Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirHoneyBadger]

I am sure that you are wrong that all bases on the Greek Pankration because of how the human race did spread. I rather think that it was more like a paralel evolution/development with very similiar endings and philosphys. It doesnt matter much anyway for our current theme or does it?

Well there are fencebooks form around 1300-1700 to which i have some links (german and English (Latin and Old-german would help sometimes too)). If you want to compare them i can give you the links. Apart from fighting by the way they have also sometimes parts about herbs and healing which was iirc one of your interrests  SirHoneyBadger.

Well, like I said, I could be wrong about that (and I really should have said that the Greeks were the origin of a *similarity* between Eastern and Western martial arts, and very possibly the idea of a quantified system of martial arts), but what I've always understood is that Pankration was brought to India by way of Alexander the Great, and then the Indians spread a diversified martial arts concept to China and Japan, by way of Buddhism, and the Greeks went on to spread martial concepts to the West.

That's not to say that the Greeks invented the original concept of all martial arts (wrestling was going on in India long before Alexander ever showed up, and other cultures most likely practiced their own versions since the stone age), only that they-through the connection to India-paved the way for an exchange of ideas that may have led to the modern idea of martial arts, on both sides of the world.

I would be interested in the links, yes 

[Iden]

While it may not be a flowery Drunken style stance... Foot possitions are VITAL. Someone in Platemail who doesn't know how to move around in it... is useless.

Isn't that exactly what the Armor Use skill is for?

What is REALLY happening is you practice soo much that the stances and style become second nature.

Mind you... this is only for the people who actually train. There are plenty of books on how to fight in Europe and they do include footwork and stances. (Heck just check out Fencing!)

Isn't that the point I was making? That stances and styles were a part of training to use a weapon? I think you completely misunderstood what was said. I never said movement was unimportant. I said, "not any one specific style or stance" - not to say that position, movement, style were unimportant, but that you don't learn ONE style or stance or position -- you learn many ways to use a weapon. You learn to use a weapon.

You openly disagree with me, but that's precisely the point I was trying to make. That styles and stances aren't seperate, that they are fundamentally a part of weapon training.

Alright there are two problems here

My apologies for placing the "sap" response so close to the "stances and styles" -- i should have differentiated that I wasn't talking about the same thing.

2) dying with one strike... and often being unable to kill your opponent with your weapon... would change how the martial art functioned.

This is starting to smell fishy...

"Bashing weapons should have a chance to knock out when ambushing?"

No, lets not do any magical effects with mundane weapons here. If the Blunt weapon happens to knock someone out instead of killing them... Then good!

However lets not give it a bonus for no reason. Being struck in the head with a Warhammer, your dead.

To knock them out you would have to do so intentionally attempting to do as little damage as possible. So knocking someone out with an obviously deadly weapon should be intentional rather then as a side-effect of an unrelated skill.

You don't even properly quote me on what was said. I should have differentiated the topics a bit more. My fault. But I said this:

A "sap" used to knock somebody unconscious, primarily for adventure mode might not be a terrible idea.

I wasn't even talking about normal combat. Anyhow, if I may ask, how come people get killed in fist fights? People get hit once or twice and get killed. It's not an spectacularly common occurrence, but it does happen.

Secondly, in one of my previous posts I mentioned how hitting somebody with a helmet on and stunning them is completely preposterous. I was working on the basis that this must not be the case since I already established that it's unlikely to be possible with a helmet.

I never said we should give 1-hit kills in regular combat to heavily armored units just because we wield a hammer or mace. Though, funny enough, I don't think it's entirely impossible to get really lucky if you have a high enough skill as it is.

1) Heavy Armored combat wasn't all that common... It was EXPENCIVE to field a squad of Dismounted knights (and more for them to be mounted)

I'm looking at this. And you may indeed have a point. It was certainly expensive to field a squad of knights. Then again, Knights weren't your common soldier, either. Commonly they also carried very nice, expensive, weapons and armor. Expensive indeed, and typically the Knights held some social or political rank of sorts.

However, not every soldier was a knight. Heavy armored combat does not implicitly imply Knights, nor does it imply plate-armor only. HAC standards I am familiar with are assumed to be of a quality near to chainmail - but certainly armor heavier than leather. I guess for DF purposes, medium or heavy armor. Again, my fault, I should have shared the definition I was using to avoid confusion.

