Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVII

[The Jack]

But Samurai are armored archers

Only fought one way.
Warriors for the millennium
War Stays the Same


(I can't Haiku)

[Vinyadan]

Only fought one way.
Warriors for the millennium
War Stays the Same


(I can't Haiku)

war never changes
big studio achievement
an old new franchise

[DrewID]

I think when you get to the 'ever really used by a serious group or force' level, you have to consider the issue of competing options. Against opponents whom a throwing knife might reasonably be used, a javelin is also a pretty good option, has a number of advantages over the throwing knife (momentum and effective range being two easily seen ones), and there just aren't enough advantages that the knives have over the javelin to have them see common use. I think it seems like you could carry a whole lot more throwing knives than javelins, but probably not as many as it seems (walking around with a whole slew of knives strapped to you, particularly while also having them readily accessible, is not nearly as easy as fantasy art makes it seem). The JW3 example is a place where they make sense -- they are right there in a store room (easy access right at hand).

While I agree with the general statement "The javelin is superior to the throwing knife as a weapon of war", I will raise two points:

All of your arguments against the throwing knife apply to a somewhat lesser degree if we were discussing javelin vs. throwing axe, and yet the Franks made extensive use of the francisca.

One probable advantage of the throwing knife over the javelin is carrying it in extremely cramped quarters. Like a tunnel, say?

The primary advantage for throwing knives, though, has always been Rule of Cool, not anything tactical.

DrewID

[Mr Beer]

All of your arguments against the throwing knife apply to a somewhat lesser degree if we were discussing javelin vs. throwing axe, and yet the Franks made extensive use of the francisca.

Axes are heavier than knives though. I think that the lethality problem with a throwing knife relates to lack of mass, I would guess a 'throwing machete' is probably as good as an axe though.

[The Jack]

You could just split the difference and throw minature spears/pointy weights.

[Vinyadan]

You could just split the difference and throw minature spears/pointy weights.

Already done, the Romans did it (plumbata) and so do children (lawn darts).

[Kiero]

But Samurai are armored archers, not armored melee fighters. Their armor is designed to allow freedom of use of the arms and hands to a higher degree than a Western European knight’s panoply. Metatron has some good videos about the compromises to protection made to samurai armor to allow for better archery.

What does that have to do with the viability or otherwise of a specific piece of equipment?

[The Jack]

What does that have to do with the viability or otherwise of a specific piece of equipment?

Shhh, I'm already trying not to get mad at him.
Everybody knows samurai used guns.

[gkathellar]

But Samurai are armored archers, not armored melee fighters. Their armor is designed to allow freedom of use of the arms and hands to a higher degree than a Western European knight’s panoply. Metatron has some good videos about the compromises to protection made to samurai armor to allow for better archery.

Samurai is a term for a social and economic class that varied tremendously over centuries of use.

[Willie the Duck]

While I agree with the general statement "The javelin is superior to the throwing knife as a weapon of war", I will raise two points:

All of your arguments against the throwing knife apply to a somewhat lesser degree if we were discussing javelin vs. throwing axe, and yet the Franks made extensive use of the francisca.

There are a series of videos on the francisca (google "lindybeige francisca" and you get most of them) that talk about (yes, mostly speculate) on exactly what the franscisca was for and how it might have been used. I'm not sure what I believe about it, other than 1) it seems like something of an open question, and 2) I'm confident enough that the differences brought up do in fact make it distinct enough from other thrown weapons to have its' own purpose on the battlefield (even if there is some dispute over what exactly that was).

One probable advantage of the throwing knife over the javelin is carrying it in extremely cramped quarters. Like a tunnel, say?

Are you throwing the knife in these cramped quarters? That seems like a pretty unusual set of circumstances. One that runs afoul of trying to wriggle through tunnels so cramped that a spear or javelin is no longer a good idea with a bunch of knives strapped to you. If you aren't throwing the knife, than this seems like an argument for knives in general, rather than throwing knives. And I'm pretty sure that no one is denying that knives had a significant battlefield role. I just speculate that the set of circumstances sufficient to justify enough (specifically crafted to be throwable, including whatever tradeoffs that involves) knives on one soldier to make them comfortable tactically disarming themselves is exceedingly rare.

Axes are heavier than knives though. I think that the lethality problem with a throwing knife relates to lack of mass, I would guess a 'throwing machete' is probably as good as an axe though.

And this is what I mean about the tradeoffs for making a knife throwable. I honestly don't know how you make a massive knife a good throwing weapon. The lever that an axe has is an inherent advantage towards sending something relatively heavy a good distance. Perhaps some kind of knife atlatl, and making the knife more aerodynamic... and I've just reinvented the spear, dammit!.

