Over-Valuing Swords
I want to ask three main questions here.
Have I over-valued, made too useful, swords in my Glory Road Roleplay Rules? There is a related question here: Do game designers in general over-value swords? However, that isn't very important to me right now and it is too difficult to answer quickly without looking at a great many rules sets. So, it isn't one of my main questions.
The second question is, is there a reason to over-value swords. I realized early on that many early game designers under-valued missile weapons and I know they had their reasons. Maybe there is a genre reason to over-value swords.
The third main question is: what should I do about it.
Let's compare Glory Road swords with other weapons of the same or similar handling weights. Let's compare the good old Arming Sword, the one-handed broadsword of the medieval period, with an axe of the same handling weight as the edge of the sword. The sword has more reach with the point and that's fine. It has the same reach with the edge and that's good also. I'm mostly comparing edge versus edge anyway. The axe has a much larger handling penalty because its striking surface is smaller and your opponent has to worry about the point, so that's ok too. However, the axe only does one category of damage more than the edge of the sword if the wielders are the same strength. That's a small difference. 2D10+2 versus 4D6 for Strength Bonus three characters.
With those other advantages, why was the sword relegated to sidearm status (except for polearm-sized swords) when armor became common? Well, this sword was not suitable for two-handed use but even the longsword was generally considered a backup weapon to something with more percussive impact. Given that the amount of damage in the system directly impacts whether the weapon hurts someone through the armor, maybe I am giving swords too much damage.
Both these sword edges and axes are chopping weapons and can easily be compared. We roll the damage, subtract the armor value and then double and apply the result.
A mace or a hammer will do about the same damage as an axe but we only subtract half of the armor value. Then we apply the result without doubling.
A few swords, such as the katana, depend on the drawing cut. For them, we subtract double the armor and then we triple the result and apply it.
Some sword points do armor piercing point damage and have a damage type similar to blunt weapons and they are useful against armor.
Most sword points do stabbing point damage, which works like cutting damage.
So, what's the problem? For a crunchy game to have swords still be the weapon of choice for many player-characters feels like it ought to be problematical.
Well, is there a reason to over-value swords? Swords are the glamour weapon of fantasy literature. The fact that they were not the battlefield weapon of choice did not mean that they couldn't be carried by far-traveling adventurers. And a sword, unless we are talking about a huge two-hander, is handy to carry around. Finally, a sword is often the status symbol of a noble or an officer. So, I think it should retain its status as at least a favored sidearm.
So, what is to be done? Well, I could easily reduce the damage of swords, at least their edges. Weapon stats are on the website on a PDF, not on the core rules that are commercially available. And I could put a note on DriveThru that I had done that. GMs could change or not as they choose. Or I can leave it like it is. They do call (part of) the genre Sword and Sorcery, after all.
This reads like an advertisement?
Swords arent the glamour weapon of choice. Some prefer axes, others hammers, etc. Swords just show up alot because pop culture, and some normal culture, over-use them. And sometimes even mis-use them.
In my own game way back and 4e D&D Gamma World you had damage ranges of light, medium and heavy, and then could name it whatever you want. This takes into account craftsmanship and possibly even the user being unaware what the weapon really is.
An arming sword and a katana should use the same rules. Nothing particularly special about either.
Been taking marketing tips from the Zweihander guy?
But honestly, I think swords are probably the best all around weapon. You can stab, you can slash, you can whack them with the hilt. Because they are relatively light and balanced, you can swing them quickly, which means much more energy.
If you had an army, you'd probably want to give them pikes (ie, really long spears). But one on one the sword is king.
Every other weapon is better than a sword at it's main function, but that's it's only function.
Swords are versatile, and unlike hafted weapons, are lighter, and more durable due to the lack of wood. It's only very late in the melee weapons era where you see armor worn over enough of the body to render one handed swords useless.
But, you're asking about raw damage, so yes, maybe swords should be less useful against armor than an axe. Axes do have the curved edge to bring the weight down all at one point after all.
IRL people carried around swords way more than they carried around halberds & other specialist battlefield weapons. There were good reasons for this. Those reasons did not include raw damage against plate armour, but if your game is not focused on actual battlefield simulation I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
Barring speciality weapons like zweihanders, a sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. It's the backup for when your main weapon either fails or is situationally less useful. We see this across cultures and times, the sword was always a secondary weapon. The ancient Chinese, for example, called it the "queen of battles" - the "king" was the spear.
Many RPGs undervalue the spear, not least later editions of D&D introducing silly, arbitrary rules like regular war-spears requiring two hands to use.
Look, there may or may not be a large amount of expertise on the true qualities of medieval weapons here. I don't think it matters. The one salient point I think has already been brought up:
Quote from: S'mon;997748if your game is not focused on actual battlefield simulation I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
In virtually no RPG, are the individuals who are going to be engaging the rule system (players/characters, and the opponents they are up against) going to be doing what people really did with weapons in the way that they would have, and have the same priorities that they did. Even if you get rid of the fantasy milieu of using swords on dragons and the technological smorgasbord of having leather, chain, and plate; rapiers and katanas all in the same time and place, you still aren't doing the same things with your weapons and armor as they would have historically.
The existence of a thread where a guy wants to talk about his game and wants to include a little more detail based on historical use of weapons doesn't force you to read it.
We don't need a massive threadcrap of "lol realizm", or "you'll never be perfect so why bother" or "nerd's comparing dick size again" or any other of the types of arguments that crop up when someone wants something more than all medium weapons do 1d8.
