Results 751 to 780 of 1524
-
2012-06-27, 08:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Well, uh....
What's exactly so stupid looking in holding your sword low, with right hand and right leg as lead, compared to say, any other stance?
As far as space suit goes, it's interesting question.
Someone would have to provide data about resistance of some suit against particular space debris, of exact velocity, mass, material etc.
In general, those meteoroids usually travel at speeds few times greater than bullets, but are also usually much, much smaller, and are not exactly great penetrators (rock instead of metal, some random porous shape instead of bullet).
So it's hard to say, but certainly impact of such debris is very, very different than the one of bullet.
The debris probably causes quite tremendous friction, being very light, with large surface, and great velocity.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2012-06-27, 08:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- kendal, england
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
short answer, yes, though unless it was a rigid suit, the wearer would still take impact damage even if the bullet did not penetrate.
bear in mind, though, that a bullet is designed to penetrate while a micrometeoroid is not, so it will achieve greater penetration with much less total energy.
Specifically, what would Edward I have had to do to prepare for his invasions of Scotland. Did the army do any training once it was assembled or was it assumed that all of archers and men-at-arms were ready to fight when they were called up? Who (job titles) was in charge of what?
thier were also boats full of dried meat and fish. However, due the perishable nature of most foodstuffs, most armies were reliant on foraging (that is, stealing food off the locals). this had the benefitical side effect that an army on the march was surrounded by small parties of foragers, which could double as scouts, but ment that the army wasn't able to linger too long in any location, as the local supplies would be quickly exhuasted trying to feed tens of thousands of extra mouths. supporting a seige was a diffcult undertaking for logicistics of the time.
training wise, a major point of the feudal system was that a King did not have to worry about equipping and training all the kingdoms men, but only those of his personal household, while his lords delt with thier contingents, on which the king could call for in times of need. The lords, in turn, delegated to lower nobles, and so on down the line.
in practice, the training of a soldier really depended on how rich the leige was. Things like hunting, and particualy tourneys, were a way to practice marital skills in peacetime. Since good archery is a skill that requires decades of practice and constant training to keep up, most lords could only afford to keep a relitivly small number of archers on thier books (though an archer was much cheaper than a knight and all his gear). A poorer lord would have to make do with conscripting farmers with whatever they could arm them with.
Here is a wiki page listing some of the "war games" the medieval peoples playee to hone thier skills.Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
-
2012-06-29, 03:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Because superficially, it looks like you're holding your sword in such a way that you'd never be able to defend effectively against attacks coming at you from higher angles. If I saw someone holding a sword that way, I'd expect them to get stabbed in the face in short order- which goes to show what I know, not very much. But it explains why someone would half-jokingly call it "fool's guard:" it's just crazy enough to work.
Then again, optimized defenses against very very fast but lightweight projectiles aren't quite the same as a good general-purpose armor. Whipple shields are an obvious example of this- the Whipple shield is very good at turning a tiny incoming micrometeoroid into a spray of gas that will be stopped by thing metal/plastic casings, but it'd be useless against a bullet.
-
2012-06-29, 04:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- new york city
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
you're right, that is why it is called a fools guard. the intention is to sucker an inexperience fighter into attacking high. in that only an inexperienced fool would fall for it.
i personally think it is an insult to your opponent. come on chump i'm giving you an opening try taking it and see what happens, type thing. kind of like the way mohamed ali used to drop this hand to sucker and intimidate opponents or at least that is my opinion of that guard.Last edited by cucchulainnn; 2012-06-29 at 04:12 PM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Liechtenauer
It's hard to fight when there is a yard of steel stabbing you in your face.
-
2012-06-30, 01:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
What might a historical knight in the central middle ages have on him when he travels around alone? Take, for example, Sir Gawain in Gawain and the Green Knight - what might one visualize him carrying around the countryside? For that matter, was it common to have knights running around alone or in small groups?
As far as I can guess, someone like Gawain might have...
1. Probably a sword, both to defend himself and as a status symbol to show he's a knight. How common would it be to carry around a shield, too, if the knight in question wasn't anticipating a fight? Also, would a back-up weapon usually be necessary? Would a knight have something like a second sword, just in case?
2. Food. I'm guessing most of it would be bread and cheese, since they'd be cheap and common. Maybe he might also have some fruits, nuts, dried meats, and that sort of thing? Would the knight carry water or alcohol or both on a long-distance journey?
