Dude, a samurai would fuck up a viking any day. You've failed to realize that the reason the samurai wore such lightweight armor was for the speed and mobility it offers, which not to mention they've TRAINED THEIR WHOLE FUCKING LIVES. Opposed to a viking, who most likely has little to no combat training and relies on the sheer power of overwhelming surprise attacks on innocent villagers?
1) Some vikings were farmers who took up raiding once in a while to feed their families, but most were professional warriors. I'd like to see the samurai go up against a housekarl or berserker.
2) Vikings lived in a harsh, lawless land full of bandits, rival clans and dangerous animals. Back then, everyone had some combat training, and it was a lot more pragmatic than the samurai's ritualised training.
3) Samurai slaughtered "innocent villagers" often, and were never punished for it.
@titytit : The armor is not there to be a primary defense, the best strategy is not to be hit by your enemy in the first place. Still, the mail(with proper under armor) did provide protection that could save a warrior's life, though serious bruises and broken bones was not uncommon if one got hit, such injuries are much more survivable than the alternative.
A katana blade (from the Edo and early Meiji periods) made from real "Tamahagane" metal -would most certainly cut through steel, make no mistake about that.
But, at the same time, the viking "Long Axe" was such an effective weapon -they were known to cleave men (almost) in two.
We must also take into consideration that the vikings were great metallurgists as well.
But, we have to go back to the Katana, the tamahagane process of forging was considered just as intricate as Damascened steel...
@epic0wnag Would you like me to tell that all the Bujinkan instructors I have trained with ? If so let me know who you really are so they can speak with you directly because I have been studying with them for many years :P
If only if only, these fools had a the intelligence to do this test with a katana made in japan. But they have chosen some 200-300$ replica made from 1060 spring steel. come back and do a video when you spend 3000$ on a decent nihonto otherwise you look like a complete fool to those of us who train in kenjutsu. oh and on a final note, stop swinging that thing like a baseball bat its highly ineffective
@NoisemakerArrow My friend, it is not my responsibility to ensure these "fools" as i called them have the proper sword in which to do this test. They chose not to spend 1000$-3500$ in order to get the accuracy needed in the test. The sword being shown is of less than 200$ quality meaning its edge is extremely weak for cutting through armor. And before you say "No Katana can cut through armor" you are wrong, during the wars there were Katana specifically designed to cut through thick armor.
@masterdude134 : The "cutting armor" discussion is fairly irrelevant, you do not rely on your armor as a primary defensive tool, it is only there to give you a higher probability of survival. Anyway, I should think that a warrior would not willingly damage their master forged blade on cutting metal unless forced by extremity to do so, a good blade was extremely expensive, and it is extremely difficult to cut a chain armor of good quality, it is better to target less defended areas instead.
When it comes to cutting through steel, it really doesn't matter what edge you have. A soft one will dull, a hard one will shatter. You're just not going to hack through steel with a three pound razor. Hell, most swords have trouble cutting thick leather.
I would suggest anyone really interested in european weaponry vs asian do actually research. For whatever reason television is woefully inaccurate when it comes to medieval weapons preferring to perpetuate the incorrect portrayal put out there by holly wood. Ewart Oakeshott is worth looking up if your interested in medieval blades.
I would like to point out to everyone saying longswords or european swords in general were heavy are mistaken. 1 handed swords Generally only weighed in at about 2-3 pounds. Bastard swords were slightly heavier. Great swords never even went above 10 pounds. The reason for this is pretty simple it is velocity which makes a weapon more effective not weight, A lighter sword is able to generate more velocity when swung.
@ThegnThrand yeah mate i see your point with that one, thanks for the good vid on why you have it like that.. really gets you thinking about the axes doesnt it?
@tallswede80 oh please they were raiders not warriors its easy to kill a harmless peasant who has no weapon then leave before anyone who knows how to fight shows up and the weapons and armor they had was iron not steal
The Danes took over half of England at one point. The northern half of england was under "Danelaw" for a couple hundred years. I don't remember which king they fought though.
Looks like you need to go to the library and check out a book on the history of the British isles or a book on vikings. Rest assured that the vikings fought against armies on the battle field on many occasions.
I don't remember the title. Some college textbook that I sold. Wikipedia might be a good place to start if you're really interested. There's usually a bibliography at the bottom of the page.
Look I can see you are of germanic decent, and might add to the favorite tword certain wepons, but the samuri were trained in many wepons not just sword, but also long yajiri spear and would often fight from horseback also, the vikings may have had gunpowder latter also, but point is its not an apples to apples comparison on either one, point is that the samuri were more refined in fighting, and the katana is a slice wepon that could cut through two people in one swing on unarmored skin.
@manga12 " the katana is a slice wepon that could cut through two people in one swing on unarmored skin" yes, because the vikings were so well known for fighting unarmored. The point Thrand is trying to make in this video is that DW is terribly inaccurate and this is his attempt at making things a little more honest.
Well The vikings had some armor, as did the samuri, but, I am just saying there were differant samuri many of them specialests in certain areas and not all of them armored if they were foot soldiers, though many were mounted fighters and many would be specialests in certain wepons like the speer or bow for example, I know he is trying to point out the inaccuracies in the show, but, the first video they did I felt did not do the japanese sword justice, It is a fine wepon, the second set is better
@manga12 Be sure to check out my latest Video " Deadliest Warrior : Thrand's Spartan Vs. Ninja / Samurai " /watch?v=mNj5HiCPx1I on You Tube You might like the Video and how the Ninja and Samurai were represented :P
@manga12 both the vikings and samurai (except the ninja class) always wore armor for their foot class duties. Not some of them all of them. Some vikings fought with 2 handed axes while some went sword and board while others dual wielded. Yes Japan had horses, mounted warriors and the yari. But this is about one on one footed combat. The yari is best used for and against horses. Also, the katana was a great weapon, but its not that great. Its not like Europe had shit for swords either
well depends on which one you refer to, the long sword was heavy and could bash in armor for sure, but the tip was also known to break from the tension while bending, and the German zweihander is a good long sword with weight that could hack down pole arms and armor, but as far as a wepon in one on one the katana is a faster wepon that had a sharper edge that was convex to pair away materal as it slices, no maybe it cant cut armor well, but it will lop a head off faster then a straight sword.
@manga12 but the simple fact that the katana is against armored opponents takes all of its razzle dazzle away. In terms of cutting and slicing power it had relativly the same as europeon counterparts sometimes more and sometimes less. It is a faster weapon that doesnt tend to break that is for sure, but it is an improvement that is easily mitigated with the application of armor. Personally out of the samurai weapons i prefer the naginata, but then again I've always been a polearm guy myself.
well I like the naginata as well, I am surprised that is was not more featured in the show, you saw what it did to that resine skull, lopped a good hunk of it off on the show, it could just as well stab, and dispite what knife show guys tell you, the naginata was used by samuri not just monks and women as a means of defence, I always liked the huge curved blade of the naginata just like on the mutent ninja turtles arcade game the boss with the floating head used one, there is also the nagimaki
@manga12 The Samurai used the straighter version the females used the more curved Naginata to hook people off the roof tops wile defending houses wile the samurai were away. The naginata was used by Samurai during an era with light of no leg armor after the advent of better leg armor the Yari became prevalent again. The legs are not hard to defend with a center boss shield but against other poles and spear types as well as two handed swords being used they are very hard to defend that low.
anyway the samurai had many pole arms also, and did not use shields that were carried to speak of, as for the kubo next to never was it used on record, and the japanese long yari would be more then a match for chainmail as well as twice the length of a throwing spear.
at 0:46 one can see the power thrand has got there. To thrust that accurate and hard needs skill...no matter who would win thrand i guess is a skilled fighter!
Looked into a bit more, bow draw weights seem to be tied with overall size, shape, and construction. Most powerful being a reflex bow , allowing insane draw weights at small sizes but requiring composite materials to be able to handle the stress. Straight self bows are the simplest and most reliable to use, but need to be increasingly larger to get the same draw weight as the non-composite construction can't handle the stress as well.
not quiet sharp enough the samurai sword would have been sharpened every day there are no modern samurai swords that match those original made the skills are gone that is what happens when all most all effort is on 1complicated weapon
@n2488 Get real. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the Katanas are weaker nowadays, with the superior tech we have to make the progress easier. The opposite would be true.
@TheScandinavianOne you would think that but technology like that is lost for exampled no one is sure what the Egyptian Khopesh is made of and how they have stayed so sharp and survived for so long
Umm, where did you get this info on the egyptian khopesh from? Because a .5second search yields hundreds of results saying it was made of bronze or iron, including those from the very museums they are housed in. Modern scientific tests tell us what Exactly the blade is made of, it's hardness, and insights into the forging and treating of the swords. Getting the right composition is easy, it's getting the heat treatment right thats the hard part, and as always you get what u pay for.
@WitheringintheDark listen this comment wasn't aimed at you but if you are interest in it there is also a lot of interest surrounding old Mongol compound bows designs as these were believed to be slightly superior to modern copies but I have the feeling your minds made up so I am sure I cant change it as you seem very angry I never said I was an expert I was just asking to find out more sorry if this makes you angry
I'm highly skeptic of the khopesh bit, but I've heard much the same regarding the bow. The ancient mongol bow was a Heavy draw warbow just like the english longbow, with ungodly draw weights (over 120lb) too much for amateur bowmen to comfortably use. From what i've heard most modern 'mongol' bows are based off the chinese manchurian one as well. Of course neither bow can compare to what we can do with modern compound bows now, but they were impressive back then.