[Mike_G]

Thrown knives are generally a poor weapon, if you are comparing them to just about anything you'd carry into battle.

What they are good for is concealment and ease of carry.

A javelin or any kind of bow is going to be much more effective than a thrown knife, but there are a lot of places you can't just carry one.

If you look at the thrown dagger like a pocket pistol, a derringer or similar weapon, that's a good analogy. If you're going into battle, obviously a rifle is a better choice than a derringer. If you want something to tuck in you pocket in case you get mugged on the way to the opera, the rifle is going to raise some eyebrows.

[Vinyadan]

If you want something to tuck in you pocket in case you get mugged on the way to the opera, the rifle is going to raise some eyebrows.

Especially from the poor singers...

[Willie the Duck]

If you want something to tuck in you pocket in case you get mugged on the way to the opera, the rifle is going to raise some eyebrows.

Especially from the poor singers...

'If you say in the first chapteract that there is a rifle hanging on the wallaudience, in the second or third chapteract it absolutely must go off.' -Chekhov, paraphrased.

[snowblizz]

Axes are heavier than knives though. I think that the lethality problem with a throwing knife relates to lack of mass, I would guess a 'throwing machete' is probably as good as an axe though.

Reminds me of the "African throwing knifes", multipointed/bladed things whose claim to be knives may be more due to not really fitting into any category and may not have been thrown at all.

[Clistenes]

But Samurai are armored archers, not armored melee fighters. Their armor is designed to allow freedom of use of the arms and hands to a higher degree than a Western European knight’s panoply. Metatron has some good videos about the compromises to protection made to samurai armor to allow for better archery.

But the point is, they judged chainmail was not protective enough and added steel strips or bars to protect their forearms, so adding vambraces to a hauberk makes sense... plus I am quite sure I have seen historical european armor with that kind of set up...

[KineticDiplomat]

There is, indeed, historical evidence for using strips of iron as extra protection. Particularly when sewn into boots during the Viking era. It follows that you could presumably see them into a gambeson or leather bracer. However:

1) This is not a shield to block with, it is extra protection against light slashes and errant steel. The iron is reasonably free floating and unconnected to other armor, and unlike a full vambrace, has a relatively narrow cross section that force will be transmitted through.

So, stop a few ounces of knife from cutting, catch an already weak slash from a sword, prevent your arm from being sliced by your own friends spear as he draws it back at the wrong time? Sure.

But consider that a Major League Baseball bat is about 2 lbs. Most medieval one handed swords were about 2-3 lbs, with the odd heavier blade going higher. As much as slicing, they were clubs of sharpened iron (or early steel). Meaning that trying to catch a full hearted swing on your forearms with iron strips may stop the blade from sinking deep, but will still end with anything from deep bruising to broken bones.

And trying to stop a hefty two handed swing? Odds are your arm will just be knocked out of the way, but if you really were to keep it static, you’re losing use of the arm.

2) It would not be that good at catching thrusts. For the obvious reasons, you can’t just stick the outside of your arm precisely in the way of a thrust. Well, you can...but to do it in a way that somehow avoided being stabbed in the arm and at the same time actually let you sword fight rather than box would be preternaturally difficult.

So you’d be left parrying thrusts with your arm. Not impossible, but far harder than with a weapon, and far, far harder than just leaving a block of wood in front of you.

3) All of this requires a degree of freedom of mobility and good vision, plus focus on the task at hand. Already hunched over in a tunnel, possibly fighting at headbutt and biting distance, stabbing madly along a single axis, you have none of the above.

[Tobtor]

There is, indeed, historical evidence for using strips of iron as extra protection. Particularly when sewn into boots during the Viking era. It follows that you could presumably see them into a gambeson or leather bracer.

I am not quite sure what you are describing. Can you give references to the sources? I have never heard about Viking era boots with metal before.

[KineticDiplomat]

Boots being a bit of misnomer in the modern sense. More that in a tall boot or leg wrappings you would sew in strips of iron above the ankle and below the knee. A preview to what you would think of as the splinted tass. Something like this (though this set is buckled on, the idea is a few long strips of scrap iron):

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/30...g?v=1524861335


The bayeaux tapestry has several depictions of gray striped boots along the lower leg similarly.

[Vinyadan]

Boots being a bit of misnomer in the modern sense. More that in a tall boot or leg wrappings you would sew in strips of iron above the ankle and below the knee. A preview to what you would think of as the splinted tass. Something like this (though this set is buckled on, the idea is a few long strips of scrap iron):

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/30...g?v=1524861335


The bayeaux tapestry has several depictions of gray striped boots along the lower leg similarly.

