How did Smaller folks fight back in the day?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the ancient world, it was more about skill and tactics than sheer power. You can utilize tactics to take advantage of power, but in the end it comes down to skill.

Think about modern machete fights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OzAlCCa3xU

The action starts about 1:45. If we correlate these fights with ancient blade fights, I don't think there is too much difference. If you notice, at 1:50 one opponent runs away. The fight continues with another opponent but breaks off even after some fairly heavy hits.

Here is another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbJ2YZv1yGY

What do these have in common? Even unarmored, the human body is capable of taking multiple cut from a sharp object. The men who go into battle will more than likely be armored. Weaponry from that age was made of inferior metal and tempering. More than likely, wounds from arrows were far more dangerous than cuts from swords and knives, not only because of piercing but sepsis.

With regard to the David and Goliath argument, David could have had enough power from the sling to kill Goliath. It takes 3 kilo-newtons spread over an area of 30mm to kill someone. It has been proven that it is difficult, but not impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK5lqNhk3bI

As far as my conclusion: it's not the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog.
 
Those who would never pull a knife or pistol as long as your spear or rocket launcher isn't broken?

Guessing you never had to sleep with a cocked & locked 1911, or a KaBar under you in the dirt, mud, or bunk at night?


The Roman Gladius was a one-hand sword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius

And perhaps one of the most successful sword designs ever invented.
Perhaps due to the tactics employed by the Romans, rather then the hack & slash free-for-all tactics employed before & after, until swords died out after the American civil war.

rc
 
Last edited:
Jim Watson said:
But how often was the one-handed sword a primary weapon?
Was sword and shield a common military form after the Romans?
Click to expand...

They were for those who could afford them. Single handed axes and spears were not as balanced a weapon as a sword but they were relatively cheap.
 
Roman heavy infantry using pilum, gladius and scutum defeated the successors to Alexander the Great who were using the the very long (20' approximately) spear called a Sarrisa a.k.a. the Pike. The Romans could have used any type of weapons they wanted for their heavy infantry but realized that pilum (javelin), gladius (short sword), and scutum (curved rectangular/oval body shield) were the most effective. The Vikings also used javelins, a little longer swords, and a little smaller round flat shields. The flat round shield of the Vikings were more practical for infantry, cavalry, and use on ship. The large and curved scutum more effective defensively and offensively for infantry. Eventually the curved Kite Shield which was somewhat a compromise between the scutum and flat round shield was developed.
 
Last edited:
rcmodel said:
.....until swords died out after the American civil war.

rc
Click to expand...

The should have died out at the end of the American Civil War. Despite Nathan Bedford Forrest, the greatest cavalry man of that era, demonstrating the superiority of carrying multiple revolvers, the U.S. persisted in creating new swords for combat right up to the M1913 Patton Cavalry Saber.
 
Didn't figure I would deplete my main weapon while asleep. Of course a pistol, knife, or pillow sword is a reasonable defense for one's rest. I was talking about looking for a fight, or a battle.

I once read a discussion of the gladius that concluded that the prominent guard and pommel, combined with the short grip section, often depicted as finger grooved, promoted a hatchet grip that would set the blade up for chopping and slashing more than thrusting.
 
But, supposedly, thrusting from under the combined shield wall of a disciplined Roman force with the one-hand Gladius was the thing that made them so effective in combat.

I bet its just Real Hard to fight while you are getting stabbed or slashed in the groin, bare legs,, and belly under your armor with a Gladius from under a shield wall.

While getting jabbed in the eye sockets with bristling spears from the second line behind the front line shield wall.

And those guys in the third line back?
STOP PUSHING!!
You'll get your turn!

And watch who you are slapping up side the head with the Pikes!
O.K?


Me in a situation like that?
Schru you guys!
I'm taking my toys and going home!

I think I heard my mother calling me for supper!

rc
 
Last edited:
Jim Watson said:
I once read a discussion of the gladius that concluded that the prominent guard and pommel, combined with the short grip section, often depicted as finger grooved, promoted a hatchet grip that would set the blade up for chopping and slashing more than thrusting.
Click to expand...

Where did you read this and what psychotropic drug was the author using when he wrote that? The Gladius is a short "Cut and Thrust" sword intended to primarily be used for thrusting. The Romans did not thrust the Gladius like a Rapier. If that had been their technique the grip would have been different. Take note of the smooth curved guard on the Gladius; it aids comfort when thrusting. The smooth rounded pommel is also for comfortable weapon retention. The grip can be held with a "hatchet grip" but it can also be held with a modified hatchet grip that aids thrusting. While "chopping and slashing" was used by the legionaries, the thrust was absolutely the primary means of attack. The reason why thrusting was so effective was because a very shallow penetration of the thorax incapacitates the enemy faster, is deadlier, and when delivered presents the smallest target to the opponent. Romans stabbing foes who lifted their swords for a cut was very common. Fifteen centuries after the fall of Rome the Zulu nation would revolutionize african tribal warfare with the underhanded use of a short stabbing spear and body shield technique very much like that of the Roman Legions. If you ever see a modern practice duel between someone armed with a Katana and someone with a Rapier you will quickly be disillusioned that the cutting power of the Katana or any Cutting Sword for that matter makes it a wonder weapon. When full plate armor became the norm in North Western Europe the sword lost most of its cutting effectiveness and increasingly was designed for thrusting.