3. Some kind of satchel, sack, or saddlebags to store his food and other miscellany seems sensible. If the knight was on foot, how might he have held his stuff?
4. Would a traveling knight normally want to have armor on him? It seems to me like carrying around your armor would be awfully inconvenient for long-distance travel unless you were expecting a fight when you arrive. Would it be likely for a knight to carry around a part of his armor rather than the full suit? If the knight did have armor, was it also feasible/necessary to have a suit of casual clothes to change into for things like sleeping or being among company, or could the knight sleep in armor and act socially acceptable with his armor on?
5. If you had armor, you would certainly need a squire to go along with you to help you put it on. In any case, a knight would probably have a squire around anyways because it always helps to have a lackey. How many people might a knight consider necessary in his entourage? How feasible would it be to travel somewhere without a squire?
6. Would something like a bedroll have been necessary, or would most people have just slept on the ground? Would an entire tent have been considered necessary?
7. It seems much more likely than not that the knight would have a horse, but how many horses would he need? Would they be different horses for different purposes?
8. What kind of equipment might a knight need to maintain his weapons and armor? Was anything even necessary to carry around for their maintenance?It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.
-
2012-06-30, 01:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
0. Sir Gawaine wasn't actually a historical knight, so what fits with him and what fits with historical knights is variable. Also, this is hugely, hugely dependant on era.
1. What time, what countryside? A crusader taking a long journey in a crusader state during a period of relative peace and a Carolingian knight taking a short trip are going to be armed differently. That said, the big thing here, besides era is whether the knight is really a knight in the sense of a military troop or a knight in the sense of title that isn't actually a combatant.
2. Again, this depends hugely on what they are doing. If it is a knight, alone, going on a mission for an extended periods of time while not marked with any heraldry, it is probably going to be different than something closer to a pleasure trip.
3. This one probably varies least, broadly speaking. There will be bags involved, though what exactly the bags are vary.
4. This depends on era even more than others. For instance, "part of the armor" doesn't even make much sense when applied to mail wearing knights, as most of the armor is one piece.
5. Again, this varies. You don't need a squire for mail, and plate armor can be put on without a squire in some situations. Maintenance is going to be tricky in the latter case, but there are ways to make armor easier to maintain for one person.
6. Again, this depends on the knight, what they are doing, so on and so forth. However, the key point here is that "knight" is a very vague statement as far as class goes, and some knights were absurdly rich while others really weren't. Sometimes, there are a bunch of retainers and some very large tents, sometimes there really isn't much in the way of sleeping gear.
7. Poorer knights really only had access to one horse, but very rich knights could bring a bunch of horses, suited for different things. Generally speaking though, there's no need for more than one horse per person.
8. What weapons? What armor? A sword takes very different maintenance than a poleax; mail takes very different maintenance than plate. So on and so forth.I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2012-06-30, 02:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I meant how might a medieval person have imagined Sir Gawain traveling, not how might Sir Gawain have traveled.
Let's say I want to know the circumstances for a French knight from the Ile de France in 1400, a south German knight in 1000, and an Italian knight in 1500. Let's say I want to know the circumstances for all of those times and regions for if the knights in question were on the extremely rich side, the extremely poor side, and if the knights possessed a typical (mode) amount of wealth. I also want to know the differences in how these knights might travel if they were on a pleasure trip (let's say to visit a friend somewhere), if they were going to a tournament or joust, and if they were on a military campaign.
edit: But if you have a particularly good picture of a specific kind of travelling knight to provide that's specific to a place/time/whatever, I'd like to hear it along with an explanation on how that picture is limited.Last edited by Vitruviansquid; 2012-06-30 at 02:11 AM.
It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.
-
2012-06-30, 04:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2012-06-30, 04:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
As far as food is concerned, most travellers in those places at those times probably wouldn't need to carry much food with them. The regions are sufficiently populated that food could be had at many points along the route of travel -- unless for some reason the said traveller is simply wandering off into the wilderness (which might be hard to do in Italy in 1500 -- it was a fairly densely populated place, although it wouldn't be impossible).