You can get down with your bad, superior self...elsewhere, and let the guy work it out.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;997765In virtually no RPG, are the individuals who are going to be engaging the rule system (players/characters, and the opponents they are up against) going to be doing what people really did with weapons in the way that they would have, and have the same priorities that they did. Even if you get rid of the fantasy milieu of using swords on dragons and the technological smorgasbord of having leather, chain, and plate; rapiers and katanas all in the same time and place, you still aren't doing the same things with your weapons and armor as they would have historically.
Except for all those historical RPGs and anyone choosing to use systems for historical settings...
I guess I would ask if you have valued everything else enough. Like... the axe has a larger handling penalty because of its smaller striking surface. Does that handling penalty map to the +2 max damage and almost the same average? My gut tells me that with dice that big, the difference should be smaller in handling penalties. I guess the question is... is the sword a jack of all trades and master of none, and are the other weapons the master of something else?
Does the axe have a cost advantage? It is a FAR cheaper weapon to make. But outside of that, I would certainly not consider an axe within the parameters I've seen. The damage difference is very slight, and unless armor is quite tuned around about 13-25 points, I'm not going to ever see the benefit of an axe.
Also, http://armor.typepad.com/bastardsword/sword_dynamics.pdf Might be useful. It's not short though!
At first glance, it sounds like the modeling problem in the OP's damage numbers is that the average of the axe is only 1 more than the sword and has a wide range (min damage is the same, and max damage is only +2 for the axe, and very unlikely to ever happen on 4d6). With armor subtracting from that (even though penetrating damage is doubled), I expect that's not going to represent the situation of axes being much better at penetrating heavy armor.
Swords are better balanced than axes, and it tends to be easier to slash up an unarmored person with one than with an axe. But getting hit solidly with an axe does a lot where it hits, and can sometimes chop through heavy armor.
One way you could try representing it would be to make the sword make more attacks (or more damage rolls, or have a chance to hit more times than the axe does) but with lower damage for each,
Another way would be to greatly reduce the sword damage to the point it's very unlikely to get through heavy armor, but then multiply the penetration multiplier so it does more damage than an axe to an unarmored person.
The second suggestion will probably be simpler and faster than the first suggestion, but might make the minimum penetrating sword damage several points (so no chance of light sword wounds, which is also wrong). The first suggestion seems more accurately representative to me, but takes a bit more work to calculate.
Quote from: CRKrueger;997775The existence of a thread where a guy wants to talk about his game and wants to include a little more detail based on historical use of weapons doesn't force you to read it.
And likewise, no one is forcing anyone to take the advice of anyone who puts forth a suggestion that they don't like.
QuoteWe don't need a massive threadcrap of "lol realizm", or "you'll never be perfect so why bother" or "nerd's comparing dick size again" or any other of the types of arguments that crop up when someone wants something more than all medium weapons do 1d8.
You can get down with your bad, superior self...elsewhere, and let the guy work it out.
I'm fascinated that you've interpreted this as one 'side' taking a stance of superiority over the other, as opposed to reasonable people putting forth opinions that will compete in the marketplace of ideas. For future reference, what was it that made you feel that way? Why is this a threadcrap and not advice you consider bad?
I'll elaborate on my particular stance. OP stated, "is there a reason to over-value swords? Swords are the glamour weapon of fantasy literature." And my answer is yes, over-value whatever you consider your own fantasy glamour, to the dearth of historic realism. That's a position, and one that can be argued, but the one I favor.
My reasoning is that these are (for the most part) military, battlefield weapons, and PCs are (for the most part) not going to be playing soldiers fighting in ranks on a military battlefield. This is as significant a factor as things like an handaxe having a different striking surface profile compared to an arming sword. Likewise, I feel that any weapon that your going to bother to include in the weapon list ought to be a reasonable one for a PC to choose to be their weapon of choice. Even if that's slightly unrealistic. Therefore, I don't think that realism should be the primary motivation.
Personally, I would propose (again, opinion and position) that there should be some variation in weapon stats. So not 'all medium weapons do 1d8.' And it might even have some nod towards realism, but that that not be the determining factor of the end-stats of the weapon. Instead, it should be such that all the weapons are reasonable choices (except maybe things that are supposed to be 'improvised weapon,' in which case that's its benefit), so that if someone really wants to make a "____-wielding combatant," it is reasonable.
I will use D&D 3.5 as an example. They had all weapons of the same skill level and heft work off the same formula (so ex. one-handed, non-light, martial-skill weapons they do 1d8 damage and either 19-20 crit or x3 critical, or 1d6 damage and 18-20 or x4 critical). There was some nod towards some justification ('scimitars and other curved swords have less reach and thus inertia-per-weight, but a longer cutting surface, so we'll say they do less damage but are more likely to cut a vital artery of something and thus have a higher critical range'), but it was hand-wavy. They did some other things wrong (like making "spiked chains" an uber-weapon) and 3.5 isn't my favorite system, but this isn't something I think they did wrong.
I'm suggesting this because the OP stated that "For a crunchy game to have swords still be the weapon of choice for many player-characters feels like it ought to be problematical" and I don't want a classic fantasy weapon to be problematic. There are plenty of games, such as oD&D/1e, GURPS, and so forth that did take valiant stabs at realism with weapons and armor charts, or different stats or even rules for each weapon types (GURPS 3e I believe had swords be swingable every second and axes every other second)--and there always seems to be clear 'best choices.'
So I am putting forth the position that--where realism and fantasy diverge, follow the fantasy (unless this is a game whose whole 'deal' is its' realism, in which case you should expect certain weapons to simply not get used). It's also not an all-or-none thing. One can certainly say 'yes, spears are going to be as effective as swords and axes, even though no one is fighting in ranks, but you bring a rapier or whip to a battlefield, and you're going to have a rough go at it.'