In regards to that guys first statement, a number of the modern swords ARE worse. At least, the cheap bargain ones. Stainless steel or titanium swords are inferior to well crafted ones of high carbon steel. Modern aesthetically folded swords often are improperly welded and contain air pockets. Many arnt properly heat treated and are weaker as a result. You get what you pay for, but the Expensive hand made ones today are generally a bit better then ancient ones(purer, ect)
@TheScandinavianOne I don't no were exactly to find evidence but the katana was measured on how many body's it could go through in 1 slice the highest were said to be around ten but most were about three or 4 from what I have heard from some documentary's and such but seeing as I don't speak Japanese there is no point me looking for the old writing that says so
@TheScandinavianOne thanks interesting but I didn't say I thought it was insane sharp and magic and I no that a lot of people are obsessive and don't want to hear any of its draw backs I am not really a fan of it as they are useless for blunt trauma if some one is wearing any form of armour I much prefer the grosse messor I have no idea how you spell it but it means big knife in German I think I just said it could be sharper
Eh, I don't really think the grosse messer or great knife would be any better. Against heavy armor you want something either with a blade thin enough to slide through the links in mail, or a high impact blunt weapon. A war hammer or similar polearms would make short work of most heavy armor. Lighter leather and such can usually be pierced by a sharp pointed weapon quite easily.
More like 2-5, though there are no modern tests that confirm this. It also fails to mention said bodies were tied down to an earthen mound(which helps in cutting) and the blade is mounted on a polearm handle(which helps cutting) and also varies depending upon which part of the body is cut through(can ease or hinder cutting)
@WitheringintheDark to be fair there is a lot of information exaggerating it cutting power I suppose its probably more important who is using it so I don't no that a direct comparison can be made to that of a vicking which is y I think it is ridicules to have a show that says they no the answer but I think the katan could be a little sharper
Either blade could really be as 'sharp' as the other it's more a matter of the degree you sharpen it to. It's typically understood that the curve on a blade allows it to slice a bit better as more of the blade is in contact with the flesh(while suffering slightly in other areas) Being a hand n a half weapon a better comparison would be another hand n a half; a similar 2-h saber or a longsword. The power increase from using 2-hands is def. noticeable as u can see.
As for the body blade thing yeah it does depend on who's using it. Besides the favorable testing conditions I already told about the cutting would not be done by the samurai, a tameshigiri artist who trained specifically in cutting in that way would do it, which is quite different then what is used in actual combat.
Not saying they Couldn't do it(i've seen longsword and claymores cut 2), but there's no proof or tests confirming anything higher then 2(which were on gutted animals anyway)
your right even a wood stick in the right hands can be a deadly wepon, even a practice sword a boken could kill you if you know how to used one well in the samuri arts, the katana is just one of many japanese swords they come in many differant lenghts like the larger nodachi, or odachi used to cut down horse legs, point is the japanese sword is a slicing wepon and the curved shape is also more conducive to it as well as the blades convex shape that spreads away as it cuts on bare skin.
Angry? Hardly. Just genuinely curious where you heard that from because what I found said otherwise. I'm also aware that modern copies of the bow are weaker(same applies to the english longbow), partly due to inferior design and materials, but also bc bows that powerful arn't needed and few are strong enough to use them. I know it's a composite reflex bow of birch, horn, sinew and fish glue(materials necessary to withstand the immense pressure of its Heavy draw on so small a bow)
@n2488 What are you talking about? The technology is not lost. Swordsmithing in Japan is an unbroken tradition, it has NEVER been lost. And swords made today are overall BETTER than the swords made back then. Japanese laws ensure that basically every nihonto made today is a masterpiece, but this was NOT the case in the days of the samurai. Back then, quality varied a great deal.
@Gilmaris during ww2 a lot of the leading sword crafters died and some of the skills were lost this is what i have heard from people I have talked to not necessarily true
Detailed analysis of the weapons can reveal most of the processes used in it's construction. A large portion of the forging process is obsolete now that folding or pattern welding isn't really necessary since we can make it a pure composition of whatever we want. The only hard part is properly heat treating it. Also don't be surprised if a modern sword breaks when you got it for $100 and they didn't tell you what it was made of(stainless steel sucks).
One thing to keep in mind: if the Vikings had invaded Japan in the 9th or 10th century, they would have faced defending armies largely composed of mounted archers, something they never encountered historically to my knowledge. We can only speculate how they would have fared. Supposedly, Japanese bows can pierce armor at less than 15 yards, and even the Mongols remarked on the prowess of samurai archers (in the 13th century, but still)
The Vikings did have poor representation on the show. I was most dissapointed to see the innacuracies with the sheild, and even using it as a weapon instead of something that would have been more suited.
@joker52mlb I thought they did ok with the sword, but not much else. What really bothers me is that people believed that Viking ran around chucking dual spears like they did in DW. :P
@TheScandinavianOne Valid point, good sir. What I understand from my studies, the spear was a vital aspect of their battle and raiding tactics and could've had better representation. However I firmly believe that the most dissapointing aspect was the shield form and usage.They lost by a very small margine and that could've been avoided.
From what I have learned of their tactics and skill; if they would have ever sailed to the far east to loot, all Japan would have been burned to the ground.
@joker52mlb A viking invasion would have been interesting, definitely. Now that I think about it the Viking age took place way before the Katana itself saw the light of day. ;)
You are right about the shield, by the way. The armstrap they used really made the "Expert" look like an idiot when he jumped around feigning blocking attempts. And the test with the Kanabo was ridiculous too.
I would have had a Throwing axe/Javelin as a ranged weapon and a Sax as a Special weapon.
@TheScandinavianOne From what I understand, the sheild was based more in deception than protection. We're talking about very ingenuitive, very resourceful craftsmen. If they wanted a sheild to be impenetrable, they likely would have made it impenetrable. I read a book that said the main purpose of their sheild was the securing of the enemies' blade in the hide and wood composite, then gaining slight leverage to strike, and that's why they were designed they way they were. Could be wrong though.
@joker52mlb And you'd be right in that, that it is for deception. watch?v=fdHo-1jbX1A
That's not the whole story though. The round shields used by Saxons and Norsemen were not designed to absorb damage like a Hoplite (although a linden wood shield with oxhide on the outside can soak up an IMMENSE amount of punishment!) but rather to
1. Parry
2. Deceive/blind opponents in melee
3. Shielding from missile weapons.
But there are a great number of shields and they are all used differently. :)
@TheScandinavianOne@timmy155 Their defense system was nearly perfect against slashing weapons, what the Samurai warriors almost entirely based their offensive system from. For weapons on the show I probably would have stuck with those same stuff (just used them effectively, and perhaps practice some before I would show up). But for special weapon, I probably would have went with the viking age halberd. That answers timmy155's comment about a mounted offensives, plus everyone had bows man.
@joker52mlb The problem with weapons like the Brynnjetoll and other like it is that we don't know what they looked like. As far as I know we haven't recovered any remains of one and can only speculate on what they were. :(
But who needs a Halberd when you've got the freaking Dane axe? :D It was used on horsemen to great effect. I feel ok with using the weapons from the show as long as they would use the proper versions and not damn wood chopping axes. :P
@joker52mlb Not sure how that answers it. Everyone had bows, but not everyone could use them from a saddle like the Japanese did. As I'm sure you know, a man cannot catch a horse on foot. And infantry is generally not effective against cavalry unless grouped in tight, well-trained formations, which is why cavalry dominated Europe until the 15th century. I don't think the Vikings ever had that kind of mass training and unit cohesion. (continued...)
@joker52mlb Continued: The mounted samurai could have easily surrounded the Viking infantry and peppered them with arrows from afar, while the Japanese footsoldiers shot them with arrows from behind the line of standing wooden shields they used. Then, when they were nice and softened up, they move in and mop them up with edged weaons. It's a potent combination, one which also worked very well for the Mongols. It's hard to imagine the Vikings faring well against such a foreign method of fighting.
@timmy155 They would suit up in armor, arm themselves and armor their mount, grab weapons and be prepared to fight an enemy that they never saw nor heard comming, using arrows that Viking armor, sheilds and defensive tactics were beyond well suited to withstand. Then, after they softened them up, the Samurai would move in and mop them up with edged weapons Viking armor was designed to defeat with a 0% fail rate, with absolutely no viking resistance or offensive... Nice theory you have there.
@joker52mlb You're REALLY overexaggerating the efficacy of 9th century armor. The reality is, nothing has a "0% fail rate." I found another test a guy did that showed he could cleanly pierce riveted mail with a 70 lb bow at 15 feet, and he was not using the heavy war arrows the Japanese used which were specifically designed for armor penetration. The hauberk's the Vikings wore offered no better protection against arrows than the Japanese armor, and the samurai still found ways to kill each other
I have also seen videos of a 35# bow piercing mail. However, the mail used was garbage, it was unpadded, stretched out and nailed flat to a hard surface. Mail Does Not work without proper padding. With it, it's damn near tough as plate. Here a 57 lb bow fails to pierce watch?v=p7fYO7yVJqU despite not using the right padding in the right way. It also depends much on thickness of the links and tightness of the weave. Historically it has resisted mongol, muslim, and even english longbows
effectively. It protects extremely well against sword, spear, axe, and even lances to an extent. Do you really think people would spend a small fortune on the stuff if arrows went Right through them? Mail has been used by countless cultures for thousands of years alongside of which have developed very powerful bows. Mail would not have been used so extensively if arrows so easily went through them.
@WitheringintheDark Yeah, but mail is not indestructible like you seem to think it is, otherwise nobody would have ever died on the battlefield, which is obviously not the case. Arrows do not "so easily go through them," but the right kind of arrow fired from the right bow at the right range can and surely did.
"mail is not indestructible like you seem to think it is"
I never said it was indestructible, pal. And I agree, the right arrow, right range, right angle, right bow Could pierce(as stated) but getting all those variables right isn't easy. A 150 lb bow could glance off at point blank range, blow right through it, or just put a tiny hole in the opponent. Everything varies.
@WitheringintheDark It's surely not "easy" to penetrate any armor with arrows, but it's also not as rare or difficult as you've been making it out to be, otherwise it would have been almost impossible to win a decisive battle. Plus you didn't have to kill a guy to take him out of the fight. A good wounding would do the trick, which seems to have been much more common, as generally fatalities on medieval battlefields were low.
