Print

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

[Sutremaine]

I prefer swords in my fortress.

Yup. I tend to control battles until my dwarves can survive being pitted against both random enemies and their own inability to pick the correct attack. When adamantine becomes available I add a couple of axes to the mix. Axes are weak against tough materials and adamantine is by far the toughest material in the game, so that works out well until it's time to clean up the mess (so... many... parts). Perhaps next fortress I'll make daggers available to the dwarves and give them the macedwarf slot on the status screen, because even swordsdwarves make a horrible mess.

[Loud Whispers]

Again, swords are not to be touched under my sway. Anyone come up with that hanky panky stuff and I'll demonstrate the shoving up ones ... Have you ever seen Urist DeBergerac make some la-di-dah move to come for the kill? With a rapier and moustache?
No, it's all about beard filled with yesterday's lunch and bits of goblin parts, a crazed charge resulting in a frothed beard and a healthy movement of bowels afterwards.

I'm pretty sure dwarven swords are nothing like rapiers.  I'm imagining something more like this.  Besides, rapiers are fancy dueling weapons anyway, not something you'd bring to a battlefield.

Yeah, rapiers were pretty crap weapons in actual combat. Dwarven swords are short swords imagine a xiphos or gladius... Longer and wider than a dagger, yet short enough to be strong yet fast and not clumsy in cramped places and in the packed formations, but not a long medieval sword with more reach and armor penetrating trusting qualities either.

Rapiers were meant to be light weight efficient armor penetrators, and as the roman's found out, stabbing is more lethal than cutting. And so ends the feudal reign of knights in steel armor, as "flimsy rapiers" comepletely pwned them.
That and arbalest's.
AND SO BEGINS FENCING

>Dorf fencing = Battle axes, Hammers, beards and plenty of alcohol<

[Vester]

Rapiers were meant to be light weight efficient armor penetrators

In Fire Emblem, maybe, but trying to puncture steel plate with one of those is silly.

If you want a "light weight efficient armor penetrator" you'd be better off using the same knife you used for eating, and even then you'd be trying to poke the other knight in the eyeballs.

[FrisianDude]

Rapiers were meant to be light weight efficient armor penetrators, and as the roman's found out, stabbing is more lethal than cutting. And so ends the feudal reign of knights in steel armor, as "flimsy rapiers" comepletely pwned them.
That and arbalest's.
AND SO BEGINS FENCING

>Dorf fencing = Battle axes, Hammers, beards and plenty of alcohol<

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT.

How about no, you crazy Dwarf bastard. A rapier was not, at all, armour penetrating. Too darn flimsy, you'd curl up the rapier before piercing armour.
 If you want to counter someone in heavy armour you want a heavy swinging weapon like a morningstar or even better, a pollaxe, or the very opposite, a short sturdy stabbing weapon. Like a dagger. Preferably both because the enemy tends not to want you to kill him. The morningstar, or a mace, or a warhammer would be enough to dent plates and more importantly, break bones and cause heavy bruises. A pollax can do the same but from farther away (and therefore, with more punch to a swing). A pollax would have a heavy axe-like head (though sometimes more like a hammer) and a spike at the end.  A dagger can be used in the grapple, which is what any one-on-one fight between plate armoured warriors who both forgot to bring a heavy bone-smasher, would inevitably become. Both soldiers would try to shove their dagger in weak spots like the groin, the armpits, behind the knees, and in the visor.

The egress of "the feudal reign of knights in steel armor" would not have been to a flimsy steel toothpick; it would be cannons, heavy crossbows, pike-squares and arcquebus fire which brought that reign to an end. After which heavy cavalry didn't quite leave the battlefield yet, though, even in Napoleon's time there were cuirassiers (with cuirass and a helmet).

(And while the Romans were, indubitably, fond of stabbing they certainly didn't take a good chop lightly. They were not particularly fond of Dacian falxes <falces?> for example. Or axes. )


Err.. forgive me for the rambling, but no, rapiers had almost no role in bringing heavy cavalry out of prominence.


Edit; I've been ninjad much more succinctly by Vester. Much obliged, Vester.

[Wannazzaki]

The age of the knight ended when you could give a stupid peasant a crossbow which would kill a heavily armoured, very expensive knight. Rapiers were hoity toity stylistic ponce pieces for duelling and looking like a badass fop.

[FrisianDude]

Wellllll, only in so far as a lethal weapon can be hoity toity stylistic ponce pieces, sure. One peasant with one crossbow would not be all too much threat versus a knight, however. Now, a pro with a pro crossbow is a slightly different matter. If he can keep his cool.

