Taleworlds is doing it wrong.

Users who are viewing this thread

The_Freeman said:
The "cleaving the horse and horseman in two" is familiar, and I'm pretty sure it is a myth about a very specific knight renewed for his great strength, so really it's something that you shouldn't apply to all, it's probably not true even for the one the myth is based on.

What about the Viking who single handedly killed 25 Saxons and slowed the entire advance at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. I love that one  :mrgreen:

Aetius said:
In relation to tiring from swinging a sword for hours, knights, if we are to focus on them, trained from the time they were a child. All knights ever did was fight. Their role in feudal society was officially 'those who fight.' They trained in the use of swords, lances, maces, hafted-axes, bows and also practiced wrestling.

I agree. An example is the Battle of Marchfeld, 1272, in which the heavily armoured Bohemian knights fought for 3 hours, before being out flanked by fresh Hungarian cavalry and overcome.
 
Aye:

Anglo-Saxon chronicle said:
But there was one of the Norwegians who withstood the English folk, so that they could not pass over the bridge, nor complete the victory.  An Englishman aimed at him with a javelin, but it availed nothing.  Then came another under the bridge, who pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail.

Don't know where the 25 came from though.

I thought the "horses cloven in two" thing was in reference to the housecarls at Hastings with their Dane axes. I've read it several times on the net, but I never did find a source. :???:
 
The average person was much stronger back then.
No.

The average person back then got sick frequently, had a diet deficient in a lot of basic vitamins and minerals, etc.

Even the average warrior, when compared to a professional athlete today, would look scrawny, underfed, and weak.

If you're in any serious doubts, go look at American Football players from the 1950s, vs. players now.  It's like night and day. 

Modern nutrition, better understanding of the body, weight training, etc., make the the people who would have been warriors today far more fit than the men of the day.  That, and considerably heavier and taller.

In relation to tiring from swinging a sword for hours, knights, if we are to focus on them, trained from the time they were a child. All knights ever did was fight.
That is incorrect.  What most knights did was play landlord and work on their small-holdings, so they could afford the gear that made them a knight and keep their fief and social status.  Only a smallish percentage of knights would have been wealthy enough to train daily, let alone at the level of a modern athlete. 

The average training of a knight of prime fighting age (14-30 or so, back then) would probably be about the equivalent of today's National Guard here in the U.S.- basic training, some training on weekends, a refresher for a week now and then.  They weren't like elite soldiers today (SEALS, for example), who train constantly because that is their sole function, besides making war.  The concept that the raison etre of a knight was to make war is largely a misunderstanding of their role in the feudal system.  Were they better-trained than commoners?  Yes.  Were they super-elite warriors?  For the most part, no.

The claim of only existing to make war, advanced by the feudal lords (that they existed to protect the common people, and so on), was mainly a bunch of cynical humbug, IRL.  The knights were land-owners who explicitly forbade the commoners to keep weapons, kept them in conditions scarcely different from slavery, and generally they weren't "nice people", by modern standards.  There is a reason why practically everywhere in Europe revolted against the feudal system the minute that the balance of armed power rested in the hands of the commoners, and it wasn't because the commoners were happy with feudalism.

As for cleaving through horses... in theory, yeah, you can cut through a horse with a sword, like those YouTube videos showing "sword tests" vs. carcasses. 

The reality was a bit different.  The horse is moving, the horse may be armored, and the horse doesn't want you to kill it.  And a frightened warhorse is a very dangerous animal.  I seriously think that you haven't ever been near a real horse, tbh- if you had, you would not presume that killing one would be easy.

Cleaving through armor... no.  Not even slightly.  Knights may have very well chopped off limbs or heads of armored men, striking the weak points with a strong and lucky blow.  Although even there, I find that rather hard to believe- even chainmail with padding underneath would have been very resistant to cutting, and most of the tissue damage would be blunt trauma injuries- broken bones.

But the vast majority of kills, IRL, were from penetrating wounds.  Stabs, not slashes.  It's not romantic, but it's how most people died.
 
