HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| 11george11
11george11
♂️
[24585799]
[2012-12-04 20:01:14 +0000 UTC]
"Bugs Not Drugs"
(United Kingdom)
# Statistics
Favourites: 893; Deviations: 87; Watchers: 8
Watching: 62; Pageviews: 7691; Comments Made: 829; Friends: 62
# About me
Likes History, bugs and Pokemon, not necessarily in that order.# Comments
Comments: 228
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Happy birthday to you, and enjoy this very... VERY... Cursed Halo MOD Video...: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMxIjGjMJz0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for the fav
Due to quarantine i've re-opened COMMISSIONS. if you are interested check the COMMISSION SHEET and send me a note to book a place!
This is the last day to vote what i'm going to draw next here: www.facebook.com/Lady-of-Pudu-… !
If you want to sneack peek my upcoming works follow me on www.instagram.com/nenril9lli/ and on my Face Book page: [link]
and if you want to support me i've my shops waiting for customers:
www.redbubble.com/people/nenri… , www.teepublic.com/user/nenril
Remember: even a single like will help <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hello there.
I just wanted to wish you a happy birthday! I hope you had a good one!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey there. Yeah things have been pretty hectic at uni and stuff at the moment.
So yeah been doodling a bit but nothing coloured or anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cool. So you are at the uni? Mind if I ask what are you studying?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No I don't mind. I study history. Mainly focusing on medieval warfare.
What you up to outside of drawing pokemon if you don't me asking?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
History warfare? Amazing!! Is there a degree on that?
Well, I'm here, studying a bit of engineering on informatics and theology&philosophy.
It's not an official degree, it's more like a... home-brew degree?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well it's a general history degree but I specialise in military history.
Also yeah a home brew degree makes sense. Also that sounds a very full degree XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, there's quite the trick: I have freedom to choose which subjects I want to do each year.
So I have to make sure to push myself enough to progress but also not to push myslelf until the point of breaking.
So, medieval warfare? Then, would you mind if I ask you some questions? I consider myself a bit medievalist and I always love to study about this time of history.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That doesn't sound too bad at all.
Also sure ask any questions you want.
I'll try and answer as best I can. Feel free
to keep asking here or possibly move this onto
notes it's up to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, first question: Fire arrows: Hollywood fiction or Historically accurate? yay or nah?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mostly a Hollywood fiction. Certainly dousing a rag in pitch, tying it too your arrow and setting it on fire is less then a good idea and certainly wouldn't have been used on the battlefields. Mostly because doing so would give you very few benefits and would put you in serious risk of setting your bow on fire.
This...
www.longbowandarrow.co.uk/ekmp…
Is what a real life fire arrow would have looked like. Archers would put hot coals into the arrows head. The role of these arrows were in siege warfare and used by the attackers to shoot over the walls of a city and hopefully set the houses within on fire.
That's my belief on the subject anyway and I can only really speak on Western Europe.
So mostly a nah, but with some elements of yay
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, so maybe is one of those resources that fighters would use rarely, I guess.
The thing is that Hollywood has made us believe that it's something you would see every day.
Now that we are talking about fire: what about catapults that fire fire-rocks? You know, these huge, dripped-in-oil piles of something that where set ablaze and thrown to the enemy?
By the way, I'm breaking the deal. Have my watch, you seem like a nice person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most likely it'd be something an archer might carry for special occasions
The fire rocks? Almost certainly a myth. Covering a rock in pitch and putting it in a wooden construct seems a silly idea to me as you'd probably set the whole thing on fire.
Now there were things like naptha jars and such which could be launched from catapults. These would be clay jars filled with pitch and with a candle attached. But these would be incredibly expensive and if I'm being honest, I would imagine they wouldn't work very well.
Mainly the use of catapults, mangonels and trebuchets were to knock down the walls of a city and rocks did a much better job of that then pitch jars. So again most definitely a Hollywood thing. If you wanted to cause destruction within a city trebuchets would often launch corpses into the city to cause illness. Although I believe the Chinese did develop a very primitive mortor shell thing with gunpowder. Can't say I know the date of its creation though
Also thank you XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem.