Gladius1.jpg

Gladius2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yea!

I don't think you can read as much into Ergonimic Grip Design then as you can now either!

The Gladius was first and foremost a thrusting weapon designed for use in one hand while holding a shielded line with the other.

Not to say nobody ever hacked or chopped with one.
Because they most certainly often did.

But the grip design did not elvolve for that.
And what made the Gladius go down in history as one of the most formidable swords was thrusting from low behind your shield wall next to the guys shield next to you.

Tactics, Training, & thrusting, not hacking in a hatchet grip.

rc
 
Last edited:
IlikeSA said:
In the ancient world, it was more about skill and tactics than sheer power. You can utilize tactics to take advantage of power, but in the end it comes down to skill.

Think about modern machete fights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OzAlCCa3xU

The action starts about 1:45. If we correlate these fights with ancient blade fights, I don't think there is too much difference. If you notice, at 1:50 one opponent runs away. The fight continues with another opponent but breaks off even after some fairly heavy hits.

Here is another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbJ2YZv1yGY

What do these have in common? Even unarmored, the human body is capable of taking multiple cut from a sharp object. The men who go into battle will more than likely be armored. Weaponry from that age was made of inferior metal and tempering. More than likely, wounds from arrows were far more dangerous than cuts from swords and knives, not only because of piercing but sepsis.

With regard to the David and Goliath argument, David could have had enough power from the sling to kill Goliath. It takes 3 kilo-newtons spread over an area of 30mm to kill someone. It has been proven that it is difficult, but not impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK5lqNhk3bI

As far as my conclusion: it's not the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between a couple of untrained guys hacking away with machetes and someone trained to use a cutting sword. A skilled swordsman with a cutting sword, cut and thrust sword, or thrusting sword would quickly dispatch those machete hackers. That being said swords thrusts are every bit as deadly as arrows and in fact more deadly because of the size of the wound. Because of the small diameter of arrow wounds, if a non-vital area was wounded, proper extraction technique and disinfection with things like raw honey, boiled linseed oil, etc. could save the patient from death through infection. Large stab wounds from swords were much more serious. The silk shirt worn by some asian horse archers was intended to make arrow extraction much easier and reduce infection from foreign material.

The doubt about David defeating Goliath is not from David's weapon lacking lethality. The doubt arises from the difficulty of delivering that lethality. Philistine and most ancient helmets protected the forehead. Goliath would have body armor and a shield. Goliath would be very familiar with Slingers capabilities. Goliath would have to be very unlucky or a fool to not be capable of deflecting/defeating sling stones with his shield, helmet, or armor. Remember David was using stones not the much denser=deadlier lead projectiles of professional military slingers.
 
Last edited:
Deltaboy said:
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=david-s-sling-a-piece-of-history---ludwik-siedlecki
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-slingsforkids.html



Here some links about the killing power of a sling.
Click to expand...


Those are interesting links. I skipped the third one based on Radagast's warning. Thanks Radagast.

One the link mentions David using an overhand delivery from within 15 yards while running. Elsewhere it mentions the 60 mile per hour speed of sling stones. There is also mention of slingers hitting within in a “hairs breadth” and parts of the face at will. Citation of archeological evidence of widespread use of the sling. There are also numerous mentions of the effectiveness of slings in battle. All of this is superficially impressive but under scrutiny less so.

People routinely dodge 90 mile per hour fastballs from an overhand delivery.

Where is the evidence of lines of slingers stopping lines of charging heavy infantry? Slingers may harass, weaken, and delay, but they don’t stop charging heavy infantry from 15 yards. Slingers were protected from heavy infantry by their own heavy infantry.

People 2000 to 3000 years ago were not stupid. If the sling was such an accurate and deadly weapon for attacking and defending against charging heavy infantry at close range, slingers would have been the dominant type of soldier on the battle field.

All the Celtic hill forts of Britain were well stocked with sling stones for defense. The slingers in those forts were within range to attack the Romans operating their small siege engines and of course the Roman infantry attempting to breach the walls. None of the hill forts were successfully defended for long and it was not because the Celts ran out of sling stone ammunition as evidenced by the piles of remaining sling stones found within the ruins of those hill forts.

The outcome of the David and Goliath duel analyzed without considering the help of Divine Intervention is best explained as resulting from Goliath being either a poorly trained heavy infantry man (doubtful if he was chosen as a Champion), arrogantly foolish in contemptuously dismissing the danger from his opponent and dropping his guard (possible based on historical accounts of attitudes about missile troops) or being very unlucky and David having great skill and very good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rcmodel said:
I saw this guy on TV about a year ago.

He doesn't miss much at a little closer range!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IJa7FhVjSHI

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ELYea2UDfeY

rc
Click to expand...


Those are great videos that demonstrate just how hard it would be for David to make the fatal shot.