Draw weight for a warbow ranged anywhere from 60-100 pounds.  Average, IIRC, was about 75-80 pounds.  Not fun if you aren't in decent shape, but not super-human.

That said, they were using a very different draw technique than a modern archer- they literally threw their body weight backwards to draw, and were aiming high-angle most of the time, which this game engine doesn't deal with at all atm.  It's not as hard to do it that way, but it's less accurate.

 
Mongol bows had some 165 pound draw. But is is quite a well known fact that English longbowmen, for example, had over developed arms which drew the bow.
 
Mongol bows had some 165 pound draw
Source please?  I've never read anything like that- the typical draw-weight for Mongol bows was maybe 60-70 pounds, if that.  These are bows you use on horseback, firing lighter arrows than European war bows did- the Eastern tradition was on distance, not on throw-weight.

And yes, the longbowmen ended up a bit lopsided.  They weren't muscular giants by today's standards, though.
 
Weren't Mongolians horse archers? If so their bow were not 165 pounds. When I got my Hungarian horse bow I saw somewhere that the average draw weight for horse archers was about 45 pounds, due to the riding difficulty. This isn't really proof, but I can 100% guarantee a typical Mongolian horse archer is not drawing 165 lbs.

xenoargh said:
Draw weight for a warbow ranged anywhere from 60-100 pounds.  Average, IIRC, was about 75-80 pounds.  Not fun if you aren't in decent shape, but not super-human.

That said, they were using a very different draw technique than a modern archer- they literally threw their body weight backwards to draw, and were aiming high-angle most of the time, which this game engine doesn't deal with at all atm.  It's not as hard to do it that way, but it's less accurate.
This is all true, I throw my weight back too a bit, It helps maintain good form even if your using a lighter bow.
 
Gumpy said:
I thought the "horses cloven in two" thing was in reference to the housecarls at Hastings with their Dane axes. I've read it several times on the net, but I never did find a source. :???:

Same. Those buggers can cut like monsters, but I'm not sure if they're really capable of cutting through horses in one stroke. The axehead isn't nearly large enough for that. :lol:

xenoargh said:
As for cleaving through horses... in theory, yeah, you can cut through a horse with a sword, like those YouTube videos showing "sword tests" vs. carcasses. 

They usually remove the innards before cutting through the carcass though.
 
"Fatigue bar" could be introduced after 3 consecutive swings, slowing you down unless you stop for 1 or 2 seconds letting the stamina filling the fatigue bar... but anyway... Would be cool to introduce the limping if you're almost dead... would increase the team playing trying to protect the injured ones :razz:
 
Seawied86 said:
I'm going to disagree with you Omzdog. The average person was much stronger back then. You can site weight rooms and advances in understanding the human anatomy to make it easier to get stronger, but bare in mind for the simple day to day things we take for granted was a huge chore.

Take a bath for instance. In order to take a bath, one would need to haul the water themselves (or get a slave/servant to do it) and physically fill up the tub to the desired level. Today, you just turn a nob.

Staying warm: Today we just press a button and wait for the furance to heat up the house for us. Back then you had to chop the wood, carry it to the house and start the fire yourself.

Additionally, right now we have an obesity crisis in America, where 1 out of 4 Americans is so sloth ridden that he or she is morbidly obese. You don't just become obese from eating too much alone. Its the lack of exercise which really does a person in. On top of this, most of the day people spend sitting in chairs and doing technical or managerial style jobs. Back then it was all labor.
Oh yes of course, but the obese people will not be in war. They would not be swinging swords back then. I'm considering soldiers of Medieval ages to those of today, additionally the today's athletes to the nobles of then. In all regard, the modern counterparts are most definitely stronger.

Yes of course labor was much more intensive back then, but strength training was almost considered a leisure activity for people with the most free time and servants to do their daily work. Today this is not the case. Additionally, look at the world records that get broken each year. People get faster and stronger with each record. Given the chance, I think the ideal medieval warrior could be made from a majority of the athletes and competitors of today. Basically, I'm saying you can have an army of our ancestors and I'll take an army of modern people and we'll go at it. I think I would win.
 
