This video makes me sad. I used to do these sorts of fight at least once a week, sometimes 2-3 times a week. But I haven't in two years. :( I specialized with spear in one hand, sword in the other. That and sword and shield, for when everyone banned me from using a spear after I went undefeated for a long period of time. :p But seriously, sword and spear is a wonderful weapon combination. Need to have a strong spear arm, though. And very good hand/eye for punch blocking.
I disagree with the spear bit. A spearmen without a shield can generally do well in single combat against sword and shield if he can control the distance. It would also really help if he used a shield on his back. In my viking reenactment group, the polearmed guys wear backshields and are very difficult to kill.
@demomanchaos It is difficult to run backwards over uncertain terrain faster than a foe can run forwards.
So how did you use the back-slung shields? Did you parry with them by turning on the spot? A heavy blow against a slung shield would transfer a lot more punch to the man than a held shield, but I suppose you couldn't simulate that in re-enactment.
@lindybeige In your normal spear stance your side is what is pointing to the enemy, so you don't have to turn for it to have effect. You only have to parry attacks coming to your front because the shield keeps your back safe. You can do turns if needed. The backshield keeps you covered as you try to create distance.
I can send you some videos from our group that show what I'm talking about. It is one of those things ever shown than described.
This is great material. And probably the only way to really understand how ancient fighting really took place. I wish we had more of that in Greece. Maybe we could figure out what gave the Macedonian phalanx "frontal" superiority and all those questions some of us have when we read history. Iphicrates, Cleomenes etc
Great film excellent re-enactment. I really enjoy how much information you get from these. Do you have a theory why the housecarles of the 11th century preferred the long battleaxes depicted on the Bayeau Tapestry to spears?
@lebarosky I don't think we have reason to believe that whole units of these men used axes solely. A big axe is a good shield splitter, so a few brave men in one part of the line might be able to make a breach...
@NoFaithNoPain If you mean a first-century Roman Legion, then there would be some devastating time-paradoxes created. My money would be on the Romans, because they were professionals.
@lindybeige I assume you are telling me that military technology, equipment, tactics and discipline were at their highest in the first century? I always wondered. Assume man on man, would rather battle individually with Lorica Segmentata, short sword (I do not know which is better, earlier shorter or later longer?) and shield, or battle as a Saxon/Viking? i.e. protection over mobility? Loving the channel by the way.
@lindybeige Ah, that makes sense. This is why "Gladitorial Kit" is different and possibly explains why the sword is so short. (Useful in compact lines as a long dagger, but no good for 1 on 1 in open spaces where a longer weapon is better). Thanks.
@Catachan1brainleaf You can hook shields with axes, which can be handy. Yes, the fighting style did not include massive swipes, but then such swipes are rather telegraphed.
Your video is almost exact in all but the fighting uphill (unless you are talking about lower numbers). If you actually charge downhill (not stand at a static position), then the person on the downhill has to crane upwards, and fight against the momentum of you charging towards them -- sun not withstanding--. The person going downhill has greater force behind them, and their weapon. After the charge, what you said comes into play. Over all, great video, look forwards to more.
@tomcat2222 Greater momentum downhill greatly increases your chances of stumbling, and stopping can be a problem. On the plus side it can be intimidating. The increased impact of the charge is only useful if you intend to use the added momentum to crash headlong into your foes - an act that will usually end in your rapid death.
I can sort of see how a spear and shield might be weaker than a sword and shield if the spear relies on fighting at a distance while the shield is only useful up close, but a two handed spear that has more reach and more leverage would probably gain the upper hand, indeed George Silver rates most of the staffed weapons above sword and buckler and sword and targe. This might explain why some vikings would sling their shields over their shoulders when formations broke.
@HBOrrgg But that is one on one, against multiple opponents when you cant point your spear at more than one target at a time it is considerably more difficult. That's what happened to the spearman in the video he was caught off guard and rushed before he could react.