Gaiters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaiters

[Tobtor]

Boots being a bit of misnomer in the modern sense. More that in a tall boot or leg wrappings you would sew in strips of iron above the ankle and below the knee. A preview to what you would think of as the splinted tass. Something like this (though this set is buckled on, the idea is a few long strips of scrap iron):

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/30...g?v=1524861335


The bayeaux tapestry has several depictions of gray striped boots along the lower leg similarly.

I am still not sure I believe you. Have you any references to any scholarly works or sources?

The picture you have shows something that is vertical metal strips, but all I can see on the bayeaux tapestry is people who horizontal bands (or cross bands) on the lower legs.

Suppose you mean something like the ones in the lower part of this picture?

Spoiler

Show

I have always interpreted those as a kind of gaiters (as Vinyada mentions). That this is cloth around the lower legs, not metal. Alternatively it could just be bands around the leg. Both straps of cloth around the legs and pieces of cloth tied to the legs are pieces of clothing we know exist. It is noteworthy that also people not wearing armour seem to have the horizontal stripes on the lower legs.

See this example

Spoiler

Show

But perhaps they did wore metal stripes on the legs, I just never see any examples. My understanding was that not before around 12th century you see leg guards reappear in northern Europe (ignoring for a moment and ancient Roman/Greek use for the moment).

But I would really to be educated on the subject. Is there any finds of such armour?

[KineticDiplomat]

The Valsgärde graves included a 7th century set of armor with 21 iron splints . This is probably the best known archaeological find. Originally in the 1930s they tried to piece them together as a chest and skirt set, but more modern interpretations have generally concluded they were a sword arm vambrace (debatable) and and two sets of greaves (much more certain).

There is severe debate about the commonality (very few examples have been found, to which others counter that very few mail shirts have been found in Viking graves as well...) and if they were really “Viking” armor or an import from the proto-Germans. Others insist that they were used by the Varangian Guard, but almost all of the refer back to the handful of Scandinavian finds, of which Valsgärde is the most complete.

Finds of smaller groups of splints with apparent holes, combined with the well recorded Saga tendency for warriors to sew things into clothes, points it the idea that these were sewn or wrapped into boots or boot wraps. The arguments rage on that interpretation as well.

William Short wrote a pretty good book on the era, where he concedes that this type of armor isn’t fantasy, but also believes there is little evidence that it was used extensively.

————

Anyhow, there is evidence they existed, and worked, so that is more than sufficient for some D&D applications. (It is also, incidentally, sufficient for Bernard Cornwell to keep writing the iron boot strips into Uthred’s kit)

[Mike_G]

————

Anyhow, there is evidence they existed, and worked, so that is more than sufficient for some D&D applications. (It is also, incidentally, sufficient for Bernard Cornwell to keep writing the iron boot strips into Uthred’s kit)

I wouldn't trust Cornwell. His riflemen in the Sharpe series load their weapons by biting off the end of the paper cartridge (valid) pouring the powder down the barrel, then spitting the ball into the muzzle of the charged rifle, which necessitates putting one's favorite head directly in front of the muzzle of a (for all practical purposes) loaded rifle, which may well still have hot embers in the barrel. This is what we who are acquainted with firearms refer to as "really stupid" and not something any soldier, particularly an expert marksman would do.

So take Cornwell with a big ol' grain of salt.

I mean, he doesn't even know that you have to kill Sean Bean in everything.

[Storm Bringer]

I wouldn't trust Cornwell. His riflemen in the Sharpe series load their weapons by biting off the end of the paper cartridge (valid) pouring the powder down the barrel, then spitting the ball into the muzzle of the charged rifle, which necessitates putting one's favorite head directly in front of the muzzle of a (for all practical purposes) loaded rifle, which may well still have hot embers in the barrel. This is what we who are acquainted with firearms refer to as "really stupid" and not something any soldier, particularly an expert marksman would do.

So take Cornwell with a big ol' grain of salt.

I mean, he doesn't even know that you have to kill Sean Bean in everything.

you're missing the point:

Sharpe is so badass, he can survive being played by Sean Bean.



that said, you can YouTube videos of reenactors who show that the spit-loading/tap loading technique does work, and doesn't achieve horrendous results (and the people doing it felt it was safe enough to do repeatedly, and safe enough for a battlefield expedient).

on the list of "stupid things a soldier has done in a combat situation where he should really know better", this is still only middle of the pack.

[Tobtor]

The Valsgärde graves included a 7th century set of armor with 21 iron splints . This is probably the best known archaeological find. Originally in the 1930s they tried to piece them together as a chest and skirt set, but more modern interpretations have generally concluded they were a sword arm vambrace (debatable) and and two sets of greaves (much more certain).