Considering probably less then 15% of the opponents on a battlefield wore mail or plate generally(only wealthy can afford it) even if the armor could withstand most of the arrows, the other 85% of the army would get slaughtered, so you could win a decisive battle regardless.
@timmy155 As far as the whole Samurai/honor comment. I cannot speak for such accounts, but historians and the fellow on the deadliest warrior sure did love to tout it. Considering that many historians have an agenda, and the episode of deadliest warrior I saw was weak, you could be right there man. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you've struck my curiousity; Do you have a book or a website I could check out for reference?
@joker52mlb Yeah, the guys on DW were pretty piss-poor historians, as they usually are, which is why I never put much stock in anything they say. The only good thing about that show is the weapons testing segments, and as we've seen even that can be aggregiously flawed. The best source in english for the whole "honor" myth is Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan by Karl Friday. It also debunks several other long-cherished myths regarding samurai warfare.
Now I agree with you on the fail rate. individual links failed all the time in the process of stopping attacks. Heavy axe blows could break links. But mail was made of soft steel designed to deform and bend under impact rather then break, high structural strength, breaking is not easy. A bodkin arrow would likely destroy the link that absorbed it's impact(sometimes arrow bounce off, or maybe penetrate a little, generally not fatally). But that is one link out of 50000.
w w w . cotasdemalla .es/test2.htm Here a guy tests a 50# bow at 5 meters from target. Mail withstands Multiple hits without penetration. Some links deform. Some break. But the padded mail holds.
@WitheringintheDark I'm not sure why you keep mentioning 30 and 50 lb bows. In the test I referenced it was a 70 lb bow at close range. 2 of 3 arrows pierced cleanly through a hauberk of riveted mail. But again, the guy was not using the heavy war arrows the Japanese use which were designed to pierce armor at close range.
"I'm not sure why you keep mentioning 30 and 50 lb bows"
It's called an example. Even weak 30# bows can pierce improperly used mail. Properly used it has been found to provide good protection even against Mary Rose longbows. Sometimes an archer can get a perfect shot and kill through it(same is true in plate) but generally it prevents the arrow from penetrating fatally. Another variant, double mail or kings mail, was essentially arrow-proof, though heavier and less flexible.
I'm not questioning the tests existence. I'm questioning it's legitimacy. Was it fired at mail alone? Was it stretched out and nailed flat to a board? Did the target have give? Was it felt and linen padded? In order for the results to be accurate the mail has to be worn on a rounded soft target(i.e. carcass) with give and properly padded(felt and linen) Anything less compromises the mails effectiveness and gives inaccurate results.
@WitheringintheDark I found the test, but it won't let me copy the web address here for some reason. So do a google search for "myarmoury Riveted Maille and Padded Jack Tests" and it should come up, and you can look for yourself. You'll see that overall, the mail did perform very well, but it was pierced clean through by arrows from a 70 lb bow at 15 feet (2 out of 3 shots). But keep in mind most premodern war bows, including Japanese ones, had draw weights well over 100 lbs
Interesting find, thanks. It mentions that the bow used was just under the impact force of a 150 lb war bow of old. I wish they mentioned the penetration depth into the pell, see how deadly it could have been. It Did stop every arrow from 20 yds. However the padding isn't correct. Common padding was made of thick felt, which hinders bodkins because it has no woven structure for the point to open up and slide through. Thick leather was used as well. Interesting, but not 100% accurate.
@joker52mlb Also, a hand shield isn't much good if arrows are raining down on you from every direction after you've been surrounded by mounted archers. Furthermore, samurai were expert marksmen, routinely putting arrows through exposed faces, even eyes. They often targeted exposed areas of the body for the very reason that their armor was good enough protection that it could only be pierced close up (less than 15 yards).
Routinely putting arrows through eyes? Highly doubtful, watching too much DW again? They would be no better marksman then vikings that hunted game all their lives. As far as surrounding them, the hard part Is surrounding them. Hooves can be heard quite far away, letting the vikings prepare for a surprise attack, or simply engage them from forest, where they have a massive cover advantage against the large target of a horse archer on open ground.
@WitheringintheDark I'm afraid it's absolutely true. As I said before, even the Mongols had to admit to the prowess of Japanese mounted archers. During the first invasion attempt of 1274, Kikuchi Takefusa precipitated a Mongol withdraw by shooting the commander right in the face from his horse. And there is more than one reference in the records of warriors being shot in the eye. It's pretty silly to think that no other people could POSSIBLY be better at something than the Vikings.
"shooting the commander right in the face from his horse"
Care to cite where this is mentioned? And the range? Even amateur modern bow hunters could shoot you in the face 30 feet out. There is also a thing called luck. Arrow flight paths are at least partially unstable and don't often hit at the exact point you were aiming. And I never said vikings were the best archers, just that samurai were unlikely to be better marksman than ppl who hunted live game all their lives.
@WitheringintheDark It's referenced in the Moko Shurai Ekotoba, or Mongol Invasion Scrolls, which is a highly reliable battle report compiled by Takezaki Suenaga, who fought the Mongols during both their failed invastion attempts in the 13th century. Its one of the most reliable documents on medieval warfare in existence, because it was created just a few years after the battles by someone who actually fought in them. The range was probably 10 to 15 yrds, but keep in mind Takefusa was on a horse
Going from records, an english warbow would generate ~108 ft-lbs of kinetic energy on firing, where the bow they used generated ~80 ft-lbs of kinetic energy. Also keep in mind the modern arrow is much slimmer, which would aid in penetrating mail better then the thicker arrows used back then(wider arrow, more links it hits/bunches up/has to push through on impact) And the aforementioned fact the padding was wrong.
@WitheringintheDark I think you've got it backwards. Heavier arrows are better at penetrating armor at close distances than lighter arrows. They used thin, acutely pointed arrowheads like the bodkin to address the problem you're talking about of having to push through more links. A thick heavy shaft and a thin acutely pointed arrowhead seems to be the optimal combination for penetrating armor.
Hm, the heavy/light arrow part was a bit off(faulty arrow KE calculator, stupid archery website). Yes, Heavier arrows are a bit better in all instances where accuracy and speed arn't necessary. Thicker arrows on the other hand hinder penetration. The more material the arrow has to move aside the more KE is lost in trying to penetrate the armor, quickly offsetting the slight KE boost of using a heavier arrow. A modern, thinner arrow of equal weight will penetrate considerably better.
For instance, look at modern kinetic energy penetrators used to kill tanks. They use ultra dense materials like depleted uranium to maximize weight of an extremely thin projectile so it exerts all of it's KE across the smallest point possible. In the same vein, a modern 108g arrow made of more dense metals which give it the same weight for half the width would penetrate Much better then thicker wooden arrows used by the longbows of old. Same KE, but exerted over a smaller surface area
@WitheringintheDark The samurai hunted live game too. Regardless, I don't see how you can compare archery skills for hunting to those of mounted archery on a battlefield. Like any class of aristocratic professional warriors, the samurai were very good at the particular style of fighting they practiced. Since their bows didn't have the range of a Mongol compound or English long bow, the samurai specialized in high accuracy and armor penetration at close range. And they were very good at it.
Either case the yumi did not have the same impact force as either the english longbow or mongol composite bow(50-100meter effective range versus 100 to over 300m for the long/composite bows) And would have behaved more like the 50 lb bow which did not penetrate.
@WitheringintheDark The yumi did not have the range of a mongol or english bow, but that it would perform "like the 50 lb bow" is highly debatable. Yumi typically had draw weights of 90-100 lbs or more and they fired heavy arrows - around 70g. Because it's a long bow, it can fire heavier arrows without sacrificing kinetic energy. Thus at close ranges, 15 yards or less, they can penetrate armor, which is ideal for mounted archers who can close distances quickly, fire their arrows, and peel away.
The typical english longbow was a 150# draw bow firing a 108g arrow at 171fps, KE of 146j, making it Capable of breaking through mail at close range. The strength required to use this bow necessitated specialized drawing techniques and deformed the bones of it's users, a bow that strong would be unusable from horse back or kneeling positions like the yumi could be. Also you must realize modern compound bows are much more efficient. A modern 50# bow would be as good as an ancient 70#+
All that aside, there are many examples of mail and plate both withstanding and being pierced by the longbow. History and modern tests tell us both were Good protection against arrows under most circumstances, though they Could be compromised and pierced at Close range or in a vulnerable spot. The yumi is not as strong as an english longbow, but without more info(speed, draw length, brace height, specific draw and arrow weight) I cant properly determine penetrative power.
Anyway i'm highly doubting the power of the yumi here. The english longbow has considerably greater range using a much heavier arrow, and for all intents and purposes would be a considerably better armor piercer then the yumi you describe. For a 70g arrow to only have an effective range of 50-100m while a 108g arrow fired from the english bow had 2-3 times that speaks of a rather low-powered bow.
@WitheringintheDark The first article referenced below was written by a physicist, and he seems to shed light on arrow weight in relation to armor penetration. It seems the heavier arrows attain lower speeds at the time of release but carry more of the available energy of the bow limbs, resulting in higher kinetic energy at shorter ranges, which squares w/ what I've been saying about heavier arrows at short distances. He also lists ELB arrow weights between 70-90g, not 108 (continued...)
As for where I got the 108g arrows, it was on the first site You mentioned, the myarmoury padded jack and riveted mail tests. The 150-180lb draw weights came from bows recovered from the Mary Rose shipwreck(whose draw weights seem to vary Wildly depending on reports looked at) though they could have been meant for the tallest and strongest in service.
Also I agree about the heavier arrows, the bow KE calculator i had used at first was flawed and reporting the wrong KE.
Hmm, this article suggests that faster, lighter arrows are better at piercing solid targets like armor then slower, heavier ones, but don't pierce flesh as well because fluid drag increases Rapidly with the velocity of the penetrating object. Taking this into consideration, I wonder which would work better, or would they equal out? Don't think i've seen any comparison of that type before.