@HBOrrgg A targe/buckler is quite different from the shields being shown above. Mainly, its really small. You're not really blocking so much as parrying. Since its so small, you can't trap an enemy spear on the "wrong" side of you. Trying to do so with a buckler would just lead to the spearman disengaging and stabbing you somewhere.
About the charge - does it happen when one person spots the opportunity, gets eager and the rest follow suit, or is there a sergeant of sorts who gets to call it? Hive mind, perhaps?
@Gilmaris Usually one man starts it, and others back him up if they think he's picked the right moment. Sometimes the enemy reaction is so stiffen resolve and see the first man off, in which case there can be a reversal, but more often the enemy quails/falls back/panics. Usually the first man to charge is right.
I'm not so sure that a spearman can't take on a swordsman, actually. Perhaps it depends on whether or not the spearman is encumbered with a shield--in single combat I think a man with two hands on his spear would have a much easier time shortening his grip on the weapon and preventing a foolhardy swordsman from rushing past his point.
I have a hard time giving this reenactment much credibility when the person recording it is convinced that overarm spear grips are somehow ahistorical.
@lindybeige i must say quite an interesting feat of history, it minds me a great deal of the Galatians they just... went the other way... you should make a video about the Celtic Mercenaries in Egypt :D
@fsbritney This was a few groups. One (mine) - The Arthurian Society, later The English Settlement Society, later the North East Anglo-Saxon Re-enactment Society - I know no longer exists. Another that I think is still going was Regia Anglorum.
In some barbaric cultures people believed that their faith was predetermined and did not care about their lives too much. For example excavations of slavonic and bulgarian villages did not find any deffencive weapons.
underarm favours looser shield walls, phalanxes were TIGHT shield walls though so the overarm was necessary until the macedonians~
this is pretty cool, although that person should have grabbed the spear like a staff and put it 90 degrees to the sword slash, or lept away as best as possible
you can make a crude V shaped catch with your weapon and shield if you choose to press with it and are strong enough with good leverage, you will need only to deal with their shield, shoulder time~
I wonder what would happen If there was any slingers in there? To me it would be much better than fighting hand to hand, plus I can run faster than those men with spear and shield if I wanted to, my thought is this the side with no missile throwers lose the fight
@jabames The missile users have to retreat to avoid melee. A well-drilled shieldwall could advanced while keeping fairly well covered. At some point it will reach the objective (e.g. village) and the missile users will either have to melee or lose control of the objective.
I'm curious about how such a skirmish would turn out if one side utilized hoplite tactics,say the Romano-Celts had a guy on their side who had been exposed to Herodotus. Is the shield they are using suitable for such a formation?
I think you should do a video about the so called "Dark Ages" in general. There is an extreme amount of ignorance with regards to this subject and the level of development of the Europeans at this time 4001000.
I would like to point out, that if what you say is true that they used it overarm so the shield could cover MORE of their body, then why would they use it underarm for safety reasons? Wouldn't a shield that covers more of your body be safer?
I'm not sure if this question is being asked of me or of another. The re-enactors are using the spear underarm because it works better. It is my belief that this was the usual way they were used in real fights.
This is re-enactment fighting. The spears are held underarm for safety reasons. Real fighting is done with spears overarm whre the shleld can be more effective in ocvering the body.
these tactics are demonstrations of a skirmish, would a major battle involving many people, say 100+, be the same thing on a larger scale or would there be significant differences?
I agree. I'd say that matters of morale would have a greater role to play with more men, and numbers would matter less. In re-enactments, where people have no fear of death, casualty rates in big battles tend to be unrealistically high.
This was a few groups. One (mine) - The Arthurian Society, later The English Settlement Society, later the North East Anglo-Saxon Re-enactment Society - I know no longer exists. Another that I think is still going was Regia Anglorum.
Have you tried Phalanx formations ? With pikes instead of spears ? a formation about 3 ranks deep would present a fierce wall of spear points but I wonder if the lack of mobility would be its downfall.