In the second video the slinger is not moving toward the target and the stationary target is not bobbing and weaving while charging the slinger. The slinger releases at suicidal range at the target. The range is suicidal because if the slinger missed, the heavy infantryman would close to killing range before the slinger recovered. At the end of the video comment is make at how hard it was for the champion slinger to create accuracy with power and how difficult it was to make the shot.

In the first video of Balearic Island Slinger competition the stationary target is at the non-suicidal distance of 19.5 meter = 64 feet. To score one point it is only necessary to hit the over 1 meter = 39 inches wide target and to score two points it is only necessary to hit the 50 centimeter = 19.5 inches wide bullseye. The Balearic Islands are historically known for producing the World’s greatest slingers. You would think they would sling at a bullseye the size of a man’s head if that was a realistic target. It is doubtful Goliath had a 19.5 inch wide head.

The religious have reasons of biblical faith and possibility to believe David made the shot.
The non-religious have reasons of testable fact and improbability to believe David did not make the shot.
 
While dramatic, swinging a weapon is only a small part of warfare. Destroying an enemies food/water source/shelter/family is probably more effective that trying to take on them on mano a mano. A small guy can burn a barn in November as well as a big guy.

With respect to David v. Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell had a great TedTalk on this:

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/243294593/what-s-the-real-lesson-of-david-and-goliath
 
Yup, Gladwell is the author of the book I mentioned. Nom probably should have helped him get the technical points right. :)
 
Just a few comments. I work at a Japanese High School. The younger generation are a lot taller than their parents and a lot taller than their grandparents. Must be better nutrition. Funny thing is there are a lot of complaints that they are getting overweight cause of the American diet they are changing to. It sure is making them tall tho. I figure it's volume of food at the critical growth period.
If you think about it, some big dude with a longsword is going to take up a lot of space on the battle line. You could prob fit three legionnaires with their shields interlocked stabbing away (which I read once was their style) in the same space. My bet would go with the legionnaires.
Finally, I was in one of those big Samurai battle reenactments once and since it was just civilians it was a real free for all, no discipline. I killed a lot of enemy by stabbing them in the back. Dirty fighting but effective.
 
Sebastian the Ibis said:
While dramatic, swinging a weapon is only a small part of warfare. Destroying an enemies food/water source/shelter/family is probably more effective that trying to take on them on mano a mano. A small guy can burn a barn in November as well as a big guy.

With respect to David v. Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell had a great TedTalk on this:

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/243294593/what-s-the-real-lesson-of-david-and-goliath
Click to expand...


Sam1911 - Yup, Gladwell is the author of the book I mentioned. Nom probably should have helped him get the technical points right.
Click to expand...

Wow! I watched the video. I don't have time now, but later today I will reply in detail. Here is a hint of the direction of that reply:

Like another very intelligent and educated man, Issac Newton, Malcolm Gladwell is not immune to enormous self-deception. For Newton it was Alchemy, for Gladwell it is obviously David versus Goliath. There are so many assumptions and historical misinterpretations in Malcolms analysis and conclusion it qualifies as a classic case of a man seeing hoof prints, assuming zebras must have passed by, constructing elaborate apparently rational explanations how zebras could have made the hoof prints, but never having any experience with zebras, and living where horses are plentiful and zebras very rare. This is going to be fun. It it a rare opportunity to be able to so easily refute the assumptions of a man famous for his thinking outside the box. I'll be back later today.:D
 
Wow, Gladwell is like a modern Newton! High praise indeed! :D

(Wonder if he's ever tried Sir Issac's experiment with the bodkin?)
 
Sam1911 said:
Wow, Gladwell is like a modern Newton! High praise indeed! :D

(Wonder if he's ever tried Sir Issac's experiment with the bodkin?)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately my earlier belief I would be back later today to reply in detail to Gladwell's nonsense is not going to happen. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day. Other plans are conflicting with time for a proper reply. But I can reply with this: Gladwell is not a Newton and I did not mean to imply he was an intellectual equal. It should be noted though, that like Gladwell, Newton is lesser known for his time spent on trying to understand the sybolic and literal truths, choronology, and possible secret codes within The Bible. The time Newton wasted on this and alchemy was equally wrong headed as Gladwell's analysis and conclusions about David and Goliath. I will reply in more detail as soon as I have solved my greater than I was led to believe mother-in-law problems.:mad:
 
Gladwell is not a Newton
Click to expand...
Humor, my man. A joke. :)

The expression I've heard about the other half of Newton's work was along the lines of, "...wayward religious pursuits."

Best of luck with the MIL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Skribs
  • Locked
How did people carry weapons back in the day?
Replies
14
Views
3K
aarondhgraham
A
hso
  • Locked
Bronze Swords
Replies
13
Views
966
Ranald
R
1
  • Locked
Dummy question about swords
Replies
6
Views
899
Piraticalbob
P
B
  • Locked
All you wanted to Know about Swords
Replies
17
Views
999
Marko Kloos
M
SharpDog
  • Locked
Tomahawk as a tool or weapon ...
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
8K
Slamfire
Slamfire
Back
Top