Search results for query: *

Archonsod said:

I mean it sounds like English, but there's all these funny made up words. I mean faucet for example; sounds French FFS.

Click to expand...

when I was staying with some friends in the US I said to my friend "the tap is stuck"
he said "faucet" so I did and flooded his apartment

in the past, combat experience may have hindered a General (although the theory he would have been taught could also have been just as bad)

fighting the Zulus in Africa was probably the last time that a general could look to past battles for strategies and tactics

WWI generals weren't really prepared for the way that war changed and many took a long time getting used to the fact that they couldn't use cavalry in the ways it had previously been used.

WW2 came along and trench warfare was no longer the fashion

you know what?
**** it
I just wanted the functionality added to make this game a bit more fun as it is heroic fiction (whether based in reality or not) and there are duels and civilian encounters where it would  be more fun to use an offhand weapon rather than a shield.

I even said that it would better if the functionality was added as a dynamic shield so that modders could add the offhand weapons (seax, dagger, knife, short sword, falchion, hand axe) and then we would have proper shields with and bucklers would also be worth adding.

but you are correct, this game is far more realistic and historically accurate with people spinning round with 2 handed swords or using throwing knives on the battlefield.

I'm done with this thread now
I only really bother with off topic nowadays anyway as I haven't played M&B for several months now and unless it gets a better campaign mode, I doubt I'll ever bother again.

PM me if you want that bout though, I am still up for it, although I am out of practice and unfit.
if you would be kind enough to supply weapons, I would like a sword and a langsax (perhaps you could bring a case so I could choose one with a balance I like)

it is only in America's eyes that communism is so bad.
everyone else sees it as just another political ideology with pros and cons, so it probably wouldn't matter if Korea and Vietnam had stayed unified and become communist countries.
in fact the whole world apart from the US might have become communist and had a lasting peace for the last 60 odd years

well Hitler had combat experience in WWI and it didn't make him a great strategist or tactician

saying that I.33 doesn't show sword and dagger when it is a civilian manuscript means nothing in the context of the military.
Talhoffer is late Medieval and so his depiction of a dagger in the offhand is valid for showing that it was known about at that time (not hundreds of years later, or are you limiting the middle ages to the 10th and 11th centuries?)
Di Grassi wrote about a 2 weapon system known as a CASE OF RAPIERS (although this is a mistranslation and it should be known as a case of swords as in the original they are referred to as spada ) in the 16th century so "case" was known to refer to dual wielding 300 years earlier than your statement that it is a 19th century expression (even though the date of that challenge is in my quote and it is early 18th century).

you keep going on about mythical beasts in the Sagas. name the Icelandic Sagas that contain these fantasy elements.
there are no werewolves in Njal's Saga.
the Icelandic Sagas are a record of the history and blood feuds among the settlers in Iceland unlike the Legendary Sagas which do have fantasy elements.

it's getting late and I can't be bothered to reply to any more of your points, seeing as I have stated this case over and over again.
but I would rather have a bout against you rather than one of your novices as I am out of practice (comes with being unfit) and it would be much safer for both parties

1.) 1980 is relatively recent and the Vinland Sagas have only been accepted as accurate for a few decades against the centuries where they were dismissed as fantasy.
yes, wearing an animal skin and turning into that animal is fantasy, which of the Icelandic Sagas is it from?
but using a weapon in the offhand isn't impossible or fantasy yet you insist on treating it as such while saying that other Sagas are true

2.)

I, George Gray [snip] do invite James Harris to meet and exercise at the following weapons: back-sword, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, single falchion, and case of falchions.

Click to expand...

which part of that implies that a selection of falchions is to be presented to the combatants to choose from?
do all degree level historians fail at reading in context as much as you?

3.) ok so it is passive use. the figure on the right of the illustration ran onto the dagger and impaled himself. the chap in the middle just held it there for him.

4.) whatever

5.) combat in M&B isn't always massed battles (in fact most battles would be better described as skirmishes) and so whether the use of an offhand weapon was ever used on a medieval battlefield is irrelevant.
there are the ambushes in villages and towns where it would be acceptable for a lone person to use sword and dagger to defend himself against multiple opponents

6.) are you saying that because I.33 doesn't show shields we should assume that everyone had one?
I.33 is all about sword and buckler (and Talhoffer's sword and buckler style is almost identical).

7.) and I accept that spear and shield is a very good and extremely effective weapon combination for massed ranks, especially if they can hold the ground and let the enemy come to them.
that doesn't change the fact that the Icelandic Sagas (and the King's Sagas iirc) mention the use of 2 weapons.