No, I haven't tried pike formations. Re-enactors of pike and shot period (English Civil War etc.) periods have pike blocks, but they don't really fight properly. When two pike blocks clash, either both sides have to raise pikes and start shoving, or else everybody dies. This tells us nothing of pike formations of the ancient world. Bear in mind, though, that pikes were not intended to fight other pikes.
Some interesting skirmishes. But a large scale battle would be quite diferent. Probably the best way to simulate a large scale battle with a reasonable number or reanactors would be to do it somewhere with restricted flanks like a bridge, forcing you into mulyiple ranks. There the denser formations of overlaping shields should have the advantage. And perhaps the front rank could fight crouched so that the resr rank can jab over them. That would give the reach of the spear quite an advantage.
Yes, we tried fights as deep as eight ranks in confined areas. Didn't work terribly well, largely because the absence of the factor of fear became laughable as people fought over a steadily growing pile of bodies. If you crouch as much as you suggest, you immobilise yourself, and you feel less safe, not more. Overlapping shields confine you even more, and give your foes the chance to pick their spot and mass where they choose.
At 2:35, you say "If you're caught on your own with just a spear, you're dead." I disapprove of blanket statements in general, and this specific one I have to refute.
You have a superb grasp of history, and I respect that you blend it with hands-on experience, but my own personal experience refutes your statement. I use a boarspear in one-on-one combat quite often, and 'win' around half the time.
If you'd like, I do have such fights recorded on YouTube, but i'll refrain from linking now.
Yes, it was stark statement, and I believe the listener can tell that it is of course possible to live. I stick to my guns, though, but clarify that the spearman was caught alone by a swordsman _with a shield_. Do you win half the time against people with shields in one-on-one? Link away.
I have to agree with Jariik. I use a dory two handed and I do very well against shield and sword. The key I've found is to make lots of little strikes and thrusts to the head. They wont connect but they'll establish a pattern and an expectation in your opponent that you'll be going for the head. At the right time, step back slightly and lunge for the gut or thighs. The big problem is if someone grabs the spear you have very little protection. I usuaully have a small dagger for such a case.
Yes, we always had dagger as well for the same reason. Again, though, you seem to be writing of using a spear against a foe who has no shield. Spearing a man who has a shield in the thigh or gut in a duel is almost impossible.
That's why I was careful to write "almost". The thing is, if something is difficult and an opponent has an option that is easy, then you are unwise to adopt the tactic. If you will probably die doing X, don't do X.
Its something that, once mastered, is extremely effective against one or multiple opponents. The key is to keep your spear moving and to recognize if someone is trying to grab for it. But a two-handed spear is an extremely difficult weapon to fight against, especially if someone can move it quickly. Its the same principal as the naginata.
I think it depends - in a 'real' fight where the whole body is a target the spearman has a better chance but I'd still give the swordsman the edge, in re-enactment combat on the other hand where the head and lower limbs are taken out of the game a competant swordsman should win far more often than not in a one on one fight, in a line of course it's a very diferent story!
An interesting thing about the head is that built-in instincts make it such that people get their heads out of the way of blows amazingly quickly. In a life-or-death one-on-one fight I'd be content that my opponent tried to spear me in the no-chance-of-fatality foot while I went for his chest. But yes, I agree that the rules of re-enactment make a difference.
Agreed, I think the biggest diference is that in a real fight you have a bigger target to cover with your shield, in reenactment where the shield covers almost all of the allowed target area it's much easier just to hold it in place knowing nobody is going to go for your head or lower legs
Suppose that people stop playing chess for 1000 years. Then some historians decide to study it. They know the rules of chess, but they have very little data on how the games were actually played. To learn more, they make their own chess sets and play each other.
Those historians will learn more about chess, but they won't learn much about how chess was actually played centuries ago. That's not their fault, it's just the nature of history.
I take your point, but I'd say they'd learn about the way chess was played, because they are human, and they know that humans played it, with human brains. They also know the rules, so they would be able to work out what tactics worked, and it would be reasonable to conclude that people were intelligent, and if certain tactics worked, they would use them.
