When Spears are NOT the best old weapons
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Spears were pretty much the most important close combat weapons for all of human history until more firearms. But there are some specific situations where spears were much less useful.
Patreon & Extra Videos: / scholagladiatoria
Support & extra content on Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
Matt Easton's website and services:
www.matt-easto...
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-sw...
The collar on the jacket really brings together the whole "Biker Nosferatu" look
That caught me way too off guard
V:TM
Oof. Ain't gonna be able to pull that stake out of his heart :(
haha that was cold af haha im ded
I've been laughing at this for 2 mins
When defending yourself in a telephonebooth against a swarm of angry bees a spear is not optimal.
Its not? Shit, send help!
@@spyrofrost9158 Try this: ua-cam.com/video/2t3g5MvpclE/v-deo.html
@@frogappreciator thank you for enlightening the community and providing critical safety information.
Them foreign Bees can get as big as your hand.
Dammit. Well, that explains some things....
Me: *enjoying Matt talking about when spears are not optimal*
The Comments: *Matt's leather jacket*
You mean his leather armor?
I really like his authentic, leather armor... have seen that many times in films; though I am surprised that he bought one with a zipper as that seems anachronistic... ;-)
Here’s the jacket if anyone is wondering, I have the same one
www.superdry.com/products?product_id=3963892&source=googleshopping&locale=en-GB&nst=0&gclid=CjwKCAiAudD_BRBXEiwAudakX103NaMNy3EAyd4vM0SEe2hXuEwU2b-MvSYTr7VEre9Wz-MrrBaxNhoCPeEQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
mad max but this time got medieval weapons
@@ecthelionalfa Mad Matt: Feudal Road
Ah, the historical Hollywood Mad Max Biker leather armor.
Only needs metal studs to be authentic medieval movie armor. :-)
That leather jacket says “I know Mad Max is set in 2021”.
Underrated comment for sure.
As interesting as this topic is, I couldn't help but notice how well that jacket suits you
he looks like a roadman lol
Was gonna say...looking extra crispy
I was distracted initially by speculation around what sort of motorbike he rides. I’ve decided it’s a cafe racer with some bosozoku styling and a Super Dry decal.
Well it is the year of the roadwarrior
That is, in fact, a killer jacket.
He looks like a vampire.
Nosferatu
Nosferatu!
To me like Moloch from Watchmen. ^^
A daywalker? Those are rare.
Matt instantly got +5 mojo from that jacket. I absolutely love it. Not only does it look badass, but also comfy as hell.
There is a posture in Jacob de Gheyn's Pike & Shot manual of 1610 called "Trail Your Pike", (which you can go to after you've "Cheeked" the pike (drawing it backwards behind you until your hands reach the cheeks/langets), where you grab the head of the pike and press it to your (right) hip; it's used when your pike block is marching through "broken country". Of course, the problem is now you're dragging 16 feet of ash behind you with 79 other pikemen, so your intervals are quite spread out (but since when is it so necessary to have your formation in "close" spacing while in the middle of a thicket....), it implies the posture is useful for travel and just movement of troops, it is not intended to be used 'in combat'.... Great points (no pun) about why it's not really a great idea to push your spear/polearm troops through a forest/woods, and, thanks for mentioning the difference between a "managed" forest and a "wild" forest, I think we Moderns sometimes forget this, we're so used to reading about the "epic battles" fought on well-mowed and maintained farmer's fields....
Beat me by five minutes, you knave!
In my defense, I came up with the idea myself 😁
@@septegram : What does the for me unknown word ,knave' mean? In german there exists ,Knabe' ( boy) or Knappe ( squire ?).
@@brittakriep2938 It's not used in modern English, it used to mean boy or servant but changed to be an insult meaning someone who is dishonest or a rogue.
@@brittakriep2938 It can also refer to the card between the 10 and the Queen, also called the Jack.
Context
1:45 SG: There was almost a...
Me: An arms race?
SG: ...a developmental contest
Me: ...that took me to interesting places...
This made me remember the old Lidybeige video about forests in medieval and ancient times. And would you know, it popped up in the suggestions! Recommend watching that!
yeah, that video came to my mind as well, and Id say its important: Loyd talks there abought the forest in the middle ages and: these were heavily used, like most of the landscape was used as intense as possible without heavy machinery and all that.
Most forest would have been "tidy" and definitly not full of dense shrubbery. At least not on the outskirts. Deep inside were more wild, dense, untouched parts.
@@felixheitzer2262 more animals, more tracks, also more humans foraging - different places to today
Just searched for the video and wanted to post it, before I read your comment 😂 Anyway here it is: ua-cam.com/video/zVPUFMwm73Y/v-deo.html
Context
@@felixheitzer2262 "Most forest would have been "tidy" and definitly not full of dense shrubbery. At least not on the outskirts. Deep inside were more wild, dense, untouched parts." --- Yeah, maybe in High Middle Ages England. Definitely not in mainland Europe. Especially not in Central and Eastern Europe. Not to mention that not all kinds of woods are suitable to be "managed" like riparian woodland.