But still. How does this relate to what was said? It's expensive. OK. So if you want tons of steel plate for your dwarves to walk around in, you need to do a lot of work (which translates to money). I don't see how that is relevant.

==

 

Normal western warfare -- Heavy Armored Combat and Eastern Martial Arts combat were terribly dissimilar

 I see a third problem.
 
Many people dont acknowledge that Europe had Martial arts in the past. Especally armed Martial arts were widespread. To name are the German- and basing on that the French-, the Spain- and the Italian- fence-school (Fence from German "fechten" or "gefecht" which meant any kind of fight not only swordsplay) . They included also many secondary styles like the "half-sword" style which dealed with heavy armor fights.
 
These styles have many similiaritys to eastern martial arts as far as i can tell from my experience of "Aikido", "Aikiken" and "German Fence school"

There are differences sure cause a European sword had, in comparsion to a Katana which is also a "Sword", totally different characteristics  f.e a useable crossguard. By this the styles of usage change - for example i would never block with a Katana in the same way way i block with a european sword because a medieval Katana is more likely to shatter at the edge. Speaking of edges the european sword has 2 (Long and short edge) while the Katana mostly only had 1 sharp edge and blunt "back".

Taking a look at this.. you seem to be discussing the similarities of western martial arts and eastern martial arts. I cited Heavy Armored Combat. Not martial arts specifically. The use of a sword is not always Heavy Armored Combat (but sometimes it is). The training -- the martial art -- is not the same as the application of the training -- the combat.

You seem to primarily focus on the martial arts aspects, while I did stated combat aspects. I also never said that Eastern and Western combats and martial arts didn't have similarities - I said they had some major dissimilarities -- which does not mean they had no similarities. I specifically said there is quite a difference between western application of combat, and eastern martial training. While some of the martial arts may have similar bases, the applications were certainly not always the same.

If I recall correctly, eastern cultures used shields far less commonly in combat than did western cultures. In fact a shield is definately a stereotype of western medieval combat.

This causes a big difference in styles. A sword v. a sword/shield can be a rather particularly difficult fight to fight for the man without the shield. He has more mobility perhaps, and definately more vision, but he also has a lot fewer places to put his word, and a lot fewer places to avoid his opponent's.

[L0rd_ZOD]

These special abilities seem to look alot like the abilities from W.O.W .

Evasion, rouge technique.
Charge, warrior technique.
Cheap Shot, hunter* technique.

*Its either rouge or hunter.

 

[Squirrelloid]

These special abilities seem to look alot like the abilities from W.O.W .

Evasion, rouge technique.
Charge, warrior technique.
Cheap Shot, hunter* technique.

*Its either rouge or hunter.

 

I never knew make-up was so combative.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Its ROGUE!

[Neonivek]

Heavy armored combat does not implicitly imply Knights, nor does it imply plate-armor only

The reason why Heavy Armored units TENDED to either be knights or Dismounted Knights is because getting people in heavy armor into battle tended to be rather difficult.

Also, don't bother saying Chain on the internet. People have this STRANGE veiw that Chain was this tiny layer of little rings.

You openly disagree with me, but that's precisely the point I was trying to make. That styles and stances aren't seperate, that they are fundamentally a part of weapon training

You didn't really make it that well if that is what you meant. (especially since you said in Combat people become flailing monkies... which the goal of training is to make sure that doesn't happen)

The difference in what we said is that not only is Stance and Style not natural but that there are differing stances and styles for each weapon even within Europian combat.

I don't see how that is relevant (relating to Heavy Armor)

It was more or less what you were implying then what you were saying. As if Europian Martial arts was Armored or something.

[Mel_Vixen]

Iden in my language "martial arts" translates "Kampf-sport" respectively "Kampf-kunst". "Kampf" means in your language plain combat and i can tell you that there is no real difference between "Martial arts" and "Combat".

In fact we do at the fenceing club i am in almost every time Trainingfights and even thought we have defensiv-gear like Helmets etc we have everytime bruises and my hand is still a bit swolen from last time. Alas what did i wanted to say? Oh right every time i did wild swings etc. what you might understand as "combat" i got my ass kicked - kicked plenty and hard.

Ok you might say "that was a controled situation" but i had also enought fight-situations on the Street were i was more then happy that i do have, given a bit rusted in, knowledge out of 7 years Aikido. In a fight atleast i do the technics out of reflex.
 