But yes, re-enactment is not a flawless way to study infantry tactics. I prefer it to the alternatives, though.
Nothing from this period. Later modern standing armies have drill books, and there are books sold to rich Renaissance men on how to defend themselves personally, but there's nothing on how a shieldwall fought.
Well the later texts, can give a clue as to the earlier practices.
Also, there should at least exist some accounts of battles, real and fictional, that give some hints, as to how they fought.
Sure, they wouldn't be entirely accurate (especially fictional accounts and/or ones written by people who were unfamiliar with war), but they can still give us a clue, so it'll be nearer accuracy.
Still leaves a lot of the burden, up to experimental archaeology, done by re-enactors and HEMA practitioners.
Well, don't know much about studying history. But from my experience, as a Biology student, many thing was done on model organisms, examples: are baker yeast and Drosophila.
Then those are extrapolate onto human. Some were even used and model for understanding many Biological concepts and mechanisms.
This video makes me sad. I used to do these sorts of fight at least once a week, sometimes 2-3 times a week. But I haven't in two years. :( I specialized with spear in one hand, sword in the other. That and sword and shield, for when everyone banned me from using a spear after I went undefeated for a long period of time. :p But seriously, sword and spear is a wonderful weapon combination. Need to have a strong spear arm, though. And very good hand/eye for punch blocking.
Melthornal 18 hours ago
Yes, "The prodding stage" mmm.
KnockoffNigeI 1 month ago
Man, canada needs medieval style reinactments. All we got is reinactments of how Joe the lumberjack won his war against trees. Not terribly exciting.
olelumpy 2 months ago
@olelumpy Don't you all then balance on the logs and race downstream in checked shirts?
lindybeige 1 month ago
@lindybeige Don't be absurd, we have wear normal woolen sweaters as well.
olelumpy 1 month ago
You should do more of these.
I disagree with the spear bit. A spearmen without a shield can generally do well in single combat against sword and shield if he can control the distance. It would also really help if he used a shield on his back. In my viking reenactment group, the polearmed guys wear backshields and are very difficult to kill.
demomanchaos 2 months ago
@demomanchaos It is difficult to run backwards over uncertain terrain faster than a foe can run forwards.
So how did you use the back-slung shields? Did you parry with them by turning on the spot? A heavy blow against a slung shield would transfer a lot more punch to the man than a held shield, but I suppose you couldn't simulate that in re-enactment.
lindybeige 2 months ago
@lindybeige In your normal spear stance your side is what is pointing to the enemy, so you don't have to turn for it to have effect. You only have to parry attacks coming to your front because the shield keeps your back safe. You can do turns if needed. The backshield keeps you covered as you try to create distance.
I can send you some videos from our group that show what I'm talking about. It is one of those things ever shown than described.
demomanchaos 2 months ago
This is great material. And probably the only way to really understand how ancient fighting really took place. I wish we had more of that in Greece. Maybe we could figure out what gave the Macedonian phalanx "frontal" superiority and all those questions some of us have when we read history. Iphicrates, Cleomenes etc
NIKOLAKION 4 months ago
Great film excellent re-enactment. I really enjoy how much information you get from these. Do you have a theory why the housecarles of the 11th century preferred the long battleaxes depicted on the Bayeau Tapestry to spears?
lebarosky 5 months ago
@lebarosky I don't think we have reason to believe that whole units of these men used axes solely. A big axe is a good shield splitter, so a few brave men in one part of the line might be able to make a breach...
lindybeige 5 months ago
If a saxon / norse army using this technology met with a Roman Legion (of similar size) what would happen?
NoFaithNoPain 5 months ago
@NoFaithNoPain If you mean a first-century Roman Legion, then there would be some devastating time-paradoxes created. My money would be on the Romans, because they were professionals.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige I assume you are telling me that military technology, equipment, tactics and discipline were at their highest in the first century? I always wondered. Assume man on man, would rather battle individually with Lorica Segmentata, short sword (I do not know which is better, earlier shorter or later longer?) and shield, or battle as a Saxon/Viking? i.e. protection over mobility? Loving the channel by the way.
