Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
My good sir, have you seen what English bowmen looked like? They could fight a French knight in hand to hand combat
oh man
alex will raeg so hard
Tip: Skill and training is a fair bit more important than body strength.
I know but at Agincourt, Bowmen killed more French knights in hand to hand combat than with arrows
well there's your issue
Agincourt was a huge clusterfuck for the French knights for a variety of reasons, and it's very unfair to say that the French knights were defeated in close combat. They may have died in close combat, but consider the following:
- The terrain was muddy.
- Most of them were dehorsed because of the rain of arrows, meaning they fell face-first into the mud.
- Then their plate armour is full of mud, and the padding inside is weighed down.
- The French knights had a break in discipline, charging over the terrain in loose formation and therefore failing to provide a united front.
- This wouldn't be so bad if the terrain was good and they remained on their steeds.
Basically, they're spread out, carrying extra weight from the mud, unhorsed and intimidated by the hail of arrows they had just endured. Even all this together wouldn't generally be an issue against archers in close combat -- archers generally only carried a dagger or simple hand weapon for such scenarios -- but the archers were supported by dedicated close combat infantry as well.
Essentially, the charge was broken by a ranged onslaught combined with bad terrain, the French knights were scattered, had poor mobility and found themselves outnumbered by the English. Keep in mind how nigh-indestructible plate armour is. It can't be pierced or cut by close combat weapons unless the wearer is braced against a hard object. This tells us that the French knights died by taking wounds to the weak spots in the armour, which are at the joints and neck. These are difficult to hit, and knights are more skilful than archers and regular infantry in close combat. Furthermore, keep in mind that a shitload of French knights died this way at Agincourt.
This tells us that the knights were on the ground, or otherwise unable to fight effectively at the time. If so many died that way, it meant that there was some condition that didn't allow them to defend themselves. Knights can generally fight lesser soldiers three-to-one, or even more if mounted, so there you have it.
You make a point, though. Your average longbowman is a good deal stronger than your average knight -- not that strength makes a great difference in weapons combat. Brute force equals commitment, and high-level European martial artists (mostly knights) had a thousand ways of dissipating that force and using the opening to their advantage. We're talking the 14th century, too, which coincides with the establishment of some of the earliest official fencing schools for knights. They would have weapons techniques that no archer could ever hope to hold.
So yeah. The victory was sealed at a distance; that the French knights were killed face-to-face is a technicality.
i wake up to more sword wankery
mmmkay
i'm officially quitting everything
> implying swords had anything to do with Agincourt
lrn2history lol
Didn't Agincourt happen in the 15th Century? when plate armour was impossible to puncture with arrows?
But most of the English at the battle were archers, not men at arms
Tpyo, it did indeed happen in the 15th century.
There were about 1,500 men-at-arms -- plenty to finish off downed knights. And as I said, archers weren't well-equipped for close combat. It would've been the men-at-arms that went in to finish the job.
As for the penetration of arrows, they don't have to penetrate to be useful against cavalry. For instance, horses were seldom clad in complete suits of plate themselves, instead wearing more flexible mail armour on most of their bodies. While an arrow may not penetrate 15th century plate armour, they can still kill a mount in mail. Furthermore, there's the kinetic impact to take into account -- kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and it's possible that a rain of arrows could throw a knight from their horse even if the knight was unharmed.
Here's a thing. In a lot of fantasy stories, magic swords are a thing that grant power. But like...how? I mean, surely it doesn't matter if the Sword of Azathar is the most powerful sword in the world (what ever that means) if the guy who has it can use it.
Alex, halp?
Yeah, exactly. This is what bothers me about magic swords in modern media -- they're written from the perspective of a society that doesn't understand close weapons combat. Most magical weapons provide a benefit that would be of entirely secondary importance compared to the use of the weapon, so the "best" power is the one that gives the sword some kind of secondary function.
Narsil/Anduril in LotR is a good example of a magic sword. Aragorn can summon its power, sending a flash of light through it. At this point, it becomes able to cleave other steel objects in twain, removing the one disadvantage of an edged weapon. Furthermore, it also has a reputation; even Sauron fears it and what it represents. Glamdring, Orcrist and Sting, the Elvish blades, glow blue when Orcs approach, making them silent alarms rather than superior offensive tools.
Tolkien is one guy who wrote his magic weapons very much in the style of foklore and medieval literature. Excalibur's powers, for instance, were never clearly defined or explained. Same with Gram, the sword of Siegfried, or Charlemagne's own weapon which was said to hold a piece of the True Cross in its hilt. These are weapons that are defined in very vague terms, and for good reason. Many are empowered by God, or pagan magicks, are are not meant to be knowable. Excalibur even pulls a fast one in some versionf of the tale, and stops working or even breaks when Arthur behaves without knightly virtue.
In essence, a good literary sword shouldn't be a nuke weapon. It should have some function that is separate from combat, even if it cross over into it sometimes. The one exception might be making a sword effective against an otherwise inhumanly tough adversary.
I was thinking about this earlier, in fact, as I was writing a game design document. The idea I have down at the moment is that a particular kind of spellcasting can only be done with a magic weapon in hand, but it can be anything -- including a sword, which allows one to fight and cast simultaneously.
tl;dr: Most magical swords provide absolutely no benefit to those who carry them, under the wielder already knows how to fight.
*Sting, not String.
Muscle memory.
^^ Which is why I like the concepts I have for some magic swords (a living one that has an edge that can cut through most standard materials and if damaged can repair itself with blood and a sword that absorbs magic and allows one to then release the magic back at the attacker)
A recent favourite of mine is a concept Cygan came up with for one of her projects. Seven magical swords exist that don't allow their wielders to die while battle is joined. They're pretty cruel in that regard -- their only benefit comes from when you would usually die, so by the time the power comes into effect, your fate is sealed.
>Ralph Dibny dies to beat Neron
Oh god is this hellblazer
no it's better
I'm making sweet rolls ^_^
But the dough is still rising, and I'm impatient >:-|
Is someone going to try and steal them? And will you stamp on them in response?
Also, Fortune Summoners is great. Although I'm trying to work out why a young girl has a sword. Or how she can jump the entire height of a room.
I prefer stabbing ^_^
If you could make a sword that could do anything, what kind of magic ability would you give it, Alex?
Mutation time.
Alex: The Jacobites learnt a painful lesson in 1745.
Gun beats sword
I'm not sure. For me, there's not much use in magic powers, as there's generally a sword technique for every scenario. To be a masterful, learned swordsman is to exceed most fantasies. I'm not at that level of skill yet, but I can see it in the distance.
On the other hand, it would be foolish to claim there's no magic power of benefit. But which one I'd give a magic sword is a tough question. In context of combat, though, I'm not sure what skill and courage can't overcome, except for silly, huge things like tanks. Courage is a hard thing to keep consistent, but I think it would be dishonest to have a sword that makes its wielder courageous. In all the stories, it's very important that it has to be earned.
That's given me an idea, though. Courage is hard, so why not make it harder? A magical sword of my make emits dread when unsheathed.
no, inuh, you can't pull of the text yandere schtick
go back to being a southern nerd
Please post the YouTube, I would like to listen to that again.
Complete with obnoxious visuals!
Thank you, Glenn, now lolling forever.