Weapons, weapon balance and armour

[Copy_con]

Hi and thanks for a really great game that (even as it is now) was worth every single dollar!

The medieval setting is GREAT, I've relly been looking forward to a game that do a real medieval game with no silly "ring of whatever you want" and fireball spells.

One more thing that I like is the levelling. You do not end up as übergod of the universe that can take a thousand hits from a longblade. But I have a suggestion on this anyway:


When the weapons were invented there was always a reason to WHY they were invented, the same with armours.

People did'nt use warhammers just because they look cool, they used them to penetrate the heavier kinds of armours.
The broad swords "heavieness" was a result of the thicker chainmails warriors begun to use in the early "high middle ages"
All weapon development were (and are) based on action reaction.
If you build a tank I build an AT-launcher and so on.

I think this should be reflected in the game, so that different weapon types effectiveness are dependent on the enemys armour.

As it is now armour is just a value. A suggest making them into 3-6 classes or just make so they absorb the different kinds of damage in different ways.

 

[BarbarossaDSS]

The action - reaction it’s a good model for view much of the advances in military technology.

In terms of the medieval settings it’s interesting because a great deal of knowledge about why they did what they did has been lost. Many of these subtleties require you to practice with the weapon or armor to see its strengths and weakness.

Then again once you add more people into the fray, things change. For example if a man has a knife and he has to fight a man with a spear, who will win? On paper most likely the knife will. But if one hundred men had knives, against another hundred with spears, then who? I would put money on the spears.

Now how the go about designing the action – reaction weapons could be handled simply in the rock, paper, and scissors way. Very linear and straight forward. Pikes beat horses, swordsmen beat pikes for example. But already in the game we know we can kill horsemen with swords and arrows through tactics, luck, and skill.

I encourage this way of design and hope to see more unique weapons, like the Two-Handed Flamberge for cutting off the tips of pikes would be need to see.

 

[Copy_con]

I think flamberge swords are a little anacronistic. I only want to see weapons fitting for this era, which sometimes is hard because people often mix up weapons that wasn't even used in the same century.

This is the "problem" in many fantasy games, they have weapons ranging from 500 A.D. to 1700 A.D. but in an 1200 A.D. setting

 

[BarbarossaDSS]

This is the "problem" in many fantasy games, they have weapons ranging from 500 A.D. to 1700 A.D. but in an 1200 A.D. setting

Well the Flamberge was around in the 15th and 17th centuries but the great thing about fantasy games is you can make up you own history.

On a side note of technology being interjected into wrong times just look at Starship Troopers (the movies) 21st Century weapons.... 17th century tactics... heh.

 

[maw]

if a heavily armored knight was knocked off his horse in real life, he remained on his back until someone helped him or a guy wearing tattered cloth cut his thrat with a knife. circumstances dictate success: rock may beat scissors unless i have one of my arms wrapped around Rock's throat from behindand i stab him repeatedly with my scissors .

i think all will agree no weapon dominated in every terrain, every environment, every era, against every enemy. try shooting a bow when the string is soaking wet or wear your full plate fighting in a swamp or chase after that damn scythian who fires an infinite number of arrows as he rides away. more importantly, cultural influences, terrain of origination, historical successes, and natural resources often dictated the types of weapons, armor and tactics with which a person became proficient.

sounds like copy-con will be wanting to tweak his game with a mod. maw

 

[Copy_con]

No! I don't want a mod, I want the game to be as good as possible without any.

Cultural influences has been taken care of (in game) since there is only weapons that has been used in medieval european warfare. I see no katanas, thank god I see no katanas!

But you mentioned natural resources which makes me think about Englands export with longbows to the Flanders. And that it would be nice to include this aspects in the game.

Think about disrupting all of the enemys weapon imports, and actually see this in game. That would be nice in a dynamic world like the one in M&B

 

[quixotecoyote]

Given the eastern khergits, I'm not too concerned about staying euro-centric.

 

[Damien]

At the risk of turning this into another thread about history...



1.) Medieval warfare was not the arms race that modern warfare is often thought of as. Weapons sort of developed independantly and were used in varying degrees for varying reasons. Swords didn't become 'heavier' to combat mail armour. Swords didn't become longer strictly because it made them more effective at combating armour.

Crossbows didn't become stronger specifically to pierce armour. Etc etc.