[Wannazzaki]

Wellllll, only in so far as a lethal weapon can be hoity toity stylistic ponce pieces, sure. One peasant with one crossbow would not be all too much threat versus a knight, however. Now, a pro with a pro crossbow is a slightly different matter. If he can keep his cool.

In Britain all of the warring kings agreed to ban the crossbow because the bolt would punch through the armour like it was tinfoil. I assure you, ballistic weapons were the end of the knight. (Even the broadhead arrow would can-opener it's way through some good plate).

Think about it. Training and armouring a knight was ludicriously expensive. Give a few plebs a crossbow and show them how to aim and all it takes is one shot to kill, and even less of a shot to wound, maim and cripple. What about if his horse goes down? Try moving fast in plate vs some peasants in cloth. You are a sitting duck.

[scriver]

Rapiers were meant to be light weight efficient armor penetrators, and as the roman's found out, stabbing is more lethal than cutting. And so ends the feudal reign of knights in steel armor, as "flimsy rapiers" comepletely pwned them.
That and arbalest's.
AND SO BEGINS FENCING

You must be thinking of side-swords, their predecessor. Rapiers were not really a military weapon, they were mostly a civilian's weapon used for self defence against unarmoured opponents (muggers, for example) or "sport" fencing (if you can still call it sport when using lethal weapons).

A rapier was not, at all, armour penetrating. Too darn flimsy, you'd curl up the rapier before piercing armour.

A rapier =/= a foil or an epee. Rapiers would glance off proper armour, sure, but they're way to hard "curl up"

Wellllll, only in so far as a lethal weapon can be hoity toity stylistic ponce pieces, sure. One peasant with one crossbow would not be all too much threat versus a knight, however. Now, a pro with a pro crossbow is a slightly different matter. If he can keep his cool.

You didn't have just one peasant facing of against one knight, you had dozens of them firing with proper defences. And it didn't take a "pro", that's the whole point of crossbows contra regular bows - they were damn fast to learn to use in comparison.


pre-edit: TOO MANY NINJAS. WHY DO THEY ALWAYS AMBUSH WHEN I POST.

[AWdeV]

The crossbow was a good start but armour only really started becoming obsolete when guns became plentiful and accurate.

Rapiers are excellent and really cool weapons if you're fighting someone who isn't wearing armour. Say, your rival who is a fellow civilian. Earlier rapiers were used on the battlefield but you'd be in a spot of trouble if you had to rely on one against an armoured knight.

I think I've always imagined dwarven shortswords to be more similar gladii, but I never gave it much tought. Their capabilities suggest a well-balanced sword made for both slashing and thrusting so perhaps more in common with the viking swords someone else had mentioned and with the stereotypical and ubiqutous hollywood "medieval" sword. Just on a smaller scale.

As far as my dwarves go, I generally look at their relationships and physical attributes to decide whether or not I'll draft them and give them weapons based on their pre-set skills, preferences and physical attributes. (If a dwarf is mighty/tough/quick to heal and a swordsdwarf, I'll give the chap a two-handed sword, if a dwarf is a swordsdwarf and not very strong or sturdy but rather more agile I prefer giving them short swords, etc.)

[Wannazzaki]

Dwarf, legendary fighter, legendary miner. Give two picks. Troll goblins.

[FrisianDude]

You didn't have just one peasant facing of against one knight, you had dozens of them firing with proper defences. And it didn't take a "pro", that's the whole point of crossbows contra regular bows - they were damn fast to learn to use in comparison.

Heh, I know about the curling up. That was a slight exaggeration which I hoped to be humorous. And, indeed, you wouldn't get a single crossbowman shooting in battle, but all the same, a single knight would not charge either.

Wellllll, only in so far as a lethal weapon can be hoity toity stylistic ponce pieces, sure. One peasant with one crossbow would not be all too much threat versus a knight, however. Now, a pro with a pro crossbow is a slightly different matter. If he can keep his cool.

In Britain all of the warring kings agreed to ban the crossbow because the bolt would punch through the armour like it was tinfoil. I assure you, ballistic weapons were the end of the knight. (Even the broadhead arrow would can-opener it's way through some good plate).

Think about it. Training and armouring a knight was ludicriously expensive. Give a few plebs a crossbow and show them how to aim and all it takes is one shot to kill, and even less of a shot to wound, maim and cripple. What about if his horse goes down? Try moving fast in plate vs some peasants in cloth. You are a sitting duck.