There is severe debate about the commonality (very few examples have been found, to which others counter that very few mail shirts have been found in Viking graves as well...) and if they were really “Viking” armor or an import from the proto-Germans. Others insist that they were used by the Varangian Guard, but almost all of the refer back to the handful of Scandinavian finds, of which Valsgärde is the most complete.

Finds of smaller groups of splints with apparent holes, combined with the well recorded Saga tendency for warriors to sew things into clothes, points it the idea that these were sewn or wrapped into boots or boot wraps. The arguments rage on that interpretation as well.

William Short wrote a pretty good book on the era, where he concedes that this type of armor isn’t fantasy, but also believes there is little evidence that it was used extensively.

————

Anyhow, there is evidence they existed, and worked, so that is more than sufficient for some D&D applications. (It is also, incidentally, sufficient for Bernard Cornwell to keep writing the iron boot strips into Uthred’s kit)

Thank you for the reference to the book by Short. Thanks gives me something too look for.

Though it should be mentioned that: the reconstruction is uncertain! Is well before the Viking age (around 600-650 AD). And far as I know the Valsgärde find is unique.
http://hurstwic.com/ I can find the following statement (written by William Short)

Some believe that Viking fighters used splinted armor, armor made from metal strips attached to leather straps fastened around legs and arms to prevent edged weapons from biting. Remains of this type of armor are found from the Viking age outside of Viking lands, and in some Viking trading centers. Additionally, the armor is found in Scandinavia, but from before the Viking era, such as the 7th century metal splints found at Valsgärde in Sweden shown to the left. I do not find the evidence convincing for the use of this kind of armor in Viking lands.

(my emphasis)

But perhaps Short has changes his views.

I can find tome texts on the internet that discuss the that the reconstruction:
https://www.sippe-guntursson.de/en-r...-legguard.html
http://thethegns.blogspot.com/2011/1...ed-armour.html

One issue is that we have is that the "armour" is placeds in a box, and not on the person, so we do not know how it was used. They might even be horse armour for all we know. Or an unfinished product of so kind (see pictures below, the neck protection looks similar to the strips, and they are from helmets for the period). They were found together with various tools. But, yes perhaps it is arm and leg protection, thought they are of of a kind (in northwestern Europe).

Spoiler

Show

Some of the strips have "dragon"-heads at the end, and doesn't look like the things many reproduction's show.



So, we have one, maybe, example of arm guards and leg guardss for from the migration period. It is ok for using as RPG, yes. But not not something to the describe as "viking era" armour.

[Pauly]

Thank you for the reference to the book by Short. Thanks gives me something too look for.

Though it should be mentioned that: the reconstruction is uncertain! Is well before the Viking age (around 600-650 AD). And far as I know the Valsgärde find is unique.
http://hurstwic.com/ I can find the following statement (written by William Short)

(my emphasis)

But perhaps Short has changes his views.

I can find tome texts on the internet that discuss the that the reconstruction:
https://www.sippe-guntursson.de/en-r...-legguard.html
http://thethegns.blogspot.com/2011/1...ed-armour.html

One issue is that we have is that the "armour" is placeds in a box, and not on the person, so we do not know how it was used. They might even be horse armour for all we know. Or an unfinished product of so kind (see pictures below, the neck protection looks similar to the strips, and they are from helmets for the period). They were found together with various tools. But, yes perhaps it is arm and leg protection, thought they are of of a kind (in northwestern Europe).

Spoiler

Show

Some of the strips have "dragon"-heads at the end, and doesn't look like the things many reproduction's show.



So, we have one, maybe, example of arm guards and leg guardss for from the migration period. It is ok for using as RPG, yes. But not not something to the describe as "viking era" armour.

One thing I remember reading is that battlefield burial sites from the Viking era feature an awful lot of catastrophic lower leg injuries. Shinbones cleaved in two apparently were common to find. It’s almost as if the mail + round shield + helmet combo favored in this era left a specific vulnerability to hacks at the legs. Big choppy swords and axes were also the dominant sidearms.
It certainly makes splinted greaves something the well dressed Viking might consider quite the fashion accessory.

[Tobtor]

One thing I remember reading is that battlefield burial sites from the Viking era feature an awful lot of catastrophic lower leg injuries. Shinbones cleaved in two apparently were common to find. It’s almost as if the mail + round shield + helmet combo favored in this era left a specific vulnerability to hacks at the legs. Big choppy swords and axes were also the dominant sidearms.
It certainly makes splinted greaves something the well dressed Viking might consider quite the fashion accessory.