It's not as simple as all that and it's faulty to think it should be.


2.) I've already stated, in another thread, why armour vs. damage type as a variant simply does not make any logical sense and how utterly flawed it is. I would like to see each weapon have its own armour penetration rating, but I imagine that might be too complex to code.


3.) Flamberge is a blade style -- as a flame, wavy. I imagine most people here know that.. but some people do think that 'the flamberge' is actually a kind of sword. It is not.


4.) Two-handed swords were never used to cut the heads from pikes. That's a gross misrepresentation of that particular tactic. The tactic as it is laid out in history is thus: Two-hand swordsmen charge forward and use the length and weight of their weapons, in a strong swing, to knock aside the pikes that are pointed at them, they strike a few men dead and then retreat to allow cavalry to rush in and attack the pikemen before they can reform.

It is simply improbable that a sword can cut through a thick piece of wood (especially one that has the ability to move with the blow). And if it is intrinsically improbable, it is certainly not a good idea to rely on it as a tactic. No, cutting pike-heads off with swords did not happen.


5.) There's nothing wrong with anachronistic items in the game. Think about it -- M&B features a multitude of weapon and armour combinations that make no sense.

Plate armour as shown in M&B was an EXTREMELY late medieval invention. Yet, somehow, M&B does not have visored bascinets and other visored helms which were common two hundred years before the full plate harness shows up in history.

M&B does not have guns. However, guns were being used frequently on battlefields during the same time plate armour was being worn. Guns made their first appearances on battlefields well before the complete harness of plate was worn on that same battlefield.

This game is already very mixed up in terms of what existed together and what did not. We have things we shouldn't have.. or we don't have things that we should have.


Personally, I don't care. But I'm just pointing out that saying you only want weapons from 'this' era is flawed, since the weapons and armour in M&B span many eras already.

Hell, in M&B you can't even get a normal mail hauberk with wrist-length sleeves - a development that showed up hundreds upon hundreds of years before plate armour, and continued in use during the era of plate.


6.) A heavily armoured knight was not a damn turtle, and did NOT require "help" to get up if knocked onto his back. A physically fit man (which all men-at-arms would have been) can do cartwheels and most other exercises while wearing his plate harness. The idea that a knight was prone if he fell is not only a myth, it's an extremely stupid one.


7.) The game certainly does include items outside of medieval European warfare. Medieval Europeans did not use scimitars, steel shields, recurve short bows, and a bunch of other things in M&B which are quite clearly of Near-Eastern inspiration.

Just because there are no katana in M&B ('katana' is both singular and plural) does not mean the game is Eurocentric.

 

[Brewtality]

if a heavily armored knight was knocked off his horse in real life, he remained on his back until someone helped him or a guy wearing tattered cloth cut his thrat with a knife.

i am in no way sure what these armors weighed, but i can imagine it's not as heavy as the regular "fat suit"
and normal mortal people can move in a "fat suit"

Full plate armors where not made so all the weight came on the shoulders, like chain mail, and where not especially thick metal plates.
strappings inside made sure more or less the whole body carried the weight of the armor rather than just the shoulders.


the shape of the plates made it strong versus blows (notice external metal hats on chimney's usually have a X across the plate if looking closely, it's there to avoid the metal to bash against the brick chimney in the wind and make terrible noise) wich is somewhat the same technique metal plates where bent and shaped when making a plate mail.

ps. the X thingy is really hard to explain with my limited english... if someone english speaking ppl know what i mean pls feel free to explain it better

 

[Copy_con]

To Damien

1.) "It's not as simple as all that and it's faulty to think it should be."

It may be more complex than that, but the logic is not wrong. Most studies I've seen on medieval weapons and texts proves that it worked this way, and it MUST work that way, because thats the only way you could succed in a war.

2.) Here it seems like we agreee


3.) True, and from what I've heard (and I dont know if its true) this kind of blades were used to get a better "grip" on enemy weapins so they wouldn't slide.


4.) True, and it was considered to be the most dangerous "job" for and infantry soldier, so they got double salary. They were called doppel söldner, in the german mercenary armies. And the kinds of swords the doppel söldner used were BIG. And they came in use first in late 1400 if I remember correct.

5.) True about the plate armour. I didn't play long enough yesterday to see them "in action", and see if they were true 1500 plate, so I cant tell.
But considering the rest of the weapons I think most of them existed early 1300.