@WitheringintheDark In the same article he has Japanese arrow weights as "often exceeding" 100g. The 1 other source I've seen that actually tells the weights has them at 50-70g. Who knows which one is right. But the figure for ELB arrow weights of 70-90g is consistent w/ the second article, which says the Mary Rose arrows weighed 1000-1500 grains, which equals 64-97g. He also says Mary Rose bows "averaged" 100 lbs in draw weight, not 150.
@WitheringintheDark What is your source for the ELB figures of 150 lb draw and 108g arrow weight? I have a sneaking suspicion that so much of the info being tossed around on ELB's is completely overexaggerated. Draw weights seem to have varied considerably from 50-150 lbs or more; arrow weights from 50-108g. Who's to say which of these configurations would have been most common or "typical"? Then there's the matter of what constituted "typical" mail of the time. I for one have no idea.
Typical mail of the time was 4 in 1 links. Weave and thickness varied widely however, and determined the protection offered(and cost). Double mail, or 8 in 2 links, where much heavier, but reportedly arrow proof(shrugs) And yes, i've noticed ELB info varies wildly in certain circles; same is true of yumi. What is actually true? We can only guess.
@WitheringintheDark So it seems there's a lot more we don't know about these weapons than do. There's even less info available for premodern yumi (i.e., almost none). We have sources saying arrow weights could have been anywhere from 50 to somewhere over 100g (eerily similar to the ELB), and draw weights are hardly stated at all. My figure of 90-100 lb came from a modern bowyer estimating based on the width of premodern yumi compared to his own, since draw weight is closely related to bow width
@WitheringintheDark So there's really no way to satisfactorily answer this question except to do an actual test with historically accurate representations of premodern yumi, arrows and mail, and as far as I know no one has done one yet. But until someone does, I will continue to assert that yumi could pierce mail at short ranges based on historical accounts against Japanese armor, which, though you may disagree, in truth did not offer any worse protection against arrows than mail
Def. agree here. Without completely accurate tests it's all guesswork. The much shorter listed range for the yumi still makes me think it would be a bit weaker, but whos to say that's correct either?
I'm not so sure about the bow width thing. The mongol bow was as powerful as either, and generally half the size, though it needed a powerful composite construction to do so.
I guess we can assume the yumi has a chance to pierce it close range. Still wish I had more specific info tho.
As far as the armor comparison's concerned, I guess the deflective nature of lamellar scales could compare with the absorbative nature of mail when it comes to arrows. Lamellar seems more susceptible to properly angled directed thrusts though, so it probably wasn't as good against melee weapons.
@joker52mlb As for close-in fighting, whether armor can be pierced clean through with edged weapons seems to have been of little consequence, because the dominant tactic for all cultures and all times was to target gaps or weak points in armor, not go through it. This is what the samurai did against each other, against the Mongols in the 13th century, and what they would have done against the Vikings. So yeah, I think it is a pretty nice theory I've got here.
@timmy155 O " because the dominant tactic for all cultures and all times was to target gaps or weak points in armor, not go through it. " Of course, that's just rational. I'm simply stating that the tactics the Vikings used render your theory redundant. It was never supposed to be a fair fight by their judgement. unlike the Samurai, there was to be no honor on the battle field against foriegners. The only fair fights that they had were against there own. Raiding however, a much different case.
@joker52mlb The whole trope of Samurai being so "honorable" in warfare is a complete myth. In reality, the Japanese were just as ruthless and underhanded as any other people in any other time. There is a well-documented history of samurai using night raids and surprise attacks, and setting fire to enemies' homes while their still inside and shooting anybody who tries to escape, even women and children.
@timmy155 In raiding, there would be no well established heavy cavalry, because the moment of attack was when your enemy was at his weakest (not marching around and on horseback ready to fight). You can't hit what you can't see, and raiding is the only reason these two warriors would ever meet in battle. Aside from that, we were arguing the points of weapons on the show, and I stated that I would use a weapon in which it's main purpose was to fight/defend against cavalry as a special weapon.
@timmy155 Continued... The lost by a small margine, and that could've been avoided had they used a better special weapon better suited in lou of the sheild. The show was weak, still is, but especially in the early stages of it's evolution, and the Vikings recieved poor representation. I really cannot see a logical reason why these two groups of warriors would fight other than raiding (or at all for that matter). So, I completely dissagree with your ficticious battle theory for all those reasons.
@joker52mlb This whole scenario is hypothetical, so why is one "fictitious battle theory" any less valid than any other? Plus, if the Vikings were going to raid Japan in the 9th or 10th century, they would have to do considerable traveling across land to get to anything worth raiding. There were few if any high-value targets along the coasts in those days. If they traveled across land, they would encounter defending armies, and thus you have the hypothetical battlefield encounter so described
@timmy155 Good point there, sir. That's the point I was trying to establish also, if there would be anycase for these warriors to meet in battle; it would've been a raid. Geography and the facts we've stated dictate that they would never meet on the battlefield, history does as well. In your hypothetical battle however, I find the flaw that's it's the less realistic of all I've heard. It's very knowedgeable of one side's tactics, but you aren't accounting for the others, as I've said previously.
@joker52mlb "Their defense system was nearly perfect against slashing weapons, what the Samurai warriors almost entirely based their offensive system from."
The main weapons on the Japanese battlefield were bows and spears, same as in Europe. Swords had an even LESS role in battle in Japan than in Europe. Most weapons used in battle were piercing weapons, not slashing weapons - though naginata, tachi and Odachi were also common.
@Gilmaris You're out of your element man. It's not a problem though. timmy155 was proposing a theoretical battle and stating the likely outcome. His theory relied on the use of slashing weapons by the samurai. We had been arguing for some time, then we settled it. Perhaps you are correct, but it's irrelevant to our (timmy155 and I's) discussion.
@joker52mlb What's the point of comparison if you're not going to stick to historical equipment and tactics in the first place? You might as well equip the samurai with chopsticks and the viking with a rolling pin if actual equipment is irrelevant.
@Gilmaris If you're that motivated to make your point clear, take it up with timmy155 man. The slashing weapon thing was an aspect of his proposed battle.
Thank you thank I was enraged when I saw that Deadliest warrior episode and wanted to go Berserk I'm am happy to see that some one is enlightening people on how a Viking/Nordic Warrior of that time would have fought
@cawabunga360 I never state that it is disrespectful to our ancestors and the Einherjar.We just state who had the advantage due to arms and armor and tactics the Viking most likely would have come out on top out of 1000 battles Due to the 9th century sword and shield style they were very even in every other way.
Yes, though I haven't heard of samurai ever using shields. The ashigaru used them, but they were also generally poorly trained and probably a little fearful of facing a samurai on the battlefield. A viking, esp the huscarls would be much more experienced in using a sword and shield, in addition to not being afraid of samurai in the least. Not saying either 1 would def. win, but the samurai might be in for a surprise or two against a Skillfully wielded shield.
Yeah, kanabo weren't some evenly weighted log, it def. was a bit end heavy with a steel capped handle to compensate a little, and the handle let you get a good solid grip that you could use to pull the weapon around faster and harder. It was still Slow to swing and more unwieldy compared to a much lighter sword(the anti-cavalry version anyway) but would swing a good bit faster and more controllable then a big tree log.
SAMURAI. ANY DAY.
SYF314 1 month ago
LOLOLOL!
The guy using the sword couldn't cut through a cloth shirt.
Hanes Fruit of the Loom armor dude, we aware, i'm wearing it.
stoner4010 2 months ago
Dude, a samurai would fuck up a viking any day. You've failed to realize that the reason the samurai wore such lightweight armor was for the speed and mobility it offers, which not to mention they've TRAINED THEIR WHOLE FUCKING LIVES. Opposed to a viking, who most likely has little to no combat training and relies on the sheer power of overwhelming surprise attacks on innocent villagers?
SYF314 2 months ago
@SYF314
1) Some vikings were farmers who took up raiding once in a while to feed their families, but most were professional warriors. I'd like to see the samurai go up against a housekarl or berserker.
2) Vikings lived in a harsh, lawless land full of bandits, rival clans and dangerous animals. Back then, everyone had some combat training, and it was a lot more pragmatic than the samurai's ritualised training.
3) Samurai slaughtered "innocent villagers" often, and were never punished for it.
IAmTheStig320 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ThegnThrand
but just look at the blunt force trauma the katana did to the 'flesh' underneath.
Doesnt matter if the blade didnt pierce the armour, that guys dead, dying or at least down for the battle.
titytit 4 months ago
@titytit : The armor is not there to be a primary defense, the best strategy is not to be hit by your enemy in the first place. Still, the mail(with proper under armor) did provide protection that could save a warrior's life, though serious bruises and broken bones was not uncommon if one got hit, such injuries are much more survivable than the alternative.
Ts6451 4 months ago
Excellent video fellas. Definitely demonstrates more accurately the outcome of a Viking fighting a Samurai.
Spideyfan117 5 months ago
A katana blade (from the Edo and early Meiji periods) made from real "Tamahagane" metal -would most certainly cut through steel, make no mistake about that.
But, at the same time, the viking "Long Axe" was such an effective weapon -they were known to cleave men (almost) in two.
We must also take into consideration that the vikings were great metallurgists as well.
But, we have to go back to the Katana, the tamahagane process of forging was considered just as intricate as Damascened steel...
TheDardanianKnight 5 months ago
@TheDardanianKnight Right, it could cut through steel...
And through tanks...
And through Wolverine's claws, right?
NoisemakerArrow 4 months ago
@NoisemakerArrow -and through sarcasm....
TheDardanianKnight 4 months ago
deadliest warrior is just supposed to be fun to watch. its basiclly nerd gladiator.
Personmr 6 months ago 6
who taught you how to use a katana becuase you don't kno how to use the blade
epic0wnag 7 months ago
@epic0wnag Would you like me to tell that all the Bujinkan instructors I have trained with ? If so let me know who you really are so they can speak with you directly because I have been studying with them for many years :P
ThegnThrand 6 months ago 5
@epic0wnag the only right way to use a samurai sword is to commit Seppuku...!!!
