Oleksandr

A little bit of rant. From GPC, "Fighting Men":

"Arab Warrior: Robed Bedouins armed with bows and razor-sharp scimitars, often inspired against any foe by their fanatical devotion to Allah. They ride upon Arabian chargers" - while it stereotypical "arab" weapon, in reality scimitars was only introduced in the middle of crusades period. Traditional arab swords was identical to the european ones. Additionally, most Arabs was christian at the time.

"Moor Warrior: Dark-skinned, blue-robed men from North Africa. They are armed with lances, shields, and swords, and all ride upon Barbary chargers." -  while there is sub-saharan diaspora in north Africa, it was much smaller at the time. Native north african has the same (often even lighter!) skin tone as south europeans. Important thing is, many north africans find assumption that they supposed to be dark-skinned as highly racist...

20 hours ago, Morien said:

but freemen (yeomen and the like) were expected to be armed (Assize of Arms 1181) and might be called up to defend the realm. In KAP, Arthur issues similar Assize of Arms in 515 (BotW, p. 102-103). BoU p. 25 also makes this distinction, noting "a general levy is summoned, which includes all able-bodied free men".

Yea, yet judging by the articles earlier in this thread they only rarely was called (at least until longbow era). In example you provided, in open battle such troops were routed literally the seconds enemy attacked them... +it seems in most cases only kings and high nobility has right to call them, (of course, when manor was attacked even serfs would fight).

What also interesting, as was mentioned in other thread, Uther's Logress had half as much freemen as real England did.😁

20 hours ago, Morien said:

In KAP, Arthur issues similar Assize of Arms in 515

And what interesting, in it level of income mentioned greatly exceed ones from BoU...🤔

P.S. according to wiki, between Conquest and 1181 there indeed was no commoner levies in England...

Another interesting example i dug up, heavy cavalry even.

Here i noticed interesting thing, researchers, when dealing with female fighters, often see such examples as doubtful, because they analyze this examples separately, often ignoring similar ones. I mean, yes, we can't be completely sure, but still.

+in this example researchers express doubts about her authenticity because of her name, which make a pun with her quotes (as if real people never joke about names😅). Interestingly, there was completely historical female dragoon in 19th century russia, whose last name could be roughly translated as "foolish". I wonder what such scholars would say about that.😁 

On 1/4/2023 at 1:14 PM, Morien said:

Indeed, if you have more time than I do, you could count the numbers of knights vs. foot in page 95 and see if the non-Logresian forces have a higher knight/foot ratio than Logres does FOR THIS BATTLE.

This indeed seem to be the case, although difference aren't as strong as modifiers suggest 😀.

On 1/4/2023 at 1:14 PM, Morien said:

it would make sense that local (Logresian) peasant levy and garrison troops are brought to the fight, too, whereas the reinforcements from farther away would be bringing a smaller but more elite force. Thus, you don't get common farmers in Cambrian and the North forces, but might get some from Cornwall

Here i wanted to again point out that peasant levy now believed to be 19th century misconception.😉

In fact, in KAP, anybody even use them?🤔

21 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

Women are also illustrated in medieval fighting manuals (Fechtbücher); the Walpurgis Fechtbuch is actually named for a female fighter illustrated in it, who has the unfortunate name "Walpurgis" and the not unfortunate experience of being illustrated as the exact match of the male fighter illustrated in it, both with sword and board.

What also interesting is that her opponent is a monk. Quite odd choice too...😃

Some of this depict amazones and goddesses, but still. What interesting that most of such art depict female fighters in dresses, while most examples from chronicles say they was wearing pants... Then again, long tabard aren't all that different from dress.

8 hours ago, svensson said:

We also know from the writings of Alcuin of York that Carolingian women took part in combat... not merely protecting their village but as armored semi-professionals.

In my experience finding specific pieces among prolific writing can be quite hard 😱... Maybe you happen to have direct quotes? I would be thankful 😃

"Sir Walter was on his way to a tournament, perhaps near Darmstadt, when he passed a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary, to whom he was thoroughly devoted– in fact, preparing for the tournament, he had fastened her favour around his arm the way other knights did with their sweethearts’ tokens. He decided to stop and pray. A priest mentioned that he would be giving mass soon, and Sir Walter decided to stay for mass.

I noticed that homeland modifiers for Ireland (from "pagan shore") was way more intense than for other region. Some even give stat bonuses...🤨🤔

Strange thing i noticed in book "Saxons!", in chapter about Badon battle in enemy tables modifier results in Logres having less knights then other british regions. Wasn't it supposed to be other way around? +it seems Logres end up with even inferior foot troops...

https://www.leidenpsychologyblog.nl/articles/when-girl-meets-boy-in-utero-the-twin-testosterone-transfer-ttt-hypothesis (shame they removed old comments, there was interesting discussion..) It seems women born with twin brothers would be way more likely to became knights😀.