Historically the kinds of foods travellers would carry with them didn't change much until the last century or two. Hard breads (hard tack, ship's biscuits) usually keep pretty well. Grain can also be carried or requisitioned and be milled with a hand mill. Also there were preserved meats and hard cheeses. Certain vegetables and fruits will keep for a while, or can also preserved, but will depend upon the region. Spanish sailors, being based in the Mediterranean, consumed olives and garlic to such an extent that scurvy was almost unknown to them -- they called it the "Dutch disease". A larger force might bring a small herd of live animals for slaughter and eat "on-the-hoof", but that doesn't really fit with a knight and a small entourage. Of course, a knight wandering around the wilderness, may do some hunting to get fresh meat, if the time or opportunity permits.
As for drink -- it was very rare to drink water straight, or wine straight either. They were typically mixed, but the ratio was usually up to the imbiber's whim. Surely, if working in the fields, or running around on a hot day, a little bit of wine in your water would probably serve better than the reverse. I'm not sure about beer an ales during that period. Some old beers were actually quite weak, more like "near beer", and might have served as a decent way to get necessary hydration. Stronger ones may have been mixed with water?
The cork was yet to be introduced to wine making. So once the wine came out of the barrel, it had to be consumed fairly quickly before it turned to vinegar. It would probably last long enough for a decent trip in a wine skin, or an amphora of some sort. Even if it started to turn to vinegar it could probably be watered down to the point that it was acceptable to drink, and would still kill bacteria. In some places vinegar was (and is) considered to be a fine drink on it's own, mixed with water.
Most of the areas you describe, are probably wet enough that they wouldn't need to carry water with them to drink. Although for convenience, some skins or flasks may be carried.
The Italian knight would certainly have carried wine; the French Knight probably would have had wine; the German one is more likely to have carried beer.
I'm not exactly sure how beer would be carried: once out of the barrel it would go flat, but I don't know how quickly it might spoil in a skin or flask. A "near beer" may hold up better. Liquors might also have been carried (later British sailors would drink "grog" a mixture of rum and water).
Good luck with your question, I'm always curious about what travellers brought with them, and especially what kinds of foods they ate.
-
2012-06-30, 05:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- kendal, england
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
as has been said, pure water was very rarely drunk in those time periods, due to the risk of catching something, and the lack of decent fliters to clean dirty water with (seriously, try taking a glass down to the nearest natural water supply to you, like a river or pond, and filling it up. it will be full of random crap that you don't really want to drink).
most people prefered to drink a very weak beer or wine (often only 1% ABV), since the booze would kill most of the stuff livng in the water. I am under the impression that this weak beer was even given to children, form pretty much the point they stopped drinking milk, becuase it was safer than plain water was.
1. Probably a sword, both to defend himself and as a status symbol to show he's a knight. How common would it be to carry around a shield, too, if the knight in question wasn't anticipating a fight? Also, would a back-up weapon usually be necessary? Would a knight have something like a second sword, just in case?
A knigh'ts sword WAS his "back up" weapon, as his "primary" weapon was his lance. like the samuari, the sword as used when the primary weapon could not be used for whatever reason.
that said, most people would have a knife of some sort with them, for all those little things you need a knife for.
4. Would a traveling knight normally want to have armor on him? It seems to me like carrying around your armor would be awfully inconvenient for long-distance travel unless you were expecting a fight when you arrive. Would it be likely for a knight to carry around a part of his armor rather than the full suit? If the knight did have armor, was it also feasible/necessary to have a suit of casual clothes to change into for things like sleeping or being among company, or could the knight sleep in armor and act socially acceptable with his armor on?
5. If you had armor, you would certainly need a squire to go along with you to help you put it on. In any case, a knight would probably have a squire around anyways because it always helps to have a lackey. How many people might a knight consider necessary in his entourage? How feasible would it be to travel somewhere without a squire?
as for sleeping in armour, it can be done, but without a good reason, you would not want to do it.
with the socially acceptability of wearing armour, i'm not sure. i think it would depend on the context. the closest reference i can think of is "when would it be socially acceptable for a modern day soldier to be wearing either his full dress uniform or his full combat uniform?", since a knight wearing his armour in a social setting would be emphasising his status as a warrior.Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
-
2012-06-30, 06:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I think the major health factor of beers was the fact that it was boiled while being made. But at that time nobody new that it was the boiling that did the trick, only that water makes you sick while beer doesn't.
