Early Germanic Warfare (Thompson)

[Electronic God-Man]

Early Germanic Warfare

Author: E. A. Thompson
Source: Past & Present, No. 14 (Nov., 1958), pp. 2-29
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society

[The Black Prince]

Thank you Soten for posting this paper.

Thompson is quite negative about the Early Germanic warfare, he constant lists their lack of equipement and their lack of tactics. Second he mentions that these characterisques of Germanic warfare didn't change from the time of Caesar till the fall of the West-Roman Empire.

p.p. 10-12
...

In the sixth century, then, the Germans of the Mediterranean kingdoms used the bow far more frequently than their ancestors had done in Tacitus' day. Moreover, a higher proportion of them were mounted than had been the case when Tacitus noted that "plus penes peditem roboris": the riches of Italy, Africa, and Spain made it possible for a larger number of Germans to keep a horse, and so in the kingdoms of those countries "plus penes equitem roboris". These were advances over the conditions of the first century A.D., but in the matter of defensive armour little progress seems to have been made.

...

Belisarius had a number of Ostrogoths with him when he invaded the Persian Empire in 541, and when these charged a Persian force outside Nisibis, we are told, the Persians took to flight, unable to withstand the Ostrogoths who came at them with a dense array' of long spears. But it would be rash to generalize from one skirmish and to conclude that Gothic methods of warfare were superior to those of the Persian empire.

As we know and the author apparantely knows, the Romans and Byzantin employed Germanics in their army. These men however were well armed as shown by the long lances of the Goths who marched at front.

Another indication of their arms is f.i. the occurence of Germanic mercenaries on the column of Trajan. Germanic warriors are easy to spot since they are taller as the normal Romans, don't wear lorica segmenta (strip plate armour) but lorica hamata (mail armour) and fur belts of bears/wolfs, wear segmented helmets (not the Roman coolus type) and most important have beards!
The soldiers on the column with lorica segmentata and coolus helmets are shaven, they are Romans.

[YggsVinr]

Thompson is quite negative about the Early Germanic warfare, he constant lists their lack of equipement and their lack of tactics. Second he mentions that these characterisques of Germanic warfare didn't change from the time of Caesar till the fall of the West-Roman Empire.

While he does occasionally include some inaccuracies (expected since the article was published in 1958), it is, for the most part, true to state that Germanic warriors did lack equipment, and Thompson provided us with the reason why as well (a lack of iron). This is not a matter of a "negative" opinion on the matter of Germanic warfare, but, rather, a factual one. Germanic artwork dating back to the Scandinavian Bronze Age shows us that the average Germanic warrior carried a spear and only leaders/prominent individuals/figures depicted as gods carried swords. While it was a symbol of status, we have to also ask why it became such a symbol of status. We can even look to the entirety of the middle ages for our answer: swords require resources and wealth. While a spear can be a very useful weapon, it can also be a very inconvenient weapon as Thompson highlights. During the mid to high middle ages, it would take a group of infantrymen wearing kettle helmets and bearing polearms to take down a single knight in full plate armour bearing a sword.

As for armour, again, it's true that Germanic warriors were often not as well armoured as Roman soldiers. The lorica segmentata you mentioned was not very easily penetrated by thrusting weapons and projectiles in comparison with the chainmail worn by Germanic warriors. The ringlets that make up a mail shirt can bust very easily under the force of an arrow or thrusting weapon. It is also known that Germanic warriors (in good Indo-European fashion) often went into battle wearing only animal skins or no shirt at all, and even thusly clothed they were a formidable foe to contend with through sheer strength, speed and agility. This was actually one of the defining characteristics of the wolf-warrior/berserk.

It is also true that Germanic warfare did not change very much until the fall of Rome, and there is perhaps good reason for that. First of all, as Thompson outlined, there was a lack of resources. Weapons and armour would, in fact, often be pillaged off the bodies of dead enemies, a trend which continued throughout the middle ages. Second of all, we have to realise that Germanic warriors among Roman or Greek armies acted as shock troops (again for very good reason), which was a very important role, but not one that was as highly disciplined (just as the medieval knight was liable to charge before the order was given) nor one that required being well armed. Such troops work well when they are a part of the greater army, most often making up the first wave of the attack. However, having an entire army made up of shock troops is not always a desireable thing.

If we look at some of the early conflicts between Germanic warriors and the Greco-Roman world from Teutoburg, to the raids of the Herulii along the Spanish coasts and even on the southern coasts of the Black Sea, we can see that these conflicts are often in the form of raids and ambushes. Raiding and ambushing were the specialties of the Germanic warrior fighting within an army, and it was so out of necessity. This type of warfare was a well suited solution to the problem of resources. When you don't have the resources to compete with your neighbours, you do not simply give up, you improvise and work with what you have. Out of necessity, Germanic warriors needed to be fast, agile and strong (excercises to achieve these skills are even detailed in Germania, and even in artwork from the Bronze Age to the end of the Migration Period) in order to be able to hit their enemies hard and fast, not to mention they were always formidable in single-handed combat.