NoFaithNoPain 5 months ago
@NoFaithNoPain The Roman kit is not suited to duelling. Caesar says this in his Gallic Wars.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige Ah, that makes sense. This is why "Gladitorial Kit" is different and possibly explains why the sword is so short. (Useful in compact lines as a long dagger, but no good for 1 on 1 in open spaces where a longer weapon is better). Thanks.
NoFaithNoPain 5 months ago
@Catachan1brainleaf You can hook shields with axes, which can be handy. Yes, the fighting style did not include massive swipes, but then such swipes are rather telegraphed.
lindybeige 7 months ago
I like the realism of the costume, not a lot of armour and mainly just spears.
whowantsabighug 8 months ago
Your video is almost exact in all but the fighting uphill (unless you are talking about lower numbers). If you actually charge downhill (not stand at a static position), then the person on the downhill has to crane upwards, and fight against the momentum of you charging towards them -- sun not withstanding--. The person going downhill has greater force behind them, and their weapon. After the charge, what you said comes into play. Over all, great video, look forwards to more.
tomcat2222 9 months ago
@tomcat2222 Greater momentum downhill greatly increases your chances of stumbling, and stopping can be a problem. On the plus side it can be intimidating. The increased impact of the charge is only useful if you intend to use the added momentum to crash headlong into your foes - an act that will usually end in your rapid death.
lindybeige 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
tomcat2222 9 months ago
I can sort of see how a spear and shield might be weaker than a sword and shield if the spear relies on fighting at a distance while the shield is only useful up close, but a two handed spear that has more reach and more leverage would probably gain the upper hand, indeed George Silver rates most of the staffed weapons above sword and buckler and sword and targe. This might explain why some vikings would sling their shields over their shoulders when formations broke.
HBOrrgg 9 months ago
@HBOrrgg But that is one on one, against multiple opponents when you cant point your spear at more than one target at a time it is considerably more difficult. That's what happened to the spearman in the video he was caught off guard and rushed before he could react.
HBOrrgg 9 months ago
@HBOrrgg A targe/buckler is quite different from the shields being shown above. Mainly, its really small. You're not really blocking so much as parrying. Since its so small, you can't trap an enemy spear on the "wrong" side of you. Trying to do so with a buckler would just lead to the spearman disengaging and stabbing you somewhere.
V2chiu 7 months ago
About the charge - does it happen when one person spots the opportunity, gets eager and the rest follow suit, or is there a sergeant of sorts who gets to call it? Hive mind, perhaps?
Gilmaris 10 months ago
@Gilmaris Usually one man starts it, and others back him up if they think he's picked the right moment. Sometimes the enemy reaction is so stiffen resolve and see the first man off, in which case there can be a reversal, but more often the enemy quails/falls back/panics. Usually the first man to charge is right.
lindybeige 10 months ago
I'm not so sure that a spearman can't take on a swordsman, actually. Perhaps it depends on whether or not the spearman is encumbered with a shield--in single combat I think a man with two hands on his spear would have a much easier time shortening his grip on the weapon and preventing a foolhardy swordsman from rushing past his point.
ruebuscm 11 months ago
I have a hard time giving this reenactment much credibility when the person recording it is convinced that overarm spear grips are somehow ahistorical.
1212Jerichoman1212 11 months ago
@1212Jerichoman1212 If you have evidence for the contrary, do share.
lindybeige 11 months ago
WAIT!!! what is that prygtian cap doing there?!