I'm going to have ask for a good source on that. Not in the least because you said "all the warring kings" and that brings to mind the seven kingdoms period. Rather before the crossbow came in widespread use.

I do however recall a certain Papal bull which you might mean instead. This bull is commonly said to have prohibited crossbows, but it also prohibited the use of bows against fellow Christians because the Pope felt it gave too much of an advantage to peasants over nobles. Suffice to say, no lord much bothered with that particular papal bull because they knew they could lose a very distinct advantage. (Just picture that, you take the bull to heart and ban all ranged weaponry from your army and then march into a foe's land who promptly hires a bunch of mercenary crossbowmen to thoroughly annoy your forces)


But yeah, err, I'm rambling again. You, Wannazzaki, are right that crossbows can be dangerous to heavy armour, but you really want a crossbowman who can stand and aim properly when a heavy cavalry charge is approaching and you want a sufficiently heavy crossbow. A light hunting crossbow, for example, can be pulled by someone just holding it down with their foot and then pulling the string. A shot from that would not kill a plate-armoured horseman. An arbalest or a heavy windlass crossbow on the other hand, would have a much better chance.

Hence why mercenary crossbowmen were reviled by (lower) nobles but still saw very common employ in the later middle ages.


Ehm, I have to add that I can't actually find the attempted ban/bull in question. Perhaps it did not exist.

Edit; about sitting duck; a knight would not be much slower than a peasant, a knight in full equipment (roughly 30 kg, yeah) would still manage a decent turn of speed because they would have trained with heavy armour and athletics for years if not decades.

[Wannazzaki]

My mistake. Bans were attempted and failed as the other side inevitably brought some.  As for knights, a full suit of plate was bloody heavy. A peasant would be in some old leather at the very best. Mobility in a suit of plate isn't that great, especially if he had a mail hauburk or something beneath which is another 30lb of steel rings. Thats how it appears to me anyway. Again i could be wrong like i was assuming everybody would obey a blanket ban of the most deadly weapon they could have fielded.

[AWdeV]

Ehh, a modern infantryman has heavier gear than a medieval armoured chap. With worse weight distribution to boot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=related

And your average medieval knight would have had a lot of practice with it.

[FrisianDude]

Hm, I think the total of a 15th c. knight's armour (including cuirass, helmet, pauldrons, extremity armour and everything beneath) would be roughly thirty, at most forty kg. Knights would not have worn a full hauberk beneath a full suit of plate, that wouldn't be very useful. Mail would mostly be relegated to the weak spots I mentioned earlier, the groin, the hollow of the knees, the elbows, the armpits, etc. All the bits you can't cover with plate if you want the wearer to be able to walk would be mailed.


This is a fairly true represenation of 15th c. Milanese armour, though he is slightly less heavily armoured then I though he'd be; his groin and knees are not mailed. I haven't worn that, but I think a suit like that would be around 35kg. It's less heavy than most people would assume it to be. Rumour and story of knights who needed to be craned onto a saddle are absolute tosh, no knight would go to battle in a dress like that because it would be literal suicide. Maybe, maybe, the most extravagant joust armours would have been that heavy, but battle dress would not. In battle mobility was far more important than it was in a joust. Also my brother kindly linked me the Second Lateran Council in regards to the banning of crossbows.

(all that aside, please don't think I am attacking anyone, I like to argue like this because it clears up wrong ideas, in myself as well. That Lateran council was different than I thought, for example.)


Edit; ah! Ninjad by my brother who brings two of my favourite youtube linkies to bring to bear in an argument like this.

[khearn]

Heh, I know about the curling up. That was a slight exaggeration which I hoped to be humorous. And, indeed, you wouldn't get a single crossbowman shooting in battle, but all the same, a single knight would not charge either.

But if you can afford to field a hundred knights, I can afford to field a few thousand crossbowmen. I'd estimate that a heavy crossbow would cost about as much as a good sword. Then the knight needs a full suit of armor (several more crossbows) and a couple of war horses (a very large pile of crossbows).

Then the knight needs to spend years training. Learning to use that sword. Learning to use a lance. Learning to wear that armor and building the strength to do so.  Learning to ride a war horse at full gallop while using a lance in one hand and a shield in the other. Learning to fight with sword and shield while keeping an excited horse under some semblance of control. It's a full time job and requires a bunch of people just to support the knight, who has no time for useful labor.

A crossbowman can learn the basics in a couple weeks, and doesn't really need much more. A couple of days learning how to use the crank to load the thing. A few days of practice to get the bolt to go to the right area. Precision shooting isn't needed when a few thousand people fire at a few hundred.