Recent content by Blackthorn

Microcosm said:

I would like to see different varieties of armor, for instance various styles of plate armor, maybe differing with each faction, more types of mail armor, mail over boiled leather, mail shirts, chainmail hauberks, just more variety to make each item less common. More helmets would be nice too; great helms, half helms, etc.

Click to expand...

IOW: I recently read Game of Thrones. Please Game of Thrones Armours. KThanksBye.

An Aragorn-clone prone to rusting.

Maybe people will be more willing to listen to you if you did not speak like a massive ass.

Click to expand...

... whereas you are both clearly witty and a gentleman. I salute your ability to mash at the keyboard with bile and ignorance. That must have taken your keyworker a long time to teach you.
x x x

Archers are people too!
Again, read back, and there's a distinct difference between a militia archer (someone who has turned up for annual service with a bow or a crossbow) and a proffessional (a seasoned veteran who also shoots a crossbow or a warbow). The proffesionals will have been sparring with other troops, and seen their fair share of battlefields; siege warfare was a 12th-13thC staple, and a man who couldn't fight once the walls were reached weren't much use. Therefore expect veteran proffesionals to wear armour, wield shortarms and be about as useful as their infantry compatriots in melee.
The first troops Richard I raised for the Third Crusade were mercenary crossbowmen, because an experienced commander knows that a bunch of well-seasoned hard-hitters with bows can form the backbone to a decent army. Pretty much the evolution of warfare led to the ranged troops taking up more and more of the battlefield until they took it all.

Most medieval laws and ordinances that ban weapons don't cover swords or daggers; they're simply considered items of polite dress for gentlemen. For instance, carry a wood-worker's handaxe on your belt within an Anglo-Norman city that's suffering a bit of public unrest, and expect to be 'gone over' by the local militia. Walk down the same road with a sword belted on, and expect them to step aside and bow. Welcome to the world where the social status of the sword awards it's own 'right to bear arms'- IE- I carry this, ergo I have the right to. It's why the banning of bucklers was so hiliarious- it's the begining of the tide turning against 'young gentlemen going armed'; within a few hundred years decent gents like myself wouldn't be allowed to wear swords at all...

OgrE_LusT said:

Yes,but i was saing about ancient times not medieveal ones two handed swords like those in the vid are pure medieval warfare,also those guys where no mach for shield armored foes,the best use of them was to kill light armored foes and also pikemans.And imù sorry if you don't belive in history..

Click to expand...

And Imu Sorry you don't believe in spellcheck. Seriously, kudos for arguing outside your native tongue, but that's why I don't post on French boards.
Go and Google 'Falx' and lo and behold! One large hooked two-handed weapon that is neither slow nor cumbersome. I don't know what point it is you're trying to make, but it seems to be entirely centred around dual-wielding being useful because Romans use magical shields. Forgive me if that's not the case...

Berserker1066 said:

I just cant stop laughing about some of the posts.

Click to expand...

This is the point we agree on.

Berserker1066 said:

For example that in history no one has fought by dual wielding weapons and that it would take away realism in mount and blade and its just fantasy well you should check the history again because Vikings were known to fight with dual wielding axes also. Certainly theyre most of them got shield on the right arm because they used shield wall but there were some of them who used dual wield. And in one of the first posts one guy said that in dark ages no one would use the dual wield because they wanted to survive the battles so they picked the shield but Vikings went in a battle with thought that they will die because in theyre religion if they would ide on battlefield they would enter the Valhalla(paradise) so they had no fear of dying on battlefield.

Click to expand...

*facepalm*
Right- let's find some sources for some of it, eh? I mean, ''Vikings were known to dual-wield axes'' is not quite the argument you may believe .
Also- ''Vikings didn't fear to die because it was in their religion" would be an excellent argument for Saxons not being afraid fighting back tides of angry pagans who ransacked monastries- equally that'd be a good reason for 'going to heaven'. The main sources claiming Vikings as unstoppable killing machines who felt no fear in battle (or, as some would describe that, Uruk-hai) were the same Saxon sources that then list a series of battles where they were bought off, beaten, or routed. Frankly speaking, what you've posted is a series of common myths, believing you're dispelling them. Most Danes of the Great Army (the period that really gained the Saxon's attention and led to the 'Viking myth') were either shield-and-spear wielders or sometimes long-handled axe-wielders. Explain why two axes would somehow be immensely useful, other than as a demonstration of utter stupidity before being run through. Especially amongst combatants who were fighting in limited front combats with little scope for latteral movement and dodging. But never mind all that. *cough*

I hate the internet.