This thread makes the case for 1E AD&D's weapon vs. armor type system. Generally ignored, often reviled, but really represents the relative merits of pre-gunpowder weapons better than any other roleplaying game system I've seen, including the supposedly super realistic ones.
Quote from: Kiero;997779Except for all those historical RPGs and anyone choosing to use systems for historical settings...
Well the problem I've seen is that the 'historical' game makes eg halberds realistically better weapons than swords, but does not enforce the reasons why you hardly ever saw a halberd in daily life. So everyone* carries halberds and you end up with something *less* realistic - and probably less genre-emulatory too - than a game which just lets swords do comparable damage.
*Like a WW2 game where all the soldiers wield MG42s and Panzerfausts and no one uses a rifle.
Quote from: JeremyR;997730If you had an army, you'd probably want to give them pikes (ie, really long spears). But one on one the sword is king.
Eh, I dunno about that. I like swords, but the reach of a spear isn't to be discounted. I'd say that if you have equally skilled combatants, one armed with a spear and one armed with a one-handed sword, the guy with the spear has an advantage. Discussions on this kind of stuff are difficult to have, though, because so much of it depends on the situation in which the weapon is used.
Quote from: Larsdangly;997850This thread makes the case for 1E AD&D's weapon vs. armor type system. Generally ignored, often reviled, but really represents the relative merits of pre-gunpowder weapons better than any other roleplaying game system I've seen, including the supposedly super realistic ones.
I thought it was a good idea, except that it required the use of charts. My method is not aimed at such precision but it does not use charts. The game has been played since the mid-eighties, although we only printed some copies for our own use and sold some at cons, and the sword has been the most popular weapon in most campaigns. If my main aim were realism, I am sure I would reduce sword edge damage but as it is, I put the original post on this thread on the support website and the GMs can decide for themselves.
Yes, obviously are, because the odds of getting 21+ damage is higher with a sword;).
Quote from: Kiero;997750Barring speciality weapons like zweihanders, a sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. It's the backup for when your main weapon either fails or is situationally less useful. We see this across cultures and times, the sword was always a secondary weapon. The ancient Chinese, for example, called it the "queen of battles" - the "king" was the spear.
Many RPGs undervalue the spear, not least later editions of D&D introducing silly, arbitrary rules like regular war-spears requiring two hands to use.
^This.
On the battlefield, with rare exception, a spear, pike, bow, or crossbow was always a soldier's primary weapon. Reach and distance were a soldier's best friends. A sword, if they even had one, was a sidearm used when their primary weapon was broken, dropped, or the enemy got inside their optimum reach. The sword (and dagger) was there for self-defense. Keep in mind, this was
on a battlefield fighting against
armored opponents. Swords and daggers are utterly useless against armor. You had to get in close and find gaps to hurt your opponent at all.
Off the battlefield, swords were far more common, carried, and used in civilian life as a sidearm. They're easy to carry and the best weapon against
UNarmored opponents, which will be almost everyone. This is where you see the most widespread use of swords as 'primary' weapons.
Adventuring in an RPG isn't on a battlefield, but adventurers are usually armored and often fight against armored opponents. So, this paradigm sort of combines the common usage of carrying swords as a 'civilian' with armored, battlefield combat. Swords shouldn't be (and aren't) the best choice for armored combat, but as a civilian adventurer, it is. Most games don't try to distinguish any differences in weapon types and armored combat. If you want a more realistic approach, there should be major differences. If you want the typical 'high fantasy', the true differences don't really matter. It really comes down to how accurate you want your combat to be and how much time you want to spend to make it so.
Shields are another example. Exceedingly useful and almost necessary on the battlefield, but never carried around and used in civilian life (apart from bucklers). They are far too cumbersome to be carrying around all day, yet many adventurers do just that...
Quote from: Graewulf;998100... Keep in mind, this was on a battlefield fighting against armored opponents. Swords and daggers are utterly useless against armor. ...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1712[/ATTACH]
?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Biblia_de_Maciejowski_miniatura_h10.jpg)
?
(https://i1.wp.com/sexycodicology.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2.jpg)
?
Quote from: Skarg;998104[ATTACH=CONFIG]1712[/ATTACH]
?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Biblia_de_Maciejowski_miniatura_h10.jpg)
?
(https://i1.wp.com/sexycodicology.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2.jpg)
?
You could take your firearms performance data from Hollywood, too.
Quote from: Graewulf;998100Swords and daggers are utterly useless against armor.
I agree with some points from your post, but I wouldn't go this far. Swords and daggers are much less effective when cutting vs. armor, but I wouldn't say they're useless. Depending on the armor, sword cuts can still be directed at less armored (or even unarmored) areas like hands, arms, and legs, and even against heavily armored enemies, there's the possibility of using the point against weak points (joints, etc), especially when half-swording. Lastly, there are techniques like the murder stroke. As for daggers, many daggers (e.g., rondel) are specifically designed for thrusting into gaps in armor. I think a duel between heavily armored warriors armed with swords and/or daggers would look more like a wrestling match to work a point in than like something out of Captain Blood or the Three Musketeers.
Your point about the edges of swords and daggers being very iffy against good armor is a valid one, though.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;998138I agree with some points from your post, but I wouldn't go this far. Swords and daggers are much less effective when cutting vs. armor, but I wouldn't say they're useless. Depending on the armor, sword cuts can still be directed at less armored (or even unarmored) areas like hands, arms, and legs, and even against heavily armored enemies, there's the possibility of using the point against weak points (joints, etc), especially when half-swording. Lastly, there are techniques like the murder stroke. As for daggers, many daggers (e.g., rondel) are specifically designed for thrusting into gaps in armor. I think a duel between heavily armored warriors armed with swords and/or daggers would look more like a wrestling match to work a point in than like something out of Captain Blood or the Three Musketeers.