8.) semantics. "He moves in this way, I react thus" = "He does this, so I do that " = "[third person singular] [verb] [demonstrative pronoun], [first person singular] [verb] [demonstrative pronoun]"
the tense is the same in both and either both are part of a dynamic system or neither are.

ok, but you will have to give me a bit of time to get fit again as I am supremely unfit right now.

and I have already pointed out that not everyone had a shield

1.) until L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered there was no unified acceptance of the Norse discovery of America and those sagas were thought to be fiction, although some earlier historians did suggest that the stories in those sagas were possible.

2.) with all your experience and expertise I am surprised that you do not know what a case of falchions is, especially as you claim to be familiar with Renaissance fencing styles which include case of rapiers (although in reality it should be case of swords as the original word is spada not rapier).
I have already provided a quote and a link to the source where it plainly says a case of falchions as well as single falchion. the inclusion of the word single before falchion and then the phrase case of falchions, in the context of duelling, is clear that they were to fight first with a single falchion each and then with 2 falchions each. any other interpretation of those phrases is clutching at straws.

3.) you said that Talhoffer didn't show any daggers being used in the offhand. I posted a link to a picture from Talhoffer which clearly shows that he did show the use of daggers in the offhand and that they are used offensively (as in to stab the opponent and not just for blocking).

4.) and you are wrong on both points. the skill level was pretty high (it had to be considering that we used real weapons and relied on skill to avoid injury) and we were invited to many of the large scale battles around the UK where skill and realism were high on the list for the organisers of the events.

5.) we have a knight of the realm instructing that the front row of pikemen should use sword and dagger instead of their pikes on a battlefield.

6.) so you are saying that the archers all carried shields? I think not.
the only time the shield would be of real benefit to them is when the enemy archers and crossbowmen are shooting at them and that would be the same time that they are shooting back. they would not have been able to use a shield at that time. but they did have a sword and a dagger/knife and considering the percentage of the army that they made up, they would have been expected to fight.
why is it so difficult for you to accept that someone with 2 weapons would use them when they don't have anything better to use in their offhand?

7.) you don't accept the Sagas as evidence, even though they are the only real records of actual fighting from the time period in question. but they are contemporary records that state that on more than 1 occasion people have used weapons in their offhand. swords and daggers and knives had been around for thousands of years before the Renaissance yet you think that they were only used in conjunction once people started to write things down.

8.) that is exactly what I said. you are choosing to misinterpret me.
the difference between "he does this so I do that" and "if he does this, I can do that" is semantic and neither are static.

I was with a group called Wolfguard ( a member of the Federation of Dark Age Societies with an emphasis on authenticity and living history as well as combat re-enactment)

what dual wielding (or more accurately, offhand weapons) would add the functionality for a proper shield bash as well as being able to block with either the shield or the weapon.
if a fully functional shield bash was added then modders would be able to do the offhand weapons

1) the 1980's is quite recent. I had left school by the time evidence for the Vinland Saga was found. until then it was thought to be pure fiction.
2) I posted a quote and link to the source where it plainly says case of falchions as well as single falchion.
3) the dagger shown in Talhoffer isn't passive
4) I am not just discussing theory. when I did medieval and dark age combat re-enactment, I used sword and short sword very effectively. from my personal experience, it works in practice.
5) here is a quote from Sir John Smythe's military manual with the relevant words in bold

But after all this it may be, that some very curious and not skilfull in actions of Armes, may demand what the formost rankes of this well ordered and practised squadron before mentioned shall doo after they haue giuen their aforesaid puissant blows & thrusts with their piques incase that they doo not at the first incountry ouerthrow and breake the contrary squadron of their enemies . . . they therefore must either presentlie let [their pikes] fall to the ground as vnprofitable, or else may with both their hands dart, and throw them as farre forward into & amongst the ranks of their enemies as they can, to the intent by the length of them to trouble their ranks, and presently in the twinkling of an eie or instant, must draw their short arming swordes and daggers, and giue a blow and thrust(tearmed a half reuerse, & thrust) all at, and in one time at their faces: A therewithall must presentlie in an instant, with their daggers in their left hands, thrust at the bottome of their enmeies bellies vnder the lammes of their Cuyrasses, or at any other disarmed parts.

Click to expand...