FaakedLillebror 11 months ago
@FaakedLillebror Perfectly authentic for Saxons.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige i must say quite an interesting feat of history, it minds me a great deal of the Galatians they just... went the other way... you should make a video about the Celtic Mercenaries in Egypt :D
FaakedLillebror 11 months ago
how old was this video?
megashuttlecock 1 year ago
@megashuttlecock Fairly old - 1990s I think.
lindybeige 1 year ago
Which society is this?
fsbritney 1 year ago
@fsbritney This was a few groups. One (mine) - The Arthurian Society, later The English Settlement Society, later the North East Anglo-Saxon Re-enactment Society - I know no longer exists. Another that I think is still going was Regia Anglorum.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige That's cool, Regia Anglorum is still going strong, I was a member for four years and ran a group in Swansea for one.
fsbritney 1 year ago
@ShowYourWorking
In some barbaric cultures people believed that their faith was predetermined and did not care about their lives too much. For example excavations of slavonic and bulgarian villages did not find any deffencive weapons.
nazisucksass 1 year ago
@ShowYourWorking Not many, in the dark ages.
lindybeige 1 year ago
Love your videos. Always leave me thinking
wesmatron 1 year ago
underarm favours looser shield walls, phalanxes were TIGHT shield walls though so the overarm was necessary until the macedonians~
this is pretty cool, although that person should have grabbed the spear like a staff and put it 90 degrees to the sword slash, or lept away as best as possible
you can make a crude V shaped catch with your weapon and shield if you choose to press with it and are strong enough with good leverage, you will need only to deal with their shield, shoulder time~
noobler9 1 year ago
I wonder what would happen If there was any slingers in there? To me it would be much better than fighting hand to hand, plus I can run faster than those men with spear and shield if I wanted to, my thought is this the side with no missile throwers lose the fight
jabames 1 year ago
@jabames The missile users have to retreat to avoid melee. A well-drilled shieldwall could advanced while keeping fairly well covered. At some point it will reach the objective (e.g. village) and the missile users will either have to melee or lose control of the objective.
lindybeige 1 year ago
The guy in the brown with the long hair seems to have racked up quite the bodycount.
LucanJacups 1 year ago 19
I'm curious about how such a skirmish would turn out if one side utilized hoplite tactics,say the Romano-Celts had a guy on their side who had been exposed to Herodotus. Is the shield they are using suitable for such a formation?
MithraisAugustus 1 year ago
@MithraisAugustus I doubt that what we see here is so very different from hoplite tactics, especially with these few numbers.
lindybeige 1 year ago
How do people not get broken bones while doing this?
TheKittu 1 year ago
@TheKittu Politeness and consideration.
lindybeige 1 year ago 7
I think you should do a video about the so called "Dark Ages" in general. There is an extreme amount of ignorance with regards to this subject and the level of development of the Europeans at this time 4001000.
harrowingXhills 1 year ago
Well with staying at and distance in an skirmish then underhand has the advantage. But in colloding shieldwalls overhand is far more usefull.
Spartiatai300 1 year ago
I would like to point out, that if what you say is true that they used it overarm so the shield could cover MORE of their body, then why would they use it underarm for safety reasons? Wouldn't a shield that covers more of your body be safer?
NewWorldSinner 2 years ago
I'm not sure if this question is being asked of me or of another. The re-enactors are using the spear underarm because it works better. It is my belief that this was the usual way they were used in real fights.
lindybeige 2 years ago
@lindybeige
My comment was directed at skulptor, although now I can't remember what my point was entirely.
NewWorldSinner 1 year ago
Yes Interesting to see that after all these years, I was quite young then and agile, now I am just more experienced and slower.
Great stuff, wish you had more of it and of course more of me!
Col Rab Richards
FioredieLiberi 2 years ago
This is re-enactment fighting. The spears are held underarm for safety reasons. Real fighting is done with spears overarm whre the shleld can be more effective in ocvering the body.
skulptor 2 years ago
I disagree. I shall be making a video on this point soonish.
lindybeige 2 years ago
@lindybeige I look forward to it.
skulptor 2 years ago
@lindybeige Last comment evaporated. .. I look forward to it. Would love to see you try it out in a battle where everyone else used them properly :)
skulptor 2 years ago
OMFG LOK SHILDS LIK SPARTNZ
Ahh.. Awesome by the way.