Your point about the edges of swords and daggers being very iffy against good armor is a valid one, though.
That was my point. I should've been clearer.
Slashing attacks directly against armor are utterly useless. Blades, I don't care how sharp they are,
cannot cut through armor. You had to hit unprotected areas or get into the gaps. Mail (over padding) was the best armor to wear for a long time for this very reason. Even padded armor alone (gambeson) was great to wear as it was much cheaper, absorbed bludgeoning attacks well, piercing attacks had a hard time penetrating, and slashing wasn't all that effective either since even razor-sharp swords couldn't cut through all those layers. Yet, in RPGs, padded armor was always one of the worst armors to wear, even though it was actually quite effective and certainly better than leather (if that was, in fact, ever widely used to make armor, regardless of what Hollywood tells you). Indeed, once plate armor enters into the picture, brawling, half-swording and rondel daggers were the most effective way of actually wounding the guy in the armor. Maces and hammers could batter your opponent through the armor and bruise them pretty badly (that was their purpose), but you needed to get in those gaps to finish him.
Most RPGs are awful in the way they handle combat. D&D, for example, is horrible if you want any kind of realistic combat.
Quote from: Graewulf;998169That was my point. I should've been clearer. Slashing attacks directly against armor are utterly useless. Blades, I don't care how sharp they are, cannot cut through armor.
I guess you mean bladed weapons, and not Daneaxes. And I'd agree.
QuoteYou had to hit unprotected areas or get into the gaps.
You can also create a gap, but yes:). Piercing, however, might work better than cutting - though I'd take a spear for that, if given a choice.
QuoteMail (over padding) was the best armor to wear for a long time for this very reason.
Eh, I'd take a lamellar over mail. They coexisted.
QuoteEven padded armor alone (gambeson) was great to wear as it was much cheaper, absorbed bludgeoning attacks well, piercing attacks had a hard time penetrating, and slashing wasn't all that effective either since even razor-sharp swords couldn't cut through all those layers. Yet, in RPGs, padded armor was always one of the worst armors to wear, even though it was actually quite effective and certainly better than leather (if that was, in fact, ever widely used to make armor, regardless of what Hollywood tells you).
I don't care about Hollywood. But leather was used, yes.
Contemporary accounts of the Mongol army, however, say they used leather to make lamellar-style armours, and warn that normal blades might not pierce, unless they've been specially tempered;).
There's also accounts from the local tribes of Siberia, and tests on their surviving armours (protection was, let's just say, better than a gambeson's).
QuoteIndeed, once plate armor enters into the picture, brawling, half-swording and rondel daggers were the most effective way of actually wounding the guy in the armor. Maces and hammers could batter your opponent through the armor and bruise them pretty badly (that was their purpose), but you needed to get in those gaps to finish him.
And pollaxes. Gotta love pollaxes - hammer, warhammer, spear and a stick in one package:D!
My first OD&D PC carried a halberd for this very reason.
Quote from: AsenRG;998203I guess you mean bladed weapons, and not Daneaxes. And I'd agree.
You can also create a gap, but yes:). Piercing, however, might work better than cutting - though I'd take a spear for that, if given a choice.
Eh, I'd take a lamellar over mail. They coexisted.
I don't care about Hollywood. But leather was used, yes.
Contemporary accounts of the Mongol army, however, say they used leather to make lamellar-style armours, and warn that normal blades might not pierce, unless they've been specially tempered;).
There's also accounts from the local tribes of Siberia, and tests on their surviving armours (protection was, let's just say, better than a gambeson's).
And pollaxes. Gotta love pollaxes - hammer, warhammer, spear and a stick in one package:D!
My first OD&D PC carried a halberd for this very reason.
You'd feel the impact and could get hurt, for sure, with axes, but steel can't cut steel. Buckle, dent, and smash, sure, but not cut. This isn't like a 'ginsu' knife cutting a tin can.
Mail, lamellar, scale, and later, coat of plates and brigandine over mail were probably all in use together at some point, depending on the area and what you could afford.
Yes, leather was used as a material in some lamellar, jazerant, splint (as backing), and perhaps other armors, but I was referring as to how it is used as its own suit as it is in D&D and in movies. The stuff that looks like it was made for a biker.
Quote from: AsenRG;998203And pollaxes. Gotta love pollaxes - hammer, warhammer, spear and a stick in one package:D!
My first OD&D PC carried a halberd for this very reason.
Halberd & Poll axe are very different weapons. Poll axe is an individual knightly weapon for can-opening other knights, about 5' long.
/pedant
Quote from: Graewulf;998212You'd feel the impact and could get hurt, for sure, with axes, but steel can't cut steel. Buckle, dent, and smash, sure, but not cut. This isn't like a 'ginsu' knife cutting a tin can.
I don't want to be inside the smashed tin can, however:).
And steel can pierce steel.
QuoteMail, lamellar, scale, and later, coat of plates and brigandine over mail were probably all in use together at some point, depending on the area and what you could afford.
Yes.
QuoteYes, leather was used as a material in some lamellar, jazerant, splint (as backing), and perhaps other armors, but I was referring as to how it is used as its own suit as it is in D&D and in movies. The stuff that looks like it was made for a biker.
I'll have to check the Siberian armour on that one. IIRC, it was made by seal leather with suitable preservation techniques, and granted protection as good as that of the steel armour, but was less mobile in the joints;).
Quote from: S'mon;998215Halberd & Poll axe are very different weapons. Poll axe is an individual knightly weapon for can-opening other knights, about 5' long.
/pedant
Yes, but they're the same class of weapons, and that was good enough for me, given the reputation of OD&D for relentlessly pursuing historical accuracy:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;998222And steel can pierce steel.
Piercing isn't cutting. They are very different things. It's exceedingly rare, but yes. Spears and arrows still had to find gaps to be truly effective though. Despite what some Youtube videos might show (shooting an arrow from 30 feet away at a motionless breastplate that's sitting up against a bail of hay or a plank isn't even remotely an accurate test), arrows (even from a war bow) can't reliably pierce plate armor and 9 times out of 10 barely scratch it. Against mail armor, sure, a bodkin point will blast apart some rings and make an opening in the armor, but it's not really piercing the armor, it's finding a loop hole (pun intended).
Is this thread going anywhere? It all sounds all too familiar.
Quote from: Bren;998295Is this thread going anywhere? It all sounds all too familiar.
Shh...nerds arguing about medieval weapons online is one of my favorite spectator sports.
Quote from: Graewulf;998264Piercing isn't cutting. They are very different things.
Yes they are, that's why I said that piercing might work better;).
In some places and times, the scabbard was more expensive than the sword itself! Obviously this was not a purely functional one, but would look fancy, and help keep the sword in good condition - rather like some people's garages cost more than their cars, especially if they have any workshop and tools in there, have sealed the concrete and so on.
And obviously, it was harder to make a good quality long piece of sharp steel - such as a large sword - than a short one - such as a dagger, or spear head. So to my mind it's quite possible that in some cases wearing one was not a question of utility, but status. That's why historically people did things like have a chest plate shaped like muscles, etc - looks matter in the real world, even if they don't in rpgs. "Wear a sword, get +1 to charisma"?
This talks about swords and scabbards a bit. https://regia.org/research/warfare/sword.htm
Thanks for participating. I finally decided to make all sword edges do cutting damage, rather than have many of them do axe-like chipping damage. They actually roll more damage now than axes of the same handling weight but they are resisted by twice the usual value of the target's armor. Whatever damage does get through is tripled. That makes sword edges pretty useless against plate and against a few well-armored monsters, only marginally useful against mail, but otherwise murderous. I have a paragraph about what a character can lug around and that, coupled with a sword's advantages in speed and reach, over shorter hafted weapons, should keep swords pretty popular. If worse comes to worse, most swords have points that are useful, to varying degrees, against armored foes.
Swords have a particular value in western culture (among other cultures) that are attributed to more than just their utility in combat (which has been covered here, and is correct too). Swords were the swords associated with nobility.
This was not universal in every culture; for example in India the bow and arrow was considered the most noble weapon (whereas in the west the bow was a fairly low-class weapon), while in India the sword was pretty much a tertiary weapon.
Quote from: RPGPundit;999224Swords have a particular value in western culture (among other cultures) that are attributed to more than just their utility in combat (which has been covered here, and is correct too). Swords were the swords associated with nobility.
This was not universal in every culture; for example in India the bow and arrow was considered the most noble weapon (whereas in the west the bow was a fairly low-class weapon), while in India the sword was pretty much a tertiary weapon.
Even in Europe the sword wasn't the only weapon associated with nobility.
(http://www.medievalwarfare.info/pics/maces.jpg)
(http://blog.europeana.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/buzduganul-regelui-ferdinand-al-romaniei-europeana.jpg)
I did not know that the bow was so highly regarded (socially) in India, although I knew Arjuna had one in his chariot in the Bhagavad Gita. They made some good swords in India but I don't remember any literary "fuss" being made over a sword.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;999507I did not know that the bow was so highly regarded (socially) in India, although I knew Arjuna had one in his chariot in the Bhagavad Gita. They made some good swords in India but I don't remember any literary "fuss" being made over a sword.
Very important :)
[video=youtube_share;OkEvwRgphEk]https://youtu.be/OkEvwRgphEk?t=11[/youtube]
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;999507I did not know that the bow was so highly regarded (socially) in India, although I knew Arjuna had one in his chariot in the Bhagavad Gita. They made some good swords in India but I don't remember any literary "fuss" being made over a sword.
Bows were the big weapon in New Kingdom Egypt. Popular with the Assyrians as well.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1747[/ATTACH]
With the Japanese, too, the main and noble military weapon was originally the bow. It remained a military and noble weapon (and see Zen archery) but not the one main one. The sword became the main noble symbolic weapon and practical ubiquitous weapon, but in battle samurai would also (& generally first) use spear (yari), polearm (naginata), and bow.
I'm not sure of how valid it is, but I have heard it stated that expertise in archery was the primary status symbol for the samurai back when samurai were in fact the movers and shakers and that the katana got a prestige upgrade after-the-fact once firearms superseded the bow. Again, no pretense at expertise.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;999827I'm not sure of how valid it is, but I have heard it stated that expertise in archery was the primary status symbol for the samurai back when samurai were in fact the movers and shakers and that the katana got a prestige upgrade after-the-fact once firearms superseded the bow. Again, no pretense at expertise.
I think that's about right. However, the long period of peace had a lot to do with it also. When your most likely conflict was with one opponent at close range, the bow lost ground. And the polearm, like the rifle, was for when you
knew you were going to need a weapon. The sword, handy to carry and cool, was, like the handgun, carried
in case there was trouble.
If the historical murder rate of England was anything to go by, the most likely cause of trouble was everyone else carrying a sword "in case of trouble" and alcohol.
Quote from: Kiero;999875If the historical murder rate of England was anything to go by, the most likely cause of trouble was everyone else carrying a sword "in case of trouble" and alcohol.
There was no period when everybody or even nearly everybody carried a sword or was permitted to carry a sword. The privilege of arms was restricted to the peerage, although many people ignored the law. Even without swords, drunks manage to kill people.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1000101There was no period when everybody or even nearly everybody carried a sword or was permitted to carry a sword. The privilege of arms was restricted to the peerage, although many people ignored the law. Even without swords, drunks manage to kill people.
That entirely missed my point. The class of people who carried a sword regularly, were often the same people out drinking in public and getting into brawls. Which could often end in murder. Arms were not restricted to "the peerage", any gentleman was allowed to carry a sword until duelling was banned in 1817.
It's been studied (https://chs.revues.org/737):
QuoteThe increase in lethal violence in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries took place outside the home. The character of nondomestic homicides, which occurred during feuds, duels, tavern brawls, rapes, and robberies, suggests that relationships among friends and neighbors had become more volatile, and that many outsiders had become profoundly alienated from society. Why relationships among friends, neighbors, and strangers were more often fatal during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century was not merely a question of economic hardship or military mobilization, but of « the politics of neighbourhood »41. The crisis of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries altered relationships among unrelated persons in ways that encouraged homicidal violence.
...
The homicide crisis that gripped England in the late sixteenth and much of the seventeeth century did not make England the most homicidal nation in Europe. Indeed, it may have been the least homicidal. Inquests from the Netherlands50, pardon papers from France51, and criminal examinations from Sweden and Finland52, reveal homicide rates far in excess of those in English counties for which both inquests and indictments are available (Figures 15 and 16)53. Scholars have proposed a number of explanations for England's lower homicide rate : the suppression of noble feuds, the strength of its legal institutions, and its relative freedom from war on its own territory. Nonetheless, England suffered the same spike in homicide rates in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries that most Scandinavian and Continental nations did, the same recession in homicide rates in the middle half of the seventeenth century, and the same low rate by the early eighteenth century.
OK, I see what you mean. However, murders among the commons were pretty common also. And duels were not murder.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1000134OK, I see what you mean. However, murders among the commons were pretty common also. And duels were not murder.
I can guarantee that many a "duel" was a fiction invented after a killing to protect the life and liberty of someone important enough to arrange it.
Swords don't kill people. People kill people. :D
Quote from: Kiero;1000175I can guarantee that many a "duel" was a fiction invented after a killing to protect the life and liberty of someone important enough to arrange it.
Sure, that's how I would do it, although I don't know how you'd guarantee it. A lot of duels were publicly attested. The problem was that someone could pretty much force one into a duel. If they were good enough, that might as well be murder. Witness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1it7BP5PckI
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1000271Sure, that's how I would do it, although I don't know how you'd guarantee it. A lot of duels were publicly attested. The problem was that someone could pretty much force one into a duel. If they were good enough, that might as well be murder. Witness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1it7BP5PckI
Well, that's the beginning of Scaramouche for a reason;)!
Quote from: Kiero;999875If the historical murder rate of England was anything to go by, the most likely cause of trouble was everyone else carrying a sword "in case of trouble" and alcohol.
Seriously?
I'm pretty sure it had more to do with endemic poverty and crime in appalling urban conditions.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1000932Seriously?
I'm pretty sure it had more to do with endemic poverty and crime in appalling urban conditions.
Living standards in medieval western Europe for most people were much higher than in China or Japan (per Greg Clark 'A Farewell to Alms', Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of our Nature' has some data too) so by this reasoning one would expect a much higher murder rate in China & Japan, but there's no evidence for this. I don't think there's any evidence urban murder rates were higher than rural either; from what I can tell the cities were if anything regarded as safer.
Looking just at western Europe where there is a lot of good data, you see a lot of variation in murder rates with similar living standards, it seems to be cultural and unrelated to poverty rates. Northern Italy for instance was quite wealthy with high violent death rates, England was not particularly high.
The main medieval trend was decline of violent death rates in 'core Europe' as the manorial system seems to have bred for* less violence; starting in northern France, SE England and parts of the Low Countries then spreading outwards from there.
*Land was not inherited by peasants; you could only marry & get land to farm if the local lord/reeve thought you were a good prospect.
Quote from: S'mon;1000974Living standards in medieval western Europe for most people were much higher than in China or Japan (per Greg Clark 'A Farewell to Alms', Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of our Nature' has some data too) so by this reasoning one would expect a much higher murder rate in China & Japan, but there's no evidence for this. I don't think there's any evidence urban murder rates were higher than rural either; from what I can tell the cities were if anything regarded as safer.
Looking just at western Europe where there is a lot of good data, you see a lot of variation in murder rates with similar living standards, it seems to be cultural and unrelated to poverty rates. Northern Italy for instance was quite wealthy with high violent death rates, England was not particularly high.
The main medieval trend was decline of violent death rates in 'core Europe' as the manorial system seems to have bred for* less violence; starting in northern France, SE England and parts of the Low Countries then spreading outwards from there.
*Land was not inherited by peasants; you could only marry & get land to farm if the local lord/reeve thought you were a good prospect.
You raise some very interesting points! I would note though that in various periods of Chinese history cities were much more strictly regulated in terms of guards/law-enforcement than in their European equivalents.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1001470You raise some very interesting points! I would note though that in various periods of Chinese history cities were much more strictly regulated in terms of guards/law-enforcement than in their European equivalents.
I've seen it commented more than once how modern Chinese visitors to Europe are terrified of going out into the scary lawless countryside & prefer to stick to the nice safe cities...
There are parts of the USA that sort-of fit this trope a bit, but in western Europe generally the countryside tends to be very safe now, cities much more dangerous. The opposite of China. Macaulay commented in the 19th century that his native Scottish Highlands had gone from dangerous/lawless to very safe within a few decades in the 18th century, following the destruction of the clan system and incorporation into the British state.
Yes. The interesting thing is that in fact, lawless periods aside, Chinese urban history has been one of cities becoming gradually LESS regimented. There's a noted difference between what cities were like back in the Han and Tang Dynasties, where people were basically assigned to different neighborhoods by function, there were strict rules on where you could even go, and an extremely strict curfew; versus the later Song, Ming and Manchu dynasties where things were much more relaxed. Still far, far more regimented than cities throughout almost all of western European history.
I live in a very safe rural area, but my wife's family from a city where the murder rate far exceded our entire county (the county being a land area the size of Rhode Island) were always terrified of being murdered in their beds. We feel much less safe visiting them. Many people in my neck of the woods don't even know where the front door keys are, much less lock it. Sometimes it's all about perception.
Quote from: DavetheLost;1003289I live in a very safe rural area, but my wife's family from a city where the murder rate far exceded our entire county (the county being a land area the size of Rhode Island) were always terrified of being murdered in their beds. We feel much less safe visiting them. Many people in my neck of the woods don't even know where the front door keys are, much less lock it. Sometimes it's all about perception.
I spent my high-school years in Walker County, Alabama. It was pretty rural, with a very small city and a number of small towns. Most people didn't lock their doors and our crime rate, in general, was quite low. Our
homicide rate was one of the highest in the country. The killer and the victim generally knew one another and there was no property crime involved.
Different area, different situation. You had a high homicide rate. We have an annual number of murders usually zero to less than five for the entire country. for years when our number of homicides were 0 and 2, they had 72 and 67 respectively.
Where do you think people would be safer?
Quote from: DavetheLost;1003430Different area, different situation. You had a high homicide rate. We have an annual number of murders usually zero to less than five for the entire country. for years when our number of homicides were 0 and 2, they had 72 and 67 respectively.
Where do you think people would be safer?
I'm assuming since you frame it that way, people near you, although very unlikely to be murdered, are not safe. Whether that means there is a lot of non-murder violence, or you are including things like suicide, death by misadventure, etc., I'm not sure.
No, generally I think I live in a pretty safe area. My point is that to city folk it can seem like the countryside has bandits lurking behind every hedge and bush, not to mention the wild animals. I tend to forget how freaky and scary coyotes howling can be as I have heard them all my life, although I think I have only seen one two or three times.
Quote from: DavetheLost;1003430Different area, different situation. You had a high homicide rate. We have an annual number of murders usually zero to less than five for the entire country. for years when our number of homicides were 0 and 2, they had 72 and 67 respectively.
Where do you think people would be safer?
Away from home. Far away. Most accidents happen in or near the home (https://www.progressive.com/newsroom/article/2002/may/fivemiles/) and many victims knew their murderer. The farther from home I am the safer I'm gonna be. :D
Quote from: DavetheLost;1003430Different area, different situation. You had a high homicide rate. We have an annual number of murders usually zero to less than five for the entire country. for years when our number of homicides were 0 and 2, they had 72 and 67 respectively.
Where do you think people would be safer?
Compared to what population numbers? Because you shouldn't be worried about total numbers, you should be worried about the number of victims per 100 000 population, which is much closer to expressing
the likelihood of becoming a target;).
It's pretty crazy. I've never really felt consistently unsafe anywhere I've lived, and I've lived in a whole bunch of major cities, as well as in the third world.
Even places with high crime rates (short of war zones or favelas/slums) have very low chances of anything bad happening to you, as an individual.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1004544It's pretty crazy. I've never really felt consistently unsafe anywhere I've lived, and I've lived in a whole bunch of major cities, as well as in the third world.
Even places with high crime rates (short of war zones or favelas/slums) have very low chances of anything bad happening to you, as an individual.
So true. Common sense will keep you safe most places. People here are scared to go to Tijuana because of drug cartel violence that has about a 0.0000001% chance of affecting any tourist who uses his brain.
Quote from: Kiero;997750Barring speciality weapons like zweihanders, a sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. It's the backup for when your main weapon either fails or is situationally less useful. We see this across cultures and times, the sword was always a secondary weapon. The ancient Chinese, for example, called it the "queen of battles" - the "king" was the spear.
Many RPGs undervalue the spear, not least later editions of D&D introducing silly, arbitrary rules like regular war-spears requiring two hands to use.
In ACKS, the spear is king! :)
Quote from: Kiero;997750Barring speciality weapons like zweihanders, a sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. It's the backup for when your main weapon either fails or is situationally less useful. We see this across cultures and times, the sword was always a secondary weapon.
There is at least one major exception to this; the Roman Gladius. Granted not many rpgs take place in the Roman Republic/Empire or derivatives of it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1004544It's pretty crazy. I've never really felt consistently unsafe anywhere I've lived, and I've lived in a whole bunch of major cities, as well as in the third world.
Even places with high crime rates (short of war zones or favelas/slums) have very low chances of anything bad happening to you, as an individual.
I'd feel pretty safe where I live now if I didn't have to commute on an elevated parkway with people driving, but using both hands to send text messages. :)
Quote from: amacris;1004623In ACKS, the spear is king! :)
Indeed.
Quote from: markmohrfield;1004653There is at least one major exception to this; the Roman Gladius. Granted not many rpgs take place in the Roman Republic/Empire or derivatives of it.
Not really; the pilum was primary, and it could double as a spear in a pinch. Later Republican legionaries often had a sling as well.
Quote from: Kiero;1004663Not really; the pilum was primary...
Primary in the sense of used first. But not primary in respect to which weapon determined the outcome of battle. That was the traditional role of the gladius.
Quote from: Bren;1004670Primary in the sense of used first. But not primary in respect to which weapon determined the outcome of battle. That was the traditional role of the gladius.
I would say a weapon which kills before they even close and often ruins enemy shields, along with being able to function as a crude spear against cavalry is much more decisive than the weapon you fall to once you close.
Quote from: Kiero;1004710I would say a weapon which kills before they even close and often ruins enemy shields, along with being able to function as a crude spear against cavalry is much more decisive than the weapon you fall to once you close.
The Roman legions were heavy infantry, that is close order troops meant to engage in melee with the enemy. The pilum was a nice extra, but the gladius was their main weapon.
Quote from: markmohrfield;1004779The Roman legions were heavy infantry, that is close order troops meant to engage in melee with the enemy. The pilum was a nice extra, but the gladius was their main weapon.
What he said.
The gladius is virtually useless against cavalry, which is the perennial problem facing any heavy infantry. Unless they have some other body of spearmen to cover them, they have to carry some anti-cavalry weapon. As demonstrated by Caesar's legionaries at Pharsalus, for example, the pilum would serve as a spear.
The gladius was still the backup once the pilum was thrown or perhaps bent from use as a spear. It certainly isn't the first weapon you'd go to when facing cavalry.
Quote from: Kiero;1005135The gladius is virtually useless against cavalry, which is the perennial problem facing any heavy infantry. Unless they have some other body of spearmen to cover them, they have to carry some anti-cavalry weapon. As demonstrated by Caesar's legionaries at Pharsalus, for example, the pilum would serve as a spear.
The gladius was still the backup once the pilum was thrown or perhaps bent from use as a spear. It certainly isn't the first weapon you'd go to when facing cavalry.
There is a great article in an out of print (unless it has been re-released) book called _The Blade of Conan_ that discusses the vulnerability of the legion (or any other sword and shield foot) against heavy cavalry and the vulnerability of heavy cavalry versus the phalanx (or other spear-armed, disciplined foot) and the vulnerability of the phalanx against the legion. I think it was written by the late Jerry Pournelle but I can't find my copy right now and it may be from one of the other contributors.
Of course, this could be complicated by missile support or terrain but it is basically scissors/paper/stone or the old AK/JTs/22.
Now I have to go find my copy of that book. There's a lot of good stuff in it. And in _The Spell of Conan_
We appear to mean different things by the word "primary." By primary I mean the weapon that likely saw the most use in the most battles. In that context the gladius and scutum were the legionary's primary armament. I find it an odd use of the term primary to refer to the pilum since the ordinary legion tactic required the soldier to, in effect, throw away his "primary" weapon. Similarly I'd find it odd to say that the primary weapon of Frankish infantry was their throwing axe. (It like the pilum was used as a missile weapon to soften up enemy infantry.)
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1005140Of course, this could be complicated by missile support or terrain but it is basically scissors/paper/stone or the old AK/JTs/22.
What is "AK/JTs/22"?
We see a similar rock-paper-scissors in the black powder period with artillery-infantry-cavalry.
Quote from: Bren;1005257What is "AK/JTs/22"?
We see a similar rock-paper-scissors in the black powder period with artillery-infantry-cavalry.
Holdem poker. All-in, AK is a favorite over JTs and 22 is a favorite over AK but JTs is a favorite over 22. People treat this as something you could use to win bar bets, saying "you pick one" to the sucker and then you can always pick the one that beats it. But each of the favorites is such a narrow favorite that you would need a massive number of trials to likely make any money.
Quote from: markmohrfield;1004653There is at least one major exception to this; the Roman Gladius. Granted not many rpgs take place in the Roman Republic/Empire or derivatives of it.
Having been through the M14/M16 transition and having heard about the M1/M14 transition, I always imagined that a whole lot of Centurions were really pissed when infantry legions were issued the spathe in place of the gladius.
Other sword users interrupted the reign of the spear and/or pike. Gonsalo de Cordoba's tercios were sword and buckler and they owned the European battlefield for awhile.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1005542Having been through the M14/M16 transition and having heard about the M1/M14 transition, I always imagined that a whole lot of Centurions were really pissed when infantry legions were issued the spathe in place of the gladius.
I strongly suspect you are not wrong.
QuoteOther sword users interrupted the reign of the spear and/or pike. Gonsalo de Cordoba's tercios were sword and buckler and they owned the European battlefield for awhile.
I thought they were a mix of pike, arqubus, and sword and buckler. Though I confess that my knowledge of 15th and early 16th century formations and tactics is kind of spotty.
Quote from: Bren;1005556I strongly suspect you are not wrong.
I thought they were a mix of pike, arqubus, and sword and buckler. Though I confess that my knowledge of 15th and early 16th century formations and tactics is kind of spotty.
Well, I typed "spathe" instead of "spatha," so I was wrong. But I think the language used in response to the transition would have been colorful.
Of course, you are correct that de Cordoba had pike formations and, by then, everyone had arqubus units but the sword and buckler units were credited by at least some authorities with breaking the pike formations.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1005625Of course, you are correct that de Cordoba had pike formations and, by then, everyone had arqubus units but the sword and buckler units were credited by at least some authorities with breaking the pike formations.
I get that. Much like the Roman maniples against the latter day Macedonian phalanx.