One thing I can think of that I didn't see Thompson touch upon is the Germanic response to cavalry: horse-stabbers. Caesar writes of them that "they were alighted from their steeds, stabbed several of our horses from beneath and sent the rest fleeing in such a fright that they did not halt until they saw our army. In that skirmish 74 horsemen of ours were killed, among them high-born, brave Piso of Aquitania whose grandfather had been king of that nation." It seems that these horse-stabbers may have also been described by Tacitus as often gripping the mane of another warrior's horse and running along side.

So no, the Germanic warrior may not have had the technology nor the techniques and developments of the Romans, but his methods of warfare were adapted to the foes he faced and he used them quite well.

[The Black Prince]

While he does occasionally include some inaccuracies (expected since the article was published in 1958), it is, for the most part, true to state that Germanic warriors did lack equipment, and Thompson provided us with the reason why as well (a lack of iron). This is not a matter of a "negative" opinion on the matter of Germanic warfare, but, rather, a factual one.

True I have read Tacitus, strangely enough (and I agree Thompson could not know this) the peatlands throughout Germania are one of the richest sources of iron that can also quite easily be retrieved (bog iron= limonite). One can't build steel bridges with it (for that to less resources) but it produces enough iron for tools.
I wonder if the most obvious reason for the lack of Iron is caused by the lack of resources, it might also have to do with the ritual culture of depositing all valuables (including weaponry) to wetlands/rivers instead of looting (which only came up in the Late-Roman period or even later).

Second supposed that all the weaponry of the slain was deposited to sacral wetlands we can calculate the amount of swords and compare them with other weaponry to come to a percentage of hom many troops had swords.

F.i. Hjortspring boat (400-300 BCE) was such a deposit and well preserved. Second it is sunken at once, it is not a stapling of depsotis over a period of tens or hundreds of years.

Concerning weaponry it contained:

131 shields (33 shieldbosses)
138 spears
10 swords
1 mailskirt (type: ring brynja/hring-skyrta)

Best guess is that we here deal with the belongings of ca. 130 men (based upon the I think reasonable assumption that every warrior had a shield). This would mean that 1 out of 13 men carried a sword.

Of course deposits might vary and the occurence of swords among weaponry might deviate between tribal groups (e.g some groups 10-15% some groups 5-10% or some others less as 1/20).

I'm not saying that swords were common or anythinh like that.
It is by far not so as was thought during the Romantic Age that every Germanic owned a sword.. But I think that historians have been stressing to much that a sword was 'very rare' (rare = 5-1% and very rare=<1%).

Germanic artwork dating back to the Scandinavian Bronze Age shows us that the average Germanic warrior carried a spear and only leaders/prominent individuals/figures depicted as gods carried swords. While it was a symbol of status, we have to also ask why it became such a symbol of status.

Througout history prominent people have always been displayed with swords. Wether it was rare or not, it is a weapon that is enormous flexible use. You can cut with it, thrust with it, produce a blow with the end of the blade or a knock on ones head with the pommel and you can parry with it.

However nexto to its symbolic value and why it became a status symbol, another questions is the usefullnes of carrying bronze longswords (bronze short swords were not as rare). Bronze longswords are capable of delivering a good trust, as is a spear. But bronze longswords are not as good in delivering blows or cutting. A blow is only effective on unprotected parts while a blow with a bronze longsword on a piece of armour/shield might shatter the swordblade. The cut of bronze is neither not as sharp as the cut of 'hardened' or 'steeled' iron and becomes easier blunt.

Later when Iron became the main metal for creating tools, the early swords might not be as good. Welding a sword is one thing. But welding a sword that can give a blow at mail, cut hardened leather or shields is something else. The reports about Kelts that had to bend their swords straight with their foot during battle are as numerous as stories about sowrds not able to bite armor.

We can even look to the entirety of the middle ages for our answer: swords require resources and wealth. While a spear can be a very useful weapon, it can also be a very inconvenient weapon as Thompson highlights. During the mid to high middle ages, it would take a group of infantrymen wearing kettle helmets and bearing polearms to take down a single knight in full plate armour bearing a sword.

Actually the producing of relative good quality swords became easier with the introduction of the Catalan blast furnaces around the 10-11th century. Replacing the bloomery furnace who could approx. produce 50 pounds per charge the Catalan forge could produce ca. 350 pounds per charge.
Although the making of pattern welded swords got abandoned the new 'homogenous' steel blades could be produced in large numbers.

Yes, I wouldn't put my bet on a single knight in full plate armour (late medieval) against a group of well disciplined/veteran group of infantrymen carrying polearms and wearing mail with kettle helmets. Even twon infantrymen could handle one knight, of course they should be disciplined and act as a consistent unit instead of individually.

As for armour, again, it's true that Germanic warriors were often not as well armoured as Roman soldiers. The lorica segmentata you mentioned was not very easily penetrated by thrusting weapons and projectiles in comparison with the chainmail worn by Germanic warriors. The ringlets that make up a mail shirt can bust very easily under the force of an arrow or thrusting weapon.

