How did Smaller folks fight back in the day?

I read a book a while back that had a very interesting analysis of the Biblical David and Goliath story. The analysis explained some of the more knotty text of the passage in terms of the types of soldiers and armament prevalent in that day. And basically explained how heavy infantry was doomed when faced with light infantry, one-on-one, because they could be so easily out-maneuvered and picked to death with lighter weapons with longer reach, and range...like the sling which could kill from many times farther out that the heavy infantryman could reach with his sword, axe, or club.

So that account is really of a circumventing of convention. The tradition was for each side to send out their heavy champion, and the two men would slug it out toe-to-toe. When the battle was instead joined, not by another heavy, but by a maneuverable light warrior, the Philistines had lost.

(Also worthy of note is that there are passages which suggest strongly that Goliath suffered from some afflictions that would be commensurate with the sorts of glandular/hormonal disease that causes "giantism", probably manifested as sluggishness and poor eyesight along with his excessive height and size.)

Anyway, just as in most other periods of warfare, changing and different technologies helped one type of warrior defend another while being supported by yet another. Light, heavy, cavalry, then archers, the phalanx, pikemen, etc., etc. Each had vulnerabilities to some types of attack, each was really good against others.

Corpral_Agarn said:

But based on my own Irish heritage, it is my understanding that many of my ancestors were of smaller stature.

Click to expand...

Human height is closely tied to diet and environmental factors.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

I'm about the same height as your "average" dark age northern European warrior. A towering five foot six.

Corpral_Agarn said:

In any kind of combat back then (sword and axes swinging about) I would expect it to be highly beneficial to be a larger combatant using larger, longer, and heavier weapons.

Click to expand...

Speed kills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc

Mixed unit tactics. Centurions in the front, Hoplites behind the front lines, ranged behind them.

Pardon any historical mix ups of ancient Roman/ Greek military units.

well back then one on one the guy with the most skill usually won. If both guys were equally skilled the strongest/fastest usually won. "Northmen" of the age were bigger and tougher than the western europeans generally. When Roman tactics were not adhered to they conquered their way thru Europe until inbred into local populations.
Big men of old used heavier weapons and smaller men used lighter quicker weapons or became bowmen.

Gordon said:

Big men of old used heavier weapons and smaller men used lighter quicker weapons or became bowmen.

Click to expand...

I figure it would be more accurate to say that folks used whatever weapon they could afford or were issued and performed whatever battlefield role they were instructed to.

Never under estimate a small man.

Some of them are quicker then a snake, and twice as mean.

They had to be growing up.

rc

When the other guy is bigger, stronger, and you think you're no match, then you become a cheating, low blow inflicting, sneaky sunofafemale dog. You use a light fast weapon that you learn to use with maximum effect. You get the first sucker punch/blow, stab/slash in, that then run like 'ell.

Or join his lordships army as an archer and use projectile weapons, and kill the big guys in the heavy armor like the English army did at Agincourt.

Sam1911 said:

I read a book a while back that had a very interesting analysis of the Biblical David and Goliath story. The analysis explained some of the more knotty text of the passage in terms of the types of soldiers and armament prevalent in that day. And basically explained how heavy infantry was doomed when faced with light infantry, one-on-one, because they could be so easily out-maneuvered and picked to death with lighter weapons with longer reach, and range...like the sling which could kill from many times farther out that the heavy infantryman could reach with his sword, axe, or club.

So that account is really of a circumventing of convention. The tradition was for each side to send out their heavy champion, and the two men would slug it out toe-to-toe. When the battle was instead joined, not by another heavy, but by a maneuverable light warrior, the Philistines had lost.

(Also worthy of note is that there are passages which suggest strongly that Goliath suffered from some afflictions that would be commensurate with the sorts of glandular/hormonal disease that causes "giantism", probably manifested as sluggishness and poor eyesight along with his excessive height and size.)

Anyway, just as in most other periods of warfare, changing and different technologies helped one type of warrior defend another while being supported by yet another. Light, heavy, cavalry, then archers, the phalanx, pikemen, etc., etc. Each had vulnerabilities to some types of attack, each was really good against others.

Click to expand...

Sam,

Respectfully I must disagree with some of your premises and conclusions.