Id love to do that, but couldnt bring myself to do it, unfortunately.
Curse society and its advancements
StoopidSins 2 years ago
these tactics are demonstrations of a skirmish, would a major battle involving many people, say 100+, be the same thing on a larger scale or would there be significant differences?
nice vid though
TrekkyRudd 2 years ago
I agree. I'd say that matters of morale would have a greater role to play with more men, and numbers would matter less. In re-enactments, where people have no fear of death, casualty rates in big battles tend to be unrealistically high.
lindybeige 2 years ago
what group is this i love dark age i do ancient roman/briton at the moment plz tell me id love to join.
pjmclemon123 2 years ago
This was a few groups. One (mine) - The Arthurian Society, later The English Settlement Society, later the North East Anglo-Saxon Re-enactment Society - I know no longer exists. Another that I think is still going was Regia Anglorum.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Awesome video :D I love spear-walls more than you can imagine :)
ljfhutchinson 2 years ago
do you still do this?
whowantsabighug 2 years ago
I don't, no, but if the Saxons invaded again I could be called up.
lindybeige 2 years ago
wow that is so not epic
lordevil787 2 years ago
Epicity costs more. I asked.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Great experience, loved it!
Pretty well done.
Have you tried Phalanx formations ? With pikes instead of spears ? a formation about 3 ranks deep would present a fierce wall of spear points but I wonder if the lack of mobility would be its downfall.
neveSykcuL 2 years ago
No, I haven't tried pike formations. Re-enactors of pike and shot period (English Civil War etc.) periods have pike blocks, but they don't really fight properly. When two pike blocks clash, either both sides have to raise pikes and start shoving, or else everybody dies. This tells us nothing of pike formations of the ancient world. Bear in mind, though, that pikes were not intended to fight other pikes.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Some interesting skirmishes. But a large scale battle would be quite diferent. Probably the best way to simulate a large scale battle with a reasonable number or reanactors would be to do it somewhere with restricted flanks like a bridge, forcing you into mulyiple ranks. There the denser formations of overlaping shields should have the advantage. And perhaps the front rank could fight crouched so that the resr rank can jab over them. That would give the reach of the spear quite an advantage.
MrMonkeybat 2 years ago
Yes, we tried fights as deep as eight ranks in confined areas. Didn't work terribly well, largely because the absence of the factor of fear became laughable as people fought over a steadily growing pile of bodies. If you crouch as much as you suggest, you immobilise yourself, and you feel less safe, not more. Overlapping shields confine you even more, and give your foes the chance to pick their spot and mass where they choose.
lindybeige 2 years ago
nice =) thanks for sharing!
deketeme 2 years ago
At 2:35, you say "If you're caught on your own with just a spear, you're dead." I disapprove of blanket statements in general, and this specific one I have to refute.
You have a superb grasp of history, and I respect that you blend it with hands-on experience, but my own personal experience refutes your statement. I use a boarspear in one-on-one combat quite often, and 'win' around half the time.
If you'd like, I do have such fights recorded on YouTube, but i'll refrain from linking now.
Jariik 2 years ago
Yes, it was stark statement, and I believe the listener can tell that it is of course possible to live. I stick to my guns, though, but clarify that the spearman was caught alone by a swordsman _with a shield_. Do you win half the time against people with shields in one-on-one? Link away.
lindybeige 2 years ago
I have to agree with Jariik. I use a dory two handed and I do very well against shield and sword. The key I've found is to make lots of little strikes and thrusts to the head. They wont connect but they'll establish a pattern and an expectation in your opponent that you'll be going for the head. At the right time, step back slightly and lunge for the gut or thighs. The big problem is if someone grabs the spear you have very little protection. I usuaully have a small dagger for such a case.
