Germanic Combat Techniques

[Harjaz]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find infromation about Germanic combat techniques using a variety of weapons (spears, swords, clubs, etc). I saw a documentery called 'Warriors' or something like that where one of the members of the Chasuari reenactment group was showing the host combat techniques with a club and spear. I did find some some infromation on Viking combat technic on the Hurstwic website: www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufa..._sword_technique.htm

Would this be a good guess for 1st century Germanic combat techniques? I also found some information on Irish spear fighting. It looks pretty believable, but spear and shield technique uses very small bucklers (Germanic shields were far larger, though they may have been light enough to use in the same style).

tutorials.livinghistory.ie/Home/irish-tw...ighting-combat-guide

tutorials.livinghistory.ie/Home/irish-si...ighting-combat-guide

For clubs, the main technique I could see being used was the 'block and hit' method. However, seeing the skilled use of the clubs in the documentery, there must have been an actual technique to club fighting.

any ideas or theories on this?

Dan

[Harjaz]

Sorry,

the links for the Irish spear fighting somehow didn't work right.

Here they are:

http://tutorials.livinghistory.ie/Home/i...mbat-guide

http://tutorials.livinghistory.ie/Home/i...mbat-guide

Dan

[Sean Manning]

Hammaborg in Germany have also been experimenting with Viking shields. Mostly sword and shield though, even though spear and shield was a much more common form for Norsemen. A video is here.

The only other thing I can suggest is training in a martial art which includes a variety of weapons. If the teacher knows their stuff, this will teach you the applied physics and physiology which lets you work out how a set of weapons wants to be used. The trouble is that each martial art focuses on a subset of all the effective things you can do in combat (and of all the types of combat!), so reconstructions will always have subtle differences from each other and from the original martial arts.

[Ron Andrea]

Interesting, but not convincing. Warriors--especially tribal or primitive warriors--do not go into a lot of physics and logic. They learn what is passed down by those who have survived previous fights. Over generations, a warrior society would develop a set of effective techniques, but they may not seem logical to us in our ivory towers centuries later.

So, is there archeological or literary support for these theories?

[Sean Manning]

Interesting, but not convincing. Warriors--especially tribal or primitive warriors--do not go into a lot of physics and logic. They learn what is passed down by those who have survived previous fights. Over generations, a warrior society would develop a set of effective techniques, but they may not seem logical to us in our ivory towers centuries later.

So, is there archeological or literary support for these theories?

Are you talking about Hammaborg, Hurstwic, and the Higgins Sword Guild? Their main sources are Icelandic sagas and 14th-16th century European martial arts. Its hard to tell how close they are to original Norse martial arts, but since they didn't write books on how to fight and didn't leave a living tradition this is as close as we can get. (Norse martial arts are not my specialty, and I haven't met any of those groups in person or read Hurstwic's book, but as a humanist and martial artist I think they are on the right track).

Any martial art has to work within a framework of physics, physiology, and psychology which doesn't change much. That's how 17th century Japanese and 15th century Germans did some very similar things with their respective versions of the short two-handed sword ... although if you pick any two styles you will find things they disagree on. For example, "when someone cuts at your forward leg, withdraw it while striking your attacker high" appears again and again in European sources from the 15th to the 20th century, not because someone invented it but because it works due to geometry and physiology. I also don't think its true that "tribal or primitive warriors" will have illogical or ineffective martial arts ... look at martial arts from remote areas of South or Southeast Asia. As far back as we have books on how to fight from Europe (about 700 years) we see that there were logical and effective systems in use. And I suspect that if you think Hammaborg are living in an ivory tower, you haven't looked at their website.

[Harjaz]

I just realized that its possible that reason why some Germanic shield bosses were cone shaped was to deflect an enemy's sword incase the warrior rammed his enemy with his shield like in the video. Like they said in the video, you would have to get damn close with a pointed boss in order to do damage, so they may have been used more for deflecting or stopping an opponent's sword in such an attack. However, during this time period, swords were not widespread among the Germanic tribes, so my theory could be wrong.

[arminius]

The shield boss was actually used as an offensive weapon by the Germanic warrior. At least one source mentions the fact.
But were is the evidence that German warriors used clubs in combat? It doesn’t make sense either: Several Roman armies were wiped out by Germans, most times even in open battle. I don’t believe for a second that well trained armoured infantrymen like the Roman legionaries were defeated by stick swinging savages. But the wild German with the club is one of the beloved stereotypes that illustrators, modelers and apparently reenactors can’t live without.

[Harjaz]

The main Germanic weapon was the spear. But I have seen plenty of other reenactors demonsrating the use of clubs in battle. Needless to say, they were most certainly used by the more lower class warriors, probably in addition to a spear and shield. And I don't think they were two handed weapons (as you have no defence), but rather a single handed weapon to be used with a shield. I've also heard that the Germans used axes (but this might be another sterotype). I saw a show called 'warriors' where one of the Chasuari was demonstrating the use of a club in battle. He said that the club could deliver about 400 pounds per square inch of force. That's more an enough to split someone's head open. I agree with you that the club swinging german is a stereotype, but a club is still an efective weapon if you don't have anything better to use. If they were used, it was restricted to the poorer warriors of Germanic society.

[arminius]

Reenactors have the liberty to demonstrate almost anything (I’m allowed to say this because I started reenacting in 1983!) because the fighting is not for real. Nobody is supposed to get actually killed. Ask any club-demonstrator if he would engage an armored and shielded professional swordsman in a real combat situation. And I do know about the devastating effect of a club because I’m trained in the use of the PR-24 Control Baton (… for professional reasons…). Several busted punching bags bear witness to it’s formidable effect.

It is a proven fact that the club (fustis) was part of the Roman armament but there is no evidence of any form that the Germans used this weapon.

