Grappling in armor

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

Since a lot of people are bringing in the martial aspect of grappling and give examples with samurais and medieval battles, Id like to post a few points and clear some misconceptions.

First things first.
Grappling did not occur on battlefields.

Yes, thats right.
Grappling did NOT occur in ancient or medieval battlefields.
Why, you are asking?
Well, because, contrary to many people's beliefs, the main infantry weapon was the spear.
And armies fought in formations with spears and shields.

Spears were anywhere between 3 to 6 meters long.
Formations, such as the Macedonian phalanx, were composed by 10 to 16 people in a line, running 16 lines deep.
So, as you can imagine. not much grappling happens in such social distancing level.
Jump to 5:20 mark


In formations, where spears were shorter, infantry was using projectiles (arrows, spears, stones and etc.), so closing in was a very hard task and the last think one would want to do is grapple with one guy, from a line of tight, armored formation of men.

Now, medieval armor made things even more complicated.
Introduction of steel plates armor, on top of chainmail, lead to use of hallebards (a mixture of a pike and axe):

Meaning, the line of guys in front of you, could reach, stab you, gut you and split your head open, from 3 to 6 meters of distance, while they keep formation, covered by arrows from bows, crossbows and early development firearms.

Not much chance to grapple against these guys:

Or these guys:

Meanwhile, in Japan:

Again, not much of a grappling distance.

OK, so where was grappling used, you ask?

Well, in duels and tournaments.
Thats right, same as now, ancient warriors use to hold tournaments, where they would fight 1 on 1 or group vs group.

These events were essentially prize fighting events, where winners won coin, opponent's armor, horses and etc.

The equipment for such fights was different from the ones, used on battlefields.

And since in Europe, the Buhurt (thats how those events are called) events are quite popular, we actually can experience it live now:


Now, those events have rules.
Usually, as soon as one hits the ground, he loses.
Why?
Watch the video above and think a bit if you have any chance to survive an onslaught by heavily armored guy, wailing on you with a mace, war hammer and hallebarde.

So, what kind of grappling is used then?

From personal experience (yes, I also participate in those, when Im injury free), Osotogari is the best
You can combine it with weapon strikes, moving opponent backwards, use the momentum to unbalance and take him down, without a risk to fall together and loose.

OK, so what is with all the talk about ground fighting, pins, submission and etc, in ancient and medieval times?

Well, several occasions:

1. Duels to the death.
Both sides are wearing heavy plated armor and fight continues until one is dead.
So, they will eventually hit the ground and the guy on top will have the huge advantage.
Why?
Because he wears about 20 kilograms of armor on him, that he will use the weight to keep you down, while reaching for a nasty blade, made specifically to squeeze between the plates and go all the way to your internal organs.
This:

So, it was essential to know how to stay on top and control, aka PINS.

Not much submissions were happening.
Why?
Well, try to break this:

or choke this:

2. Law enforcement.
Every feudal wants to keep his shee..., khm, populace safe, so he can get taxes from them.
Hence, LEO history is going quite long back in time.
And LEOs always need to know how to apprehend and incapacitate people, so strong takedown game, complimented by ground control and submission, were a must.

Final:
In a recent thread, someone commented, that people into HEMA and Buhurt been nerds
Well, that might be the case in USA, but in Europe is a bit different.
Our team has me, 2 IMMAF World champions, bunch of wrestlers, a few French Foreign legionnaires and all kinds of other nerds, that enjoy nerding by bashing people's skulls in with maces, axes, polearms or armored clubs, then drink beer with the victims.

Some people need to express their urge for extreme violence, without going to jail

I hope you enjoyed

 

[weirdflex]

TLDR;

But I think you are wrong because you decided your outcome position before research.

All those battles also involved a whole lot of dying. If they front wall of spears was never breached then there would never be any battle at all aside from arrows and stuff shot out of trebuchets.

If there is any one on one contact for fighting with swords , axes and the like. Then there is opportunity to grapple.

Armour makes it even more likely, because if you don't land a disabling strike in one shot, it will be a miss in which opponent will obviously fucking clinch, take down or even simply push you. All forms of grappling.

Where there range is too close to swing a weapon for a power blow, it must be jammed into gaps between armour. This is achieved by pinning opponent.

What I think is the greatest myth of all is the notion of an experienced skilled battleground soldier. Even small injuries would have disabled or killed soldiers.
These battles were largely mass kamikaze martyrdom events.
Only bowmen have the potential to develop experience and skill.