Well, I don't see that as a such a bad idea. Wood actually takes some time to set on fire, specially if wet. I agree with you, though, that a fire rock is way more silly than just a jar. which, as you describe it, it's like a giant molotov coctel, right?
Assuming that it's like a giant molotv cocktel, wouldn't that be even more effective than fire arrows?
I heard about the corpses tactic, quite nasty if you ask me.
Another question: don't you think that knockin a stone wall with rocks is quite improbable? I can understand if we were talking about canons but... rocks?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
See normal fire and normal wood I'd agree,
But with pitch and treated wood you're probably asking for trouble in my own opinion.
Also the problem with the jars is efficiency. I would imagine the fire would go out about half the time and not spread the fire into the town
Also during most of the medieval period thatch roofing made setting fires inside of cities relatively easy and the fire arrows tactic was probably much more cost efficient. Especially considering the cost of pitch. Of course this is considering you want the city inside to be on fire and take heavy damage. Something you would tend not to do if you wanted to capture/loot the city which was much more common.
Also I can see where you coming from with the rock on rock thing. There was a reason sieges often took months and most of the time the city surrendered before the walls were broken by siege weapons. The siege weapons aren't like what you see at the Battle of Minis Tirith instead it's more about slowly chipping away at the walls over days of bombardment until they collapse under their own weight. I mean Crac De Chevalier was built so well it was all but impervious too all siege weaponry. Often undermining was much faster at taking out walls, but that often required more specialist help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yeah. I pretty much forgot about the "looting" tactic.
Which brings me to the next question: how common was the looting/pillaging/destruction of cities? Because I have seen that it's quite a common tactic in the medieval times and, according to the medieval mindset, it's something you must be ready for in case you decide not to surrender the city in the event of a siege.
I mean, it looks as such a common tactic that I feel that it's part of the medieval mindset. We, as modern citizens, see it as an horrible action, I have a feeling that they saw that as something "to be expected".
What do you think about that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Looting of towns was very common. Especially on a lower level. Often knights would lead their men to the knight next door and steal their stuff. It was also a very common way for less powerful knights and duchies and such to harm their neighbours. I think it was called a Cheversee in French, or something like that I'm sure I've spent that wrong but it basically meant raid.
I mean for a good example of looting within culture look at the First crusade. During the Siege of Nicea. The city surrendered to the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, who forbid the crusaders from looting the city and the crusaders were VERY angry at the Emperor for denying them this right.
I think the main reason for looting was because this was before people were paid for being soldiers and so the warriors would take their riches from any town, city or enemy camp they captured. The same was especially true for mercenaries.
It was definitely something to be expected in medieval sieges. In fact not looting cities is a very modern concept.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, if it was THAT common... how could even societies be built?
I mean, suppose I have a village... then it gets raided. Then what? How do I rebuild that? I lost all the resources... now what?
Also, I have heard that there were no slaves in the medieval times... what did they do with prisoners?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
See the resources taken were mainly just what men could carry. So if someone attacked your town with Like ten guys they'd loot what they could carry (usually grain) and run away as fast as they could. Say if your Duke wasn't interested in helping you, then you'd probably get the strongest guys in your town and raid the guy who just raided you. Most of it was like a tit for tat, and if you didn't have enough men then you'd call on your other friend, another knight to bring his ten guys.
Although these smaller raids were much more common, if a huge enemy French army was rampaging through the area. Then your town was basically done for. You'd probably have to go to the local city and hope there was enough food there. Of course if this army didn't steal all your food it would probably burn the rest to stop enemy forces from using it. Times of war and invasion were very harsh on the small uncalled cities.
As for prisoners, you're right, there were very few slaves in western medieval Europe. A lot in Africa but none in Europe. Depended if you were rich or poor. If you were rich, then people made sure not to kill you on the battlefield and to take you prisoner. Then you would be ransomed back to your family for a fortune. A knight would be set for life if they managed to take a Duke hostage. If you were poor, well you'd be given on quarter on the battlefield, but if you surrendered (and wasn't just killed on the spot) and nobody would pay your ransom you'd probably just be released in honesty. Although sometimes porridge prisoners were killed, such as done by Richard the Lionheart after the Siege of Acre. But most the time they'd just be set free as there was no point in keeping them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I see. I just had in mind all these "great pillages" through history, instead of your average five-to-ten brigand men that raid the mill and leave will some sacks of grain injuring or killing a bunch of men.