Traces1000 5 months ago
If only if only, these fools had a the intelligence to do this test with a katana made in japan. But they have chosen some 200-300$ replica made from 1060 spring steel. come back and do a video when you spend 3000$ on a decent nihonto otherwise you look like a complete fool to those of us who train in kenjutsu. oh and on a final note, stop swinging that thing like a baseball bat its highly ineffective
masterdude134 7 months ago
@masterdude134 Maybe a non-fool like you could buy such a sword and donate it to them for the tests.
NoisemakerArrow 4 months ago
@NoisemakerArrow My friend, it is not my responsibility to ensure these "fools" as i called them have the proper sword in which to do this test. They chose not to spend 1000$-3500$ in order to get the accuracy needed in the test. The sword being shown is of less than 200$ quality meaning its edge is extremely weak for cutting through armor. And before you say "No Katana can cut through armor" you are wrong, during the wars there were Katana specifically designed to cut through thick armor.
masterdude134 4 months ago
@masterdude134 : The "cutting armor" discussion is fairly irrelevant, you do not rely on your armor as a primary defensive tool, it is only there to give you a higher probability of survival. Anyway, I should think that a warrior would not willingly damage their master forged blade on cutting metal unless forced by extremity to do so, a good blade was extremely expensive, and it is extremely difficult to cut a chain armor of good quality, it is better to target less defended areas instead.
Ts6451 4 months ago
@masterdude134
When it comes to cutting through steel, it really doesn't matter what edge you have. A soft one will dull, a hard one will shatter. You're just not going to hack through steel with a three pound razor. Hell, most swords have trouble cutting thick leather.
JuniusFaction 4 months ago
I would suggest anyone really interested in european weaponry vs asian do actually research. For whatever reason television is woefully inaccurate when it comes to medieval weapons preferring to perpetuate the incorrect portrayal put out there by holly wood. Ewart Oakeshott is worth looking up if your interested in medieval blades.
randomtexty 7 months ago
I would like to point out to everyone saying longswords or european swords in general were heavy are mistaken. 1 handed swords Generally only weighed in at about 2-3 pounds. Bastard swords were slightly heavier. Great swords never even went above 10 pounds. The reason for this is pretty simple it is velocity which makes a weapon more effective not weight, A lighter sword is able to generate more velocity when swung.
randomtexty 7 months ago
haha, poor samurai XD
AuGeUNDoHr1 8 months ago
your viking axe head is on upside down mate
OskoreiMick 8 months ago
@OskoreiMick Watch "Deadliest Warrior: Thrand and Eldgrimr's Reply to Axes "
/watch?v=eHcBjBOPrdU
Here on youtube will explain my axe :P
ThegnThrand 8 months ago
@ThegnThrand yeah mate i see your point with that one, thanks for the good vid on why you have it like that.. really gets you thinking about the axes doesnt it?
OskoreiMick 8 months ago
you stance is all wrong with that Katana
grimrotten 8 months ago
not only are vikings more skillful warriors, but they were also fearless explorers and seamen.
tallswede80 8 months ago
@tallswede80 oh please they were raiders not warriors its easy to kill a harmless peasant who has no weapon then leave before anyone who knows how to fight shows up and the weapons and armor they had was iron not steal
grimrotten 8 months ago
@grimrotten
You're confused. The vikings fought professional armies on many occasions, and won.
tallswede80 8 months ago
@tallswede80 well now I'm intrigued witch armies did they fight and when? i was under the impression that the never fought any armies and only raided
grimrotten 8 months ago
@grimrotten
The Danes took over half of England at one point. The northern half of england was under "Danelaw" for a couple hundred years. I don't remember which king they fought though.
tallswede80 8 months ago
@tallswede80 what year was this? and why would they care if the danes took over?
grimrotten 8 months ago
@grimrotten
Looks like you need to go to the library and check out a book on the history of the British isles or a book on vikings. Rest assured that the vikings fought against armies on the battle field on many occasions.
tallswede80 8 months ago
@tallswede80 will you recommend any good titles for me that you have read?
grimrotten 8 months ago
@grimrotten
I don't remember the title. Some college textbook that I sold. Wikipedia might be a good place to start if you're really interested. There's usually a bibliography at the bottom of the page.
tallswede80 8 months ago
@tallswede80 i checked wiki but couldn't find anything so it looks like my next stop is the library
grimrotten 8 months ago
@tallswede80
Alfred the Great
onizack 5 months ago
Good job the Vikings didn't go to Japan.
regreegg 9 months ago
Dudes youre awesome
Kingofsomething87 9 months ago
the japanese armor was leather except for part of the helmet
jimjon7 9 months ago
Look I can see you are of germanic decent, and might add to the favorite tword certain wepons, but the samuri were trained in many wepons not just sword, but also long yajiri spear and would often fight from horseback also, the vikings may have had gunpowder latter also, but point is its not an apples to apples comparison on either one, point is that the samuri were more refined in fighting, and the katana is a slice wepon that could cut through two people in one swing on unarmored skin.
manga12 9 months ago
@manga12 Check out my new video " Deadleist Warrior : Thrand's Spartan Vs. Ninja / Samurai " here on youyube /watch?v=mNj5HiCPx1I
ThegnThrand 9 months ago
@manga12 " the katana is a slice wepon that could cut through two people in one swing on unarmored skin" yes, because the vikings were so well known for fighting unarmored. The point Thrand is trying to make in this video is that DW is terribly inaccurate and this is his attempt at making things a little more honest.
TheAnimeAtheist 9 months ago
Well The vikings had some armor, as did the samuri, but, I am just saying there were differant samuri many of them specialests in certain areas and not all of them armored if they were foot soldiers, though many were mounted fighters and many would be specialests in certain wepons like the speer or bow for example, I know he is trying to point out the inaccuracies in the show, but, the first video they did I felt did not do the japanese sword justice, It is a fine wepon, the second set is better
manga12 9 months ago
@manga12 Be sure to check out my latest Video " Deadliest Warrior : Thrand's Spartan Vs. Ninja / Samurai " /watch?v=mNj5HiCPx1I on You Tube You might like the Video and how the Ninja and Samurai were represented :P
ThegnThrand 9 months ago
@manga12 both the vikings and samurai (except the ninja class) always wore armor for their foot class duties. Not some of them all of them. Some vikings fought with 2 handed axes while some went sword and board while others dual wielded. Yes Japan had horses, mounted warriors and the yari. But this is about one on one footed combat. The yari is best used for and against horses. Also, the katana was a great weapon, but its not that great. Its not like Europe had shit for swords either
TheAnimeAtheist 9 months ago
well depends on which one you refer to, the long sword was heavy and could bash in armor for sure, but the tip was also known to break from the tension while bending, and the German zweihander is a good long sword with weight that could hack down pole arms and armor, but as far as a wepon in one on one the katana is a faster wepon that had a sharper edge that was convex to pair away materal as it slices, no maybe it cant cut armor well, but it will lop a head off faster then a straight sword.
manga12 9 months ago
@manga12 but the simple fact that the katana is against armored opponents takes all of its razzle dazzle away. In terms of cutting and slicing power it had relativly the same as europeon counterparts sometimes more and sometimes less. It is a faster weapon that doesnt tend to break that is for sure, but it is an improvement that is easily mitigated with the application of armor. Personally out of the samurai weapons i prefer the naginata, but then again I've always been a polearm guy myself.
TheAnimeAtheist 9 months ago
well I like the naginata as well, I am surprised that is was not more featured in the show, you saw what it did to that resine skull, lopped a good hunk of it off on the show, it could just as well stab, and dispite what knife show guys tell you, the naginata was used by samuri not just monks and women as a means of defence, I always liked the huge curved blade of the naginata just like on the mutent ninja turtles arcade game the boss with the floating head used one, there is also the nagimaki
manga12 9 months ago
@manga12 The Samurai used the straighter version the females used the more curved Naginata to hook people off the roof tops wile defending houses wile the samurai were away. The naginata was used by Samurai during an era with light of no leg armor after the advent of better leg armor the Yari became prevalent again. The legs are not hard to defend with a center boss shield but against other poles and spear types as well as two handed swords being used they are very hard to defend that low.
ThegnThrand 9 months ago
anyway the samurai had many pole arms also, and did not use shields that were carried to speak of, as for the kubo next to never was it used on record, and the japanese long yari would be more then a match for chainmail as well as twice the length of a throwing spear.
manga12 9 months ago
at 0:46 one can see the power thrand has got there. To thrust that accurate and hard needs skill...no matter who would win thrand i guess is a skilled fighter!
dipidulor 9 months ago
@timmy155
Looked into a bit more, bow draw weights seem to be tied with overall size, shape, and construction. Most powerful being a reflex bow , allowing insane draw weights at small sizes but requiring composite materials to be able to handle the stress. Straight self bows are the simplest and most reliable to use, but need to be increasingly larger to get the same draw weight as the non-composite construction can't handle the stress as well.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not quiet sharp enough the samurai sword would have been sharpened every day there are no modern samurai swords that match those original made the skills are gone that is what happens when all most all effort is on 1complicated weapon
n2488 10 months ago
@n2488 Get real. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the Katanas are weaker nowadays, with the superior tech we have to make the progress easier. The opposite would be true.
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne you would think that but technology like that is lost for exampled no one is sure what the Egyptian Khopesh is made of and how they have stayed so sharp and survived for so long
n2488 10 months ago
@n2488 I'd like to see some proof that they were actually better, and not just anecdotes. Do you have any proof?
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@n2488
Umm, where did you get this info on the egyptian khopesh from? Because a .5second search yields hundreds of results saying it was made of bronze or iron, including those from the very museums they are housed in. Modern scientific tests tell us what Exactly the blade is made of, it's hardness, and insights into the forging and treating of the swords. Getting the right composition is easy, it's getting the heat treatment right thats the hard part, and as always you get what u pay for.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark listen this comment wasn't aimed at you but if you are interest in it there is also a lot of interest surrounding old Mongol compound bows designs as these were believed to be slightly superior to modern copies but I have the feeling your minds made up so I am sure I cant change it as you seem very angry I never said I was an expert I was just asking to find out more sorry if this makes you angry
n2488 10 months ago
@n2488 I think we're both interested in seeing some evidence here. If there is some truth to your words then I'll take them into consideration.