First off, the David and Goliath story is not a historical event, it is a biblical event that may or may not be a historical event. There just is not enough supporting documentation to do anything but speculate, such as the author in your link does, why the events of the story unfold and conclude as they do. The author certainly makes as good and believable an argument as anyone else. Personally I think the David and Goliath story is the most misleading example of Sling use in warfare ever created. While it is certainly possible for a slinger to do what David supposedly did to Goliath, is not something likely to succeed against an Iron Age elite Heavy Infantryman. Armies were well acquainted with the capabilities of the sling after centuries of facing them. Slingers did not determine the outcome of battles. A Heavy Infantry Soldier using his shield properly to defend against David’s stones would have resulted in David being trapped or forced to flee. Being trapped would be fatal to David. David fleeing would be considered defeat. The term Heavy Infantry is misleading because it implies slow and ponderous soldiers. At the ranges of the David and Goliath fight, very close direct fire range for a sling, an elite Heavy Infantryman would be capable of closing the distance quickly enough to force David into retreat. If the David and Goliath story is an actual event, I doubt the range between them was more than that when a typical Roman Infantry charge occurred. Goliath was either very unlucky, a fool, or a physically impressive looking but inferior soldier.

Heavy Infantry was not “doomed” when faced with Light Infantry. The opposite was true. Light Infantry that dared to face up with Heavy Infantry was doomed. An example is Greek Hoplite versus Persian Immortal at Thermoplyae. It required maneuver, combined arms, and fatigue for the Persians to defeat the Greeks. Light Infantry cannot hold ground against Heavy Infantry. Light Infantry’s only chance against Heavy Infantry is to avoid close engagement, and even when using missile weaponry they cannot succeed against Heavy Infantry that withstands the assault until missile weaponry is exhausted. Even against the Horse Archer, primarily Heavy Infantry Armies with mixed weapon auxiliaries often prevailed. Sure there were some disastrous defeats, such as Carrhae in 53 BC, but Roman armies composed mostly of Heavy Infantry succeeded in occupying the political and economic major cities of their primarily Horse Archer opponents. Other factors, politics, logistics, etc., doomed those occupations. What dooms Heavy Infantry is attack by a combined arms Army using good tactics.

Human height is closely tied to diet and environmental factors.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm - Sam Cade

Click to expand...

In addition to the effects diet would have on the size of combatants what the diet consisted of was important. A diet such as the Roman soldier ate promoted physical endurance. Roman soldiers were often of smaller stature than their opponents. Endurance often determined the outcome of battles.

With regard to the Vikings, they were pirate raiders initially and when challenged by prepared foes far less impressive. Even when the Norseman became organized armies they were not invincible. Look at the events of September/October 1066 and you will discover the defeat of one Norse Army and the near defeat of another. If the first army had not required defeat the second army may have been defeated. History would certainly be very different if that had happened.

Nom, I don't disagree, nor have studied the background fully enough to form an argument.

Though this...

or a physically impressive looking but inferior soldier.

Click to expand...

Was certainly part of the accounting. Hence some of the quizzical details of the tale that could be explained by various congenital problems attendant to the gigantism that would explain his stature.

Armies were well acquainted with the capabilities of the sling after centuries of facing them. Slingers did not determine the outcome of battles.

Click to expand...

I think that the author's suggestion there was that the introduction of the "wrong" party into that challenge was a bit of a dirty trick. Not expected, nor expected to succeed. Beyond that, all speculation.

However, as you suggest, the whole legend is so far distant, and so highly unlikely to be directly related to any one factual event, that little but suggestions should be drawn from it.

Stab the bigger guy in the knees.

Corpral_Agarn said:

So I just found the Viking axe and sword thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=751761) and it got to me wondering...

In any kind of combat back then (sword and axes swinging about) I would expect it to be highly beneficial to be a larger combatant using larger, longer, and heavier weapons.
But based on my own Irish heritage, it is my understanding that many of my ancestors were of smaller stature.

I know they were tough as nails but how did they fight? What weapons would the smaller combatant favor? How would they go about attacking a larger opponent with larger, heavier weapons? Say, for instance, a Scandinavian Viking?

I wonder if, because of men's strength back then it didn't matter so much. I have read that the spartan warriors were not all that large of people either, yet still wielded heavy bronze shields (some 30lbs) and long spears (7-9ft).

I know the spear has forever been a popular choice, and in my limited experience of being a smaller combatant and facing off against folks with clubs and sword length sticks, the spear was a huge benefit.

Maybe the historians here can help me out, or maybe I have answered my own questions...

Thanks for reading!

Click to expand...