For the “poor warrior myth”: In the beginning of the 1st c. AD. only 2 types of armament were known for the Germanic warrior: “regular armament” (Regelbewaffnung) consisting of spear and shield and “full armament” (Vollbewaffnung) consisting of spear, sword and shield. This leaves us with 3 “classes” of warriors: Horsemen with full armament, infantrymen with full armament and infantrymen with regular armament (the biggest group). Germanic society was a warrior society: Each free man of the tribe was considered a warrior. When a boy reached manhood he was given shield and spear in a ceremony. With this he became a member of the tribe with all privileges and duties. I he would ever return from battle without the shied he would be stripped of his rights and privileges. So even the poorest member of the tribe would go to war with a simple wooden shield without metal fittings and spear with a small simple iron point. There is even circumstantial evidence that spearheads made of antler or bone could be substituted.

Battle axes became popular in later periods but were extremely rare at the beginning of the 1st c. AD.

[Harjaz]

Battle axes may have been rare, but what about the use of regular (wood working?) axes in battle? Perhaps as a secondary weapon (side arm) for regalbewaffenung? I've also heard of another early Germanic weapon called a 'Kampfmesser'. Which kind of warriors would have used this weapon (probably as a secondary weapon)? Also, when exactly did a boy 'reach manhood'? Was it based on his physical ability or on his age?

[PMBardunias]

Didn't Germans in this period form shield walls? I have always assumed that the extended depth of the boss was a means of aiding in overlapping boss to boss without slipping past.

As for Germanic clubs, aren't the clubmen on trajan's column german?

[Adam Oswalt]

Dan, you might try this article

I haven't read it thoroughly, but I think there may be some useful information in there. Although the article doesn't deal with specific techniques, Dr. Kontny does effectively (to me at least) use archaeological evidence to show a possible reconstruction of Germanic combat in the Roman period.

Battle axes may have been rare, but what about the use of regular (wood working?) axes in battle? Perhaps as a secondary weapon (side arm) for regalbewaffenung?

"Regular" axes may have been used in a pinch, but without specific evidence (archaeological or otherwise), should we attempt to recreate Germanic combat with an axe? That said, I seem to recall some evidence of "battle axes" from one of the bog finds. I'll try to look through the articles I have saved and post the relevant information.

Also, when exactly did a boy 'reach manhood'? Was it based on his physical ability or on his age?

It might be possible to determine this through something like ethnographic analogies, but, unless there is some specific reference in the literary record, it would be hard to be sure about when a boy reached manhood in ancient Germanic cultures. Off the top of my head (I wrote a paper on masculinity last semester, so I did come across some ethnographic evidence of masculine rites of passage), most cultures base the transition on age, or more likely an age range (i.e. adolesence vs. childhood). I don't recall any specific reference to physical ability.

Hope this helps.

Adam

[arminius]

“shield wall”, yes the Germans back than used the shield wall on occasion as a defense formation despite the fact that the lightweight Germanic equipment was geared for the quick charge and not for defense. But back than the shields did definitely not overlap. They were simply not wide enough for this. The overlapping shield wall we know from the Viking Age was probably developed after the introduction of the large circular shield.

And yes, the clubmen on TC are definitely German. They are just one of the many marvels of TC! We see here Germanic auxiliaries in Roman service wielding a Roman weapon (fustis). To be more precise, it looks to me that they are sporting the same equipment the Romans would have used for riot control. The same source shows even a barbarian (German?) stone thrower.
Caution is advised here! I do not think that it is save to deduce from those images that clubmen and stone throwers were a regular feature of Germanic warfare since there is no corroborative evidence. How comes that none of the ancient writers mention their existence describing German weapons and warfare? And anybody familiar with weapons and tactics might agree with me that a guy swinging a stick is perfectly capable of driving off rebellious civilians but that neither stone throwers or clubmen can inflict serious harm on a formation of armoured infantrymen.

By the way - great article about the eastern Germanic Przeworsk-Culture: Hard to come by information on a not much published subject!

[Paullus Scipio]

The club-wielding warriors on Trajan's column are usually considered, because of their 'native dress' to be allies rather than regular Auxiliary troops.And I don't think they are carrying what the Romans normally regarded as a 'fustis', which was more a knobbed stick, cudgel or baton, although the word might apply to the larger Club.....

Arminius wrote:

"The overlapping shield wall we know from the Viking Age was probably developed after the introduction of the large circular shield."

The Germanic charge was not too different to a Gallic/Celtic one, and we know they could charge with overlapped shields from Caesar's description of 'pila' pinning two shields together. The Germans too charged fiercely in dense columns/wedges (cunei).

"I do not think that it is save to deduce from those images that clubmen and stone throwers were a regular feature of Germanic warfare since there is no corroborative evidence."

I think it safe to say that thrown stones were a part of any ancient battle, whenever there was a ready supply, and there is some evidence that even German horsemen used thrown stones ( Caesar 'Gallic War' I.46; Tacitus 'Histories' V.17 - during Civilis' revolt, a battle began with "... the usual war-dances and clashing of arms, a rain of stones, sling bullets and other missiles....")

".....but that neither stone throwers or clubmen can inflict serious harm on a formation of armoured infantrymen."

The Romans might disagree! They found men armed with clubs to be particularly effective against fully armoured Palmyran Clibanarii cavalry ( Battle of Emesa 272 AD)

[Adam Oswalt]

I spoke too soon in my post above: it seems that the evidence supporting "battle axes" is sketchy at best. I was thinking some of the axes found at Vimose had been identified as battle axes, but, upon reviewing the information I have, this is not the case. If you're interested in it, I can get the bibliographic information on the article I have on tools at Vimose, with relevant information on axes and the problems inherent in attempting to categorize them as either weapons or tools.

Adam