A modern MMA fighter retires considering 30 fights a full career that has taken a toll on their body.
Imagine 30 fights of being struck with arrows and blades. You'd be dead long before you developed any skill.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

TLDR;

But I think you are wrong because you decided your outcome position before research.

All those battles also involved a whole lot of dying. If they front wall of spears was never breached then there would never be any battle at all aside from arrows and stuff shot out of trebuchets.

If there is any one on one contact for fighting with swords , axes and the like. Then there is opportunity to grapple.

Armour makes it even more likely, because if you don't land a disabling strike in one shot, it will be a miss in which opponent will obviously fucking clinch, take down or even simply push you. All forms of grappling.

Where there range is too close to swing a weapon for a power blow, it must be jammed into gaps between armour. This is achieved by pinning opponent.

What I think is the greatest myth of all is the notion of an experienced skilled battleground soldier. Even small injuries would have disabled or killed soldiers.
These battles were largely mass kamikaze martyrdom events.
Only bowmen have the potential to develop experience and skill.

A modern MMA fighter retires considering 30 fights a full career that has taken a toll on their body.
Imagine 30 fights of being struck with arrows and blades. You'd be dead long before you developed any skill.

Well, you could list some historical facts, to prove me wrong and Im expecting that some of the more educated folks on F12 will actually make the effort to read and post.

Or, you know, to actually put on an armor, swing a sword and absorb heavy hits for half an hour, fall on the ground and try to get up with full armor gear, then come back here and speak from experience, like I do.

Anything else, is irrelevant and not realistic.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

Forgot to mention:

Ancient and medieval battles were usually held until %10~%20 loss of soldiers, which was the breaking point and when one side will rout.

So, there were actually quite a lot of battle veterans.

Otherwise, every single battle would have been resulted in complete desolation of the enemy and his kingdom.
And as we know very well (we study history quite a lot in Europe) that was not the case.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

Another use of grappling:

Before invention of internal combustion engines, majority of military transfer was happening on foot.

Now, imagine moving a small army of 1,000 people across the kingdom.

Thats a lot if logistics already, considering they nees to move with their food, medics and... workout equipment.

Thats how kettlebells were created.

But if course, if you are in charge of 1000 people and need to schedule their daily workout with weights, you will quickly find, that you are wasting resources, trying to move tons of iron in weird shapes.

Hence, wrestling.

Used as form of workout and night entertainment, wrestling (in all of its forms) was widely popular in military camps around the world.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

Thats me, on the right.

Just a light practice equipment here:

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Well, you could list some historical facts, to prove me wrong and Im expecting that some of the more educated folks on F12 will actually make the effort to read and post.

Or, you know, to actually put on an armor, swing a sword and absorb heavy hits for half an hour, fall on the ground and try to get up with full armor gear, then come back here and speak from experience, like I do.

Anything else, is irrelevant and not realistic.

almost nobody on the battlefield has full armor to be fair, but yeah there probably wasn't as much grappling in Europe as there was in Japan since their armor was very light and agile.

 

[Balto]

The points about tactical formations used to keep the enemy at range are valid. But I think you are underestimating how often these formations broke down as the battle continued.

A historical example that comes to mind would be Agincourt. It seems takedowns were a deciding factor in the English victory, even relatively early on in the battle.

French knights with superior plate armor and superior numbers had to march about 1000 yards across difficult terrain in the midday sun to engage the English men at arms. The whole march they were being shot at by English archers on the flanks as well.

By the time the French reached the English lines, they were exhausted. The sources indicate that the English men at arms were able to topple the knights to turn the tide of the battle. It is written that the French knights ended up forming a literal pile of bodies struggling on the ground, with the fighting taking place on the backs of the fallen. Sources say that many of the armored knights, exhausted and unable to stand up after being taken down, simply drowned in the mud.

Towards the end of the battle, the English archers dropped their bows and charged into close combat with the remaining knights. They seem to have been armed with little more than small wooden mallets they carried to drive stakes initially to protect their positions from the opening French cavalry charge.

Small wooden mallets do not seem very effective against plate armor, but they likely did not need to be at that point. It seems the archers just threw the remaining knights to the ground before finishing them off with whatever weapons they could find scattered around the battlefield from the fallen.

I doubt either side expected things to unfold the way they did, but that is probably one good example of the clear use of grappling on a medieval battlefield. It changed the course of history too.