6.) "A physically fit man (which all men-at-arms would have been) can do cartwheels and most other exercises while wearing his plate harness."

This is only true for thin light weight armours, often used for parades.

"The idea that a knight was prone if he fell is not only a myth, it's an extremely stupid one."

Well, try to wear a padded armour combined with a full chainmail and over that, a full plate. When you wear this, let me push you and see how long it takes for you to get up
I don't hesitate that you'll get up after a while, but your not agile as an acrobat, actually your not agile at all.


7.) True, but they were used in Europe, by saracens under Abbasid, mongolian riders and the turks.

 

[Ilex]

Well, try to wear a padded armour combined with a full chainmail and over that, a full plate.

Why the chainmail? For the extra weight?

 

[Copy_con]

Well, try to wear a padded armour combined with a full chainmail and over that, a full plate.

Why the chainmail? For the extra weight?

In the earlier years of full plate, the end on 1400 that must be, they used (from what I know) armours in layers.

 

[maw]

hey... as drunk as i get, i am correct in regards to plate/full plate armor and its effect on the wearer should they lose their footing or fall from a horse.

full plate/gothic/elizabethean armors weighed between 90 and 140 lbs, restricting movement and causing the severe encumberment as well as dragging him down in exhaustion. a fall to the ground took you out of the fight - cause the vast majority coiuld not get up on their own. a fall from a horse could knock yourself out.

when in battle, if a fully armored enemy was knocked down, he was then ignored, cause he couldn't get up. thus one of your more mobile followers would slit his throat as he lay there, or he was stripped of his armor and ransomed. regardless of what you interpret, this is how its reported by period writers... no offense.

i studied this crap in a medieval history course and became interested in the design, building, economics, availability, advantages and limitations of armor and weapons during the periods AD300 to AD1200 - essentially from the last bit of Rome to the fall of Byzantium, and a bit on euro/brit history from 1200 to 1600's..... facts like requiring a really talented armorer/smithy/clothier/leatherworker taking more than 300 workDAYS of labor and requiring a crap load of wood to burn and metal to work, none of which was cheap. todays value of labor and resources would be over USD$1 million todays money for a full plate, equitably adjusted.

a steep pyrimid of availability restricted armors. around 5000:1 ratio of cloth:full plate is estimated, most popular armors being quilted, treated leather, leather reinforced additional leather, wood or metal strips. next levels of complexity and expense were ring, coin, chain. next levels were scale and metal splint. the final level of quality, defence, and protection (requiring huge money and talent) were the full and half carapace (hard armor often worn for comfort strictly hip to neck, covering torso) and then all the extras added till you eventually weigh 100+lbs, move like the rusted tin-man from oz, and can't see or hear a damn thing. there was a reason you'd throw up your visor, get into a line with your horse, close the visor and charge with a crowd of like-armored me. cause ya couldn't see, hear, or smell a damn thing once the swinging started. fighting on foort, you ditched some of your armor so you could move easier and see better, usually the helm and greaves were ditched first.

metal was generally rounded and polished so that atting weapons 'slipped' off and couldn't grab. flat or intricate armor caught a sword or mace blow and could 'dig in' to the armor. weight was distributed differently, but overall the armor was abnormally heavy. different plate had different thicknesses (some as thick as 3/4" on the breast). but that was based on location made and what the wearer or armorer thot was best (or available). if you've worn a 60 lb backpack on a hike, or a 45 lb kevlar plate flack vest, your prolly feeling a bit like a a knight wearing just his carapace.

padding under metal was used to reduce the transfer of energy from blunt weapons. if you slammed someone in armor, the energy transferred to the body beneath it. padding was used to negate this, at the expense of additional weight and retaining body heat. modern day padding for american football players, and web support for military helmets are based on this principle - that shock is transferred to a flexible medium that eliminates most of the blow. this was another reason for padding under helmet, as well as long hair or a thick cloth which would be wrapped around your head to further cushion the head.

and in full plate, the wearer was a well armored turtle. one that if flipped on his back would have extreme difficulty getting back up on his own. not impossible - but more difficult after fighting for 15 minutes, swinging a 15 to 20 lb weapon, lugging about a big-ass shield, and having all your body heat remain trapped in your suit. they just didn't bounce to their feat like Svetlana Khorkina.

