Historical analysis: weapons & armor

[Nick_Dude]

Since we are talking about plate mail armour here, I was wandering, how come paladins cannot have a war horse in SoA or ToB? Wouldn't that be cool? It would like having a familliar that we have to heal and that can get slaughtered.

[Dúnadan]

Actually, I'd rather see the implementation of the catapult and ballista, that way we could have flaming dwarven, halfling, and gnomish projectiles, and other such pleasantries...

[Bro'Drake]

Originally posted by Nick_Dude:
<STRONG>Since we are talking about plate mail armour here, I was wandering, how come paladins cannot have a war horse in SoA or ToB? Wouldn't that be cool? It would like having a familliar that we have to heal and that can get slaughtered. </STRONG>

for the simple reason that no one can use beasts of burden (for transportation or otherwise) in an Infinity Engine game... yeah, it'd be "uber r33t," but hard to implement.

[Sethir]

About xbows:
Crossbow was not so-most-used-weapon,as U imagine. Yes, xbows was not so difficult to learn like the longbow (SFMBE)and throught they was slow,they was very strong
BUT generally they was used in defence of castles. Longbow was majority ranged weapon until rise of gunpowder.
(and longbow was not weapon of Englenders, because was invented by Welshs Celts)
SFMBE

[Loredweller]

Originally posted by koz-ivan:
<STRONG>re crossbows & long bows.

the english had very good archers, units which were very expensive to train. the long bow was often fired at an angle for greater range. the arrow would follow an arched trajectory. the long bow if used properly & with many yrs of experience & training was a devastating weapon.
</STRONG>

maybe, but, due to some British-Celtic tradition or something else, English lords might not worry about the lack of recruits. It is often skipping attention that Britain never had serfhood in such a form as France or Russia had. The limited form what was established came later first because of antagonism between Saxons and Normans and then because those long discussions about the Throne as War of Red and White Roses (is the term right?) and instant disaccord with Scotland. So the serfhood never was so full-scale in England and peasantry long time played important place in warfare. The longbow was a weapon of peasantry and a way to get better life and good salary in some castle. Farming was not very sweet business those times, after all. So it was not so expensive in England and Wales, lot of boys was taught to manage the longbow from early childhood in family and they were almost ready soldiers when recruited.

Originally posted by koz-ivan:
<STRONG>
the crossbow fires along on a level trajectory, it's point & shoot, very simple. i.e. little or no training required. it was also fairly inexpensive, and could pierce the plate armour of the time. it became a very powerful battlefield weapon, in the hand's of a commoners.
....
</STRONG>

Have you ever tried? I have, though with self-made primitive ones. It is more easy to launch a missile, nonetheless there are the same problems with aiming. Then again, the crossbow weight more so at long shooting it weary you sooner.

High trajectory is necessary if the target is far off or it is hidden behind something. In both cases after so long a way the missile has lost most of its power and cannot transfix the plate. Then, if you're hailing incoming cavalry the last very soon becomes in range of straight shot and anyway nearer you might wish , rate and thickness are what really matter.

One more thing. There were no commons in plate or any other really good armor. And customary tactics about plate wearers was rather to capture them instead of killing them, it was more profitable. They equipment was anyway the property of capturer or his lord, and there might be a ransom over that. So, as far i know, English bowmen aimed rather into horses than into riders. For first, it was increasing the probability of having war prisoners, for second it made natural hindrances of fallen horses and men. Rather seldom somebody having good armor on him could afford such one for his horse (it wasn't so cheap either), and one, who could, most probably commanded troops from more or less safe distance instead of being in first lines of attackers.

Just MHO,
L.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Loredweller ]

[Gruntboy]

Very interesting conversation.

Gruntboy's thoughts having done a medieaval warfare course at university:

The English & Longbows: Regardless of who "invented" them, a core of English men were trained from youth in the use of the Longbow (made from 2 types of tree) in humting and competitions - the resource of time, not necessarily money. Modern tests of the Longbow can penetrate most armour of the era. There is suggestion that a high trajectory upheld penetration at long ranges.

Crossbows: This is indeed a training issue. I suppose anyone can load, crank (mechanically), aim and fire a crossbow, unlike the Longbow which required strength and years of training.

Armour: There are a multitude of armour types throughout many time periods. I have difficulty getting my head around various issues. There are accounts of armoured knights in the crusades resembling porcupines after being showered by Turkish arrows - but remaining unhurt. Then there is Agincourt 1415, where the French Men-at-arms are slaughtered by the longbow. Full plate was reserved only for the richest nobles and required a horse to maintain mobility (there are many stories of knights suffocating or drowning in their armour). It was for the most part, and increasingly over time, purely ornamental. The mounted shock charge by elite heavy cavalry is often seen as the "decsive weapon" of the middle ages (there is NO mounted combat in BG2). I think to speak of atom bombs is wholly anachronistic.

General combat: Medieaval warfare is often considered "bloodless". Many accounts tell of the impenetrable armour and knights slogging it out till they collapse of exhaustion. It has often been contended that tournaments were battles without deaths, and that battles were merely slightly bloody tournaments. The aim of most medieaval armies was the ransom of important prisoners. Now of course, the average footsoldier was not worth a mention in such accounts so a "bloodless" battle where 3 nobles drowned in the mud may have involved hundreds of deaths.

Just some gneral ramblings and points of view.

[Gruntboy]

A few more things:

The vaunted Norman crossbow had little impact on the Saxon shield wall in 1066 (and no, Harold *wasn't* killed by an arrow in the eye, despite what you were taught at school ).

The English had no qualms about slaughtering their precious French noble prisoners near the end of the battle of Agincourt after they heard of the massacre of the English baggage train and it looked like they might lose the battle.

Wounds more often than no proved fatal due to the inability to prevent septecaemia.

Medieaval warfare was *harsh*. Mass graves in Scandinavia show men with severed limbs and crushed skulls.

I think one thing that must also be remembered is that not until the Boer War 1899-1902 did battlefield deaths exceed those caused by disease (not counting the concentration camps). A medieaval soldier was twice as likely to die from dysentery as from wounds got in battle. I'd like to see that represented in BG2...

The distinction between massively armoured noble knight and moderately-heavily armoured "men-at-arms" is a blurred one. I have great difficulty making sense of such problems and it leads me to only one onclusion - records are so scarce that I think we will be able to argue over this till the cows come home.

[sigurd]

Some thoughts here.

Polearms is great in bigger formations, very hard to breal through if im not mistaking, but a man that is alone has a harder time. Werent they mostly defensive as well?

About weight. In bg2 most characters have exxtraordinary strength, remember normal man has a strength of 11. And to use a full plate you need 14