i have always wondered if the bladed/scalloped vambraces that the ninjas use in batman begins are historically referenced or no. i know that movies do many unhistorical things, but these do seem rather believable, plus they do have a practical use of ensnaring an enemies blade. plus if you raised your forearm in defense to a punch, the puncher would definitely be injured by the spike blades. i am just wondering however if anything like this was used in real life by the ninjas.

I don't know with anything near 100% certainty but I'll go out on a limb and say no...just no.

The idea of catching any blade heavier than a rapier on the forearm with anything less than a buckler or shield is essentially kissing that arm goodbye in my very limited, modern, aging, yuppie, experience. Admittedly, my frame of reference stinks and there are illustrations of people wrapping their arms with a cloak to do something similar (usually later period against thrusting swords). Never the less I really think you try it against a saber, cutlass, katana, or longsword and the best you're going to get is a dislocation. If you misjudge or mistime things get downhill quickly. Better I think just not to be in the path of the strike. Just an opinion though.

The arm won't be damaged unless one attempts to stop a zweihander or a halberd this way. However it's a big question what is better: to stop an incoming blade so that your opponent only has to drag it back to ready a thrust or step to the side and hide behind his blade from your attack or to deflect the incoming blade it so that it goes down and your opponent has to raise it to be able to attack or defend.

I have personally neither seen, heard nor read anything that would lead me to think that these were historically utilized designs. I think they likely originated in the Batman comic book, continued through the Adam West television series and eventually found their way into the new movies reborn as ninja armor.

On a side note, I have to say I got a chuckle participating in a conversation about the historical veracity of ninja armor worn by Batman. That's what I call a twofer. :D

Do you know why people used half-swording against plate-armored opponents? That's because battlefield weapons that hit hard could not hit hard enough to reliably injure people in armor. Well, using a vambrace as a shield might not be the best idea (depends on the thickness and hardness of the steel) but deflecting blows with an armored limb works just fine. And it works especially fine when while doing so you ready your weapon for a strike. People often don't expect this. Vambrace is not so different from a small shield. Make it from a little thicker steel, use some padding underneath and it will be a shield.

i suppose that if a large sword or katana was used that could have a chance of cutting through the vambraces or causing some serious damage to the arm, the side step method used in akido could be applied to some degree.this could deflect and ensnare the blade.

so they aren't historical :cry: oh well, i still REALLY like the concept though

In The irish wars 1485-1603 It has a Picture of an irish Kern with an Iron Gauntlet and it is described in the book as "Note that A2 wears an iron gauntlet on his left arm, used in place of a shield to parry blows; others wrapped their cloak around the arm instead." The description of the Kern is dated to the 1540's. While It's not exactly like the Ninja vembraces that batman used. They're somewhat similar in that they are used defensively.

---

 Attachment: 175.84 KB
[ Download ]

Its been well established that you don't have to cut armor (and most likely won't) to hurt the tender bits underneath in a vast number of threads on a vast number of discussion boards by people who actually are authorities on the subject. That said, I think that a vambrace with a proper base garment is going to disperse the energy of a blow in a much different way than the batman kit because of area it covers, because of the padding beneath it, and because it is part of an integrated defense with other armor bits. If we assume the vambrace is part of a kit it is also going to be usable in ways that the batman thing cannot be used, because it is applied in isolation. Also, if a vambrace is the only armor defense I don't need to half-sword, there are lots of tender cut-ty bits exposed to attack. That's the biggest problem I see with the batman ninja thing. It is that it is a comparatively small defense used in isolation that cannot be held away from the body as a buckler or shield can be to use angles to its advantage.

The cloak is a closer analog to the batman ninja bracer but its mainly referenced in later periods facing small-swords, rapiers and the like. To me there is a very narrow defensive area with the batman ninja bracers that is protected or that deflects. Be off just a bit in one direction and you lose a hand. A bit in the other direction and you lose the arm. Far better to dump the batman ninja bracer and just acknowledge that you need to be where the opponents blade is not, than to think you can take a risk a block with it and then make a mistake.

All of this thread is conjuncture and opinion so far. I've qualified my opinion carefully as amateur, so who knows. Maybe batman ninja bracers do work just fine. Never the less I'm not going to be the volunteer to test it. I don't trust the tool. In addition, the Irish Kern bit and cloaks are the closest things to actually used document-able examples anybody has come up with so far. If somebody posts a historical reference to a tool that is clearly similar to the batman ninja tool I'll gladly accept that it works and is historical. Until then we're all just arm chairing (especially me) and spouting generally unqualified opinion about "could be used" which does make for interesting discussion, but was not the original poster's question.

It reminds me of Roman boxing gloves. I know from hearsay that there are some speculations that these were modified with metal spikes and blades in order to get more visible effects in the arena.
[ Linked Image ]

Isn't there a historical system of Rapier and Gauntlet?

I've been able to push or knock away a blade, and even take hold of one with my bare hand in sparring with Chinese swords before, and even became quite good at it. This is obviously easier against a single edged blade. It would only ever be a desperation or intimidation technique against a real weapon, though. Prosthetics just aren't good enough to risk it too often at this point in time...

I know a guy that had his forearm broken through his gothic vambrace with a sword hit. I wouldn't be using my armoured forearm to block a sword blow if I could help it.

Actually the idea that you "cant" parry with a gauntlet is ridiculous, there are refrences to using a gauntlet in single hand swordplay going all the way back to the bolognese system with arming sword/ cut and thrust sword. I use a left handed gauntlet all the time actually, and I've parried everything up to a longsword without any trouble, and thats with just a leather bracer. As consolation, you can get bruised up pretty bad if catch a full powered blow from the wrong angle.

Just to add my 2 cents here:

Blocking is a stupid term and I hate how it is used all over the place without thought. Most martial arts do not teach you to block, but to deflect. I for one would not want to "block" an overhand sword strike with an upper forearm block, armour or no, but an outer forearm block to deflect it could be done relatively (relatively!) safely with a bare arm if you were careful and quick. This Batman thing is used in the movie to effectively block in some cases, not to deflect as it should.

If it isn't clear what I am talking about: An upper forearm block is when you raise your arm from your waist or chest into a semi-horizontal position over your head. (Slanted so as to help make the blow slide off.) An outer forearm block is when you take your arm and swing it sideways in a vertical fashion to move an incoming blow to the side. While some might advocate using the upper to deal with blows from above, it is my opinion that that is stupid and the upper forearm block is better suited to deflecting blows that are coming in straight at the head. Far better to void if possible though, something that shouldn't be difficult the way movie bad guys telegraph...

I think the confusion between blocking and deflecting is clouding the issue here. Though I haven't seen any of these techniques or moves for using a gauntlet against an incoming blow, my guess is that they aren't used to block, but to deflect.