Comrade Me said:
Mongol bows had some 165 pound draw. But is is quite a well known fact that English longbowmen, for example, had over developed arms which drew the bow.

Depending on the kind of exercise you perform, your bones will warp and certain muscles will develop more than others. It is even possible to tell what kind of work Neolithic farmers performed from the way their bones are warped by the development of the muscles. Same with a bowman, a miner, a lumberjack or any other profession involving physical exercise. That is not to say that either of these figures, while certainly strong men, were The Incredible Hulk.

But then again, when talking about over-hyped historical stereotypes I should have said "ninja, samurai, spartan... and longbowman".
 
George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia (1953)

Sorry, I phrased it badly. I didn't mean that your average Mongol composite bow had a 160 draw weight, but rather that some did.
 
King Harkinian said:
I love how everybody thinks his skewed, 21st-century perception of what is "real" constitutes "realism".

best hing I ever read in a game forum concerning a medieval type combat game. been thinking this for years.
 
"3kg is a lot to swingaround. You make the test, get a metal piece with the right length and weight, swing it a few times, then tell me if you didn't get tired? Soldier or not."

I chuckled to myself when I read that.Itss clear you are very out of shape from your statement. First off modern soldiers.. SAS for example carry up to 80 kilo's on their back and will march day in and day out on low rations and next to no water. Some carry fully automatic 200-300 bullet magazines,weighing well over 3kg.

Its amazing what the human body can endure when a life time of training is applied. These men wielding swords were often bred for the purpose. From childhood they would be immersed in training and learn skills that apply directly to combat.

So tie that in with the adrenalin you would get from knowing you are on the edge of death...Facing off against people trying to cleave your face apart or hack off your arm. Chances are you will not tire for some time...because when you tire unless you are replaced, you will die.

I've been training with a longsword for several years now and have become so used to it I can barely notice it's weight.

 
Comrade Temuzu said:
Nice job dodging all the answers regarding the 2h "issue". Im with Arch in this one, people were stronger back then.

That doesn't really change that fact that people didn't use two handers in battle. If you look at all the most powerful armies they pretty much just use sword and shield or spears and shields. Only a complete idiot would go into battle without a shield.

Personally I think the game Severance had the most realistic combat system to date even if the directional attacks and blocks make M&B combat more fun.

ps. I am not even saying the game needs to change but people that argue for two handed weapons could at least not try to make it sound like two handers were common place back then.
 
On the matter of 2handers, In medieval times most knights were taken at between the of 6 and 10 to become knights/warriors, they would lug around armor and weapons for there master until a certain age
and by the age of 17 could easily wear a full suit of armor, a 2 hander a shield on there back and a short sword at their side and not think twice, (although most knights didn't carry that much gear with them at all times, Atleast i don't think they would)
when you train from the age of say 8 I'd say in 10 or 20 years you could easily carry armor and weapons without even thinking twice.

Krogan said:
Comrade Temuzu said:
Nice job dodging all the answers regarding the 2h "issue". Im with Arch in this one, people were stronger back then.

That doesn't really change that fact that people didn't use two handers in battle. If you look at all the most powerful armies they pretty much just use sword and shield or spears and shields. Only a complete idiot would go into battle without a shield.

Personally I think the game Severance had the most realistic combat system to date even if the directional attacks and blocks make M&B combat more fun.

ps. I am not even saying the game needs to change but people that argue for two handed weapons could at least not try to make it sound like two handers were common place back then.
When you wear full plate armor theres not much point in having a shield, the fact is that plate armor wouldn't break unless under extreme strain or if they got hit in a good place, most injuries whilst wearing plate armor and some other armors. Was mostly bruising because they would get hit so hard the armor would move and hit them, transferring the blow onto them. Or mail for instance would just glance off sword blocws but would tranfer the power of the blow, most of the time you would get sever bruising and/or grazing but cuts would hardly pierce the mail, unless using a spear or thrusting with a sword.
 
Back
Top Bottom