Recovering from the loss of a bit of grain seems more plausible.
Now, onto other topic (you see that I love to jump from topic to topic). Let's talk about swords... and my question is: why bother with swords?
The thing is that I've heard that swords were expensive as hell to craft, so it wasn't a weapon for the common men-at-arms. On the other side, it's easy to understand that a bit of sharpened metal can't go through ring or scale armor (less if we talk about plate armor). An axe or a mace, which are cheaper, do a better job.
Hell, even some hard cloth can help to prevent a cut from a blade.
So, yeah, what is the point of a sword? I have heard about techniques like mordhau, but, for that, why not take a mace?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now, something I will say is that I'm a Viking and anglo saxon Reenactor, so I know a thing or two about using weaponry. Also the use of swords change greatly depending upon the period you're talking. Roman Gladius were short stabbing swords which were great at killing because their blades were so thick and you did a lot of damage with stabbing.
When you get towards the 'Dark Ages' swords become as much a thing about wealth and showing off more then anything else. Although a thrust with a Viking sword could pierce chain mail relatively well you're right. Axes were a lot better at dealing with armour. There was a reason housecarl's fought with dane axes (two handed axes).
The medieval period was much the same. Knights mostly fought with maces when on foot but could use the weight of a broadsword to break bones through armour. Often swords were a tournament weapon as well. Also knights commonly used swords when fighting other knights. You didn't want to kill enemy knights, they were worth way more alive. As you get later on armour becomes less common and armies become more professional so axes disappear almost completely and thinner swords become more common as they don't need to cracking through armour. So with swords, most of it's for show and looking rich. But heavy cavalry swords are still effective. Probably more effective then an axe when on horseback. But really spears and other pole arms have been the king of the medieval battlefield.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm... but about that whole "the sword it's for show and looking rich" I asked a fellow student of history (and he's also quite te medievalist) and he told me that a sword, actually, was pretty commont. Even a peasant could have one.
Of course, he was not talking about these perfected and golden-hilted swords, but he was referring to the simpler ones.
He literally told me that "you can take a piece of sharpened metal, tie a bit of cloth to build a grip and voila, you have a sword".
He also mentioned that even a weapon like this was preferred due to its agility. Now, I am not talking about agility as it is referred in most rpg's, but, realistically. He said that, due to the sword having his weigh distirbuted all over the weapon, it was quicker to handle than a mace or an axe, in which you had to use some extra force to stop the inertia of each blow.
He also agreed that spears where the primary weapon in the battlefield.
What do you think about this?
Now, another question: if spears where so common... how would they take them into battlefield? I don't think that there was a "spear scabbard" and tying the spear to your back looks a bit dumb. Did they carry these weapons as walking sticks until they entered combat?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now I'm definitely an early medievalist, so what I say could definitely be different to your friends. But from what I know of the earlier periods swords were hellishly expensive. Early period we're talking the entire gross profit of a small town for an entire year could buy you sword. And whilst yes, technically any scrap of metal with some cloth wrapped around the handle could be considered a 'sword' this would be like someone on a bike making engine noises and calling themselves a car.
Nevermind the fact most of these 'swords' would probably be much more like long knives then a sword. True all saxon men carried a knives, these were primarily tools rather then weapons. Also by that logic carrying a spear head around would technically be a sword. I mean things like bills:
www.garden-goodies.co.uk/acata…
Are essentially bits of metal with a handle. I wouldn't call that a sword myself. But it all depends on your distinction.
As for carrying spears around, yes you'd naturally carry them. Total war and some rpg's are buggers for having spears slung onto characters backs when not equipped. But this would never have happened. One, because it would have been almost impossible to actually get off your back in a combat situation. And two because it would have been awkward as hell. If you carried a spear and a sword into battle and wanted to fight with your sword you'd have to drop your spear and come back for it later.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"technically any scrap of metal with some cloth wrapped around the handle could be considered a 'sword' this would be like someone on a bike making engine noises and calling themselves a car. "
I almost spilled my tea at reading this analogy.