Simple combat stancing; 2 hours tution, expect full development and fluid movement at fourth session, developing to full weight management and balanced attack and defence postures by the fifteenth. Complete mastery within a lifetime.

Welcome to the 'novelty' end of history, where anything 'different' is poked up the ladder of commonality to 'FREQUENTLY DONE' and packaged to keep people interested. It's wonderful because 9/10ths of the time the stuff they're bored of hasn't been presented correctly or in a format that interests (really explaining the skills and the approaches to sword and shield, for instance) and just means people wander around with some new exciting fallacies about medieval Ninja types. Japan suffers from the 'novelty history' horribly, because it's how their historical culture was marketed in the 1980's, and there's still a HUGE number of people who don't realise the realities behind the ''NINJA SWORDS" they bought and smacked on the wall.
*sigh*
/Rant.

Thanks for the welcome back, btw.

Alpha said:

Miyamoto Musashi... nuff' said.

Click to expand...

Miyamoto Musashi himelf labeled the style impractical and did it as a demonstration of extreme skill only.
'Nuff said.

AWdeV said:

Blackthorn said:

Or, historically, send in the SHI.

Click to expand...

Super Heavy Infantry?

Click to expand...

Yep.
SHI: Dismounted knights, usually.

brognar said:

1. there were no people who dual wielded to break shield walls
2. it's not that hard to get two good swords

Click to expand...

1) 100% True. All 'Viking' dual wielding evidence is civilian fights breaking out during otherwise peaceful situations, and the most common description is a spear and 'blade'- suggesting the sword is held in reserve, or even the spear is thrown. Not a 'berserk' at all, the evidence for whom is sparse enough as it is without adding in the 100 tonnes of Bullsh!t.

2) The fact that people would even consider dual-wielding over dual-handed techniques demonstrates the two-handed AND shield dynamics need to be worked on, rather than ''we need two weaponz!" In real life a spear is so much deadlier than in M+B where it is the worst ''hook a duck'' device available.

Other than the other one would require it to be maille cuisses... and the other cuisses have no padding marked on them...
The one I'm talking about (Eustace's) clearly has one band at the bottom of his maille, and ANOTHER at the top of his chausse.

Small point though; I HAD already mentioned cuisses in the post below the one you quoted. Thread-read and all that jazz.

Yeah- the one major thing that's useful about the Tapestry is the frequent instances of bordering maille with a band of other fabric to show an 'edge'- the drawn facsimilie above shows the 'line' clearly visible at the top of the shin on one of the knight's chausses, demonstrating that in one case at least, it stops at the knee.
They're essentially 'outdated' compared to the rest of my gear. Though the Villard D'Honnecourt image shows they remained in use for what would seem to be relatively light gear, though it could also be showing some upper-thigh armour worn OVER full chausses; thigh cuisses were known but it would be their first major depiction (after the one blink and you'll miss it instance in the Triumph of Virtues over Vices in a German manuscript) in Western art, and without any of the usual 'padded' image indicators.

They're a halfway compromise between full chausses and not wearing any leg armour on foot (which some people still insist on)- I'd argue that the fully enclosed foot is a better virtue if you're mounted (they stick out at infantry strike-height!) but far less important on foot (putting a shot way down there is possible, but difficult).

GodHandApostole said:

I meant the feet, actually.. I never saw shoes wore over chausses

Click to expand...

Ahhh!
But yes- my full leg ones will also include the foot; essentially maille leggings, with open backs to allow lacing them tighter, with a 'built in' leather sole. Basically those are my 'light chausses' in a more 1066 style, worn as basic leg protection, because on foot the weight's a killa.