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne
I'm highly skeptic of the khopesh bit, but I've heard much the same regarding the bow. The ancient mongol bow was a Heavy draw warbow just like the english longbow, with ungodly draw weights (over 120lb) too much for amateur bowmen to comfortably use. From what i've heard most modern 'mongol' bows are based off the chinese manchurian one as well. Of course neither bow can compare to what we can do with modern compound bows now, but they were impressive back then.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne
In regards to that guys first statement, a number of the modern swords ARE worse. At least, the cheap bargain ones. Stainless steel or titanium swords are inferior to well crafted ones of high carbon steel. Modern aesthetically folded swords often are improperly welded and contain air pockets. Many arnt properly heat treated and are weaker as a result. You get what you pay for, but the Expensive hand made ones today are generally a bit better then ancient ones(purer, ect)
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Of course, that goes without saying. :)
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne I don't no were exactly to find evidence but the katana was measured on how many body's it could go through in 1 slice the highest were said to be around ten but most were about three or 4 from what I have heard from some documentary's and such but seeing as I don't speak Japanese there is no point me looking for the old writing that says so
n2488 10 months ago
@n2488 watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne thanks interesting but I didn't say I thought it was insane sharp and magic and I no that a lot of people are obsessive and don't want to hear any of its draw backs I am not really a fan of it as they are useless for blunt trauma if some one is wearing any form of armour I much prefer the grosse messor I have no idea how you spell it but it means big knife in German I think I just said it could be sharper
n2488 9 months ago
@n2488
Eh, I don't really think the grosse messer or great knife would be any better. Against heavy armor you want something either with a blade thin enough to slide through the links in mail, or a high impact blunt weapon. A war hammer or similar polearms would make short work of most heavy armor. Lighter leather and such can usually be pierced by a sharp pointed weapon quite easily.
WitheringintheDark 9 months ago
@WitheringintheDark no it just 1 i like but blunt trauma is best thing against armour eg a wooden mallet or mace
n2488 9 months ago
@n2488 I like that weapon too. Saw German at festival last year with one of those. They were cutting melons. :)
TheScandinavianOne 9 months ago
@n2488
More like 2-5, though there are no modern tests that confirm this. It also fails to mention said bodies were tied down to an earthen mound(which helps in cutting) and the blade is mounted on a polearm handle(which helps cutting) and also varies depending upon which part of the body is cut through(can ease or hinder cutting)
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark to be fair there is a lot of information exaggerating it cutting power I suppose its probably more important who is using it so I don't no that a direct comparison can be made to that of a vicking which is y I think it is ridicules to have a show that says they no the answer but I think the katan could be a little sharper
n2488 9 months ago
@n2488
Either blade could really be as 'sharp' as the other it's more a matter of the degree you sharpen it to. It's typically understood that the curve on a blade allows it to slice a bit better as more of the blade is in contact with the flesh(while suffering slightly in other areas) Being a hand n a half weapon a better comparison would be another hand n a half; a similar 2-h saber or a longsword. The power increase from using 2-hands is def. noticeable as u can see.
WitheringintheDark 9 months ago
@n2488
As for the body blade thing yeah it does depend on who's using it. Besides the favorable testing conditions I already told about the cutting would not be done by the samurai, a tameshigiri artist who trained specifically in cutting in that way would do it, which is quite different then what is used in actual combat.
Not saying they Couldn't do it(i've seen longsword and claymores cut 2), but there's no proof or tests confirming anything higher then 2(which were on gutted animals anyway)
WitheringintheDark 9 months ago
your right even a wood stick in the right hands can be a deadly wepon, even a practice sword a boken could kill you if you know how to used one well in the samuri arts, the katana is just one of many japanese swords they come in many differant lenghts like the larger nodachi, or odachi used to cut down horse legs, point is the japanese sword is a slicing wepon and the curved shape is also more conducive to it as well as the blades convex shape that spreads away as it cuts on bare skin.
manga12 9 months ago
@n2488
Angry? Hardly. Just genuinely curious where you heard that from because what I found said otherwise. I'm also aware that modern copies of the bow are weaker(same applies to the english longbow), partly due to inferior design and materials, but also bc bows that powerful arn't needed and few are strong enough to use them. I know it's a composite reflex bow of birch, horn, sinew and fish glue(materials necessary to withstand the immense pressure of its Heavy draw on so small a bow)
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@n2488 What are you talking about? The technology is not lost. Swordsmithing in Japan is an unbroken tradition, it has NEVER been lost. And swords made today are overall BETTER than the swords made back then. Japanese laws ensure that basically every nihonto made today is a masterpiece, but this was NOT the case in the days of the samurai. Back then, quality varied a great deal.
Gilmaris 10 months ago
@Gilmaris during ww2 a lot of the leading sword crafters died and some of the skills were lost this is what i have heard from people I have talked to not necessarily true
n2488 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@n2488
"some of the skills were lost"
Detailed analysis of the weapons can reveal most of the processes used in it's construction. A large portion of the forging process is obsolete now that folding or pattern welding isn't really necessary since we can make it a pure composition of whatever we want. The only hard part is properly heat treating it. Also don't be surprised if a modern sword breaks when you got it for $100 and they didn't tell you what it was made of(stainless steel sucks).
WitheringintheDark 9 months ago
One thing to keep in mind: if the Vikings had invaded Japan in the 9th or 10th century, they would have faced defending armies largely composed of mounted archers, something they never encountered historically to my knowledge. We can only speculate how they would have fared. Supposedly, Japanese bows can pierce armor at less than 15 yards, and even the Mongols remarked on the prowess of samurai archers (in the 13th century, but still)
timmy155 10 months ago
The Vikings did have poor representation on the show. I was most dissapointed to see the innacuracies with the sheild, and even using it as a weapon instead of something that would have been more suited.
joker52mlb 10 months ago 2
@joker52mlb I thought they did ok with the sword, but not much else. What really bothers me is that people believed that Viking ran around chucking dual spears like they did in DW. :P
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne Valid point, good sir. What I understand from my studies, the spear was a vital aspect of their battle and raiding tactics and could've had better representation. However I firmly believe that the most dissapointing aspect was the shield form and usage.They lost by a very small margine and that could've been avoided.
From what I have learned of their tactics and skill; if they would have ever sailed to the far east to loot, all Japan would have been burned to the ground.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb A viking invasion would have been interesting, definitely. Now that I think about it the Viking age took place way before the Katana itself saw the light of day. ;)
You are right about the shield, by the way. The armstrap they used really made the "Expert" look like an idiot when he jumped around feigning blocking attempts. And the test with the Kanabo was ridiculous too.
I would have had a Throwing axe/Javelin as a ranged weapon and a Sax as a Special weapon.
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne From what I understand, the sheild was based more in deception than protection. We're talking about very ingenuitive, very resourceful craftsmen. If they wanted a sheild to be impenetrable, they likely would have made it impenetrable. I read a book that said the main purpose of their sheild was the securing of the enemies' blade in the hide and wood composite, then gaining slight leverage to strike, and that's why they were designed they way they were. Could be wrong though.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb And you'd be right in that, that it is for deception. watch?v=fdHo-1jbX1A
That's not the whole story though. The round shields used by Saxons and Norsemen were not designed to absorb damage like a Hoplite (although a linden wood shield with oxhide on the outside can soak up an IMMENSE amount of punishment!) but rather to
1. Parry
2. Deceive/blind opponents in melee
3. Shielding from missile weapons.
But there are a great number of shields and they are all used differently. :)
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne @timmy155 Their defense system was nearly perfect against slashing weapons, what the Samurai warriors almost entirely based their offensive system from. For weapons on the show I probably would have stuck with those same stuff (just used them effectively, and perhaps practice some before I would show up). But for special weapon, I probably would have went with the viking age halberd. That answers timmy155's comment about a mounted offensives, plus everyone had bows man.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb * the same weapons. Not those same stuff. My bad.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb The problem with weapons like the Brynnjetoll and other like it is that we don't know what they looked like. As far as I know we haven't recovered any remains of one and can only speculate on what they were. :(
But who needs a Halberd when you've got the freaking Dane axe? :D It was used on horsemen to great effect. I feel ok with using the weapons from the show as long as they would use the proper versions and not damn wood chopping axes. :P
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
@joker52mlb Not sure how that answers it. Everyone had bows, but not everyone could use them from a saddle like the Japanese did. As I'm sure you know, a man cannot catch a horse on foot. And infantry is generally not effective against cavalry unless grouped in tight, well-trained formations, which is why cavalry dominated Europe until the 15th century. I don't think the Vikings ever had that kind of mass training and unit cohesion. (continued...)