Now, onto spears.
How likely was to have your spear broken or lost?
If I strike someone with a sword, the blade is likely to pretty much slide off the enemy causing (or not) some cutting damage. In any case, I can keep the blade after the strike.
Now, with a spear, I feel that it's in its nature to get stuck into the enemy, and I am sure that the tension that the wood experiments is anything but good to its integrity.
Moreover if we talk about mounted combat: you charge in, strike with the spear... then, what? How do you retrieve your spear if it's already stuck in the enemy you struck 50 meters behind?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm glad I could entertain with my analogies XD
Now spears were very likely to be broken. They tended to use freshly cut ash so the wood was quite subtle and was flexible enough to take quite the pounding. I mean try and cut wood against the grain and it is quite difficult to do. I think a spear would last longer in combat then you might think. But over the course of a battle it would probably still break. Once broken you'd have to either find another spear or fight with whatever else you had. Usually a sword. I believe a spear would have just as much problem with getting stuck in people as a thrusting sword would. Although very possible to get stuck you'd maybe get it stuck one in four times you gutted a guy with it. But that is a guess. If it got stuck you'd have to drop it and again, try to find another weapon or use a side arm.
Also charging with a spear, well you'd use the spear on the charge and if you were lucky enough to have the spear after the charge, good for you. If not then you'd have to fight with a side arm. Probably a heavy cavalry sword if you're a rich knight.
Spears though we're very cheap and most definitely expendable. That's partially what made them so effective. Also of course their reach and so on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm... then it makes more sense the use of side-arms.
You see, I was taught that swords were side-arms and spears were pretty much the primary weapon (as you told me), but I thought that this was up to a point were battles were rarely fought with the side arms.
Now, let me get a bit into rpg territory. What's the believability behind the idea of adventurers and bounty hunters? Did they really exist? Were they really that common as most of the media make us believe? Were the forests as full of bandits that it made it worth to sustain yourself going into the hunt of those rapscallions? Were there really rewards for hunting down bandits? Were those adventurers bands of mercenaries or some of them were aragorn-like-lone-wolves (I see this last idea as quite silly, but yet awesome)?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmmmm... now that heavily depends upon the period and the place you're in.
See in the early medieval period bandits were a huge problem and most small towns had to fight off a bandit attack at some point. Probably one every couple of years? Especially in times of hardship such as war and plague that forced men into such rolls such as bandits. Although raiders were INCREDIBLY common in eastern Europe and the Near East. So if you were looking for a permanent bandit hunter job, they would be your best bet. But banditry became much less common as times go on. Piracy, that's always been a thing though. I've heard accounts of individual mercenaries selling their services to small towns to protect them. But that's probably as close to an aragon figure you'll get.
Now the most common type of 'adventurer' were probably pilgrims. Now all Christians were supposed to go on pilgrimage and most men went before they were married. Probably in their mid teens. Now this often became more of a 'lads' holiday as basically all the young men in a town would walk out to local cities and basically have a little adventurer of their own (probably with a lot of alcohol) modern life equivalent of going to Ibetha with a bunch of friends (.... not sure what the Spanish equivalent of that is, lol). Some would go further a field but probably not much further.
Now mercenaries were very common as well and to be honest a small mercenary band most common mission would probably be dealing with bandits and the like if a noble didn't have the manpower to send troops out and defend his own keep. But they'd also protect caravans and do other stiff like that. But often mercenaries worked beside larger armies in very professional bands and normally worked for loot.
So in real life medieval Europe? Yeah, adventuring was sort off a thing in the form of pilgrimages, but apart from that it's more of a fantasy thing. Of course said fantasy world could have different culture that made this more common. But as far as real life goes. Not so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand. It is kinda funny to think that at the end, the difference between "adventure" and "basically a walking orgy with a lot of alcohol" hasn't changed too much XD. Still, I gotta admit that it is something I used to fantasize a lot to do (I mean, being and adventurer who fights bandits, not the orgy thing).
Let me jump back to medieval equipment. I don't know if I have already asked you about this but, what about armor? How cheap/expensive was to make? I can only picture that a full plate armor was something uncommon and extremely expensive but maybe was more common in the later ages.
But, most importantly, how did bows do against armor? Because, let me tell you, I have heard, on one hand, that sarracen bows did to the crusader's armor what light rain could do but I have also heard that a longbow (an english one, of course) could penetrate plate armor...
Also, I have heard about something called "peasant sword". It's supposed to be a XIV sword that was cheap and mass produced so every peasant could own one. What do you think about that? Is it reality or fiction?
Now, are you getting tired? If you do, let me know and I'll stop pestering you.
I admit that I am a bit passionate of this subject XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay now armour is something that definitely varies. But one rule I find tends to suit throughout the periods. The most expensive armour of the period would cost the same as about two years savings from an entire village. So chainmail in the dark ages was as expensive as plate armour in say the 14th century. So if a baron could outfit say five men at arms with good armour and weapons, maybe even a horse then he'd be incredibly rich.
When plate armour first came in it was incredibly uncommon and only the richest barons could afford it. In later periods many men at arms wore partial plate armour. Obviously when you get into like the 17th century warfare and the aristocracy move away from the battlefields then plate armour becomes less common again, especially with the introduction of fire arms.
Now, armour penetration with bows... well that REALLY depends on who you ask. See I spoke to one guy who said a longbow could pierce the side of a tank... but I certainly wouldn't believe that. Let's start with the Saracen bow and other shortbows. These weapons could not pierce plate armour. Like not at all. They were incredibly good bows and poweful over short distances. But they lacked the armour penetration in later periods. Although it could pierce chain mail pretty well, most knights wore gambesons beneath their armour that helped protect from arrows. During the Battle off.... ooh forgotten what it's called, but one of the crusaders battles the crusading knights dismounted and formed a huge shield wall whilst being surrounded by Saracen archers for like two hours and losses seemed minimal amongst the warriors, so I think that's pretty good evidence for the lack of armour penetrative effects of the cavalry and horn bows.
Now longbows... see being English I'd love to say how good they were at piercing armour, but honestly (although many people would disagree with me) I believe it too have been very ineffective against plate armour. I've seen some good videos proving this that can't be too hard to find on youtube. Although chainmail wouldn't stand a chance against a longbow, plate armour resisted it very well.
The reason why the longbow was so good against armoured knights was simply how many longbowmen could be put onto the field and how fast they could shoot. It's a matter of percentage. If a hundred archers loose six vollies at a dozen French knights then enough arrows will find gaps in armour (and strike the horses) to bring down the knights. Such as what happened at Agincourt. The English army just had so many longbowmen.
Also no do continue. I'm enjoying these chats XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cool! Me too!
I see. So, we can assume that battles were mainly fought in regular clothes or some sort of gambesons. At least, that's true during the dark ages, right?
Three more questions and a little request (if you wish to take it):
1- Is there some sort of historical truth behind the so-called "leather armor"? I have heard people talk about it as if it was something common, but I have also seen historians getting all upset saying that "leather armor" is rpg fantasy.
2- Do you know anything about the so-called "peasant sword"? I have heard that it was a cheap alternative in England for peasants to be prepared for battle. I am kinda inclined to believe that it's nonsense, since a sword, as you told me, was incredibly expensive. But still...
3-Okay, so knightly weaponry was expensive as hell. Now, do you know something about oriental equipment? What about scimitars and the like? Where they all that expensive? Because in pictures it almost looks like as if every sarracen had one.
4- The request... if you want to take it, is this: what do you think about the "armor" that Aidan wears in my comic?
Here, have a page: PMD: ToC. Ch 1: Pg 1
I had the idea of it being some sort of long gambeson with a little cuirass for the chest. For an 11th century period, how protective/expensive do you think it is?
I have to admit that I don't aim for 100% historical accuracy in this comic (I mean, it's pokemon with swords, duh), but it might be useful and fun to have a review from a well-known person as yourself.
Don't worry, be all honest! I won't take it offensively. I assume that the looks of the armor are half-historically accurate and half (or even more than half) fantasy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay let's get this started XD
1. now the main argument against leather armour out forward by historians is the lack of evidence for them. But this i find an odd argument as leather degrades. There's about as much proof of leather armour as there are gambesons, and we know they exist. My own personal belief on leather armour is that it would have mostly been worn as a replacement to a gambeson (especially beneath mail) but it's design would have been very simple. There wouldn't really have been any fancy leather armour in my opinion.
2. I had no previous knowledge of something known as a peasant sword. So I did a bit of googling but couldn't find much in it. Especially within the medieval period. Certainly most Saxons wore knives. But nothing like swords. although swords did become a lot cheaper in the 17th century and such so perhaps later.
3. See the near East is very different in its military recruitment. We get our view of the Arabic fighters from the Mamluks. Now these are very interesting and definitely worth a google. But that aside the mamluks were basically a full time profesional army when compared to European levies so their arms and armour was better (sort of a middle between a knight and a man-at-arms)
4. Okay let me have a look... Obviously I will not be taking into account the different biology of a Pokemon over a human XD now... As far as early medieval Europe goes any sort of plate armour (besides helmets) was almost completely gone by the 11th century so it would be unusual to see any metal plate. However in eastern Europe they did have lameller armour...
tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.zeM…
which is essentially plate armour so having a chunk of metal adding protection to the chest is very plausible. The gambeson is of course accurate (but if I'm being REALLY picky, I might advise either making it a little shorter or adding a cut in the front centre of the gambeson as gambesons are actually much harder to move in then you might first assume. But again that's me being EXCEPTIONALLY picky).
As far as cost goes (and assuming that armour is being worn by the equivalent of a man-at-arms) then that armour seems reasonable. Especially considering they aren't wearing helmets. As well as being easy enough to produce and a rich enough king could easily outfit a few dozen troops armed in such a way. Especially if they were armed with spears.
The only thing I would say is that personally I'd like to see some more shield combat. But I can definitely understand why they aren't included as they sometimes look a little clumsy
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
(One week later XD)
Okay! Thanks a lot for taking the time to answer the questions and the request!
As for what you said over the armors, I thought you were going to point out the lack of protection on the arms. I can picture that they are a place where you would receive blows from time to time.
Still, I have to say that trying to elaborate some sort of uniform in a world where every soldier looks and has a vastly different body than other is hard (specially when it comes to helmets) My idea, to get around that, was to not abuse of plate armor and use cloth. I thought that cloth/gambeson are a bit more flexible, so they can easily adapt to pokemon's many shapes... and I also wanted to avoid that silly topic of the foot soldiers wearing knight's armor.
And, as for the shield part: I'll do, for sure! I know that they had quite the presence in battle and they will have even more in this world, since shields are even more necessary. Afterall, you not only have to protect from enemy blows or arrows, but magic, and that's something you can't always dodge.
So, yeah, I'll make sure to add some more shields.
Now, do you mind a few more questions?
1- Do you know of any sort of nordic longsword? I've heard that, when it came to two-handed, vikings prefered axes. But I wonder if they had some sort of two-handed bladed at their disposal. Something like a "falx".
2- What about the usage of poison? I know about the whole "throw dead bodies to the enemies" thing, but, did they poison the tip of the arrows or, even further, their blades? Is this mere fantasy or it's historical? How effective could that poison be?
3- Lastly, I'm currently reading "Tirant lo blanc" (or, at least I try, since I lost the book) and there it explains that kngiths, when fighting tournaments, they pretty much fought to death. Well, actually it's more like "hey, you have been defeated, if you don't surrender, you become an "arms martyr" as I kill you. If you surrender, you get to live but lose all your pride and honors as a knight". I always thought it was just a sane competition... Do you know anything about this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I decided not mention the arm protection as one it's often the first thing that gets 'cut' when cost saving as they're basically the easiest thing to remove. Also despite arm shots being common often the shield would cover a lot of that area anyway. Also for a Pokemon stand point it makes sense as to the amount of variation your get as you mentioned. No I believe it's a good and simple design. Also helmets is imagine you'd definitely struggle for XD
Now...
1. Now coming swords were long for the time, the length of a man's arm and often the early blades are single edged. a two handed variation however lacks evidence. Metal was so expensive and the way Vikings forged their steel was incredible time consuming as well. Falx were an interesting weapon but they did not survive past the Roman empire. I would argue because warfare became more organised rather than dueling so the falx became infective.
2. I've heard English longbowmen would piss into the ground and then stick their arrows into the earth to give enemies an infection. This seems odd to me, but apparently it really happened. Naturally i would argue against the use of poisons in battle though, especially on blades as most poisons take way too long to be of any use in a direct battle and if you're in a position to stab someone with poison then you may as well just kill them. I would however argue that if a poison was strong enough then it could be very useful on a sword. But only if it acted immediately and such poisons are rare in this world. Especially in Europe
3. Hmmmmm... an interesting one. I've heard of tournaments being bloody affairs, but most of these were accidental and not purposeful and I haven't heard much about killing a defeated knight. Especially at tournaments. Also then very few knights would live very long at all. Now I know the church banned tournaments as it was a waste of noble life, but I don't believe they were that bloody. Now I could be wrong as it might vary widely on location and time. But that's what I've read about tournaments.
Now, my turn to ask some questions and to offer something...
One. does your fictional world (the Pokemon with swords one) the main kingdom, is it a proper feudal system or more of a central authority, more like an empire? So if they went to war would most of the troops come from the surrounding aristocracy (knights) or does the ruler have his own sufficient army? I know that systems of government aren't the first thing you think of when creating a world so don't worry if you haven't given this much thought XD
Also, if you ever wish to talk about plot ideas for your stories, talk through ideas of armour, weapons, architecture or anything or need direction on where to look for a little real world (or pokemon) inspiration on anything then I'd be more then happy to lend you a hand if you so wanted
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1- Welp, in one of the future pages a Viking haxorus wielding a claymore makes his appearance.
I'm telling you so you get ready when that comes. XD
Also, another Viking character wields some sort of two-handed seax.
Not to mention the pagan crusader samurai knight wielding two MP-50's that burst from the ground in page 61.
Man, I suck at this.
3- Well, the book narrated Tirant's adventures in the tournament and it basically told that: once a knight was bested in battle, he had yo give up his life or his honor as a knight.
Still, they sort of makes a mention of how the bloodshed is disapproved. You see, there's a moment where this knight hates Tirant's guts because he accidentaly touched some damsel's... well, I don't remember what happened, but, anyway, it was an accident and it was offensive. The book narrates that the knight challenges Tirant to a duel and it also states "that they had to do the duel early in the morning while the King was attending mass because those duels are forbidden".
So, maybe is that.
Oh, now you ask me? Heh, sure!
This was actually one of the things I first thought! I had in mind a feudal system. It's a county ruled by Robert, the count.
This county is one of the many counties that form a huge kingdom. These counties are pretty peaceful with each other since they have enough external enemies.
Now, as for the army: each county has his own army. The counties at the border (Castur being one of those) are the ones with a bigger army, while the ones at the center (the King included: but I have also heard that this was pretty common) have smaller armies.
Normally, the border counties can easily deal with external raids or some attempt at invasion, but if things get serious, counts can always summon help from the other feuds.
Now, these armies are mainly composed of semi-professional soldiers and professional soldiers.
Semi-professional are normally man-at-arms that once where peasants and decided to volunteer for the army. They are semi-professional soldiers because, even though the army is not their way of life, they receive an extense formation in the use of arms.
Professionals are mostly officials, knights and, sometimes, mercenaries.
There are also the "castelars" (I made those up), which are basically knights that are specially devoted to the count to whom they swear an oath.
There really are not levies or militia... but it can be formed if the situation asks for it.
I hope I explained myself well!
Now, as for the proposition... well, sure! Your help will always be welcome!
Keep in mind, though, that I don't want to look 100% into historical accuracy. I want to make something with true medieval style but, at the same time, being able to take some artistic liberties.