 

[Balto]

almost nobody on the battlefield has full armor to be fair

Indeed a suit of highly advanced, well fitted plate armor (like shown in the OP) seems to have been extremely rare and expensive at the time.

From what I can tell from historical sources, extremely few people would have been rich enough to show up with armor that good. It seems more commonly they just cobbled together the best pieces they could get. Breastplates and helmets are more common since they do not require precisely fitted moving parts around the joints.

That armor in the OP is so well designed I'm guessing it's a later Renaissance style. It might be a modern recreation too; I have seen some really well crafted examples of those.

 

[winterbike]

Well, you could list some historical facts, to prove me wrong and Im expecting that some of the more educated folks on F12 will actually make the effort to read and post.

Or, you know, to actually put on an armor, swing a sword and absorb heavy hits for half an hour, fall on the ground and try to get up with full armor gear, then come back here and speak from experience, like I do.

Anything else, is irrelevant and not realistic.

I'm tempted to disagree with you just because of this raging douchebag answer.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

almost nobody on the battlefield has full armor to be fair, but yeah there probably wasn't as much grappling in Europe as there was in Japan since their armor was very light and agile.

Medieval heavy infantry, from China to Europe was almost always composed of heavy armored units with pikes and polearms, since their primary function was to stop the heavy cavalry from decimating their army:
Song dynasty heavy infantry:

Swiss pikemen armor from Swiss national museum:

Polish heavy infantry:

Italian heavy infantry:

Serbian heavy infantry:

Ottoman heavy infantry:

Heavy infantry polearms:

All of those guys were responsible for stopping the medieval equivalent of tanks- the heavy cavalry:
Polish heavy cavalry:

French heavy cavalry:

Lombardian heavy cavalry:

Turanic heavy cavalry:

Spanish heavy cavalry:

Now, lets take a look at Japan, which is predominantly mountainous country, hence the cavalry had to be more mobile:

All of the posted photos are from museums and all studies done on them, show no significant difference in weight and durability against weapons, with certain aspects of weather and terrain been main key, for developing technology and styles.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

I'm tempted to disagree with you just because of this raging douchebag answer.

Likewise

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

The points about tactical formations used to keep the enemy at range are valid. But I think you are underestimating how often these formations broke down as the battle continued.

A historical example that comes to mind would be Agincourt. It seems takedowns were a deciding factor in the English victory, even relatively early on in the battle.

French knights with superior plate armor and superior numbers had to march about 1000 yards across difficult terrain in the midday sun to engage the English men at arms. The whole march they were being shot at by English archers on the flanks as well.

By the time the French reached the English lines, they were exhausted. The sources indicate that the English men at arms were able to topple the knights to turn the tide of the battle. It is written that the French knights ended up forming a literal pile of bodies struggling on the ground, with the fighting taking place on the backs of the fallen. Sources say that many of the armored knights, exhausted and unable to stand up after being taken down, simply drowned in the mud.

Towards the end of the battle, the English archers dropped their bows and charged into close combat with the remaining knights. They seem to have been armed with little more than small wooden mallets they carried to drive stakes initially to protect their positions from the opening French cavalry charge.

Small wooden mallets do not seem very effective against plate armor, but they likely did not need to be at that point. It seems the archers just threw the remaining knights to the ground before finishing them off with whatever weapons they could find scattered around the battlefield from the fallen.

I doubt either side expected things to unfold the way they did, but that is probably one good example of the clear use of grappling on a medieval battlefield. It changed the course of history too.

15th century miniature, depicting the battle of Agincourt:

What do you see?
Thats right, pikes, bows, heavy infantry and heavy cavalry.

Nobody went to a battle with an army of ONLY archers.
And since the English forces were led by a lot more experienced generals, they used the terrain in their advantage, positioning the archers at the end of bottle necked position, behind pointed stakes.

Essentially, when the French finally cut the distance, they were exhausted, outnumbered and routed easily.

Very strange choice of example, to illustrate use of grappling on the medieval battlefield.

 

[Balto]

Another drawing of the Battle of the Agincourt. It looks a bit different on that one. It is estimated from around 1495. That is because these drawings are from way after the fact and taking a lot of artistic license.

From the actual contemporary accounts of the battle (dozens in French and English have been found), the English army was probably 80%+ archers.

The English men at arms (their own armored force) were outnumbered 10-1, perhaps 20-1. It is written that they won primarily by exhausting the French knights with archers and then knocking them down into the mud. That is, in fact, the mainstream historical way that this battle is presented.