"Loyd talks there abought the forest in the middle ages and: these were heavily used, like most of the landscape" --- Yeah, and he completely overstressed his point ending up fighting a myth by creating just another myth because he didn't put it in the right context.
My experience in Canada is that most old growth wild woods have a relatively narrow band (20 meters at most) of heavy brush near the edge where sunlight can reach and support smaller bushes and younger trees. Once you get into the full canopy forest there might not even be grass let alone brush and there can be gaps of several meters with nothing but tree roots and moss because the larger trees are keeping any light from reaching the ground. In areas were old growth isn't possible, mainly the prairie provinces and in the tundra areas of the Canadian Shield, where the conditions are too dry or the soil too thin over the bedrock to support the root systems for large trees you can get tangles that would make a European hedge row look sparse by comparison and can run for several kilometers.
I'd be interested in hearing what people with experience with the proverbial triple canopy forest in more tropical areas have to say on the subject.
I’ve seen the same in the US, very dense woods. Unless you’re following a trail (human or animal), you wouldn’t be able to even walk.
I’ve never seen anything that resembles managed woods. That sort of place would be owned by private logging companies. And it would only be a fraction of the woodland we have over here.
I spent a little bit of time training in jungle environments and I would describe the combat environment as a 'more extreme' version of what you see in Europe. The primary jungle is sparse even compared to a mature unmanaged European forest and you can usually see about 100m. The secondary jungle is more dense, almost like patches of rhodedendrons in the UK, but with more thorns and nasty biting insects. Of course many jungles are also hilly as hell, almost like an alpine environment.
Eastern Canada it's heavy brush
I have hiked quite a bit in mountainous areas in Japan with unmanaged forests. Conditions are quite different as land is unstable due to massive amount precipitation that falls and steep slopes, lots of places you need to use your hands to scramble up and down. I also been through some areas where smaller Sengoku battles were fought, like near border of Nagano and Gifu(Hirayu area). I have no idea how they managed to move large bodies of troops there. Normal trade was by foot and donkeys and they had to rebuild parts of the trails basically every season as parts would get taken out by landslides
@@conribarnes1373 . Ah but you forget that the US is only a few hundred years old and a lot bigger than Britain. The British and their forbears have had thousands of years to turn forest into fields and back. I’m amazed that there is any wild forest left in the country.
Living in a remote region of Canada and having spent an extensive amount of time in densely forested areas I can't even imagine trying to go through those with a pole weapon.
Though the ancient wars did not take place in Canada.
@@vorrnth8734 but a lot of battles took place in forested regions in Europe / England. That’s the point OP is trying to make. Think first, open your mouth second.
@@j.vinton4039 Fisrt, stop insulting me! Second,I am fully aware of that. I am german (and therefore interest in german histoty )and the germanic tribes fought alot of their battles in the woods. Simply because most of their lands where covered with forest and swamps. Guess what their main weapon was. The spear!
@@j.vinton4039 No point in discussing with someone using ad hominem.
Matt's out here looking like my Cyberpunk 2077 character with that jacket
Careful product placement for SuperDry ;-)
Complete with the invisible haircut
Context
How did wasting 60 dollars feel like
@@RRRR-jr1gp I played it for free and I still felt scammed. Don't put salt in the wound :(
Actually, do it if you want, cos people really need to learn not to pre-order games
The difference between forests types here really isn't managed/unmanaged. It's a matter of how long it's gone since the last "disturbance" (any event that takes away a bunch of the canopy, such as an especially bad fire or rare storm, a timber harvest, an especially bad wave of tree disease or insects, or people girdling a bunch of the bigger trees).
Soon after a disturbance is when the ground cover is the densest and most annoying. Even without trying to take a spear with you, you can often find yourself crawling or climbing under or over obstacles instead of walking, and even then you still snag your clothes on twigs & thorns from all directions and collect a bunch of small cuts. (When I was a professional forester, one of my first jobs was collecting research data in sites with different recent management histories for comparison. The several-year-old clearcut sites were the "youngest" sites on my list, and the worst.) The ones that have gone the longest since a disturbance are the easiest to walk through, and the easiest to bring other large objects through.
Each new disturbance restarts the clock on the "succession" process. Succession is land's development from bare to thoroughly canopied forest over several decades, if it isn't disturbed again along the way. If it does experience another disturbance, the succession clock resets & restarts. Because disturbances can happen naturally or by human actions, both managed and unmanaged forests can be of any age on the succession clock.
It is worth pointing out Matt that likely even more woodland would have been managed in the medieval period since the woods were extensions of the farmland. At least in some areas.
Yeah. Medieval woodland was managed woodland. It was just managed differently, with coppicing for wood, charcoal and game. That creates lots of dense thickets. Open areas too, but a patchwork of passable and non-passable scrub that would indeed be a problem to fight in. Of course, if you're local and know the specific wood well, it's easy too see how this could be turned to your advantage.
mature, climax forests have very little amounts of underbrush unless near streams or ponds.
Good point. Check out "The Time Travellers Guide to Medieval England" by Ian Mortimer for an interesting read.