In the age of muscle powered armies physical strength was certainly an advantage to have but only one of many. Endurance was a very important advantage. You can read about larger Celts attacking smaller Romans and quickly becoming exhausted and then slaughtered. Superior strategy and tactics used by an army composed of physically smaller soldiers with comparable and even less effective weaponry can bring victory.

j1 said:

Stab the bigger guy in the knees.

Click to expand...

Very good technique. I don't recall the name, but one famous Viking named his sword "Leg Biter". Those relatively small Romans in comparison to the Celtic and Germanic warriors were famous for disemboweling their opponents with the short stabbing sword known as the Gladius.

^Hamstring-ing.... Hamstrung?

Sam1911 said:

Nom, I don't disagree, nor have studied the background fully enough to form an argument.

Though this...
Was certainly part of the accounting. Hence some of the quizzical details of the tale that could be explained by various congenital problems attendant to the gigantism that would explain his stature.

I think that the author's suggestion there was that the introduction of the "wrong" party into that challenge was a bit of a dirty trick. Not expected, nor expected to succeed. Beyond that, all speculation.

However, as you suggest, the whole legend is so far distant, and so highly unlikely to be directly related to any one factual event, that little but suggestions should be drawn from it.

Click to expand...

I tend to doubt the Philistines would risk all on a “paper tiger”. If I recall correctly Goliath was known to be a formidable soldier. This is were I suspect if the story is true Goliath was more likely unlucky or foolish. The Heavy Infantryman was an elite. He had to be because of the cost of his panoply. Slingers and Archers were often treated with contempt. If Goliath contemptuously dismissed David as a threat he could have gotten sloppy using his shield. The sling was primarily an indirect fire weapon. They could be used for direct fire but became increasingly vulnerable to Archers, Peltasts, and infantry charge. The biggest value of the sling was its greater effective range than the low powered bows of the ancient near and middle east. The best slingers used cast lead bullets of uniform weight that could inflict deadly head wounds and disabling body wounds at hundreds of yards if armor protection was lacking.

Something to consider about the "big" Norsemen being able to use heavier weapons is that the weapons were not heavy. The swords were light and fast for the time as were the axes. A Viking sword is light and fast at around 3lbs in weight typically and the battle axes light and almost delicate in design. Don't pay attention to the ridiculously large and heavy swords and axes you see on TV and in the movies. Where Norseman size is a benefit is during the pushing against an opposing shield wall and having a greater length of reach than smaller opponents.

Some interesting perspectives on the question at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d43qH9w5Dow and other videos

Skill and speed were as much an advantage as size and strength. Legs and feet took a beating, and everything was a weapon. Shields, pommels of swords, butts of spears, you name it.

Even back then though, TRAINING and PRACTICE were critical.

As a believer of the book, a person could easily simply say that greater forces were at play. When looked at from a inquisitive point of view though there are great odds working against the sling-wielding man. His only hope would be to score very quickly an effective hit. After that his only option is to outrun and outmaneuver his opponent. Either way there are odds. Even if 1 in a million, in a million random attempts you could expect David to come out on top once.

To the point of the original post, I too have wondered this same thing. Simply put a man knows his strengths and weaknesses. If a man is an incredible archer then he would be a bowman. If a man were good wielding edged weapons he would do so. Likewise if a man couldn't run or move due to perhaps a leg injury he certainly wouldn't be fighting up front. So looking at smaller statured guys who are built very muscularly they would be most likely fighting in a light infantry "stick and move" type force aimed at quick strikes to the flanks and skilled in maneuvers designed to separate portions of a larger force, overtake that force and then hit the regrouping force again. I suspect their weapons would be slightly longer than the average warriors to keep them just out of reach but still give great speed and maneuverability of the weapon specifically in addition to speed and maneuverability of the fighting force as a whole. It seems the weapon of choice would be a spear or perhaps a long handled light axe, possibly even weapons similar to what was shown in braveheart where people had basically taken stag antlers and tied them to a long straight stick. Depending upon the nature of the opposition it may be better to poke through small holes in armor, or slice through from behind a shield. I suspect few shortswords were regularly employed except in fierce hand to hand large scale battles. The majority of the work would be archers, pikemen, and light infantry with light weaponry.

If a man is an incredible archer then he would be a bowman. If a man were good wielding edged weapons he would do so.

Click to expand...

Emmmmm?????

Ever been in anyones big military?

If a man were an incredible archer?
The military would make him a cook.