One very good reason was to be at home or taking a stroll through the village. You don't want to carry a spear or a bow with you all the time, but a sword tucked into the belt doesn't get into the way much. Given that swords were rather expensive and peasant soldiers could not afford them, you automatically got a quite reliable way to identify noble warriors by them, even when not wearing armor. From there is't a very simple step to codify it in the unspoken rule that for example a samurai must have the sword to be properly dressed and from there the written law that anyone else is forbidden from doing so.
I'm not sure if the sword became part of the dress code in Europe at any time. I have a hunch that probably Italians would have something similar, but then the major italian cities were Republics and I'm not sure there even were any nobles.Last edited by Yora; 2012-06-30 at 07:04 AM.
-
2012-06-30, 07:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
It strikes me that a knight would definitely want a few lances on the battlefield, but would it have been necessary if he was going on a pleasure trip?
Lances would probably have been annoying to carry around, seeing as they're big, long, and probably had to be carried in your hand all the time whereas a sword could just be put in your belt.
At the same time, would a sword really have been such a huge disadvantage over a spear in a small fight? I imagine spears dominated big battles because of their ability to be used in mass formations, but if a small group of less than ten people (say a single knight and his entourage) are attacked on the road, it would either not be a big battle in which a spear wall or cavalry charge would be relevant or the attackers would have such overwhelming numerical advantage it'd be pointless to resist no matter what weapon the knight had.
I remember reading an edict from Frederick Barbarossa prohibiting non-knights from carrying swords, with the exception of traveling merchants for the explicit reason that they had to defend themselves. I doubt the law would have this exception unless medieval people recognized that swords were an effective weapon for self-defense. I'm no historian, so if someone would like to review the source and see whether it's credible or if I'm drawing the right conclusions, that'd be nice... as soon as I re-locate it. >_>It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.
-
2012-06-30, 08:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
If knight was visibly wealthy one, he would travel with retinue of pages, serfs, and other people, so he wouldn't have to worry about carrying all his stuff at all.
And lance, apart from being always dreadful weapon from horseback, would also be good heraldic/show off accessory with flags on the top etc.
Especially, while he was, for example, traveling to take part in some big tourney, when showing off was pretty much basic idea.
Poor knight, on the other hand, could have quite often find himself in such retinue as one of follower, so in such case being armed and ready would be simply obligation to his liege in such situation, as guard, entourage etc. where one should present himself well too.
So it all depends on context, really.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2012-06-30, 09:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Kanagawa, Japan
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a very interesting poem, because it is very detailed and does present a relatively realistic, if idealised, view of a medieval landscape. The fact that he travels alone and armoured is particularly notable, but he is not the only "hero type" to be portrayed in this way. The self sufficient warrior may be a fictional notion, or it might have been possible, hard to say. As the others mention above, though, much more likely is for a knight to travel in groups, it is just safer that way for one thing.
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one’s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
– Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
-
2012-06-30, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Very interesting discussions in this thread.
I have a question concerning the future of unmanned vehicles in warfare. UAV's are perceived as a military success in Afghanistan, and that trend will probably continue.
But what about ground based, unmanned, remotely operated vehicles? It's a well known military maxim that you need boots on the ground to occupy territory, and that means infantry. But could unmanned ground vehicles support or replace standard troops, especially supported by UAV's?
You don't need to worry about casualties and the morale of troops and people back home and it might even be cheaper than normal infantry – though I have no idea of the costs and logistics of unmanned vehicles compared to human soldiers.
So do you think unmanned ground vehicles will be a factor in warfare and perhaps even replace the 19-year old kid with a rifle?Nihilos Ex Nihilos
-
2012-06-30, 10:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- NC
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
They already are. They're used for everything from bomb disposal to surveillance now and have transport and extended surveillance vehicles in testing...possibly in limited production.
...and perhaps even replace the 19-year old kid with a rifle?-
I laugh at myself first, before anyone else can.
-- Paraphrased from Elsa Maxwell
-
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.
-- Paul Graham in Keep Your Identity Small
-
2012-06-30, 10:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Robots really only work for surveilance and fire support. (And yes, for poking strange things that nobody else wants to poke.) And that job they actually do very efficiently because machines can ignore many of needs of human opperators. If it's remote controlled, you can simply switch the opperator without having to get the robot back to base.
But the reason you need people on the ground is because there's a lot of things to do which are not pointing a cammera or making something explode.