I would suggest wearing a padding beneath the mail to stop arrows. But it is true that arrows, even with shortbows fired, can easily penetrate mail is the angle is straigth enough. Mail folds and rinkles, an roow coming down from the air has as much chance to pentrate a ring or to just glide of.

The strip plate armour was indeed a superior piece of armour, however it also had its downsides: repairing was pricey, it was uncomfortable and it can rust when not prepared with lanoil.
Mail was the Kalshnikov of the protohistoric period till well into the Middle Ages. The creation was time consuming but repairing was relative well to do. When wearing it doesn't rust and cleans itself since the rings constantly move past eachother. And most important it is comfortable because it shapes around your body and your physical movement is not that much haltered and it is lightered (unles you are speaking of Normandian Hauberks which is another story).

It is also known that Germanic warriors (in good Indo-European fashion) often went into battle wearing only animal skins or no shirt at all, and even thusly clothed they were a formidable foe to contend with through sheer strength, speed and agility. This was actually one of the defining characteristics of the wolf-warrior/berserk.

I can not say anything about the nakedness as being effective unless storming against fresh untrained recruits with weaker morale.

However animal fur has good protecting abilities against thrusting. A thrust below or above a 70-110 degree angle slips away, fur also gives similar protection against arrows. Of course a sharp point in a ca. 90 degree angle does pentrate.

It is also true that Germanic warfare did not change very much until the fall of Rome, and there is perhaps good reason for that. First of all, as Thompson outlined, there was a lack of resources. Weapons and armour would, in fact, often be pillaged off the bodies of dead enemies, a trend which continued throughout the middle ages. Second of all, we have to realise that Germanic warriors among Roman or Greek armies acted as shock troops (again for very good reason), which was a very important role, but not one that was as highly disciplined (just as the medieval knight was liable to charge before the order was given) nor one that required being well armed. Such troops work well when they are a part of the greater army, most often making up the first wave of the attack. However, having an entire army made up of shock troops is not always a desireable thing.

Perhaps, but i wouldn't want to say that the Germanic warriors of the Late- and Post-Roman period were without discipline. Shieldcastles were one of their primary set of formations (wether in line, wedge or tusked). And even already Caesar mentions the for him surprising tactics employed by Ariovist of a fast moving group spreading out and forming two consistent moving line who attack on the flank of the Roman army. He had not encountered such discipline and knowledge of tactics when fighting Gallic armies.

If we look at some of the early conflicts between Germanic warriors and the Greco-Roman world from Teutoburg, to the raids of the Herulii along the Spanish coasts and even on the southern coasts of the Black Sea, we can see that these conflicts are often in the form of raids and ambushes. Raiding and ambushing were the specialties of the Germanic warrior fighting within an army, and it was so out of necessity. This type of warfare was a well suited solution to the problem of resources. When you don't have the resources to compete with your neighbours, you do not simply give up, you improvise and work with what you have. Out of necessity, Germanic warriors needed to be fast, agile and strong (excercises to achieve these skills are even detailed in Germania, and even in artwork from the Bronze Age to the end of the Migration Period) in order to be able to hit their enemies hard and fast, not to mention they were always formidable in single-handed combat.

True, that is the case. But I fail to see that in Thompson his paper. Oh he does mentions skirmishing as a favourite way of warfare. But he doesn't point out the weakness of the Romans, having heavy infantry in the field that is to slow to tidely reach place that is being pillaged.

One thing I can think of that I didn't see Thompson touch upon is the Germanic response to cavalry: horse-stabbers. Caesar writes of them that "they were alighted from their steeds, stabbed several of our horses from beneath and sent the rest fleeing in such a fright that they did not halt until they saw our army. In that skirmish 74 horsemen of ours were killed, among them high-born, brave Piso of Aquitania whose grandfather had been king of that nation." It seems that these horse-stabbers may have also been described by Tacitus as often gripping the mane of another warrior's horse and running along side.

Yup, but Thompsons rather holds on to the view that horse where very rare among Germanics and although they got more common for leaders (he points out the Franks) the normal warriors could not afford horses.
Though I can partly agree with Thompson that not every 'tribe' had as much horses even Tacitus mentions that some Germanics have horses in abundance. Nevertheless I rather think that Germanics were in case mounted more acting as mounted infantry than fighting as calvalry (certain Germanic groups not implied) because simple put no horse will ever run voluntarily into a tightly packed shieldcastle or shielwall with spears pointing out. Of course throwing javelins from a horse in shield to weigh them down is a good tactic but the true fighting still was mostly on foot.

So no, the Germanic warrior may not have had the technology nor the techniques and developments of the Romans, but his methods of warfare were adapted to the foes he faced and he used them quite well.

Exactly.. up

[Baron Samedi]

Holy cow! When were all of these pdf's posted! This is amazing! Thank you!

[The Khagan]

Out of necessity, Germanic warriors needed to be fast, agile and strong (excercises to achieve these skills are even detailed in Germania, and even in artwork from the Bronze Age to the end of the Migration Period) in order to be able to hit their enemies hard and fast, not to mention they were always formidable in single-handed combat.

Any information on these? I want to be as formidable as a Gepid or a Vandal haha