@@janibeg3247 Yes, but many forests were managed precisely to avoid that condition. If managed for large scale lumber, probably the forest would be as you describe. But if it's being managed for charcoal burning, say, or smaller timber, not so much. Not all forests were coppiced but many were. That kind of management produces patches of super dense scrub, often thorny, that is difficult, if not impossible to pas through.
I don’t fully agree about the claim that modern woods are less brushy and harder to access. When trees grow tall and old they shade much of the undergrowth, making it harder for younger plants to establish. So in very old forests, there is less undergrowth. In young forest on the other hand, it’s still a competition between different plants for spot to establish. So younger forests are often harder to access. I own a bit of land where I have primeval forest, never felled, some 50-100 year old forest and some 20 year old forest. The latter two are far less accessible. I do however assume it may differ depending on where in Europe the forest is located.
I also want to point out that further back in time, you maintained your forests differently than today. Nowadays you mostly clear cut the woods, making it possible for a multitude of bushes and trees to establish, even if you plant new trees. A couple of hundred years ago and going back to Roman age, you usually only felled the largest trees and thinned the forests in order for the best trees to get space to grow tall. This created areas with sparse forest, much like today’s planted forests. But there were of course a lot more untouched forest as well.
I do however agree with that shafted weapons would now have been very useful in any forest when the a battle turned into melee.
Stephen: "Your choice of weapon, sir. Pistol? Or sword?"
Hugh: "Um... I suppose I'll pick the sword."
Stephen: "Very well, then I shall get the pistol."
Great bit.
@@1IGG It was a soupy twist.
Context
Source ? or "sauce" as the weaboos say ? :))
@@gusty9053 A Bit of Fry and Laurie. /watch?v=sDsn-RRmDXU&ab_channel=jhh302
"Woods" is a very broad term. As I've seen others in the comments mention this can vary from wide open high quality timber woods to almost impenetrable coppiced woodlots. I think while your point is valid and valuable we must be careful to assess each "woods" individually :)
To quote Daffy Duck; "it's a quarter staff... actually it is a buck and a quarter staff, but I am not telling him that"
"Ho! Ha ha! Dodge! Turn! Parry! Spin! Thrust!
@@chrisclark9209 Nice to know i am not the only loonie :-)
@@Kim-the-Dane-1952
Everytime I see something really stupid I say to myself, "what a maroon".
Ah, yes. Ancient god of frustration.
@@TheCoffeehound Garibaldi is glad you remembered this.
I really appreciate the way Matt presents these topics: even-handed, well-referenced, interesting, easy-to-understand.
Interesting fact is that important emphasis on archery in Classical and Hellenistic Crete. Kretan archers were deployed for wars over mediterranean as mercenaries. Plato in his accounts mentiones mounted archers which we do not see on depictions except those few in scythian armour.
I too find it troublesome to penetrate tight spaces with a longer weapon.
Better shorten it, then.
Context
Deep Penetration
ua-cam.com/video/VImURvrkR_k/v-deo.html
I want to point out that the undergrowth would be much thinner since the locals would use it for grazing goats, sheep and pigs, something that really isn't happening in the modern forest. Not contradicting anything being said here, just adding on.
In a modern forest the deer can crop it like a park.
Given how dense and huge British forests used to be (hell, they used to be rainforests, they were so vast), I very much doubt they would be thinned as much as you'd think, even by a herd of deer going at it with knife, fork and rammer.
@@peterclarke7240 By middle age, forests covered only 15 % of the land area. Note how everything from cooking to heating needed wood since there were no real alternatives. Coal only came later. Most of Britain was covered by farmland. However, the forests were thicker, as they weren't managed.
christian-watson.com/deforestation-in-britain/
Upvoted for politeness of comment.
@@Saareem Sure, but there was a thousand years of various warfare in Britain before that.
"George, there's that weird man with the stick in the woods again."
4:45 "Welcome to the Jungle" blares through the speakers
Context
Context
Context
@@assumjongkey1383 ah yes...
"Welcome to the context, they got fun and games!..."
@@benjaminholcomb9478 context
"Developmental contest" between cavalry and spears eh? Maybe even a "race of arms" or something?
Context
Context
Weapon competition? Martial Gymkhana? If only there was a catchy term.
I thought this was going to be a flame war with Lindybeige Lloyd "Spears are better then swords."
there is usually an "ideal" barrel length for any firearm where the ballistics of the cartridge are sufficient to have the desired effect without inconveniencing the end user. before I got into firearms, I used to think that a longer barrel was always better, but now that I own some I tend to gravitate towards shorter barrels. this seems to be the case for specialised troops across the world's militaries as well, where special forces' carbines have gotten shorter in the past ~20 years.
That's because the environment where the nations that manufacturer fireams are fighting in is mainly urban environments against insurgents. So you don't really need a highly accurate weapon and instead need a smaller one that is easier to maneuver. If there is ever another major conventional conflict they will go back to longer barrel length again because they are more accurate.
@@Deepwang84 not really. the AR-15 platform doesn't lose any significant accuracy between 16 inches and 14.5 (the current standard). 12.5 inches is the shortest you can go with current ammunition in the AR without losing significant muzzle velocity. the environment isn't the only thing that dictates the length of a weapon - all countries that adopted bullpups did so considering mobile troops fighting from APC and helicopters, not necessarily in urban environments, where a shorter weapon overall is less cumbersome.
I'm really trying to recall and search for depictions or images of our natives´s spears here in Brasil and it seems almost none of them could be called the long tipe. Except some of the southern ones from our pampas, or "savannas". It matches with your discution, since the tupi-guarani and other great groups lived in tropical and equatorial forests. Altough it could be also due to the focus on individual valour in the tribal warfare here, since usually longer spears are more effective in greater disciplined formations. Nonethless is an interesting topic to think about here.
A hug from Brasil!
I remember reading that a big reason why the Roman military started going for big shield, throwing weapons, and swords for their infantry was because the hills in Italy made the spear formations fall apart and they stopped going for a Greek style phalanx because of how many of their enemies took advantage of it.
Granted there are other arguments for it, but there was a really famous battle between Rome and the Seleucid Empire where a similar thing happened. The spear formations of the Seleucid's took so long to organize that Roman soldiers just slipped through the gaps in the Seleucid formation and tore them apart. As I recall, the battle took place on mountain ridge or something like that.
"when spears are NOT the best old weapons"
*spends the first 3 minutes explaining why they ARE the best old weapons*
Gotta deal with the pedants
Just in case someone clicked on this who previously learned everything they know about medieval weapons and armor from playing D&D.
@@j.f.fisher5318 Ah yes D&D, where the DM would let me fire a short bow underwater but not a crossbow
@@bluemountain4181 and as of 2nd edition iirc the notes on armor types were sure studded leather was a thing historically but said brigandine probably wasn't real...
Try walking with your hand on the stabby end and dragging the pole behind you. You'd have a much better chance of moving your polearm through the woods effectively.
Fighting with one in the woods? Not if you could help it.
then it's time for the axe or dagger on your belt to be used lol
I believe that Lindybeige made a podcast about medieval woods saying the opposite - in middle ages it was like a farm and it was well kept and now it is wild and chaotic
Context
idk about a podcast but he definitely did this video: ua-cam.com/video/zVPUFMwm73Y/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Lindybeige
@@Yarblocosifilitico that's what I meant
Well-kept indeed, tho at many times and places, deliberately kept low and brushy for firewood, weaving rods, compost, and cattle fodder. Search the word "coppice" for info about this.
@@keithklassen5320 interesting, thanks!
In the leather jacket you just need some shades on and you could be the English Terminator. A spear wielding Terminator. "The Eastonator." Travelling back in time to save medieval manuscripts throughout europe from another terminator that was sent by Skynet to destroy them. Thus, saving and preserving context of medieval weapon use for future generations to come.
Just to clarify, Boarding Pikes were not Pike Length. They were spear length, or about 8' (2.5m) Long.
I've handled quite a few originals - they vary in length, but yes they are average spear length in general.
@@scholagladiatoria Well, there were a lot of originals.
A note on woods and spears: in my experience (primarily the American midwest and the Rocky Mountains), mature unmanaged forests are ofter relatively open, whereas the scrubby recent growth that you see on abandoned pastures and fields contain the densest most restrictive woodlands. In other areas, such as on the Olympic Peninsula, you do see dense, hard to move through old growth.
Context
Context
Thank you for going one step further.
As amateur and professional historians, we encounter the "spears are/were better weapons than swords" argument quite often, as it isn't common knowledge in the public.
Thank you for respecting your audience and cutting the argument as an intro.
voldemort vloging in the woods, testing his wand.
I add that poles move branches and tell everybody where you are.
Context
Context
I'm saying long objects like poles, in the thick bush get in the way, move tree branches and that gives away your position.
@@carloparisi9945 who are saying this to????to me ?!??!?!
@@assumjongkey1383 I added the context maybe was missing in my first post.
Short thrusting spears like the African Assagai are something that you need to consider also.
I googled "Assage" doesn't seem to be a thing, is it spelled differently?
@@MrMudslap try Assegai - Mr poor spelling 😃
@@toddwhyte9529 boom there we go, cool.
As a canadian traveling to Europe for the first time and walking "in the forest", I was shocked at how clean they were. LotR "forest" fight scenes were one of the first times I noticed this difference in movies. It is very different from old forests. Longbows and polearms would be a pain to carry, but really even walking is and you really shouldn't fear cavalry charges.
Lindybeige had a video talking about the european forests. Essentially, because Europe had been populated for so long, all the forests have been harvested for wood, then planted, over and over. So the land has been flattened over the centuries for easier access, and the trees are not as old.
Lindy also pointed out that it's the reason why most forests on medieval paintings look artificial, with trees in straight lines and little to no overgrown under them.
The forests today are men made and planted by previous generations. Also your dog today differs from a natural wolf
Living all my life in South Western Ontario, and walking in the woodlots and wetlands here, it's true that most of what you see is 2nd growth. But, if you have an eye, there are places that have never been put to the plow for one reason or another. So you get to see, in these small areas, what it was like pre-settler. It's surprising how "clear" a mature hardwood (I live in the Carolinian Zone, so this is a-typical of the RoC) forest can be. There just isn't enough light for many understory shrubs and other vegetation to live. There are species that specialize in being understory, like Witch Hazel, but they don't form an impenetrable barrier. I would add that grazing by deer now, and in the past, kept a lot of the forest floor clear. Here, the real impenetrable woodlots are second growth where European Buckthorn, or Honeysuckle has taken over.
+scholagladiatoria *I concur on matching the arm to the tactical ground.* Musasi promoted the sword as an all-round arm, as it was usable in all but the tightest spaces and more manoeuverable than polearms. The staff was a common tool for hauling loads that could double as a blunt-force weapon, but indoor spaces constrained the staff even worse than forests.
Liked and shared.
Three of the guys I shared this with run a sword school in Pittsburgh. They have open minds about weapons, however, and work out with several.
Context
I’m pleased so many comments are about the jacket, gotta let our boy know he’s lookin fresh
Catplop A Christmas gift, per chance? If so, it’s a lovely one.
+2:49 Mr. Easton addresses the title's question... Nice point about (anti) boarding pikes, on board ships! And about forest terrain too. Thank you for the video.
In our US Civil War history class my excellent teacher (a military officer) said that the Eastern coastal forests were basically a rain forest in Spring & Summer. He said that hatchets & Bowie knives were often carried by troops as a back up weapon. And that many volunteer units purchased/obtained revolvers and the shorter Henry rifle.
The humble spear stands aside as the flashy sword gets photographed and takes the credit, for the spear need not to go sleep remembering his fame and fortune. No, the spear sleeps soundly know that even though it may only be remembered today by so few, it was cherished by so many in days gone by. It doesnt mind who gets labeled as the hero of old, for it know who the real hero was.
One kind of combat I would love to hear more about is ship-to-ship combat in the migration or viking era setting. The sagas have a lot of references to them happening and some skaldic verses of things that happen in them. Spears used in the same way as (anti-) boarding pikes is interesting, but also that we see many mentions of the sword and shield.
Very good video.
It actually reminds me of the Battle of Waterloo, where Wellington lined up his army in front of a forest. Bonaparte believed he was making a mistake since it was a traditional tactical error as armies and units even in that period usually couldn't move through wooded areas without losing cohesion. But Wellington had seen that forest a year before and noted that it was a cultivated forest with space between the trees. Cultivated forests even 200 years ago were that rare for a General to make mental notes of it.
As soon as you popped up in the forest I flashed back to the 80's. I was working at the original Renaissance Faire in California, back when it was about Living History instead of Fantasy. I was in the "household of Hugh O'Neil", and for a while I played a man-at-arms, which meant that in parades I either carried a spear in the van or a flag at point. I was at the Northern site, which was basically a forest of California live oak, manzanita, and California laurel with a bunch of paths, sometimes wide, through it. Those tree branches reach waaay out from the trunk. As we marched, those of us with pole-arms were constantly bringing them down to clear under the branches. And whenever we did that we had to grab the point with one hand "for the safety of the audience." Can't go walking along with a spear tip at eye-level right next to a customer without controlling it, don'cha know.
Always interesting to hear the pros and cons of a weapon as presented by your good self, Matt, your even-handed and thoughtful analysis is much appreciated.
Thank you for this video. I am developing a medieval themed video game, with an emphasis on realism, but I was having difficulty with spears and polearms being too OP. This gives me a good angle to offset their strengths!
When you're riding your bike playing knights, you end up arse over tit. Been there done that when I was 11 lol.
That's the secondary use for Hockey equipment.
Context
A point about the way woods looked. I recently watched a Lindybeige video, yes I know he can be a bit off on some things but he made good points here, where he talked about the way medieval forests looked. And they would look a bit different to what you are describing there epically around towns and villages. Those forests would be managed a bit more. They would need to go into them to get wood for cooking and heating and they probably would clear not only paths for their carts but a lot of the undergrowth to make it easier to move the wood. This would be epically true where they where coppicing or pollarding. Not to mention the different foodstuffs they would be getting from the forests.
There are a few times spears were avoided:
1. Officers: Renaissance officers rarely bothered with polearms, because they weren't supposed to fight in formation, and moving through a formation with a two-handed weapon could cause problems. Some wouldn't even have a weapon in hand at all, using something like a baton instead, but they would always have a sword, at least. I suspect this was true even long before this point, but this is where we get plates as proof.
2. Mounted infantry: this was more common before the High middle ages, but many mounted soldiers actually fought on foot, acting as a mobile reserve or flank. Being less numerous as a matter of fact, they needed to be able to remount quickly, and could easily fumble if using a big weapon in this capacity (or perhaps simply had no room for one, using bows or javalins instead,) so usually opted for a sword for melee instead.
When shorter weapons & spears intersect, I always think about the *iklwa.* This being Zulu short spear, introduced by Shaka (possibly invented by him as well). Its adoption was part of a major shift in Zulu battle strategy, using the traditional assegai for throwing at distant enemies then switching to the iklwa and a shield for close quarters combat.
Matt: A lot of you will have gone walking in the woods
Martin O'Donnell: On occasion
Context
there are 3 weapons that were used around the world for extensive periods, missle weapons, spears and anything combined with a shield
Playing Conan Exiles to swing sword arouns like in the movie- end up using spears, javelins and pikes as they are just massively advantageus. That game does polearms right, damn, that reach!
Interesting. I once (!) tried battle reenactment with a pole arms unit, and the first thing I learned is that group cohesion is probably the most important thing the unit has to maintain. One guy falls out of line by 1 step, and the whole unit is toast in seconds. So, I see that not working in a forest, swordsmen that you normally would easily hold at bay will wipe the floor with you in no time. Yup.
It also emphasizes how brilliant Henry´s battle plan at Agincourt really was, where he placed the archers at the sides close to the woods and had dismounted men at arms secure the foret edge. So he presumably knew.
I used to spend a lot of time up in northern Alberta and the big boreal forests and muskeg up there. You're right, a completely wild forest is a heck of a beast to traverse.
It also depends on the specific polearm. Something like a poleaxe, polehammer, or a short spear like an iklwa, would work in more confined spaces than a longer polearm like a pike, longer spear, bill, or halberd.
He spoke ill of the spear. HERESY!
Location Location! Woods and Jungles also use small bows and weapons, blowpipes and hides and traps. In the open, besides the usual ones, we see thing like the Bolos (Las tres Marias) of Argentina, trips and other devices to disable horse and thus rider. Ropes or Lariets have been first reported in the army of Xerses as important skills. Like bows in the hands of a skilled roper mounted or not, can take out a knight beyond spear distance. Note that mounted horsemen in the east used bows in the initial attack.
When I was in the army, we were commanded to attack a fenced area and approach it from super dense woodland, it was pain in the butt to just carry an AK around there, not to mention assault vest getting aswell stuck in all kinds of brances and stuff, i could imagine carrying a pike and armor...
I always watch your napoleonic sword videos but these are the ones I love. Thank you.
Thank you for remembering the Welsh! If I remember correctly, Giraldus Cambrensis talks about the lightly-armed Irish fortifying the edges of forests by pleaching the foliage, to defend against the Normans.
Spearmen and cavalry both have it rough in the woods. They have it even rougher if they actually have to fight each other in the woods.
Good luck.
I fully agree that long weapons are more difficult to use in woodlands, though there would be times when fighting with long weapons in a forest would not be as much of a hindrance as one might think because of there being far less undergrowth in some woodlands in the past compared to modern times. In woodlands with a high density of wildlife or if they were close to farmland where farmers would let their livestock loose in the forest to feed on the undergrowth, forests would be far easier to navigate through.
I remember touring through the historic Gettysburg battleground where there were several locations where the battle took place in woodlands, and while today there is so much undergrowth in those woodlands that you can hardly walk off of the trail, but when the battle of Gettysburg took place there was almost no undergrowth because livestock were constantly let loose in the woodlands to eat everything they could reach, so the soldiers fighting there had enough space to make bayonet charges though the woods
I don't know an example from history, however I noticed while Larping, that woods really tend to disorganize you. We have been in really dense forest at several occasions, and we almost never where able to uphold any kind of formation. 2 people fighting back to back is the best we got.
I think there is some unkept wood next to my apartment. There are vines that grow in the area which try to turn everything into a bramble.
There was one battle in the 1812 war where cannons were completely ineffective because the woods were so thick.
Interesting that you talk about modern woods being managed woodfarms. I believe it was Lindybeige who said it was the opposite: unmanaged forests were very rare in the past, due to the high demand for both fuel and construction material. I know that most of the forests near me are very dense (unmanaged) as soon as you stray off the path.
Just another quick history tidbit in regards to WW1 trenches and why they had that zigzag form. You are right about the shrapnel however another important factor was that it obstructed the point of aim for enemies if they were to overrun the trenches
I grew up with lots of woods nearby my house, and I loved to go walking in them. I always carried a staff of some sort. Certain times of year, spiders would make webs EVERYWHERE. I would hold my staff straight in front of me and twirl it in a circular motion (in a basic 3D cone) to knock down any spiderwebs in the way. It worked, and I never felt like I was encumbered by it.
When the Massachusetts Bay Company set off to settle its colony, they chartered a company of pikemen to protect the colony. I am pretty sure the original charter is still in Boston. When they got to their destination, they realized that full pikes weren't going to do them ANY good fighting in the woods against the native population, so they cut their weapons down to half-pikes to adapt to the local terrain and potential foes. Similarly, British officers in the American Revolution discarded their Spontoons by about 1777 in favor of fuzees (lighter and shorter versions of the standard Short Model Brown Bess) in order to operate more easily in the North American woodlands (among countless other kit changes by the army in North America).
The Macedonian pike (sarissa) was carried in two halves, then united for battle. The two shafts were about nine feet long. Its sharp, leaf-shaped iron blade was about 20 inches long and the bronze butt spike shorter. A long dory, the hoplite spear, would have been about the same length as one of the two sarissa halves, but many were only two meters.
Hey Matt, great video as always! I have a historical example, although I would still hesitate to state that the pole weapon was at a disadvantage in this example. The Battle of Cynoscephalae (197 BC) fought between Roman legions led by Flaminius and Macedonian phalanges led by Philip V was a victory for the legion over the phalanx. I would say that the Macedonians lost for several reasons, though: not having the phalanges fully formed up before the legions attacked, having to deal with elephants, not having a Companion Cavalry, not having men in reserve, etc. The terrain of this battle wasn't wooded, but grassy hills, if I remember correctly.
I am only familiar with forests in the Eastern US. Most forests, which may be 80 to 120 years old, are relatively open ground. But there is a very beautiful scourge in some places, called the rhododendron thicket. These shrubs may grow 15 feet high and have branches as thick as a man's forearm. I saw a female bear tear through such a place as if it were tissue paper. But if a man gets in it, he may have trouble getting out. In one instance, I did get in. It took about 3 hours to travel half a mile and twice, my "pole arm" (a 5 foot rake handle converted to walking stick) got stuck in the branches and struck me in the throat.
It appeared the only way to get out alive that day would be to climb the sandstone mountain on my left, so I could walk down the open terrain on its ridge. This was another adventure. The slope was about 80 degrees, so I was scrambling up on my belly. The forest service had recently done a controlled burn in the area, so everything that I took hold of crumbled in my hand. When I finally got to the top, I knelt and gave thanks to God and supposed I was the first human since Hernando DeSoto to see this spot! Of course this was not true. A brief look around revealed rubbish from the 1960s.
So yes, the point of this video is very well taken. A long stick in a thick tangle is a troublesome thing.
As an American with Welsh ancestry, as well as those crazy Norwegians, I see this information as a, "how don't you know this stuff", this is your history. Be proud of it. Thank you for the post, very much enjoyed it, makes me happy the young ones are keeping it going.
I don't have an example, but I generally agree. When the environment is not very spacious, a short weapon is better, more effective. It is more nimble, faster and on the top sturdier and has a better penetration qualities because it has less tendency to bend. In a more spacious environment, a longer weapon is preferable, but not necessarily superior in terms of penetration.
Short weapons such as machette are a good choice when walking through the forest or fighting in it. Not only spear but also other relatively long weapons such as longsword would be a hindrance in such environment when it hangs too low because of all those obstacles on the ground. On the other hand in open plains of Africa for example they would be effective. But it all depends on the context as usual.
Before the battle of Beneventum Pirrus of Epirus and part of his Phalanx lost their way while trying to flank the romans through a forested hill, and were subsequently defeated by the romans. Who knows! Maybe part of their misfortune was due to the problem of moving their long pikes through the woods, during the night. Good point Matt
Thanks, Matt. This is very interesting militarily but (of course there's a but) having run the Palaeoquest project (finished-sorry) I can assure you a spear, slightly taller than the user, is absolutely essential when moving through natural woods - particularly on dark nights.
Testing depths of mud/water, vaulting holes/ditches etc., deflecting branches, crossing rivers and so many other activities are simplified, made safer, or even made possible.
This was never a problem, but defence (crouching - rear foot on the spear's end) against ambush predators is almost instant.
Thanks, this video gave me some ideas for a table game
Absolutely correct about long weapons in the woods. I hunt grouse in N. America, and they live in 5 to 15 year old aspen trees. Those trees grow like hair on a dog. Everyone wants a long barreled shotgun (30 inches or so) for upland bird hunting, but I want a barrel under 24 inches. There have been many, many times when a bird gets up and it's simply impossible to point the shotgun at the bird because you're trying to push too many trees over. There are times walking through the young trees where you have to hold the shotgun almost vertically in front of yourself just to get it through! The usual strategy is to simply avoid walking through the woods and stick purely to the trails running through it.
Ah... 3:55... I finally understand the picture used on the cover of UK SUBS’ first album, after 41 years. Thanks a lot.
This relates well with my most recent fixation: The trench gun. A shot gun is a relatively short long-gun. even with the M9 bayonet attached, doesn't exceed 45". My daily exercise, as of late, alternates between bayonet drills - which you video helped with, by the way - and an escrima drill that I adapted to the messer. Part of the point of the exercise is what weapons have utility in a confined space like the apartment that I live in.
Experimental archaeology (also called experiment archaeology and experiential archaeology) is a field of study which attempts to generate and test archaeological hypotheses, usually by replicating or approximating the feasibility of ancient cultures performing various tasks or feats. This is an excellent example of the kind of insights into the likely use and limitations of ancient weapons that actually trying to use them can provide.
In Sweden and Finland the farmer militas were masters of fighting in woods. Their preferred weapons were bows and later crossbows backed by axes and other hand weapons.
They did use spears and polearms according to the descriptions and usually tried to use field fortifications to channel the enemy.
But the long weapons seem to have been for defensive purposes, giving reach against enemies that tried to close with them. Or when they had to fight in open ground.
The axe seem to have been a popular hand weapon up until the 17th century despite swords or messers being aviable.
But this seem to come from the fact that even a fighting axe is a better tool than a sword or messers when preparing ambushes and positions.
The Teuroburg forest as it played out is very similar to medieval and early modern nordic woodland tactics. One could claim that the finnish Motti tactics of WWII are just a modern form of these traditional tactics.
