car door off!!
A katana can cut your engine block right in half!!!
Don't even look at a katana! It's so sharp, your head just might fall right off!!!!!

My hyperbole is perhaps slightly far-fetched, but this does seem to reflect the rabid enthusiasm with which most uninitiated, non-martial artists (and, unfortunately, some martial artists, as well) seem to revere the katana.

I, for one, do view such people with disdain. But I have no problem with the Japanese sword arts. I've learned a few forms and a few pieces of technique, and when they've come from what I'd consider valid sources, it's been legitimate stuff. It's not what we do here, certainly, but within its own context, it was obviously effective (because it was a valued weapon of war for generations).

Also, the technology for tempering katanas is fairly advanced for the period of time in which it was developed, and it does provide a tough working blade that can also be sharp. Though it's not God's Own Cutting Device.

A majority of the stuff out there now, though, is crap, which is another part of the problem. Try watching a Red Dragon sword performance sometime. They look like acrobats or wushu players with a piece of aluminum in their hands--which, basically, is what they are, so I guess it makes sense. And these are the kinds of people who tell me that the katana is the best weapon of the ancient world, hands down, period, done. It's annoying.

I hope that explains at least my view. I'd be happy to freespar around with (legitimate) katana practitioners. I'm just not willing to consign myself to the fanboydom the general populace holds for the "samurai sword."

Jason

[LafayetteCCurtis]

There it is. Jason has neatly summarized what our problem is with the misrepresentation of Eastern martial arts in popular culture--not with the genuine Eastern martial arts themselves.

[philippewillaume]

Just to bounce on what Lafayette is saying.

Views of medieval battle is probably as full as popular misconception as the katana or the magic longbow of death.
If you look at things rationally, France recovered almost all its dependencies during the reign of Charles V (i.e. between Edward the 3rd and Henry the 5th fro the English) and after Henry the 5th France recovered /conquered English held territory on the continent save Calais.
The longbow did not stop working and then worked again to stop working again.

Really not enough credit is given to the strategically and tactical acumen of the English leaders. They always choose the battle site, so that it negated the enemy advantage in numbers and main weapon. IE heavy cavalry.
At crecy, the gradiant
At potier the edges/thickets
At Agincourt the bottle neck

We know from English john le Baker sources that at Poiteir, horse and rider were so armoured that arrow were broken or deflected skyward on impact.
At the time of Poitier we are still at the time of transitional armour.
Ie a realtivelt thin gambeson then mail A cuirrace plate arms and legs then a lentner/gabison du dessus
From the Conte de blois armour, it seems that the mail was won on the top of the arms plate. (That makes sense to me but we are not really sure)
At Poitier and Agincourt, the role of the horsemen was specifically to disrupt the archers.

We know as well that plate was tested against crossbow and bow. (We have an inventory from a French town from 1425 stating the different grade of armour. and they were munitions armour, not bespoke.

[Peter Goranov]

LafayetteCCurtis: Thank you for the wonderful links, i will read trough all the material and enlighten myself! I'm really glad that this community is mature and helpful, honestly this is the best forum i have ever come across.

You are all quite knowledgeable and i will not argue with you, the statements i made were based on what i knew prior to joining the ARMA site.

Jason Taylor: I see your points and i agree completely.

On the side note, it would be interesting to see a match between some of the best ARMA swordsmen and some of Japan's most renowned masters. Has something like this occurred in the past? I am sure that plenty of dojo's have masters all too eager to prove their worth against dedicated practitioners.

philippewillaume: could you elaborate further on those tests with bows and crossbows? An arrow or bolt shot at point-blank range should be able to pierce trough even the finest armour, or am i underestimating plate by a vast margin?

[philippewillaume]

Well I was not there when it was done.

But this particular document mention two type of proofing
One against hand spanned crossbow and bows. (I take hand spanned crossbow to be hook/goat-foot spanned)
And the second one was for windlass crossbow

There is no indication of distance but all the scholar seems to be in agreement that it was from close range. I.e. 10 meter max)
In some armour in museum you can see trace of proofing on the armour and the proffers mark. (or marks).


As well armour was just about standing up a chouched lance
And the energy of a couched lance is about (900 kg* 15 ms)/2
An arrow from a 100 lb longbow is about (0.06kg*100 ms)/2

Phil

Phil

[Jaron Bernstein]

First of all hello everyone!

(i don't know why some posters here regard katanas and Japanese swordsmanship with disdain and label it as commercial though). So, on with my questions:

I'd have to echo the thoughts of a fellow poster who suggested that we do not view the weapon or the art itself (when taught right) with disdain, but rather the popular conception of the weapon. For example:

A katana was so sharp it could cut a warhorse's head off with one blow!
A katana can cut completely through a man in full European plate armor with one cut!
A katana can cut your car door off!!
A katana can cut your engine block right in half!!!
Don't even look at a katana! It's so sharp, your head just might fall right off!!!!!

My hyperbole is perhaps slightly far-fetched, but this does seem to reflect the rabid enthusiasm with which most uninitiated, non-martial artists (and, unfortunately, some martial artists, as well) seem to revere the katana.

I, for one, do view such people with disdain. But I have no problem with the Japanese sword arts. I've learned a few forms and a few pieces of technique, and when they've come from what I'd consider valid sources, it's been legitimate stuff. It's not what we do here, certainly, but within its own context, it was obviously effective (because it was a valued weapon of war for generations).

Also, the technology for tempering katanas is fairly advanced for the period of time in which it was developed, and it does provide a tough working blade that can also be sharp. Though it's not God's Own Cutting Device.

A majority of the stuff out there now, though, is crap, which is another part of the problem. Try watching a Red Dragon sword performance sometime. They look like acrobats or wushu players with a piece of aluminum in their hands--which, basically, is what they are, so I guess it makes sense. And these are the kinds of people who tell me that the katana is the best weapon of the ancient world, hands down, period, done. It's annoying.

I hope that explains at least my view. I'd be happy to freespar around with (legitimate) katana practitioners. I'm just not willing to consign myself to the fanboydom the general populace holds for the "samurai sword."

Jason

I know one ARMAteer who accidentally cut one of his own fingers off (since reattached and working fine) with a live katana in the past. The katana, just like a grossemesser, is a cutting wedge in its edge geometry. Just perfect for lobbing off body parts.

In terms of sparring with JSA practicioners, by all means have at it. Just remember the old saw about there being no superior martial arts (although some arts ARE less effective than others) so much as there are superior martial artists.