As of now, robots have very severe limitations in regard to reliable mobility. On clean pavement or even solid concrete stairs they work fine. But the whole point is that you have to get them into situation where there is going to be lots of rubble and other obstructions. And quite often you want to avoid blasting a clear path through whatever is in your way and inside just climb over something ore carefully move it out of the way. Robots might eventually get there, but that would still be many decades in the future.
And even more importantly, you need people to interact with the locals, with conventional battlefield out in wide open spaces disappearing. You can't do that with robots.
What I would expect is to see unit sizes getting smaller in number and replace the removed soldiers with some kinds of heavy duty firepower robots. Instead of having a group of 8 soldiers doing a patrol or whatever, you have 4 soldiers and two 2,5 meter combat robots. If you need firepower and keeping your head low, you let the robots take the brunt of the work and while you're guarding, on patrol, or scouting, they just follow behind letting the soldiers deal with the talking and deciding on a course of action.Last edited by Yora; 2012-06-30 at 10:27 AM.
-
2012-06-30, 11:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- kendal, england
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
-
2012-07-01, 12:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
They new boiling made water safer. Galen, Hyppocrites and Avicenna all recommended boiling surgical instruments, and the works of these three men were the basis of virtually all the medical schools in Europe from 1100 - 1500 AD. They didn't really know why it made anything safer, but that is a different matter entirely. They didn't know why the Sun rose in the morning but they could plan their day around it.
They drank a lot of beer, not all of it watered down.. It was one of the most important export commodities in at least 100 cities.
I agree with everyone else who pointed out that the lance, not the sword, is the primary weapon of the knight. The sword is very important nevertheless, because the lance as effective as it is is also very limited situationally and very often breaks. But the sword has historically almost never been a 'primary' weapon. One of the most consistently irritating things in historical or fantasy films portraying 'knights', from Gondor dudes in LOTR to Crusaders in Kingdom of Heaven, is that they basically never have lances, which is really ridiculous. Even more riduclous than the fake looking swords and (always helmetless) armor they make them wear.
I also agree with the point that wearing armor then was like wearing body armor today, it was considered somewhat alarming depending on the circumstances.
Normally a knight would travel with a minimum of 3 attendents, 2 armed and partly armored supporters, one possibly with a crossbow, at least one other a demi-lancer, and one valet or 'valetti' to carry stuff and bring weapons forward, and lead the pack animals. The knight would also often have at least two or three horses.
As Spiryt mentioned some knights such as ministeriales might not actually have anything of their own, but this is where the slipppery definition of what a knight is. To have the legal rights of a knight, by the late Medieval period (1350-1500) usually meant being a member of the gentry or the upper eschelons of town citizenry (burghers). Other heavy cavarly in that period also included so called sergeants, who were armed and equipped by some other sponsor, and also "Brother Knights" of military orders who technically didn't own anything, squires who were actually much closer to being knights than usually depicted in pop culture, but were a bit poorer, and other types of "men at arms". In the earlier Medieval period you had many more poor knights who might actually be from the serf class.
As for supplies, it's true they did have taverns, pubs, inns, and hotels all over the place, as well as abbeys and castles and other places to stay and buy (or be given) food, which would be the normal place that travellers of any kind would get food. But there were also a lot of wilderness zones in many parts of Europe and groups of men expecting trouble in particular did actually bring supplies with them. This might you help get a sense of what that actually means, it is the supply train for a small force from the town of Regensberg in the late Medieval period in Germany (from the Osprey Military book German Medieval Armies:
The small army from Regensburg on campaign in 1431, consisted of 73 knights, 71 crossbowmen, 16 handgunners, and a mixed group of smiths, leatherworkers, a chaplain, pike-makers, tailors, cooks, and butchers, for 248 men in total.
They brought 6 cannon, 300 lbs of cannonballs and 200 lbs of lead shot. Forty one wagons carried powder and lead, 6,000 crossbow bolts, 300 fire-bolts, 19 handguns, cowhides, tents, and horse fodder for six weeks.
Supplies for the 248 men included ninety head of oxen, 900 lbs of cooked meat, 900 lbs of lard, 1200 pieces of cheese, 80 stock-fish, 56 lbs of uncut candles, vinegar, olive oil, pepper, saffron, ginger, 2 tuns and 7 “kilderkins” of Austrian wine, and 138 “kilderkins” of beer. The total cost of this campaign was 838 guilders.
This group later merged with about 1000 mercenary infantry, so seeing as the army was from a town, it may have been carrying a little bit extra in supplies and support personnel than was typical for that amount of men. But it gives you some idea of the kind of stuff they carried.