ta be straight, i started off pissed writing this, as Damien was a bit blunt in slapping me down. yes, there be many armors, and a lot of wearers pieced them out to their tastes. but full armor/full plate was distinctive. it made the very wealthy nobility a god-like tank back then, and the horse was required for effectiveness and survival while wearing it in melee. i've worn precise replica's of armor and helms, hefted accurate copies of period weapons, and they ain't light. back then i'd've gone into farming instead.

anyhow, every thing i address can be validated in a couple hours searching and reading thru google or altavista by better qualified people than me. couple of sites i found are:

(great example of putting on armor alone)
http://www.paladin-online.com/thekeep/ArmingPages/armingpage.htm

http://www.armourarchive.org/essays/essay__craig_armorchoices.shtml

an i aint even close to stupid. maw

 

[Damien]

3.) True, and from what I've heard (and I dont know if its true) this kind of blades were used to get a better "grip" on enemy weapins so they wouldn't slide.

No.. those blades were used because they looked impressive. That's all. It actually started with parade swords and graduated to combat blades from there.

But considering the rest of the weapons I think most of them existed early 1300.

Most weapons that would be found in any 1500s medieval game existed in 1300, so that's not saying much. After 1300 most 'new' weapons were simply very basic variations on design and purpose that wouldn't show up too well in game - like swords having prominent central ridges rather than fullers. Things like that.

This is only true for thin light weight armours, often used for parades.

First of all.. you have that backwards. Field-use plate armour was thinner and lighter-weight than the parade armour (which was not only thicker, but was often decorated to a ridiculous extreme).

And secondly.. neither type would cause the wearer to become prone if he fell.

Well, try to wear a padded armour combined with a full chainmail and over that, a full plate. When you wear this, let me push you and see how long it takes for you to get up

I wouldn't be dumb enough to wear mail beneath a total plate harness. Why would I do that?

Mail was not worn under true 'full' plate, and in even the earlier plate armours it was only a reinforcement in some areas, not a complete under-garment.

So how would I get up if you pushed me down while I was wearing an arming coat and plate? Just fine. Standing up from a prone position while wearing plate is extremely easy to do. Armour is like a second skin, not a giant bulky object keeping you from moving properly. That's a myth.

True, but they were used in Europe, by saracens under Abbasid, mongolian riders and the turks.

You mean they were used in the near-East and Saracen-controlled parts of Spain. That's different from scimitars being a European item.


------------------------------------------

i am correct in regards to plate/full plate armor and its effect on the wearer should they lose their footing or fall from a horse.

To be frank, and I mean no offense, no.. you're not. All you've done is regurgitate myths that, while prevalent in our society, are totally without merit.

full plate/gothic/elizabethean armors weighed between 90 and 140 lbs, restricting movement and causing the severe encumberment as well as dragging him down in exhaustion.

No. A plate harness weighed between 60-100 pounds and did not restrict movement at all. That was the entire point of it -- to protect you as well as possible without limiting mobility, which is very important to a fighting man.

This 'severe encumberance' thing is a D&Dism. It's simply not true and there is no authoritive source anywhere that claims that it is.

a fall to the ground took you out of the fight - cause the vast majority coiuld not get up on their own. a fall from a horse could knock yourself out.

Again.. no. The weight of the armour had nothing to do with a man not being able to rise in this situation. An unarmoured man actually has less of a chance of getting up when thrown from a horse than an armoured man, who is at least somewhat cushioned when he falls.

Being knocked unconscious or having the wind pushed from your lungs after being thrown to the ground from the back of a horse as tall as you are has nothing to do with armour.

when in battle, if a fully armored enemy was knocked down, he was then ignored, cause he couldn't get up.

That's ludicrous. If you ignore a knight just because he fell over.. you're going to get spinal surgery from the point of a sword as he quickly stands up and stabs you to death.

thus one of your more mobile followers would slit his throat as he lay there, or he was stripped of his armor and ransomed. regardless of what you interpret, this is how its reported by period writers... no offense.

No offense to you either, friend, but you're severely misrepresenting the period accounts.

ARMOUR was not responsible for what you're describing. Other soldiers beating the knight into unconsciousness and other such things are responsible for that. A knight falling over was nothing. He'd get back up. The reason some didn't get back up was when they weren't conscious, they had broken bones, or had otherwise been injured.