timmy155 10 months ago
@joker52mlb Continued: The mounted samurai could have easily surrounded the Viking infantry and peppered them with arrows from afar, while the Japanese footsoldiers shot them with arrows from behind the line of standing wooden shields they used. Then, when they were nice and softened up, they move in and mop them up with edged weaons. It's a potent combination, one which also worked very well for the Mongols. It's hard to imagine the Vikings faring well against such a foreign method of fighting.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155 They would suit up in armor, arm themselves and armor their mount, grab weapons and be prepared to fight an enemy that they never saw nor heard comming, using arrows that Viking armor, sheilds and defensive tactics were beyond well suited to withstand. Then, after they softened them up, the Samurai would move in and mop them up with edged weapons Viking armor was designed to defeat with a 0% fail rate, with absolutely no viking resistance or offensive... Nice theory you have there.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb You're REALLY overexaggerating the efficacy of 9th century armor. The reality is, nothing has a "0% fail rate." I found another test a guy did that showed he could cleanly pierce riveted mail with a 70 lb bow at 15 feet, and he was not using the heavy war arrows the Japanese used which were specifically designed for armor penetration. The hauberk's the Vikings wore offered no better protection against arrows than the Japanese armor, and the samurai still found ways to kill each other
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
I have also seen videos of a 35# bow piercing mail. However, the mail used was garbage, it was unpadded, stretched out and nailed flat to a hard surface. Mail Does Not work without proper padding. With it, it's damn near tough as plate. Here a 57 lb bow fails to pierce watch?v=p7fYO7yVJqU despite not using the right padding in the right way. It also depends much on thickness of the links and tightness of the weave. Historically it has resisted mongol, muslim, and even english longbows
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
effectively. It protects extremely well against sword, spear, axe, and even lances to an extent. Do you really think people would spend a small fortune on the stuff if arrows went Right through them? Mail has been used by countless cultures for thousands of years alongside of which have developed very powerful bows. Mail would not have been used so extensively if arrows so easily went through them.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Yeah, but mail is not indestructible like you seem to think it is, otherwise nobody would have ever died on the battlefield, which is obviously not the case. Arrows do not "so easily go through them," but the right kind of arrow fired from the right bow at the right range can and surely did.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
"mail is not indestructible like you seem to think it is"
I never said it was indestructible, pal. And I agree, the right arrow, right range, right angle, right bow Could pierce(as stated) but getting all those variables right isn't easy. A 150 lb bow could glance off at point blank range, blow right through it, or just put a tiny hole in the opponent. Everything varies.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark It's surely not "easy" to penetrate any armor with arrows, but it's also not as rare or difficult as you've been making it out to be, otherwise it would have been almost impossible to win a decisive battle. Plus you didn't have to kill a guy to take him out of the fight. A good wounding would do the trick, which seems to have been much more common, as generally fatalities on medieval battlefields were low.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
Considering probably less then 15% of the opponents on a battlefield wore mail or plate generally(only wealthy can afford it) even if the armor could withstand most of the arrows, the other 85% of the army would get slaughtered, so you could win a decisive battle regardless.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155 As far as the whole Samurai/honor comment. I cannot speak for such accounts, but historians and the fellow on the deadliest warrior sure did love to tout it. Considering that many historians have an agenda, and the episode of deadliest warrior I saw was weak, you could be right there man. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you've struck my curiousity; Do you have a book or a website I could check out for reference?
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb Yeah, the guys on DW were pretty piss-poor historians, as they usually are, which is why I never put much stock in anything they say. The only good thing about that show is the weapons testing segments, and as we've seen even that can be aggregiously flawed. The best source in english for the whole "honor" myth is Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan by Karl Friday. It also debunks several other long-cherished myths regarding samurai warfare.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155 Thanks man! Excellent source. I'll check it out soon when I get some time.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark And historically mail has also been pierced by mongol, muslim and english bows.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
Now I agree with you on the fail rate. individual links failed all the time in the process of stopping attacks. Heavy axe blows could break links. But mail was made of soft steel designed to deform and bend under impact rather then break, high structural strength, breaking is not easy. A bodkin arrow would likely destroy the link that absorbed it's impact(sometimes arrow bounce off, or maybe penetrate a little, generally not fatally). But that is one link out of 50000.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
w w w . cotasdemalla .es/test2.htm Here a guy tests a 50# bow at 5 meters from target. Mail withstands Multiple hits without penetration. Some links deform. Some break. But the padded mail holds.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I'm not sure why you keep mentioning 30 and 50 lb bows. In the test I referenced it was a 70 lb bow at close range. 2 of 3 arrows pierced cleanly through a hauberk of riveted mail. But again, the guy was not using the heavy war arrows the Japanese use which were designed to pierce armor at close range.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
"I'm not sure why you keep mentioning 30 and 50 lb bows"
It's called an example. Even weak 30# bows can pierce improperly used mail. Properly used it has been found to provide good protection even against Mary Rose longbows. Sometimes an archer can get a perfect shot and kill through it(same is true in plate) but generally it prevents the arrow from penetrating fatally. Another variant, double mail or kings mail, was essentially arrow-proof, though heavier and less flexible.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
"I referenced it was a 70 lb bow at close range."
I'm not questioning the tests existence. I'm questioning it's legitimacy. Was it fired at mail alone? Was it stretched out and nailed flat to a board? Did the target have give? Was it felt and linen padded? In order for the results to be accurate the mail has to be worn on a rounded soft target(i.e. carcass) with give and properly padded(felt and linen) Anything less compromises the mails effectiveness and gives inaccurate results.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I found the test, but it won't let me copy the web address here for some reason. So do a google search for "myarmoury Riveted Maille and Padded Jack Tests" and it should come up, and you can look for yourself. You'll see that overall, the mail did perform very well, but it was pierced clean through by arrows from a 70 lb bow at 15 feet (2 out of 3 shots). But keep in mind most premodern war bows, including Japanese ones, had draw weights well over 100 lbs
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
Interesting find, thanks. It mentions that the bow used was just under the impact force of a 150 lb war bow of old. I wish they mentioned the penetration depth into the pell, see how deadly it could have been. It Did stop every arrow from 20 yds. However the padding isn't correct. Common padding was made of thick felt, which hinders bodkins because it has no woven structure for the point to open up and slide through. Thick leather was used as well. Interesting, but not 100% accurate.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@joker52mlb Also, a hand shield isn't much good if arrows are raining down on you from every direction after you've been surrounded by mounted archers. Furthermore, samurai were expert marksmen, routinely putting arrows through exposed faces, even eyes. They often targeted exposed areas of the body for the very reason that their armor was good enough protection that it could only be pierced close up (less than 15 yards).
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
Routinely putting arrows through eyes? Highly doubtful, watching too much DW again? They would be no better marksman then vikings that hunted game all their lives. As far as surrounding them, the hard part Is surrounding them. Hooves can be heard quite far away, letting the vikings prepare for a surprise attack, or simply engage them from forest, where they have a massive cover advantage against the large target of a horse archer on open ground.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I'm afraid it's absolutely true. As I said before, even the Mongols had to admit to the prowess of Japanese mounted archers. During the first invasion attempt of 1274, Kikuchi Takefusa precipitated a Mongol withdraw by shooting the commander right in the face from his horse. And there is more than one reference in the records of warriors being shot in the eye. It's pretty silly to think that no other people could POSSIBLY be better at something than the Vikings.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
"shooting the commander right in the face from his horse"
Care to cite where this is mentioned? And the range? Even amateur modern bow hunters could shoot you in the face 30 feet out. There is also a thing called luck. Arrow flight paths are at least partially unstable and don't often hit at the exact point you were aiming. And I never said vikings were the best archers, just that samurai were unlikely to be better marksman than ppl who hunted live game all their lives.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark It's referenced in the Moko Shurai Ekotoba, or Mongol Invasion Scrolls, which is a highly reliable battle report compiled by Takezaki Suenaga, who fought the Mongols during both their failed invastion attempts in the 13th century. Its one of the most reliable documents on medieval warfare in existence, because it was created just a few years after the battles by someone who actually fought in them. The range was probably 10 to 15 yrds, but keep in mind Takefusa was on a horse
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
Going from records, an english warbow would generate ~108 ft-lbs of kinetic energy on firing, where the bow they used generated ~80 ft-lbs of kinetic energy. Also keep in mind the modern arrow is much slimmer, which would aid in penetrating mail better then the thicker arrows used back then(wider arrow, more links it hits/bunches up/has to push through on impact) And the aforementioned fact the padding was wrong.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
Comment removed
timmy155 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I think you've got it backwards. Heavier arrows are better at penetrating armor at close distances than lighter arrows. They used thin, acutely pointed arrowheads like the bodkin to address the problem you're talking about of having to push through more links. A thick heavy shaft and a thin acutely pointed arrowhead seems to be the optimal combination for penetrating armor.
timmy155 10 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
Hm, the heavy/light arrow part was a bit off(faulty arrow KE calculator, stupid archery website). Yes, Heavier arrows are a bit better in all instances where accuracy and speed arn't necessary. Thicker arrows on the other hand hinder penetration. The more material the arrow has to move aside the more KE is lost in trying to penetrate the armor, quickly offsetting the slight KE boost of using a heavier arrow. A modern, thinner arrow of equal weight will penetrate considerably better.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
For instance, look at modern kinetic energy penetrators used to kill tanks. They use ultra dense materials like depleted uranium to maximize weight of an extremely thin projectile so it exerts all of it's KE across the smallest point possible. In the same vein, a modern 108g arrow made of more dense metals which give it the same weight for half the width would penetrate Much better then thicker wooden arrows used by the longbows of old. Same KE, but exerted over a smaller surface area
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark The samurai hunted live game too. Regardless, I don't see how you can compare archery skills for hunting to those of mounted archery on a battlefield. Like any class of aristocratic professional warriors, the samurai were very good at the particular style of fighting they practiced. Since their bows didn't have the range of a Mongol compound or English long bow, the samurai specialized in high accuracy and armor penetration at close range. And they were very good at it.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
Either case the yumi did not have the same impact force as either the english longbow or mongol composite bow(50-100meter effective range versus 100 to over 300m for the long/composite bows) And would have behaved more like the 50 lb bow which did not penetrate.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark The yumi did not have the range of a mongol or english bow, but that it would perform "like the 50 lb bow" is highly debatable. Yumi typically had draw weights of 90-100 lbs or more and they fired heavy arrows - around 70g. Because it's a long bow, it can fire heavier arrows without sacrificing kinetic energy. Thus at close ranges, 15 yards or less, they can penetrate armor, which is ideal for mounted archers who can close distances quickly, fire their arrows, and peel away.
timmy155 10 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
The typical english longbow was a 150# draw bow firing a 108g arrow at 171fps, KE of 146j, making it Capable of breaking through mail at close range. The strength required to use this bow necessitated specialized drawing techniques and deformed the bones of it's users, a bow that strong would be unusable from horse back or kneeling positions like the yumi could be. Also you must realize modern compound bows are much more efficient. A modern 50# bow would be as good as an ancient 70#+
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
All that aside, there are many examples of mail and plate both withstanding and being pierced by the longbow. History and modern tests tell us both were Good protection against arrows under most circumstances, though they Could be compromised and pierced at Close range or in a vulnerable spot. The yumi is not as strong as an english longbow, but without more info(speed, draw length, brace height, specific draw and arrow weight) I cant properly determine penetrative power.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
Anyway i'm highly doubting the power of the yumi here. The english longbow has considerably greater range using a much heavier arrow, and for all intents and purposes would be a considerably better armor piercer then the yumi you describe. For a 70g arrow to only have an effective range of 50-100m while a 108g arrow fired from the english bow had 2-3 times that speaks of a rather low-powered bow.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark The first article referenced below was written by a physicist, and he seems to shed light on arrow weight in relation to armor penetration. It seems the heavier arrows attain lower speeds at the time of release but carry more of the available energy of the bow limbs, resulting in higher kinetic energy at shorter ranges, which squares w/ what I've been saying about heavier arrows at short distances. He also lists ELB arrow weights between 70-90g, not 108 (continued...)