There's also the fact that I work with at least 10 pages as a buffer so... it might look as if I was ignoring your suggestions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well just because something doesn't exist in one culture doesn't mean it didn't exist in another. I'm not one of those people who goes "that didn't happen so it can never happen" which some people argue. whenever I create world's or such i always take real life inspiration but at the end of the day so long as it makes sense to the culture it's within (and makes sense within the world it inhabits. It really annoys me when people rely on the argument "it's a fantasy anything can hapen" like that's true but it has to make sense in the world it inhabits. Anyway this bracket went on for too long XD).
Also that book of yours did seem to take a couple of liberties XD but that's always understandable.
Also I'm glad you gave the system some thought. WAY too many people don't give enough thought to that type of stuff when it's really important to how the world functions. I always make sure to get a really detailed world before I try to make a story within it.
Also of course I expect there to be liberties. I've written fantasy myself XD also I don't mind if you do completely ignore any advice I give, your story after all XD but yeah if you ever want to ask anything or talk through any ideas I'd be happy to help.
Now, another question for your world... Are there restrictions to those who can join the men-at-arms and the castelars? Like height and size restrictions and such? Could a tiny Joltik join the men-at-arms? (Which by the way would be adorable and I'D love to see,and I'm aware joktiks probably didn't survive to become humanoid but I can still dream XD)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, and that's what I'm aiming for! I want to make sure I create a consistent world with some not-too-bizarre creative liberties.
Now, as for the book, it's a knight's book that was written in 1490 (Tirant lo Blanch is the original title)... so I would give it some more credit. Still, the critics admit that the books mix crude reality with knight's ideals so... maybe we should be cautious anyways?
Now, as for the world... well, it kinda felt like a no-brainer. I mean, the world is like the sheet of paper where you are going to draw a picture. Without the sheet of paper, what are you going to do?
In my opinion, thinking a minimum about the setting is the first step on writing stories. Then, they come the characters that are going to be build from this world. Then, later, it comes the plot with how these characters interact with each other and the world.
Now, as for the Joltik... man, picturing a Joltik in Casturean armor is waaaay too cute.
Anyways, regarding your question.
1- Joltiks, don't worry, they haven't gone extinct (hooooray), as the rest of the insects. As I have planned to show in these 4-panneled lore comics, you'll see that insect-pokemon developed very different from the rest (as did fish-like pokemon).
Insect pokemon are to tartesian what an Idian is to a Spanish colonizer. Insect pokemon are those strange native tribes that live somewhere else, clearly capable of intelligence, but primitive. In the lore of this world, while mammals, reptiles and birds evolved into humanoids, insects didn't experience any changes while achieving intelligence. This means that a Scyther is a Scyther in this world... and a Joltik is a Joltik.
Now, could a Joltik join the army? Not really, but it could interact with the world of Tales of Castur in other ways: maybe this little Joltik is a native that helps the colonizers to spy upon their enemies, maybe he's an explorer, or maybe he's some sort of native merchant!
2- Yeah, there are some height and weight requirements... especially for cavalry.
I mean, a Nidoking sure can become a soldier or a foot knight, but go and tell that horse that it has to carry that quantity of mass.
...
Yep, it ran away. I'm not surprised.
3- Well, the "castelar" thing is something I might give some thought.
They are actually an step below a knight. It's the closest that a soldier can get to become a knight. It sure is an honour to be a catelar, but you'll never become noble that way.
Still, it's not strange to meet knights that once were castelars.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The book was written in 1490?! wow that's surprising... (Quick Google) huh... Might hAve to give that a read...Anyway, I've heard a good argument after some googling i heard the argument that he was attempting to make the Byzantines look better when compared to the west. But that's just one argument.
Also I'm very glad to hear that Joltiks aren't dead XD definitely my favourite pokemon. Hope to see some bugs make an appearance in the future. Also a little Joktik as a traveling merchant with a little backpack and maybe a scarf. YOU BETTER MAKE THIS HAPPEN!!! XD also that's definitely an interesting twist on a classic mystery dungeon vibe. Also goes a long way to explain how different Pokemon would interact. Looking forward to seeing that more later on in the comic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I recommend it. It might be hard to find an english translation that stays true to its roots, but it certainly is a good reading.
Welp, I can't really assure you that a Joltik will make his appearance in the comic, but, who knows? Maybe I'll find a gap in the plot where a Joltik can fit in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>