Armour will not keep you from rising quickly. Injuries keep you from rising.

i studied this crap in a medieval history course

First of all, show some respect. This is not 'crap.' Secondly, I've been studying military history for a decade. I have read hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of books on the subject of medieval arms and armour alone. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a layman to this topic.

Rather, you seem to be the layman, simply vomiting out myth after myth. Again, no offense.

a steep pyrimid of availability restricted armors. around 5000:1 ratio of cloth:full plate is estimated, most popular armors being quilted, treated leather, leather reinforced additional leather, wood or metal strips.

Actually, according to the period accounts and inventories, the most 'popular' armour was mail, which was worn by lowly soldiers and men-at-arms alike.

Leather was actually a very rare kind of armour, as it presented virtually no advantages over a quilted gambeson, but was harder to produce.


Also I don't even know why you mention 'coin' armour -- which was solely a parade item.

were the full and half carapace

The word most of us use is cuirass. Or plate cuirass (for those people that consider any kind of torso armour a cuirass).

and then all the extras added till you eventually weigh 100+lbs, move like the rusted tin-man from oz, and can't see or hear a damn thing.

Ridiculous. A man wearing a full harness of plate could move as quickly as anyone else on the field, and sight and sound were hampered by HELMETS, but not considerably. It may be difficult to hear, but it wasn't impossible, especially considering a medieval battle was -extremely- loud. And sight was only noticably impaired by face-covering helms, but even then it's not impossible or even extemely difficult to see.

fighting on foort, you ditched some of your armor so you could move easier and see better, usually the helm and greaves were ditched first.

Partially correct. No one willingly gave up a helmet. It's extremely important to protect your head.

Leg armour was discarded first above all things due to the fact that if you're not on a horse, having your legs struck is less likely. Regarding helmets -- what foot soldiers would often do (and sometimes mounted soldiers as well) would be to remove the visor from their bascinets, which is the piece that actually reduced visibility. Perhaps that's where you got the impression that they removed the helmet completely?

but overall the armor was abnormally heavy.

No, it was not 'abnormally heavy.'

different plate had different thicknesses (some as thick as 3/4" on the breast).

That's a misrepresentation. By the time the breast was being protected with plates up to that thickness, the rest of the body armour had been discarded as ineffective and obsolete. During the time we're talking about when a man would clad his entire body in metal -- no plates were 3/4 of an inch thick.

if you've worn a 60 lb backpack on a hike, or a 45 lb kevlar plate flack vest, your prolly feeling a bit like a a knight wearing just his carapace.

And it's worth noting that military men do this all the time and are able to move around fairly easily. And their equipment's weight is not spread evenly across the body like a knight's armour was.

padding under metal was used to reduce the transfer of energy from blunt weapons.

As well as for comfort. No one wants thin clothing as their only protection from their flesh being pinched and rubbed by metal armour.

if you slammed someone in armor, the energy transferred to the body beneath it.

That's not entirely accurate.

Armour itself will disperse much of the energy of a blow.

An arming coat not only served the purpose of comfort and cushioning, but it stopped dented armour from digging in and severely injuring the wearer. Armour, even without padding, does a very good job of dispersing the force of an attack.

as well as long hair or a thick cloth which would be wrapped around your head to further cushion the head.

Head 'wrappings' were not common in Europe -- that was an Eastern fashion that doubled as an arming cap.

As for long hair.. knights often kept their hair somewhat short (to the earlobe or so) to keep it from getting caught up in their gear. Hair certainly is not going to provide -any- cushioning unless you have an extremely thick brillo-pad kind of hair.

and in full plate, the wearer was a well armored turtle.

Myth.

one that if flipped on his back would have extreme difficulty getting back up on his own.

Myth. Not only is there no historical evidence for this ridiculous belief, but the modern evidence directly contradicts you, with plenty of people wearing period plate armour every day -PROVING- it's easy as pie to stand up from prone while wearing armour.

Simple as that.

but more difficult after fighting for 15 minutes

A person would have to be in horrible physical condition to be tired after only 15 minutes of fighting.

swinging a 15 to 20 lb weapon

...What?!