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
As for where I got the 108g arrows, it was on the first site You mentioned, the myarmoury padded jack and riveted mail tests. The 150-180lb draw weights came from bows recovered from the Mary Rose shipwreck(whose draw weights seem to vary Wildly depending on reports looked at) though they could have been meant for the tallest and strongest in service.
Also I agree about the heavier arrows, the bow KE calculator i had used at first was flawed and reporting the wrong KE.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
archeryreport .c om/2010/01/friction-penetration-archery-target-animal-penetration/
Hmm, this article suggests that faster, lighter arrows are better at piercing solid targets like armor then slower, heavier ones, but don't pierce flesh as well because fluid drag increases Rapidly with the velocity of the penetrating object. Taking this into consideration, I wonder which would work better, or would they equal out? Don't think i've seen any comparison of that type before.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I found 2 articles you should take a look at. I can't paste the addresses on this stupid site, but for the first one:
google "the asian war bow"
It should be the second result that comes up. It's a PDF file.
For the second one:
google "english longbow testing matheus bane"
Also a PDF. Should come up first.
timmy155 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark In the same article he has Japanese arrow weights as "often exceeding" 100g. The 1 other source I've seen that actually tells the weights has them at 50-70g. Who knows which one is right. But the figure for ELB arrow weights of 70-90g is consistent w/ the second article, which says the Mary Rose arrows weighed 1000-1500 grains, which equals 64-97g. He also says Mary Rose bows "averaged" 100 lbs in draw weight, not 150.
timmy155 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark What is your source for the ELB figures of 150 lb draw and 108g arrow weight? I have a sneaking suspicion that so much of the info being tossed around on ELB's is completely overexaggerated. Draw weights seem to have varied considerably from 50-150 lbs or more; arrow weights from 50-108g. Who's to say which of these configurations would have been most common or "typical"? Then there's the matter of what constituted "typical" mail of the time. I for one have no idea.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
Typical mail of the time was 4 in 1 links. Weave and thickness varied widely however, and determined the protection offered(and cost). Double mail, or 8 in 2 links, where much heavier, but reportedly arrow proof(shrugs) And yes, i've noticed ELB info varies wildly in certain circles; same is true of yumi. What is actually true? We can only guess.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark So it seems there's a lot more we don't know about these weapons than do. There's even less info available for premodern yumi (i.e., almost none). We have sources saying arrow weights could have been anywhere from 50 to somewhere over 100g (eerily similar to the ELB), and draw weights are hardly stated at all. My figure of 90-100 lb came from a modern bowyer estimating based on the width of premodern yumi compared to his own, since draw weight is closely related to bow width
timmy155 10 months ago
@WitheringintheDark So there's really no way to satisfactorily answer this question except to do an actual test with historically accurate representations of premodern yumi, arrows and mail, and as far as I know no one has done one yet. But until someone does, I will continue to assert that yumi could pierce mail at short ranges based on historical accounts against Japanese armor, which, though you may disagree, in truth did not offer any worse protection against arrows than mail
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155
Def. agree here. Without completely accurate tests it's all guesswork. The much shorter listed range for the yumi still makes me think it would be a bit weaker, but whos to say that's correct either?
I'm not so sure about the bow width thing. The mongol bow was as powerful as either, and generally half the size, though it needed a powerful composite construction to do so.
I guess we can assume the yumi has a chance to pierce it close range. Still wish I had more specific info tho.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@timmy155
As far as the armor comparison's concerned, I guess the deflective nature of lamellar scales could compare with the absorbative nature of mail when it comes to arrows. Lamellar seems more susceptible to properly angled directed thrusts though, so it probably wasn't as good against melee weapons.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@joker52mlb As for close-in fighting, whether armor can be pierced clean through with edged weapons seems to have been of little consequence, because the dominant tactic for all cultures and all times was to target gaps or weak points in armor, not go through it. This is what the samurai did against each other, against the Mongols in the 13th century, and what they would have done against the Vikings. So yeah, I think it is a pretty nice theory I've got here.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155 O " because the dominant tactic for all cultures and all times was to target gaps or weak points in armor, not go through it. " Of course, that's just rational. I'm simply stating that the tactics the Vikings used render your theory redundant. It was never supposed to be a fair fight by their judgement. unlike the Samurai, there was to be no honor on the battle field against foriegners. The only fair fights that they had were against there own. Raiding however, a much different case.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb The whole trope of Samurai being so "honorable" in warfare is a complete myth. In reality, the Japanese were just as ruthless and underhanded as any other people in any other time. There is a well-documented history of samurai using night raids and surprise attacks, and setting fire to enemies' homes while their still inside and shooting anybody who tries to escape, even women and children.
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155 In raiding, there would be no well established heavy cavalry, because the moment of attack was when your enemy was at his weakest (not marching around and on horseback ready to fight). You can't hit what you can't see, and raiding is the only reason these two warriors would ever meet in battle. Aside from that, we were arguing the points of weapons on the show, and I stated that I would use a weapon in which it's main purpose was to fight/defend against cavalry as a special weapon.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@timmy155 Continued... The lost by a small margine, and that could've been avoided had they used a better special weapon better suited in lou of the sheild. The show was weak, still is, but especially in the early stages of it's evolution, and the Vikings recieved poor representation. I really cannot see a logical reason why these two groups of warriors would fight other than raiding (or at all for that matter). So, I completely dissagree with your ficticious battle theory for all those reasons.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb This whole scenario is hypothetical, so why is one "fictitious battle theory" any less valid than any other? Plus, if the Vikings were going to raid Japan in the 9th or 10th century, they would have to do considerable traveling across land to get to anything worth raiding. There were few if any high-value targets along the coasts in those days. If they traveled across land, they would encounter defending armies, and thus you have the hypothetical battlefield encounter so described
timmy155 10 months ago
@timmy155 Good point there, sir. That's the point I was trying to establish also, if there would be anycase for these warriors to meet in battle; it would've been a raid. Geography and the facts we've stated dictate that they would never meet on the battlefield, history does as well. In your hypothetical battle however, I find the flaw that's it's the less realistic of all I've heard. It's very knowedgeable of one side's tactics, but you aren't accounting for the others, as I've said previously.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb "Their defense system was nearly perfect against slashing weapons, what the Samurai warriors almost entirely based their offensive system from."
The main weapons on the Japanese battlefield were bows and spears, same as in Europe. Swords had an even LESS role in battle in Japan than in Europe. Most weapons used in battle were piercing weapons, not slashing weapons - though naginata, tachi and Odachi were also common.
Gilmaris 10 months ago
@Gilmaris You're out of your element man. It's not a problem though. timmy155 was proposing a theoretical battle and stating the likely outcome. His theory relied on the use of slashing weapons by the samurai. We had been arguing for some time, then we settled it. Perhaps you are correct, but it's irrelevant to our (timmy155 and I's) discussion.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb What's the point of comparison if you're not going to stick to historical equipment and tactics in the first place? You might as well equip the samurai with chopsticks and the viking with a rolling pin if actual equipment is irrelevant.
Gilmaris 10 months ago
@Gilmaris If you're that motivated to make your point clear, take it up with timmy155 man. The slashing weapon thing was an aspect of his proposed battle.
joker52mlb 9 months ago
@TheScandinavianOne Not to say that you CAN'T use a shield as a weapon of course, but you knew that already. ;)
watch?v=Mw3ARKAtBhs&feature=related
TheScandinavianOne 10 months ago
Thank you thank I was enraged when I saw that Deadliest warrior episode and wanted to go Berserk I'm am happy to see that some one is enlightening people on how a Viking/Nordic Warrior of that time would have fought
CapitanGenocide 10 months ago
so who do you think would have won?
cawabunga360 10 months ago
@cawabunga360 I never state that it is disrespectful to our ancestors and the Einherjar.We just state who had the advantage due to arms and armor and tactics the Viking most likely would have come out on top out of 1000 battles Due to the 9th century sword and shield style they were very even in every other way.
ThegnThrand 10 months ago
so who do you think would have won??
cawabunga360 10 months ago
@EvilDarkJackel
Yes, though I haven't heard of samurai ever using shields. The ashigaru used them, but they were also generally poorly trained and probably a little fearful of facing a samurai on the battlefield. A viking, esp the huscarls would be much more experienced in using a sword and shield, in addition to not being afraid of samurai in the least. Not saying either 1 would def. win, but the samurai might be in for a surprise or two against a Skillfully wielded shield.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@EvilDarkJackel
Yeah, kanabo weren't some evenly weighted log, it def. was a bit end heavy with a steel capped handle to compensate a little, and the handle let you get a good solid grip that you could use to pull the weapon around faster and harder. It was still Slow to swing and more unwieldy compared to a much lighter sword(the anti-cavalry version anyway) but would swing a good bit faster and more controllable then a big tree log.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago