Westeros warfare and armor glitches

[Pallantides]

-They eschewed shields despite making a lot of use of both arrows and spears, and that´s crazy.

They didn't entirely eschew shields. They did make large use of pavise type shields. They also carried two shields on their body. Sode, functioning, if not the same, in a somewhat similar manner to shields in that they blocked arrows.

-They kept the katana as their favored side sword, despite it being ineffective for cracking or piercing or finding the gaps in armor.

Katana is a late period blade. Typically they either used tachi or uchigatana, at least for the time we're focusing on. But I agree, it's not a very good piercing weapon, although it still can pierce, just not as well as a double edged blade. It is strange that they would go this route, but given that the longsword was largely a weapon used as a sidearm while unarmoured, it was a status symbol. Only those who were samurai could legally carry long blades. Other classes could carry bladed weapons, but nothing of the length of an uchigatana, or katana. Their primary weapon in battle was usually the yari, and if that broke, on foot they would preferably switch to a tanto, because of its piercing capabilities.

-They kept the naginata despite being less efective than halberd and poleaxe-like weapons against armor.

This is an odd choice that they kept, but it is still an effective weapon, at least when used against ashigaru, who normally did not wear kote, or have any kind of suneate. A naginata would be exceptionally effective at cutting arms or legs off.

They also had different styles of naginata. Ones with very long blades, ones that were very short, and almost yari like, and others, which were especially effective, given that they were modeled after a Chinese anti-cavalry weapon, known as the Guan Dao. That particular naginata was called a bisento. It had a very thick and heavy blade, and while it would not have cut through metal armour, it would have definitely hurt you if you got hit by it.

-They kept their traditional bows despite they didn´t have enough "punch" to easily pierce armor, and having neighbours with better alternatives (like mongolian and corean reflex bows, or even some chinese crossbows).

This is also somewhat strange, but also not strange either. Yumi are very special kinds of bows, and compared to composite reflex bows, perform better in the Japanese environment. Japan has a vastly different climate from that of Mongolia, or Korea, and it is one that does not lend itself to creating composite bows, in the manner that the Mongolians or Koreans did.

The Japanese did however use Chinese crossbows, but given that the initial purpose and fighting style of the samurai, was fighting as a mounted archer, partaking in archery duels. It was a very ritualized process, and a crossbow with any sort of power to it does lend itself well to being loaded while on a horse. Ones that could be loaded while on a horse would not have had equal power to that of a yumi, so that might be another incentive as to why they didn't use it. It is odd that they didn't make use of it for their foot soldiers, but the Chinese versions were created by state run monopolies, and were guarded secrets, in regards to creating the trigger mechanism.

The Chinese and Japanese also did not have much official contact at this time in regards to warfare, other than wokou activity, so its unlikely that the Japanese could have captured some crossbows and reverse engineered them. And the wokou did not have the facilities to do so, which suggest they would be unlikely to do it either. Not to mention wokou generally were raiders, and very rarely would they come upon a standing army, or have the manpower to defeat competent Chinese troops, in order to capture them.

Then once the matchlocks were introduced into Japan, the need for having more power was fulfilled.

-They kept scale/lamellar armor for the torso for a long time, despite it being less effective than plate cuirasses against spears thrusts.

I find it quite puzzling, since they clearly had the technological ability to find better alternatives.

Well, lamellar is still a very good armour when it comes to spear thrusts. Much better compared to mail. It is not very surprising that they didn't change for a very long while (although armour was greatly improved upon over and over). Japan was also very conservative (which is why the introduction of firearms is so shocking in their fast adoption), and their attitude in this regards was likely "If this works, why change it?" Once they needed to adapt to changes though, they readily did (as in the case with Okegawa do and Nanban do).

On the subject of the possibility of finding a Japan look alike in ASOIAF world, I think that, besides Westeros, the cultures of said world aren´t copycats of our own world ones, and I prefer it that way.

That is true, but there is still as a frequently quoted saying says, "there is nothing new under the sun". Parallels can likely exist. I would expect exact copies, and I don't expect exact copies, but it is interesting to see the similarities from other cultures, which are perhaps minor on the grand scale of things, and not see something that may be mildly related to Japan. This is purely speculation on my part, but perhaps George decided not to create any Japanese parallels, as he doesn't want to attract attention of any insanely rabid weeaboos. And I can't fault him for that.

[Ser Lepus]

The japanese had crossbows: before the feudal period, when the emperors still were running the show, they copied the chinese tactics and weapons, and created and imperial army made up mostly of crossbowmen and spearmen/haldberdmen with large shields. Later, the imperial armies mostly composed of footmen where replaced by feudal armies composed mostly by cavalry, like in Europe; I understand why the crossbow became a secondary weapon then, but I can´t understand why they didn´t bring it back when they started to create again large armies of footmen.

The sode can´t compare to the protection a humble piece of wood holded in front of you would offer; I understand the samurai prefered two handed weapons and trusted their protection to their armor, but, why didn´t horsemen use shields when charging with their lances? why didn´t infantry spearmen holded shields above their heads against arrows when approaching the enemy, or use then when two troops of ashigaru spearmen clashed with each other? why didn´t samurai make use of shields to make his way into the lines of pikemen?

[Pallantides]

The japanese had crossbows: before the feudal period, when the emperors still were running the show, they copied the chinese tactics and weapons, and created and imperial army made up mostly of crossbowmen and spearmen/haldberdmen with large shields. Later, the imperial armies mostly composed of footmen where replaced by feudal armies composed mostly by cavalry, like in Europe; I understand why the crossbow became a secondary weapon then, but I can´t understand why they didn´t bring it back when they started to create again large armies of footmen.

Yes, although these crossbows were not used after the 12th century. They were considered very powerful weapons, and were used to great effect. The problem is the production was controlled by the central government. Once the central government collapsed, and the Bushi's rise to prominence (who favoured bows), it essentially fell out of use. I suspect the designs were also ultimately lost.

The sode can´t compare to the protection a humble piece of wood holded in front of you would offer; I understand the samurai prefered two handed weapons and trusted their protection to their armor, but, why didn´t horsemen use shields when charging with their lances? why didn´t infantry spearmen holded shields above their heads against arrows when approaching the enemy, or use then when two troops of ashigaru spearmen clashed with each other? why didn´t samurai make use of shields to make his way into the lines of pikemen?

Of course sode cannot compare to a handheld shield, but it functioned in a similar way. It warded off blows, and acted as protection from arrows. A shield for sure would be preferable, but sode still got the job done.

As for why horsemen didn't use shields when charging, that's the big issue here. You know those cavalry charges you see in movies and video games about samurai? They didn't happen. Japanese horses are not suitable for conducting massed heavy cavalry charges into formations. They still had cavalry charges, but they didn't work the same way as they did in Europe. Essentially a samurai cavalry charge was done by riding alongside the opposing formation, and striking out with your spear that way, rather than trying to break through the lines. Generally samurai cavalry was used for horse archery though, as their horses were sturdy and were suitable platforms for shooting a bow and being mobile. But the horses lacked the weight and strength to properly break through lines. They were also very small horses.

As to why infantry spearmen didn't hold shields as they advanced? They functioned like European pike blocks (who also did not use shields). Even shorter spears were still long enough that you could not use them effectively with one hand. Basically the main issue is that their weapons were two handed. The other factor is that if you give a man a shield, even if he is trained to use it well, it's going to be something that he'll rely on defensively more, when the prevailing attitude was aggressive attacks.

The other thing, is that the last time they really used personal shields, they were soundly defeated by Emishi horse archers. After that point, they copied the style of the Emishi in terms of bow and sword. Basically their equipment and armour allowed them to go without personal shields. Large neck guards on their helmets protected from arrows above, and large sode protected from arrows on the side and moderately from the front. Their own weapons served as defenses for melee attacks.

Still, they realized the purpose of shields and cover, and utilized them in pavise type quite frequently.

[Nukelavee]

That's another thing about GoT I don't quite get - sheilds being "heirloom" items.

Shields are pretty much disposable, in most cases. Nobody expected to have a shield survive any real fight.

As for some of the Japanese aspects of warfare - I've always assumed it was partly what was mentioned, status and formality, and partly, population.

It takes a fair bit to keep a warrior like a samurai in food and gear and shelter, and Japan was stretched pretty thin on resources in general.

Having a style of warfare (including gear), that tended to result in a "high" body count, in a nation that had so many military caste members, that was so insular, well, it prevented every grain of rice and every inch of ground being required to support them.

Note - I said "I assume".

[King Aerys the Just]

Very interesting about the lighter armor, thanks. I suppose cloth armor such as these gambesons would be what the average medieval peasant levy would be decked out in then, along with wooden shields, metal helmets, and spears or bows? (While individual soldiers could have inherited, looted or bought more advanced pieces of equipment, of course)

[ChromeWeasel]

Back to the OP, the 'sword fighter always beat axes' comment sounds particularly backwards to me. My impression is that axes have been a much more successful infantry weapon overall. My understanding was actually that swords were a relatively weak weapon for infantry that just weren't worth the time and money to deploy. Swords were much more of a status symbol for those who could afford one than a useful weapon in the middle ages. More effective infantry formations would use spears, polearms, axes, or maces of various sorts.

I'd appreciate it if any of the experts could weigh in on that. I'm familiar with the battle of hastings where axes proved their worth. I'd be interested in any other real references that people know about one way or the other.

Is anyone able to comment on this? If swords historically beat axes as the OP said, it would be a surprise to me.

[Ser Lepus]

As for why horsemen didn't use shields when charging, that's the big issue here. You know those cavalry charges you see in movies and video games about samurai? They didn't happen. Japanese horses are not suitable for conducting massed heavy cavalry charges into formations. They still had cavalry charges, but they didn't work the same way as they did in Europe. Essentially a samurai cavalry charge was done by riding alongside the opposing formation, and striking out with your spear that way, rather than trying to break through the lines. Generally samurai cavalry was used for horse archery though, as their horses were sturdy and were suitable platforms for shooting a bow and being mobile. But the horses lacked the weight and strength to properly break through lines. They were also very small horses.

As to why infantry spearmen didn't hold shields as they advanced? They functioned like European pike blocks (who also did not use shields). Even shorter spears were still long enough that you could not use them effectively with one hand. Basically the main issue is that their weapons were two handed. The other factor is that if you give a man a shield, even if he is trained to use it well, it's going to be something that he'll rely on defensively more, when the prevailing attitude was aggressive attacks.

The european pikemen used wooden shields strapped to their shoulder and left arm while holding their pikes, at least until the firearms made those shield useless, but those medieval pikemen were mainly slow anti-cavalry defensive units; if the japanese cavalry didn´t charge against their lines, and the japanese spearmen were a less passive more ofensive units, I guess it makes sense that the shields strapped to their shoulder and arm weren´t practical...

Now that I think about this, if the infantry didn´t use crossbows (and I guess the samurai didn´t like the crossbows more than the european knights did), and only a small elite of samurai learned to use the yumi bow, there usually weren´t massive rains of arrows falling over the armies, and that would be another reason shields weren´t so indispensable.

[mormont]

Is anyone able to comment on this? If swords historically beat axes as the OP said, it would be a surprise to me.

I think the OP is exaggerating, though he's probably in the right direction of travel. Swords and axes each have particular strengths: for example, axes have a more limited striking area which limits the variety of attacks you can make and restricts their effective range, making them hard to use close in. You can shorten your grip to shorten the range, but that makes the blows much less powerful, and power is the primary advantage of the axe. Against that, it's easier to use an axe to open up an opponent's shield defence, for example - there are a variety of moves involving 'hooking' with the axe blade - and they could snag and tear armour well, or bash shields.

Overall, I'd rather be using a sword if my life depended on it, but much depends on the circumstances (range, armour, use of shields, training) and related to these factors, the period we're talking about. Certainly from the 9th to about the 14th century (IIRC), when axes were a common weapon on the battlefield and were often carried by professional fighters (knights and so on) instead of or in addition to swords: this would not make sense if the sword were always superior. But in later periods they became markedly less common, replaced by polearms and warhammers.

[Ser Lepus]

I think the OP is exaggerating, though he's probably in the right direction of travel. Swords and axes each have particular strengths: for example, axes have a more limited striking area which limits the variety of attacks you can make and restricts their effective range, making them hard to use close in. You can shorten your grip to shorten the range, but that makes the blows much less powerful, and power is the primary advantage of the axe. Against that, it's easier to use an axe to open up an opponent's shield defence, for example - there are a variety of moves involving 'hooking' with the axe blade - and they could snag and tear armour well, or bash shields.

Overall, I'd rather be using a sword if my life depended on it, but much depends on the circumstances (range, armour, use of shields, training) and related to these factors, the period we're talking about. Certainly from the 9th to about the 14th century (IIRC), when axes were a common weapon on the battlefield and were often carried by professional fighters (knights and so on) instead of or in addition to swords: this would not make sense if the sword were always superior. But in later periods they became markedly less common, replaced by polearms and warhammers.

I would say that usually a sword is better against an unarmored enemy, but warhammers, flails, waraxes and the like were often better against plate-armored opponents (unless it is a kind of sword custom-made to defeat that particular kind of armor).

[Biesiuss Sabaoth]

When I readed the novels I have the mental scenario from early medieval (800-1200) fo portatry the story; after reading the ADoD I moved it to the Hundred years/War of the Roses period; still some custom fixations have too be done to do this World work in my mind xD:

1.-General Technological stagnation:

Caused (for me at least) the extreme wheater cicles that world suffer; aside from his higly violent habitants (hehe) seems like here are some troubles to keep the story records safe....thats why the mention of memories of 8000 years bugs me; in 8000 yrs many things have happened in this world (the Model for Westeros one) and political system havent changed as far is recorded in the novels.

My theory there is, due the sideral particularities of this world, nothing is so old as they claim and the records are vague; Sam finded a clue on this with the Lord Commander list.

I think Sam POV gonn become more interesting when he join the Citadel ranks;the technological/medical branch of knowledge in Westeros world; im intrigued what secrets they have aside.

Maybe his world himself is a more largue mistery has GRRM have made us belive, heh.

2.- On the Gunpowder and Firearms: as someone say the Red Mages/Priests have knowledge about it, so maybe here are a kind of prohibition and here is my theory on the matter:

Valyrian Prohibition: they have Dragons, they have Wild fire and maybe they dont want someone develop a counter measure to his dominance on the matter.

Red Cult Free Cities Ban: Maybe all this knowledge is religious theme for them and no further development have happened aside the one they control. They are a religion after all.

Westeros Chevaldry Code/General Ignorance: Maybe they find the use of firearms "not a honorable thing to use" as medieval knights, samurai and noblemen use to think back in time; also as far we can se the winter are really a devastating thing in the Westeros continent and have more effect there than in Essos.

There is another thing to point out, in the middle of the winter what are the customs in Essos? If the winter are so crude there as was in westeros...how the Dothraki survive? how they do in Braavos and Pentos?, is the knowledge of the Red Cult more valuable there?

Aaah, need to search a thread on that matter to see what you ppl opinions...

[ChromeWeasel]

I would say that usually a sword is better against an unarmored enemy, but warhammers, flails, waraxes and the like were often better against plate-armored opponents (unless it is a kind of sword custom-made to defeat that particular kind of armor).

That's my expectation. My actual understanding is that swords are not really practical weapon for outfitting armies. They are relatively expensive and relatively ineffective against armor compared to axes, polearms, and maces. All those weapons are more effective than swords in formation against armor, and are also easier and less expensive to produce. This leads to swords not being used too much in formation. Instead, swords were individual weapons and status symbols.

Back to the OP who said this:

3. Battleaxes vs swords. Sword-fighter always won when he faces battleax (not hallebarde) no matter in the single combat or formation. Proven by numerous battles. Described in full details on the Bayeux Tapestry.

Again, that statement seems logically backwards for the reasons above. Formations of axemen should be historically superior to formations of swords as far as I know. But if that statement is true, I'd love to hear about it. My understanding of European medieval combat is that the weapons followed the armor, with consideration to the economics of outfitting an army.

Were swords even deployed in formation after the Romans? Are there any actual examples as the OP suggests that sword formations were clearly superior to axe formation? That seems like a silly statement considering the economics of outfitting each formation, and the realities of armor penetration. Maybe you could find an outlying scenario like Scotland where 2-handed swords were used in formations effectively against armor, but I don't know if that's even true. I'd love for the OP to make any kind of logical point here considering that he said it was "Proven by numerous battles." Alternatively it would also be nice to have someone say that the OP's point was just ridiculous, and that swords were rarely deployed in formation if that's the case.

[TrueMetis]

My understanding is that swords were versatile. Not particularly good at anything but not particularly bad either. Which would be a reason they would endure. As for the Bayeux Tapestry it does indeed show people with swords slaughtering people with axes, but the people with swords were also mounted while the people with axes are not. And the majority of the mounted Normans had spears.

[camradio]

To say that sword will always beat axe or vice versa is ridiculous to begin with. Swords are quicker and axes can cause more damage per hit (speaking very generically) In the end it all depends on the skill of the user.

But swords were definately more common than axes were in battles. Spears/Pikes and maces/clubs were probably the most common for the simple fact that they were cheap and easy to make.

If you are talking about a trained army, such as roman, chinese or english then for the most part they would have a sword.

If you are talking about militia (being non trained soldiers or a "barbarian" group such as the Celts then they use whatever they have. Axes would be more common since it is a tool (axe not battle axe), maces/clubs are basically a stick, sometimes with a hunk of metal on it and spears/pike we very inexpensive and could be produced on a massive scale very quickly.

Almost every culture has their own sword. (katana, scimitar, longsword, claymore, gladius) and even when plate armor was introduced it was not common. In an army of 10,000 probably less than 500 would have plate armor. For the most part soldiers had chain mail and leather. Lastly a sword doesnt need to penetrate plate armor to kill the person. The majority of the deaths would be blunt trauma and a sword can do enough damage to cause this.

[Talleyrand]

On the axe vs sword issue. To say that a man with a sword will beat an axe man no matter what is nonsense. When it came to knights against knights maces and axes. Swords were status symbols as well as weapons. Take the Scandinavian vikingr. A Jarl would most likely carry a well made sword but the strongest part of his band and the man who would take the front in a boar's snout would generally be carrying an axe. If you're brining up the Bayuex Tapestry as an example then note that at Stamford bridge there was a Viking who held the bridge alone with an axe and killed a shitload of people, carrying swords, spears and axes. Also at the Battle of Cannae the axe wielding Varangian guard demolished a force of Norman knights

[Fire Eater]

Magic is a HUGE roadblock that prevents scientific advancement in this world as well. religion by itself is a powerful tool to control the populace and keep them from getting to smart. Combine that with real freaking miracles and you have the ability to keep anything scientifically related down.

Thats why the Maesters in old town are up to something, likely something that will help them get rid of magic and dragons forever.

Getting rid of dragons and magic would not be something I would want. Elimination of magic would mean the disappearance of the CotF and giants as well as other species of animals. Plus, religion was made to deal with spiritual matters not dumb down the populace.

I hope GRRM will eventually get into a science vs. magic dialogue in the series, that would be something worth reading.

[Nukelavee]

Plus, isn't that tapestry, like, made by Normans to record their victory?

Dear god, I should check before I actually post the above, cause my old prof will kill me in my sleep if I'm wrong.

TM has another good point - axes and horses don't mix. Swords and horses are workable. So, yeah, mounted swordsmen would slaughter unmounted formations (save things like pike squares).

Another thing to remember - spears and pikes, in formation, stop charges because, in general, horses won't run into them. Gregor at the ford, fantasy or not, shows what happens when somebody breaks teh pike ranks.

Now, imagine 20 mounted swordsmen getting into the gap, and unleashing sabres, or maces.

Also - I've read, somewhere, that one of the most terrible weapons used, ie, it was nasty enough it didn't get used, was basically a steel rod. Handier than an axe or mace, safer than a flail, and no edge to blunt or shatter...but it could concentrate a huge force into a narrow area, doing massive trauma against most armour.

And - swordbreakers - don't hear much about those, or teh main guache (did i spell that right?)

[Kozma]

Were swords even deployed in formation after the Romans? Are there any actual examples as the OP suggests that sword formations were clearly superior to axe formation? That seems like a silly statement considering the economics of outfitting each formation, and the realities of armor penetration. Maybe you could find an outlying scenario like Scotland where 2-handed swords were used in formations effectively against armor, but I don't know if that's even true. I'd love for the OP to make any kind of logical point here considering that he said it was "Proven by numerous battles." Alternatively it would also be nice to have someone say that the OP's point was just ridiculous, and that swords were rarely deployed in formation if that's the case.

Romans with swords almost always beat barbarians. Normans with swords beat Saxons at Hastings (that is emphasized on the tapestry). Mongols with curved sables conquered almost all the World (although it is not the pure example since Mongols implement few other tricks). Vikings with whatever weaponry beat virtually every enemy they manage to get, but that is not a good example either, since vikings used both axes and swords. However they prized swords over axes. As of axes vs swords it is like discussion Nikon vs Canon or near. But in general sword was a primary weapon used in all occasions by anyone who can afford it. Ax was a specialized weapon or a cheaper substitute of sword.

[TrueMetis]

You know what the real advantage the Mongols and Normans had? Fucking HORSES. As I've already pointed out.

[seeyouintee]

Swords have kind of an unrealistically common portrayal in just about all fiction, as usually only the somewhat wealthy had them. Battlefields were littered with peasants that used mostly daggers, knives, staves, farm implements, etc. It's only fiction that places a sword in every hand except that of the exceedingly large fellow who inevitably has a battleaxe or war hammer.

[Kozma]

You know what the real advantage the Mongols and Normans had? Fucking HORSES. As I've already pointed out.

Horses were common animal by the medieval time everywhere except Americas, you probably meant number of well trained mounted sword-fighters....;)