6) Historical fact shows that there were soldiers with no shields who were armed with swords and daggers in the 13th century.
the assize of arms dated 1252 lists the weapons and armour that everyone must own and the yeoman archers would have had a longbow, a sword, a dagger or knife and that is it. no shield.
they didn't carry the sword and knife for decoration, they carried them to use. there is no reason why they would not use the dagger or knife in the offhand if they didn't have a shield.
7) no, I am not switching back and forth. I have repeatedly shown evidence that there is no reason why offhand weapons shouldn't be in M&B
the I do this, you do that mindset is exactly how all the manuscripts from I.33 through Talhoffer to the later masters teach sword play.
my experience comes from many years of combat re-enactment using steel blades

the Vinland Saga was thought to have been fiction and no-one thought it was possible for Vikings to have crossed the Atlantic until quite recently.
and even if we say that the use of 2 weapons in the sagas was only for the hero in a fictional setting, that is exactly what the player in M&B is, the hero in a fictional setting (get used to it, M&B isn't Medieval Europe, it is fiction based on Medieval Europe, Scandinavia, Mongolia and the Middle East).


no, I said that Di Grassi's case of rapiers were more like swords than modern rapiers, not that swords, rapiers and falchions were interchangeable.
and I have posted links to examples of a case of falchions earlier in this thread but as you are too lazy to read all of it or use google

source"A trial of skill to be performed between two profound masters of the noble science of self-defence, on Wednesday next, the 13th of July, 1709, at two o'clock precisely. I, George Gray, born in the city of Norwich, who has fought in most parts of the West Indies—viz., Jamaica, Barbadoes, and several other parts of the world, in all twenty-five times upon the stage, and was never yet worsted, and am now lately come to London, do invite James Harris to meet and exercise at the following weapons: back-sword, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, single falchion, and case of falchions. I, James Harris, master of the said noble science of defence, who formerly rid in the Horse Guards, and hath fought 110 prizes, and never left a stage to any man, will not fail (God willing) to meet this brave and bold inviter at the time and place appointed, desiring sharp swords, and from him no favour. No person to be upon the stage but the seconds.
"Vivat Regina."

Click to expand...

note that it specifies single falchion and then case of falchions

as for the Talhoffer illustration, it clearly shows a dagger in the offhand being used to attack with.
as for it being used as a weapon switch, I have always said that the offhand weapon is for when your opponent closes in and the opportunity to strike arises and that for most of the time it would be used for blocking.

here is a quick example of how a dagger/knife/seax in the offhand would be better than a shield.
your opponent thrusts at you and you parry by sweeping his sword to your right so that it is across his body.
this allows you to attack the right side of his body with your dagger and he can't get his shield across to block it or use his sword.

with a shield, all you could do is hit him or push him and neither of those would put him out of action.

it is not historical nonsense.
historical fact shows that there were soldiers who were armed with swords and daggers/knives but who didn't have shields.
English longbowmen didn't have shields but by Royal command were expected to have swords AND knives/daggers.
when they had used up their arrows and joined in the hand to hand fighting, did they use the sword on its own or did they have the dagger in their offhand?
as this would be during a stage in the battle when the majority of missile weapons were exhausted, a shield would not be so important and in hand to hand fighting, 2 weapons aren't at that much of a defensive disadvantage to sword and shield and you have more opportunities to incapacitate your opponent.

sir John Smythe trained his pikemen in a way that the front rank would drop their pikes and use sword and dagger after the initial contact with the enemy.

ancalimon said:

First of all, there is no Turkish back then. It's like saying that England, France, Spain, Holland etc were created by Americans.  I'm saying the opposite: "America was created by Europeans" & "Europe was created by Turks". The word "Turk" was created later. They simply were not called Turks. I define them as "Turks" because it makes things easy to understand for you. It's the language, and the deep culture within itself that gave fruit to civilization.

Also, I can not talk about why they went to America. They must have had a pretty good reason.

Click to expand...

make up your mind
"they were Turks but they weren't called Turks but they were Turks but there weren't any Turks but everyone was a Turk and the Turks conquered and tamed the ones who weren't."

if this is you defining things so that we can understand, drop the patronising attitude and give us the straight talk.
if they weren't called Turks, tell us what they were called and we might take you seriously.
are you keeping it from us because we have heard about Sumerians and Babylonians, etc and know that they weren't Turks and that all this is complete bull****?

and was your lecturer one of those who had to rethink his opinion of the "fanciful" nature of the Sagas when it turned out that some of those Scandinavians had actually reached the coast of the Americas?

using an offhand weapon might not have been the way to arm everyone on a battlefield, but for a hero (and your character in M&B is a hero) there are times when it is appropriate and there are definitely circumstances in M&B where having 2 weapons would be better than 1 single weapon or a hand weapon and shield

a case of falchions is the same as a case of rapiers, only using falchions instead of swords (as you are probably aware, Di Grassi's rapiers were more like swords than modern rapiers)

there is mention of duelling with a case of falchions in several challenges issued in England between Masters of the Noble Science of Defence and also a case of falchions being left in a will.

these are dated in the Renaissance, but it doesn't change the fact that rapier and dagger wasn't the only 2 weapon system.

as for Talhoffer, look at page 240 to see someone holding a dagger behind a buckler and using it to stab an opponent.

so Talhoffer does have offhand weapons.