GLast edited by Galloglaich; 2012-07-01 at 12:47 AM.
-
2012-07-01, 03:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Regarding realistic knights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZrE1mVcB2k
-
2012-07-01, 04:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Kanagawa, Japan
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Painful to watch that, but television history almost always is. Maybe the whole thing is better.
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one’s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
– Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
-
2012-07-01, 03:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
The thing is, the situation being assumed here is a single fictional traveling knight with some sort of probably small retinue as imagined at the time. Lances as weapons are much more useful when you have supply trains full of them, and your lance charge is backed by a whole bunch of people next to you. One person, traveling alone has less use of a lance, and within that specific context the sword makes a lot of sense. It certainly upends assumptions made based on armies. Moreover, the sword's exaggerated role in fiction is actually relevant to how a fictional character at the time would be pictured.
The point is, the huge role of lances in an army setting is really of questionable pertinence. What would support this is lances described in period writings about knights, which largely means poetry and the occasional romance, with early novels at the late medieval period. That still supports lances fairly strongly, given the prevalence of representations of Pas d'armes in later works that strongly resembled jousting.I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2012-07-01, 03:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Hastings, MN
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Would this be the thread to ask how a specific real-world weapon would be statted for a game? I'd like to make a Pathfinder character who specializes in this weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff
I'm not sure whether it'd count as a Piercing or Slashing weapon or both, whether it'd have reach or not and most importantly, what damage it'd have, etc."Reach down into your heart and you'll find many reasons to fight. Survival. Honor. Glory. But what about those who feel it's their duty to protect the innocent? There you'll find a warrior savage enough to match any dragon, and in the end, they'll retain what the others won't. Their humanity."
-
2012-07-01, 03:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
What game though? That would matter here.
For D&D 3.5, I would probably give it ranseur stats, or maybe glaive...
It's not very important, really those particular rules' are very abstract.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2012-07-01, 03:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Hastings, MN
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
"Reach down into your heart and you'll find many reasons to fight. Survival. Honor. Glory. But what about those who feel it's their duty to protect the innocent? There you'll find a warrior savage enough to match any dragon, and in the end, they'll retain what the others won't. Their humanity."
-
2012-07-01, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Lol, one day I will be able to pay attention, I guess.
Anyway, PF has nice set of stats as "Bill" for it - reach and brace are obvious, disarm usually means some kind of portrudes to bind/control opposing weapons in D&D.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2012-07-01, 04:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
-
2012-07-02, 09:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
As far as I understand, some kind of bar, or other guard that resembled that of 'normal' cruciform sword was crucial characteristic of those.
Here some sources and one pretty reconstruction
So Bill's stats from PF seem that they could fit very well, with disarm bonus and additional defense.
It also seems pretty much way better than glaive, people who had written those weapons for PF quite apparently didn't agree on what should be power level of similar martial weapons.Last edited by Spiryt; 2012-07-02 at 09:13 AM.
Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2012-07-02, 09:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
As you yourself noted, the stories, novels, songs, and artwork of the late medieval period are full of depictions of knights with their lance. The lance is the primary weapon of the knight, both individually and in formation. It's use is not limited to formations.
from the East
to the West
Here you see the value of the sword (or falchion), note the lance has broken into several pieces after stabbing the dragon, so he must be finished with the blade
And in the center
(The flagpole here is a lance)
People in period knew very well that the lance was the primary weapon of the knight, it was closely linked in all the iconography. The sword was the personal weapon of the knight, almost equally important. But not every knight carried a sword - every knight carried a lance, at least until pistols became available.
For some reason in more modern times the idea of the lance has fallen out of favor. Modern audiences of fantasy or 'historical' fiction can't relate to it somehow. Maybe because there wasn't a lot of cavalry in DnD, I'm not sure. The point of having some other primary weapon than the sword is to attack first. Really important, that first attack! Other primary weapons would be a bow, for example, mostly in the East.
On a tangentally related note, (I hope it's ok to post here) for those interested in more realistic combat in games,
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/260688528/clang
G
-
2012-07-02, 01:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
My point is just that the rationale provided wasn't very applicable, not that the conclusions drawn were wrong. As for formations, the main point there is that armies are better able to replace broken lances than some guy going through the wilderness with a tiny retinue.
I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.