Socinus 2 years ago
Yes, we always had dagger as well for the same reason. Again, though, you seem to be writing of using a spear against a foe who has no shield. Spearing a man who has a shield in the thigh or gut in a duel is almost impossible.
lindybeige 2 years ago
It IS difficult but I assure you it is not impossible. If you are ever in LA, look me up and I'll show you :)
Socinus 2 years ago
That's why I was careful to write "almost". The thing is, if something is difficult and an opponent has an option that is easy, then you are unwise to adopt the tactic. If you will probably die doing X, don't do X.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Its something that, once mastered, is extremely effective against one or multiple opponents. The key is to keep your spear moving and to recognize if someone is trying to grab for it. But a two-handed spear is an extremely difficult weapon to fight against, especially if someone can move it quickly. Its the same principal as the naginata.
Socinus 2 years ago
I think it depends - in a 'real' fight where the whole body is a target the spearman has a better chance but I'd still give the swordsman the edge, in re-enactment combat on the other hand where the head and lower limbs are taken out of the game a competant swordsman should win far more often than not in a one on one fight, in a line of course it's a very diferent story!
AelfricofCedde 2 years ago
An interesting thing about the head is that built-in instincts make it such that people get their heads out of the way of blows amazingly quickly. In a life-or-death one-on-one fight I'd be content that my opponent tried to spear me in the no-chance-of-fatality foot while I went for his chest. But yes, I agree that the rules of re-enactment make a difference.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Agreed, I think the biggest diference is that in a real fight you have a bigger target to cover with your shield, in reenactment where the shield covers almost all of the allowed target area it's much easier just to hold it in place knowing nobody is going to go for your head or lower legs
AelfricofCedde 2 years ago
That's not really true. I don't know if you received my previous post, but there was some video evidence in there contrary to your statement.
Jariik 2 years ago
Suppose that people stop playing chess for 1000 years. Then some historians decide to study it. They know the rules of chess, but they have very little data on how the games were actually played. To learn more, they make their own chess sets and play each other.
Those historians will learn more about chess, but they won't learn much about how chess was actually played centuries ago. That's not their fault, it's just the nature of history.
LeonidasRexx 2 years ago
I take your point, but I'd say they'd learn about the way chess was played, because they are human, and they know that humans played it, with human brains. They also know the rules, so they would be able to work out what tactics worked, and it would be reasonable to conclude that people were intelligent, and if certain tactics worked, they would use them.
But yes, re-enactment is not a flawless way to study infantry tactics. I prefer it to the alternatives, though.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Surely there are some instructions on infantry tactics, in historical texts? At least to some degree.
Of course, it still needs to be put into action, to be properly understood.
How to fight one on one (with various weapons, and unarmed), IS indeed covered in various texts..
There are several groups who are reviving the Historical European Martial Arts.
(the terms Western Martial Arts and Renaissance Martial Arts, are also used, but I find them misleading)
ZarlanTheGreen 2 years ago
Nothing from this period. Later modern standing armies have drill books, and there are books sold to rich Renaissance men on how to defend themselves personally, but there's nothing on how a shieldwall fought.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Well the later texts, can give a clue as to the earlier practices.
Also, there should at least exist some accounts of battles, real and fictional, that give some hints, as to how they fought.
Sure, they wouldn't be entirely accurate (especially fictional accounts and/or ones written by people who were unfamiliar with war), but they can still give us a clue, so it'll be nearer accuracy.
Still leaves a lot of the burden, up to experimental archaeology, done by re-enactors and HEMA practitioners.
ZarlanTheGreen 2 years ago
You do indeed love those commas. I respect that.
000majorwinters000 2 years ago
Well, don't know much about studying history. But from my experience, as a Biology student, many thing was done on model organisms, examples: are baker yeast and Drosophila.
Then those are extrapolate onto human. Some were even used and model for understanding many Biological concepts and mechanisms.
Deadman1709 2 years ago
Choice video! Thanks for that. Blind-siding is very important in medieval battles and pub fights.
cyberfish102 2 years ago
Interesting video + summary. It's cool that you put the effort into it.
000majorwinters000 2 years ago