Its not like you think in a fight "Oh i have to that and then i do that" no that isnt the point of the entire thing. The point is that you do the right things, the things you learned, out of reflex in a fight situation. Thats the Point of Training. Like a old Goblin in a spherical land (ok it was Joda in Starwars) said once "dont try, do it!".

By the way European fighters, thanks to the crossguards, used often enought 2 handed Longswords ("one and a Halfhander") Spears, helebards, Pikes, Staffs later rapiers with Longknives. The crossguard was a good enought substitute for a shield. The shield by the way, most times only a buckler, was also used sure but they werent used everywhere everytime.

You can also asume that 95 % of "Knights" couldnt afford a chainmail not to speak of platemail, well atleast in the time that is relevant for DF (~1400). Most fighters, warriors, and "Free-fencers" did fight in a gambeson maybe some leather because they could barely pay a sword.

Mind you workforce was cheap and resources much more expensiv then in comparsion to today. A kilogram good weapongrade steel(s) back then would equal 500-1000 Euro. Today for comparsion the price of one ton Steel is around 800 Euro.

(SirHoneyBadger i dint forgot you. Give me some time to get my stuff in order)

[Neonivek]

You can also asume that 95 % of "Knights" couldnt afford a chainmail not to speak of platemail

Probably less. Heck Platemail was often impossible.

The difference between Martial Arts and Combat can be explained though and to this I turn to another analogy that I cannot remember... but is summed up like this: "A Drunk in a bar is unlikely to learn martial arts no matter how many bar fights he starts"

Id assume that a Bar brawler could knock out a Martial Artist (heck it happens all the time).

Martial arts is basically organised and the reason it is often important is that many martial art moves actually go against natural instincts. (For example a proper punch)

[Mel_Vixen]

You have naturaly to judge the situation. Plain idioticy leads to injurys even at a blackbelt. I for myself try to avoid any fight and in a barbrawl i would try to get something safe (means mostly outside) rather then playing hero, as long noone needs help naturally. Trying to kick the asses of more then 2 Guys alone is for me dumb.

[Squirrelloid]

You can also asume that 95 % of "Knights" couldnt afford a chainmail not to speak of platemail

Probably less. Heck Platemail was often impossible.

Dar.

The whole point of feudalism was to make sure your knights were properly armed and trained.  You gave nobles land so they could use the income to train heavy cavalry for you (one of whom was often the noble in question).  Yes, it was expensive.  That's why the vast majority of a kingdom's wealth (land) was divied up amongst the nobility.  Knight is a shorthand for 'heavy cavalry supported by land controlled by a vassal of the ruler' (which may not be the knight himself - landed knights had their own grants of land, other knights were supported by Lords who either owed more knights than their own family could provide, or didn't wish to serve themselves.)

Which isn't to say I think full plate was ever common, but chain was certainly ubiquitous.  The development of platemail accompanied the failing of the feudal system and the move to more centralized states, but the crown still maintained armored knights because they were critical to military success.  As of 1300, no army in (western) europe had won a battle without decisive use of heavy cavalry in hundreds of years.

And regular infantry was armored in maille, not just knights.  Regulars were trained professional soldiers, generally retainers of the crown or vassals thereof.  England maintained a large professional infantry, for example, and even a professional heavy cavalry in addition to nobles who owed service as heavy cavalry.

Even irregulars (militia) were often armored to some degree.

Indeed, the burghers (of a certain age, and above a stipulated wealth or income) of most medieval and Renaissance cities were expected—an expectation often enforced by laws and decrees—to acquire and keep their own arms and armor.  Usually this would not be a complete suit of armor, but comprised at least a helmet, a body defense in the form of a mail shirt, fabric armor, or breastplate, as well as a weapon such as a spear, pike, bow, or crossbow.

Really, the myth of armor's expense is thoroughly debunked here.

[Mel_Vixen]

Chain and Plate for almost everyone did come between 1500 to 1600 (iirc). The Kavalarie also wasnt the "weapon" of the century. A group of for 4 weeks trained Pikeners could stop a Rider-attack and the english army for example relied long time almost exclusivly on Longbows.

The helmet by the way is the cheapest part of a Armor Garniture and still equalls 3 years of salary so you can figure the price of a full Armor set. There were massproducts, for example a good number of platearmors in later times but again we speak on the time around 1400 not 1500 to 1800.