Perhaps that's a strange example of grappling being used on a medieval battlefield to you. It makes sense to me. Especially in light of the statement that "Grappling did NOT occur in ancient or medieval battlefields."

It seems in at least this one battle, it did. There are more examples throughout history, but this one jumped to mind as particularly important.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

Indeed a suit of highly advanced, well fitted plate armor (like shown in the OP) seems to have been extremely rare and expensive at the time.

From what I can tell from historical sources, extremely few people would have been rich enough to show up with armor that good. It seems more commonly they just cobbled together the best pieces they could get. Breastplates and helmets are more common since they do not require precisely fitted moving parts around the joints.

That armor in the OP is so well designed I'm guessing it's a later Renaissance style. It might be a modern recreation too; I have seen some really well crafted examples of those.

Heavy infantry and cavalry in both, Europe and Japan are specifically warrior cast individuals, who could afford armor.

They were vassals to the king, gifted land and peasants, in exchange of providing taxes and troops in wars.
Meaning, they were responsible for arming their own small armies.
And as the ancient proverb in Europe says:
"Those who dont feed their army, will feed the enemy's army".

So, yeah, they did equipped and trained their own armies quite well.

The peasants were usually archers, supporting troops, logistics and etc.

 

[Balto]

Heavy infantry and cavalry in both, Europe and Japan are specifically warrior cast individuals, who could afford armor.

They were vassals to the king, gifted land and peasants, in exchange of providing taxes and troops in wars.
Meaning, they were responsible for arming their own small armies.
And as the ancient proverb in Europe says:
"Those who dont feed their army, will feed the enemy's army".

So, yeah, they did equipped and trained their own armies quite well.

The peasants were usually archers, supporting troops, logistics and etc.

Where/when is the plate armor set from in the OP? It looks late Renaissance to me; just a guess though.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

Another drawing of the Battle of the Agincourt. It looks a bit different on that one. It is estimated from around 1495. That is because these drawings are from way after the fact and taking a lot of artistic license.

From the actual contemporary accounts of the battle (dozens in French and English have been found), the English army was probably 80%+ archers.

The English men at arms were outnumbered 10-1, perhaps 20-1. It is written that they won primarily by exhausting the French knights with archers and then knocking them down into the mud. That is, in fact, the mainstream historical way that this battle is presented.

Perhaps that's a strange example of grappling being used on a medieval battlefield to you. It makes sense to me. Especially in light of the statement that "Grappling did NOT occur in ancient or medieval battlefields."

It seems in at least this one battle, it did. There are more examples throughout history, but this one jumped to mind as particularly important.

Even in this image, you can easily see that the battle terrain was a bottle neck, a strategical mistake by the French.

10:1 ratio is ridiculous in European battles. Not gonna comment on 20:1.

Terrain was wet, because of the heavy rains and French knights had to dismount.
Archers used barrage technique:
They rotated front line archers, shooting 3-4 arrows as fast as possible, before they move in the back line and rest.

When the French got closer, everyone started shooting with armor penetrating arrow heads.

All of this happening, while the archers were behind wooden stakes walls and English heavy infantry.
The French in the front were pushed on the stakes and polearms, by their countrymen in the back (similar to the Battle of Bastards in GoT).
Finally they panicked and tried to run, but were then chased and slaughtered.

I still dont see how grappling was used in this battle, besides maybe pushing exhausted knights in the mud.

 

[Ivaylo Ivanov]

Where/when is the plate armor set from in the OP? It looks late Renaissance to me; just a guess though.

Which one?

Almost all of the armors I posted are from Swiss, Italian, Turkish, Japanese and French museums.

 

[Balto]

Heavy infantry and cavalry in both, Europe and Japan are specifically warrior cast individuals, who could afford armor.

They were vassals to the king, gifted land and peasants, in exchange of providing taxes and troops in wars.
Meaning, they were responsible for arming their own small armies.

That still translates to the majority of the battlefield not being armored in full plate though.

The wealthy noble lord himself might be able to show up that way. But the hundreds or thousands of troops he is expected to bring with him most likely aren't all getting decked out in full plate.

There are a lot of medieval illustrations from the period showing the armored participants with only partial armor (i.e. just a breast plate and helm, etc.)

 

[Balto]

Which one?

Almost all of the armors I posted are from Swiss, Italian, Turkish, Japanese and French museums.

First post. The intricate full plate armor set.