I work as a field technician in an archaeology firm. Getting my 3ft spade through the woods is a pain in the ass sometimes (especially during summer), I can see why pikemen usually kept their pikes on carts.
As someone who lives in a tropical rainforested area I can say that navigating through it with a halberd/poleaxe/billhook would be a f@cking nightmare.
I literally live in the woods. Can confirm: There are many areas where you cannot traverse without getting into heavy foliage, and even having a carbine rifle can get obnoxious.
I can't imagine trying to get through there quietly with a spear, let alone actually have to fight with one.
Those of us who live in the backwoods of middle Tennessee USA, know what it's like to walk through an uncut untamed forest/swap/jungle. The foliage is so thick and dance down here it's hard to see three feet into the woodline.
This topic reminded me of a scene from the Last of the Mohicans. A division of musketmen firing a salvo into the forest, the natives waiting for their shot, then rushing at them with axe and knife even though they all had muskets of their own. As I watched that scene I kept thinking: "Why would you use open field tactics in a forested area? It's clearly an ambush so don't spend your ammo needlessly if it takes time to reload!"
How deep could you expect a salvo of bullets to go before they are absorbed by the trees and shrubbery? Can you expect bullets to bounce off and keep going or would they immediately bury into wood?
In Swedish history the period of the rebbelion against the Kalmar Union (late 15th early 16th century) the woods played a big part of the warfare since the Swedes mainly relied on pesant-solders who had a hard time compete with the Danish hierd German mercinaries in the open field.
So what they usually did was to lure the Danish into areas where the polearms where less effective and forced the fighting to be less "organised".
Theres some battles from this period that starts as a danish victory but ends horribly just because they chased the swedish pesant-soldiers into the wood where they were able to turn the tide.
Thanks Matt @scholagladiatoria. The underappreciation of polearms is very prominen in traditional roleplaying games, and in computer games. It would be interesting to hear some thoughts on why that might be justifiable. I personally think (being generous) that your typical "adventurer", or action archeologist carries a sword because while they do a lot of fighting, they also do a ton of travelling, climbing, caving and so forth. It might be great to have a halberd when you need to face a wyvern or a troll, but carrying that thing around all day every day is usually a non-starter.
You mention the use of boarding pikes on ships. In the truly excellent and well-researched “Ramage” novels by Dudley Pope, in describing boarding actions, the author talks about the crews of Royal Navy ships being allocated cutlasses, tomahawks and half-pikes in setting out their battle stations. Half-length pikes would perhaps be better in a close quarters melee, as boarders fought hand-to-hand with the crew of the boarded ship. This would be even more the case in the event that the defending crew were caught below decks, or retreated there.
By the way, I really like your collaboration with the inimitable Tod.
That reminded me about military sapper shovels. Maybe sometimes make a video about effective improvised weapons throughout history?
As for a battle, the one that immediately comes to mind, of course, is the battle at Teutoburg forest. But Romans haven't been using long spears, so maybe that's not what you were asking for. Anyways - thanks, Matt, for the great content!
A/ inside (which is why mata tombaks now have those little 'house' handles often deceptively called 'display' handles)
Totally. I did Kali/Arnis/Eskrima for about 5 years and there really isn't as much focus on pole weapons or missile weapons. Stances are sometimes very low in some more traditional Kali systems. I imagine this all relates jungle environments; brush, slick muddy ground, etc. Weapons of choice include short swords, machetes, etc., knives, kukri, karambit, etc. (Often farming tools basically), sticks, and small buckler size shields. There isn't an emphasis on large shields like the scutum, and there actually is quite a lot of dual wielding. When you have short swords or sticks, dual wielding isn't unweildy, and it gives a lot of versatility in parrying/blocking and attacking (like a more balanced (lengthwise) rapier and dagger combo that's cut centric). Double sword, double stick, sword and dagger, stick and dagger, double dagger, stick and shield, etc. etc. The way you weave your hands/how you move them around each other with weapons or shields in them remains basically the same, as well as the foot work, with exceptions for things like sword and shield where shield forward or sword forward makes a huge difference in the foot work. I imagine the lack of emphasis on shield in this way, as compared to HEMA, is due again to the jungle. Double short sword is a great idea in the middle of brush where projectile weapons aren't as effective. On a battle field it would be complete suicide though, as you'd get an arrow in the chest in about 5 seconds without a big shield. Ah context.....
As for forests playing an important role in warfare, I'll give you an example from the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg.
It was a scorching hot summer day, and the Polish/Lithuanian army positioned themselves on a forested hill, while the Teutonic Order army were in the open field nearby. The Teutonic Order didn't want to attack uphill and into a forest, and instead chose to fortify their position and they tried, unsuccessfully, to provoke the Polish and Lithuanian troops into attacking. The forest provided shade and cool air, which Jagiełło used to his advantage, delaying until the Teutonic knights were exhausted from the heat. Both sides remained fully prepared for combat for hours. Finally, when Jagiełło's troops attacked in the evening, they had major advantage because of the heat exhaustion of the Teutonic army.
4:03 In the Pirates of the Caribbean series we are shown a few times that they actually have spears on board