Nobility doesnt mean that you have money by the way, many "nobles" (among them some of my ancestors) were poor like church-mice.

edit: Arms and Armor means by the way not only chain and Plate. A gambeson or hardened leather (the cheapest variants) are to considered as armor. The longknive, axe or club are also weapons that are cheap enought.

[Squirrelloid]

Chain and Plate for almost everyone did come between 1500 to 1600 (iirc). The Kavalarie also wasnt the "weapon" of the century. A group of for 4 weeks trained Pikeners could stop a Rider-attack and the english army for example relied long time almost exclusivly on Longbows.

What time period are we talking about here?  Prior to 1302 the pike was a non-factor.  It was at the Battle of the Golden Spurs that Scotts rebels demonstrated its superiority to a heavy cavalry charge. 

The much-celebrated longbow had its effectiveness demonstrated at Agincourt, which occurred in *1415*, after the '1400' cut-off usually given for DF.

Prior to 1300, heavy cavalry were the most important military arm in europe, and had been since ~900.  In northern europe that arguably persisted till Agincourt.

Maille would have been standard for all regular soldiers and heavy cavalry at least as early as the battle of Hastings, and probably as long ago as Charlemagne.  Platemail is also a 14th century invention, which wasn't fully developed until sometime during the 15th century. (Edit: ~1420)

The helmet by the way is the cheapest part of a Armor Garniture and still equalls 3 years of salary so you can figure the price of a full Armor set. There were massproducts, for example a good number of platearmors in later times but again we speak on the time around 1400 not 1500 to 1800.

I'm confused, the price of the helmet is given as 'a cow', which from context (coming after the reference to a knight's armament) and epistemological considerations (we'd be more likely to know quoted smithy prices) i take to be a made-to-order helmet.  A full suit of armor for an english Knight *and his horse* is 3 years salary for a skilled laborer, according to the cited page, which given the knight is granted land or funds for the purpose of affording gear and training, is not that much money.  You've both misread the article, and seem to have missed the opening sentences of that paragraph which specifically stated that cheaper pre-made and/or older armor was definitely available (but we lack price information on it).

Nobility doesnt mean that you have money by the way, many "nobles" (among them some of my ancestors) were poor like church-mice.

... Only in later times as nobility became less integral to state authority, and thus power (and money) were divested from the nobles and taken up by the state.  The battle of Agincourt would again be a good reference point for the start of this trend (which demonstrated the inefficiency of heavy cavalry).

I doubt you can trace your ancestries wealth history back to 1400, even if you can actually trace individuals back that far.

Edit in response to edit:

edit: Arms and Armor means by the way not only chain and Plate. A gambeson or hardened leather (the cheapest variants) are to considered as armor. The longknive, axe or club are also weapons that are cheap enought.

You might wish to explain why the warriors depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry are almost universally depicted as wearing maille while in battle then.  Whether it is an accurate description of the battle of Hastings is irrelevant, contemporaries certainly thought of maille as ubiquitous as early as 1066 - if it was so rare (or other forms of armor so common) then their perceptions would also be different.

[Tormy]

Hmm I guess I SHOULD think of Warcraft abilities that could make it into the game... The problem is that Dwarf Fortress is really a simulator and WoW is just a number counter. A Fireball in Dwarf Fortress is much more significant then in World of Warcraft. Along with this some of the aspects of World of Warcraft are VERY stupid... Fighters do moves with Anger?

Actually WoW's rage system for the warrior class is not that stupid, I find it quite interesting and sort of realistic even. ->

Anger is a good point. The body, if wounded in a fightsituation, reacts different then if it gets wounded in a peacefull situation. The notion of pain is lowered by a certain amount if it is not entirely shut off. This goes so far that some people experience a kind Trance while fighting.

Similiar things can be observed in other danger situations. I did read of effects where the Brain stoped the notion of color to have more energy for reactions. This happend once to myself as i were nearly run over by a car.

Yeah, well said.

These special abilities seem to look alot like the abilities from W.O.W .