If he was exceptionally skilled with a sword?
They would probably issue him a shovel for digging the slit trenches for all the other troops to use for going #2.

Doesn't matter who's military, or when.
Thats the way it usually works out.

rc

Smaller folks, how did they fight the big guys, well during that era 5-2/5-4 was considered average, any smaller than that , they were trained to go for the ankle.

In feudal Japan, the average samurai was between 5'2" and 5'5". They seemed to do okay.

If you watched the Vikings series on History, you might be able to relate.

Ragnar is a man of average size, wielding various swords, axes and shields through the series.

Rollo, a much larger man, was often shown using a Danish war axe, a large, formidable, dangerous but slow weapon. He also used various other swords, axes and shields.

Then you have Floki, a very slender man, although tall, lacked the stature of the shorter Ragnar. He mainly used a seax and a hand axe, to very good effect.

I know the show is correographed fiction/ low fantasy, but in my admittedly limited hand weapons training and experience, the weapons used were pretty spot on.

As a bigger guy, 6'3", 225#, I can wield heavier swords and axes, but prefer to use smaller swords, large daggers, and hand axes. They may not be a devastating as the Danish war axe, but a bad swing or a miss is much easier to recover from with a smaller, lighter weapon
But, as history has shown, the more disciplined army, fighting as a unit rather than individuals, will be overwhelmingly more effective as a whole. Ragtag 'armies' of individual fighters tend to get mowed over by unit based, disciplined armies, even if/ when the disciplined fighters are outnumbered. The battle of Thermopylae has shown what a superior force can do despite being heavily outnumbered. Caesars conquest of Gaul again shows how ineffective a large army is without uniformity of battle, against a smaller but better trained force.

Physical size and stature like that of myself, or the biblical Goliath, can serve useful for intimidation, but it also makes for an easier target.
Speed indeed kills. A smaller man can get inside the range of a large sword or axe and slip a dagger between ribs. A dagger to the lungs is just as fatal as a severed head or disemboweled gut. Smaller men are harder to hit, which gives some insight to the etymology of the word 'infantry'.

The key to the Legions of Rome was tactics and discipline.

Well, as to the David and Goliath fight -- as has been pointed out, this is a Biblical event that may or may not have some basis in historical reality. The point of the story in the Bible was to illustrate that a man with God on his side need not fear even the most intimidating adversary, for his victory was assured. As has also been pointed out, had Goliath used all his skill, his armor, his superior physique, etc. he still should have won, because it would simply have been too difficult for David to have much chance of putting a fatal sling bullet into vital area -- Goliath wouldn't have offered him such an easy target. But, Goliath was careless and contemptuous of his opponent (no doubt filled with such a spirit by God, if you believe the Biblical account), and didn't keep his guard up.

As to Goliath's height... Well, it's interesting that in the oldest surviving manuscripts -- the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the 4th Century Septuagint, and writings of Josephus -- his height is given as "four cubits and a span", which is 6 feet 9 inches. That would be more than big enough to get him called a "giant" surrounded by soldiers who were mostly five and half feet tall. The 6½ cubits (9 feet 7 inches) that is given in the Bibles of today (the oldest manuscripts of which are, remember, copies of copies of copies), is almost certainly a later exaggeration owing to scribal error (or a deliberate attempt to make this enemy of God seem even more intimidating). It's worth remembering that that tallest man we have real historical evidence for, Robert Pershing Wadlow, was just a quarter inch shy of nine feet when he died, and he couldn't even walk without leg braces. You can't just scale a structure, living or otherwise, up infinitely. Surface area and volume change relative to each other, some materials aren't structurally strong enough past a certain size, and so on -- this is why tiny creatures, like insects, sparrows, etc. have such small, thin legs relative to their size, while large animals like elephants, and dinosaurs have much more massive legs relative to their body size. I doubt a 9'7" Goliath could have even walked very well, let alone made a good soldier.

But size, to a certain point, is an advantage. The old saying "a good big man will beat a good little man," is true. It's why we don't put welterweights in the ring with heavyweights -- they'd get slaughtered. Things change a bit when deadly weapons are thrown in, as there's a difference between having to inflict injury with your bare hands on a tough, hard to injure opponent, and finding a vulnerable spot where you can slip a single, deadly, fight-stopping knife or sword thrust, but there's still a lot of advantage to the big man, assuming equal skill, and assuming he's smart enough to use a fighting style that takes advantage of his strengths and minimizes his weaknesses.