Are knights using Cloud's Buster Sword all of a sudden? No knight would be swinging a 15 pound weapon. You'd be hard-pressed to even find a 15 pound weapon. More myths.

and having all your body heat remain trapped in your suit.

All armour is vented. It's not perfect, but saying 'all your body heat is trapped in your suit' is a gross overstatement.

as Damien was a bit blunt in slapping me down.

You'll have to forgive me for that. There's only a few things in this world that I absolutely cannot tolerate. One of those things happens to be people that spread myths about military history and claim it is fact.

it made the very wealthy nobility a god-like tank back then

Myth.

i've worn precise replica's of armor and helms

I doubt it.

hefted accurate copies of period weapons

That's a blatant lie if you think medieval weapons weighed 20 pounds.

and they ain't light.

Yes, they are. Unless you have arms like a 6-year-old girl's.

anyhow, every thing i address can be validated in a couple hours searching and reading thru google or altavista by better qualified people than me. couple of sites i found are:

Oh boy.. websites. You know.. I could go -make- a website right now and fill it with "armour was actually made of medieval plastic" -- does that make it true?

Here's an idea.. try researching using actual books and REPUTABLE websites.


So rather than you and I arguing back and forth for the next week.. let's make it simple:


What are your sources? You spouted off a metric ton of the most widely laughed at and hated MYTHS of medieval history.. and claim it as fact. Now, anyone with any sense knows that you're absolutely full of it.. but here's your chance to prove you're right: State your sources.

What books can this 'information' of yours be found in?



Here are some of my sources:


-A decade of study and practical application -- having spent the last 11 years actually wearing and fighting in period-correct armour and using period-correct weaponry.

-I own 7 mail garments (byrnie, hauberk-unsleeved, hauberk-sleeved with integral coif, chausses, mittens, gloves, collar), 1 plate harness (circa 1450), 4 helmets (Norman cap style, Nordic segmented cap style, sugar loaf, bascinet with removable visor ["pig-face"]), a quilted coat, and a myriad weapons. All replicas, of course.

-In my studies I have had the distinct pleasure to handle museum pieces to test the correctness of corresponding replicas.

-I have studied with, and frequently visit with the scholars of the HACA (now ARMA -- www.thehaca.com)

And to finish off my 'source' list here is a short list of some of the books I own and have studied that support all the points I have made in this thread:

-The Crusades ~ David Nicolle
A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages ~ Sir Charles Oman
The Hundred Years' War 1337-1453 ~ Anne Curry
Arab Historians of the Crusades ~ Francesco Gabrieli
Armor from the Battle of Wisby ~ Bengt Thordeman
Campaigns of the Norman Conquest ~ Matthew Bennett
The Third Crusade 1191: Richard the Lionheart, Saladin and the struggle for Jerusalem ~ David Nicolle
Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274-1580 ~ Norman Housley
Edward, Prince of Wales and Aquitaine: A Biography of the Black Prince ~ Richard Barber
European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution ~ Oakeshott
Medieval Siege Warfare ~ Christopher Gravett
The First Crusade 1096-99: Conquest of the Holy Land ~ David Nicolle
Records of the Medieval Sword ~ Oakeshott
Poitiers 1356: The capture of a king ~ David Nicolle
Techniques of Medieval Armour Reproduction: The 14th Century ~ Brian R. Price
Teutonic Knights: A Military History ~ William Urban
The Agincourt War ~ A.H. Burne
The Armourer and His Craft ~ Charles ffoulkes
The Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the "Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Ricardi" ~ Translator - Helen Nicholson
The Conquest of Constantinople ~ Robert of Clari, Translator - Edgar Holmes
The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation ~ Peter W. Edbury
The Grecy War ~ A.H. Burne
The History of the Expedition to Jerusalem ~ Fulcher of Chartres
The Medieval Archer ~ Jim Bradbury
The Medieval Siege ~ Jim Bradbury
Towton 1461: England's Bloodiest Battle ~ Christopher Gravett
The Sword in the Age of Chivalry ~ Oakeshott
Hattin 1187: Saladin's greatest victory ~ David Nicolle
Agincourt 1415: Triumph against the odds ~ Matthew Bennett
Viking Weapons & Warfare ~ J. Kim Siddorn
Norman Knight AD 950-1204 ~ Christopher Gravett
English Medieval Knight 1300-1400 ~ Christopher Gravett
Landsknecht Soldier 1486-1560 ~ John Harald Richards
English Medieval Knight 1200-1300 ~ Christopher Gravett
English Medieval Knight 1400-1500 ~ Christopher Gravett
Italian Militiaman 1260-1392 ~ David Nicolle
English Longbowman 1330-1515 ~ Clive Bartlett
The Crusades (Elite) ~ David Nicolle
Knights at Tournament ~ Christopher Gravett
Armies of the German Peasants' War 1524-26 ~ Douglas Miller
Medieval Scandinavian Armies 1300-1500 ~ David Lindholm, David Nicolle
Byzantine Armies AD 1118-1461 ~ Ian Heath
The Venetian Empire 1200-1670 ~ David Nicolle
German Medieval Armies 1300-1500 ~ Christopher Gravett
The Scottish and Welsh Wars 1250-1400 ~ Christopher Rothero
The War of the Roses ~ Terence Wise
Armies of Medieval Burgundy 1364-1477 ~ Nicholas Michael
Italian Medieval Armies 1300-1500 ~ David Nicolle
The Armies of Agincourt ~ Christopher Rothero
The Armies of Crecy and Poitiers ~ Christopher Rothero
The Swiss at War 1300-1500 ~ Douglas Miller, Gerry Embleton