Because these are class specific abilities from WoW. [Read my OP carefully] 

[Neonivek]

Really, the myth of armor's expense is thoroughly debunked

No it was still very expencive... though mind you that your site only says "Armor" and "Weapons" which is a HUGE range. (plus it also states that affordable, low quality, hand-me-down "Armor" would take THREE YEARS!!! for a skill worker to afford. That doesn't say inexpencive to me)

The site's most serious problem is that while it is disproving inaccuracies in common thought. It does this often by going to far. "Armor was heavy" and the site goes "WRONG!". It kinda goes too far to prove them wrong, ending up incorrect in it of itself by implying the opposite. I already knew a properly trained knight could do one handed Pushups with Platemail on, but the site almost gives me the impression that you would barely notice you were wearing it.

Though overall it was a great read. So thanks for the site.

As for Platemail... it has a mixed and confusing history. It is actually MUCH older then one would suspect and at some points it stopped being used because technology changes making it to heavy or inefficiant.

Plate armor existed... probably since the B.C. though definately since early A.D.

Actually WoW's rage system for the warrior class is not that stupid, I find it quite interesting and sort of realistic even

Sure fine your right.

I forgot that anger in fact means you have much more intricate control of your body and allows you finess that would otherwise be impossible. Ontop of that, striking people in fanciful ways releases chemicals into your brain that instantly causes you to calm.

The fact of the matter is... that the Anger system in World of Warcraft only makes sense by NAME but not in execution. (In fact, appart from specific moves... More anger doesn't increase damage)

[Mel_Vixen]

I have to admit that i did misread some of the stuff the link provided.

Well future generations will not remember the famous german trabi but the Prius. The pictures you find often depict not the truth. They show rather a glorified version.

I for atleast would identify this "armor" on the tapestry you mentioned (i looked it up) as Gambesons from the structure while the Lords and his consorts this picture seem to wear chain. I see this tapestary much like the the famous "fürstenzug" of Dresden.

You forgot that nobility did breed like rabbits and that you have many many lesser branches of the greater Noblefamilys. (not to mention a number of half-noble bastards)

And now please look a look at the Talhoffer (timeframe 1420-1490) you will see armored forces and technics yes but as much pictures show of people fighting in gambesons and other thread/cloth armors. Talhoffer as teacher wouldnt have this included if it wasnt still important to his time.

[Squirrelloid]

Well future generations will not remember the famous german trabi but the Prius. The pictures you find often depict not the truth. They show rather a glorified version.

I don't even know what a Trabi is.  Your analogy is failing for me.  Also, the Bayeux tapestry is pretty much contemporary with the event (thought to be ~1077), so not so much impressions of a totally different period as impressions of contemporaries.

I for atleast would identify this "armor" on the tapestry you mentioned (i looked it up) as Gambesons from the structure while the Lords and his consorts this picture seem to wear chain. I see this tapestary much like the the famous "fürstenzug" of Dresden.

I interpret that first as chain also, or more properly, as armor originally identified as 'scale mail' in art, but later determined to be a different way of depicting maille.  Maille has been depicted in many fashions artistically, which can be confusing, and the Bayeux tapestry is surely a multi-artist work.

And now please look a look at the Talhoffer (timeframe 1420-1490) you will see armored forces and technics yes but as much pictures show of people fighting in gambesons and other thread/cloth armors. Talhoffer as teacher wouldnt have this included if it wasnt still important to his time.

I looked at the Talhoffer, I interpret the unarmored scenes not as battlefield related but duel and similar circumstances.  The two weapons depicted unarmed are a rapier (or similar dueling sword) and a spear (likely weapon for hunting, during which a noble may have to thwart an assassination attempt). My source is here for the images.  Further, Talhoffer and similar would not have been soldiering instructions, but training for nobles or the wealthy, which means it potentially needs to cover many topics including duels, defense against assassination, and tournaments.  The focus on 1 vs 1 engagements strongly suggests it is not a war manual.

As an addendum, a little surfing around on that museums article list lead me to this.  The following seems quite relevant:

"When evidence becomes more readily available in larger quantities for the eleventh to the early thirteenth centuries, however, it can be established that, very generally speaking, the appearance of men-at-arms throughout Europe varied only to a small extent during this period. Indeed, the equipment and appearance of twelfth- and early thirteenth-century knights and men-at-arms from England would have differed little from those of their French, German, or Italian counterparts. Usually, such armor would comprise a mail shirt with attached hood and gauntlets, as well as mail leggings (chausses)."

Its hard to be 'usual' if it isn't common, and usual appears to be a mail shirt and hood, gauntlets, and mail leggings.  (Article goes on to describe local styles of armor in the latter 13th century).