AND NOW TO THE POINT YOU HAVE MISSED

if you had read everything you would have seen that all I have actually asked for is that the shield bash is incorporated in such a way that it isn't just the kick with a different animation but is dynamic and allows for both the shield and sword to be used to block and also attack, allowing bucklers to be properly used and giving modders the necessary code to add in offhand weapons in a balanced way.

this is something that would enhance native and make combat even more realistic

so this isn't about Buddhist monks protesting then?

Harry's Game was a mini-series about the IRA
well worth a watch

Amagic said:

What about the tribes who moved to America about 40000 years ago from Russia?

Click to expand...

I've heard of them

they were Turkic

Roman Gladiators were used in battles
in AD69, Otho had 2000 Gladiators in his army (mainly as an act of desperation, but they were used)

you are confusing the Icelandic Sagas with Norse Sagas in general
the Icelandic Sagas focused on history, especially genealogical and family history. They reflect the struggle and conflict that arose within the societies of the second and third generations of Icelandic settlers.

yes there were other sagas that were more for entertainment, but that is like saying that the reference section of a library is all made up because they also have a fiction section.

Florentine wasn't the only form of 2 weapon fighting and the main gauche wasn't the only offhand weapon.
2 weapon systems include paired swords, paired rapiers, paired falchions and also various types of sword paired with daggers.

Devil Keyz said:

Blackthorn said:

Devil Keyz said:

lol @ people saying IRL you can't use two weapons properly.. its funny because usaly if ur right handed ur left hand is usually more powerful..

the fact is dual wielding ISN'T hollywood, its very possible but realistically, would take a long long LONG time to master, people are saying " its not medieval " or whatever but this game has norse armour/weapons and norse where much earlier..

i think

Click to expand...

Actually, I've been wielding swords since I was nine. I'm now 25. Sixteen years of experience, as well as muscles specifically developed to bear shields, swords, maces, etc. etc. means I'm not speaking as 'theory'- I'm speaking reality.

Click to expand...

but thats just you, i've seen people use two swords no sweat. and norse did use two weapons, but the offhand axe was for hookin' things

and yes, if ur right handed ur left hand is usally always stronger - i learned that in boxing.

Click to expand...

no, the offhand is often quicker, but not more powerful
that is why a right handed boxer jabs with his left hand and delivers the knockout punches with his right hand

NicotiN said:

Dual is only for fictional purpose.....a nice example is the game Age of Mythology.
There no trop from egyptians, nords or greeks used duel weapon, ony in the add on atlanteans troops used dual.....fictional warriors....and they were called fanatics) and some myth wepaons used dual.
Another nice example is the spartan warrior, they used a big shield combined with a sword or spear and were the best of their times.
I don't think samurais used duals weapon in battles because in a battle the army with the best combined arms always wins...so archers, spearman, have infantery, light infantery, skirmishers etc. Alexander the great had a nice combined army.
And in game 2 weapons would just be stupid, with a heavy armor no one would wield 2 lighter weapons, they would use a nice big sword or axe
Not to mention archers and knights, they would just slice dual wielders.
No point for dual wielders since a longer weapon is beter.
Maybe a samurai companion) but there is absolutley no use for dual wielders, especially since an amry of them is imposibile to train

Click to expand...

now read the thread
there were Roman Gladiators who used 2 swords.
in the Icelandic Sagas there are references to the use of short swords and axes being used in the left hand in combination with other weapons in the right.
during the late Medieval/early Renaissance we see systems of sword fighting that use 2 swords, sword and dagger, etc

also, the Medieval archers in England were armed with bows, swords and daggers. I find it likely that once the fighting got to a stage where the archers were no longer being used as missile troops, they would put down their bows and use the sword and dagger (they didn't have shields so they had nothing better to do with their left hands).

offhand weapons have been used throughout history, they are not an invention of fantasy writers. they existed and were used.

many people believe that the reason there was no problem with Y2k was that for the years leading up to it old chips with 2 digit dates were replaced in the systems that would have gone tits up.

the problem was that no-one knew what would happen to those systems. there was no precedent.
so when the problem was discovered, people took steps to prevent it and, seeing as how the world didn't end, those measures were successful.

other problems didn't have world ending potential, but automatic billing systems would print the date on invoices by already having the 19 as part of the code and just adding the last 2 digits to it.

this would have meant that millions of invoices could have been contested as they would have been charging customers who weren't alive at t he time the invoice was dated.
would you pay a bill charging you for services in the 1900's?