Are you perhaps think of Visby? It was in 1361 so a medieval period battle rather than a Viking era one. But yes, especially cuts to the legs have completely severed the leg bone (thus likely putting the enemy out of the fight permanently). Similar wounds, I believe, have been seen at Towton. Legs wounds (and wounds to the head) was the most common. Likely do to the shields.

Sure greaves might be something we could imagine a wealthy Viking could consider, but I still think we lack evidence for it.

[KineticDiplomat]

No, his book basically echoes his Hurstwic page. “It exists, it was found in Scandinavia, and is a greave set, but I highly doubt they were extensively used”. (Paraphrased)

The key there is extensively. So, no they would not be common sights on the Viking battlefield, but they also could and would exist. From that point on it becomes an academic debatewith little evidence and lots of learned conjecture by more educated men than I on both sides. There are few splints in graves, but there is little armor in Viking graves to begin with. There is no direct mention in the sagas of splints, but there is of gauntlets and seeing protection in to clothes. Leg wounds were common (who was it who named their sword legbiter?) which either indicates no one wore greaves or that any sane warrior who could afford it would wear greaves. And so forth.

Anyhow, there is evidence they exist and were used at least some time, so I think for the original question he can safely assume such a thing is doable and some degree of practical.

[Tobtor]

No, his book basically echoes his Hurstwic page. “It exists, it was found in Scandinavia, and is a greave set, but I highly doubt they were extensively used”. (Paraphrased)

The key there is extensively. So, no they would not be common sights on the Viking battlefield, but they also could and would exist. From that point on it becomes an academic debatewith little evidence and lots of learned conjecture by more educated men than I on both sides. There are few splints in graves, but there is little armor in Viking graves to begin with. There is no direct mention in the sagas of splints, but there is of gauntlets and seeing protection in to clothes. Leg wounds were common (who was it who named their sword legbiter?) which either indicates no one wore greaves or that any sane warrior who could afford it would wear greaves. And so forth.

Anyhow, there is evidence they exist and were used at least some time, so I think for the original question he can safely assume such a thing is doable and some degree of practical.

There perhaps is something that might be (and I must stress this: an uncertain interpretation, not a fact) a set of greaves (and a vambrace). there is something that points in that direction, but not "evidence". However, they are not Viking age.

To add to that: I is true we don't have that much armour in the graves from the VIKING era. The same is true of the helmets (only one exist!). However, neither the possible greaves nor the Vendel and Valsgärde helmets are from the Viking age. None of the other Vendel and Valsgärde graves, nor the contemporary Sutton Hoo grave have anything similar to the greaves. So even if we accept it is greaves (I am still doubtful), the is is not something that was common, not even among the elite warriors.

Greaves exist, I am sure. We have both classical and medieval examples. However, I am still not really sure using one example of something that was put in a box, and not displayed like the other equipment, qualify a evidence for a type of armour that is generally not in use before much later (in the this region...).

[Mike_G]

you're missing the point:

Sharpe is so badass, he can survive being played by Sean Bean.



that said, you can YouTube videos of reenactors who show that the spit-loading/tap loading technique does work, and doesn't achieve horrendous results (and the people doing it felt it was safe enough to do repeatedly, and safe enough for a battlefield expedient).

on the list of "stupid things a soldier has done in a combat situation where he should really know better", this is still only middle of the pack.

I just don’t think putting your own face in front of the muzzle of a gun is justified by the second you save

I would toss anyone who pointed a musket at his (admittedly underutilized) head out of my event

[Storm Bringer]

I just don’t think putting your own face in front of the muzzle of a gun is justified by the second you save

I would toss anyone who pointed a musket at his (admittedly underutilized) head out of my event

like I said, its not the stupidest thing I have been told soldiers have done (that would be taking the Kevlar lining out of their body lining to make it lighter and replacing it with foam matting to bulk it back out again)


also, this was an expedient form a time and place where it wasn't unknown for the third rank of firers to accidently shoot the front rank in the back of the head, or for officers under sniper fire to just walk about quite unconcerned by the rounds pinging around them. Or, indeed, a time when people would stand in massed ranks 50 feet apart and take turns firing volleys into each other.

The past is a different land, and what seems insane to us might have just seemed another acceptable risk to them.

(I can almost imagine the internet geeks of 500 years into the future arguing about people using internal combustion engine cars, because surely no sane person would lock themselves into a metal box with a big tank of highly flammable liquid, and a built in ignition source, and then hurtle around the place at 70 miles an hour, with no computer assistance, surrounded by other vehicles all full of highly flammable liquid, all also without computer assistance, and do this as often as twice a day, most days of the week. its insane!)