-- Also, you're welcome to come join my fellow scholars of history and I on SFI (www.swordforum.com). It's a website that encourages involved study and boasts a very large concentration of true historians, replica metallurgists, museum curators.. etc. But be careful how you approach your 'knight = turtle' theory there so you don't get laughed off the site.



And most importantly, always remember that one or two books is not enough. If it's true, it has to be agreed upon by many scholars who are up to date.





Now, I've cited my credentials and sources where you can find the information I have provided. If you would kindly do the same.. we can allow those who happen upon the thread to decide for themselves who is correct and which sources to believe.

 

[maw]

i am eating crow.

i look back at what i wrote and realized how hammered i was. then you hammered me again. boy, am i regretful. oh, well. gotta add drinking an posting along with drinking and driving as things not to do.

you are correct about the armor and weapon weights, on the other points, etc. i have some perceptions and opinions i got from being into it but ... its not worth making bad blood with anyone. your facts are the correct ones.

and i exaggerated till i looked like a dork. i willingly submit to the coup d'grace.... i think if i'd been more with it i'd look less silly. and yes, looks like some o that damn D&D crept in.... as well as greek armor.... and a good dose of biccardi. should've listed ta parents and not corrupted my innocent little mind.

i can't think of a thing that is defensible or worth debating. but yes... it looks like i am stupid. at least that time. appreciation for fixing me. maw

 

[Copy_con]

Totaly OT

maw:

About your signature:

They made that in Iraq, and I promise you it didn't work. Actually most Iraqi that I know are quite pissed about it.

 

[Tarrak]

Actually it sounded more like a confusion of late joustingarmour and battlearmour.

Some joustingarmour would indeed have been heavy enough to make it a chore to got onto the feet again. But then again this was a failsafe armour meant for one thing only.

But I doubt any more digging into this will help.

 

[Damien]

Well.. props to you, Maw, for not responding with vitriol and insults. Very big of you.

 

[svart]

I would like to see more lethal version of blunt weapons, but i guess it's a bit problematic since bluntw weapons are used to capture slaves currently in the game.

Actually it sounded more like a confusion of late joustingarmour and battlearmour.

Some joustingarmour would indeed have been heavy enough to make it a chore to got onto the feet again. But then again this was a failsafe armour meant for one thing only.

But I doubt any more digging into this will help.

I just wanted to write that.
From what i recall reading, jousting armor was much heavier and not suitable for battle, it also had a lot more ornaments which made it more akeward to use for normal battle.

 

[Damien]

Tournament armour was more awkward to wear since the weight was concentrated on the front of the body. That's mostly what made it unsuitable for a battle (it also didn't cover nearly as much of the body as battlefield plate would have).

And yeah.. it was highly decorated. But if the period accounts are to be believed.. a lot of battlefield plate was ornately decorated as well.



In any event... I wouldn't mind seeing more blunt weapons added to the game -- I've taken to adding a variant on the winged mace that deals more damage just so I have something that I can use in one hand at speed which will knock out a river pirate in less than 4 swings.