On 11/29/2022 at 12:44 PM, Oleksandr said:

Specific example i had in mind, community of loyalist jutes living in Logres and having wotanism version of "odinism: Tyr",

1) If i understand correctly, in "Saxons!" in roll for ancestor there option for family to believe themself be descendant of deity. Provided they believe they are descendant of Tyr (which, in this world, they could be), i wonder, would they strive to adhere to his religious virtues?

2) I also wonder how much Arthur vassals was eger to adhere to his chivalry standard.. Especially among berrocingas, who famously loyal to kings of Logres.

On 11/5/2021 at 2:20 PM, Oleksandr said:

What also wasn't mentioned in KAP materials is that communes of free peasants could be collectively manor holders (which wasn't unique to DB England).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant_republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarschen

On 12/13/2022 at 12:28 PM, Morien said:

And yes, I know at least a couple of examples from medieval history where the exact opposite was the case, the abbess ruling over the abbot. But they are very much the exceptions.

It seems right for at least one such monastery to exist under Arthur reign. With vassal knights, of course 😀.

On 12/13/2022 at 12:28 PM, Morien said:

Which is supposed to portray a more brutal, less refined period.

I cannot avoid feeling that this was less about being period appropriate and more creators acting on preconceptions about middle ages...🤔

On 12/23/2022 at 4:21 PM, Morien said:

Half and half, when you consider that it is knight+squire. 

Well, yea, but in standard situations squires aren't supposed to fight directly, aren't they?🤨🤔

Recently i looked through interesting lecture about composition of feudal armies (unfortunately not in english), lecturer said that standard knightly lance had 3 members, knight+squire+sergeant, but wealth level of knights varied, so slightly poorer ones replaced mounted sergeants with infantry/archers/crossbowmen, richer ones added some foot troops (and possibly additional sergeants/squires). Field armies indeed seem to be overwhelmingly cavalry. Of course cavalry fought dismounted if required, like during sieges (and would use bows/crossbows), but yes, knights wouldn't dig trenches 😅.

On 12/20/2022 at 7:58 PM, Professor Chaos said:

As for infantry in the actual middle ages there were dozens of sieges for every pitched battle and even Delbruck points out that knights didn't dig trenches or construct siege engines so infantry were still indispensable. 

What interesting there is that in chronicles when infantry mentioned it usually stated to be militia or mercenaries. Meanwhile in KAP actuall knight lance is 2/3 infantry by default...

On 12/21/2022 at 8:53 PM, Professor Chaos said:

Remember that 'noble' in medieval England was a much more restricted category than in continental Europe - for several centuries the only official noble title was earl/count and that baron as an actual hereditary title only comes in after Parliaments become a thing and that viscounts, marquesses and dukes only appear in the reigns of Edward III and his successors (which would be Pendragon phase 3 if not 4?) and knighthood was something that landowners increasingly avoided as it was an unnecessary expense

Well, Arthurian stories are heavily influenced by french literature, so..😀 +KAP put heavy emphasis on knightly adventures over courtly intrigue, thus in make sense to "boost" number of low rank nobility. Especially considering relative idealism of the setting - high nobles tended to be much more oppressive than minor ones...

On 12/21/2022 at 12:50 PM, Morien said:

I believe I mentioned sword and dagger in my original comments about dual-wielding in civilian context.

Yes, but you expressed a doubts about D&D style double attacks, which evidently existed 😉. Besides, there are surprisingly many people who believe that "parrying daggers" was used exclusively for parrying. And disproving misconceptions is always good 😀

On 12/21/2022 at 12:50 PM, Morien said:

As for medieval art

Of course medieval art can be weird 😅, yet we still can get useful information out of it. Even this image show (relatively) realistic joust. And images of people not just holding but clearly attacking with two weapons, prove that people at the time at least know such thing was possible. Again, you will be surprised how many people believe DW to be hollywood invention 😱.

(another example of DW using armies would be South-East Asia, especially Thailand, who had significant number of soldier using pair of same length curved swords (too possibly derived from "civilian" fencing). Of course, fighting in this area often happened in jungles (terrain ill-suited for maneuvering in formations, cavalry charges and long range archery) or around elephants, thus making it more practical. Wouldn't fit in KAP, but for more "generic" fantasy game...😉)

On 12/21/2022 at 12:50 PM, Morien said:

Maybe depicted, but the pike was a two-handed weapon, with the shield slung from the neck/shoulder. Both hands on the pike to allow you to actually use it rather than just hold it in place. It is a thrusting weapon. Sweeping it from side to side would make you hella popular with your mates as you disrupt the whole formation

(interestingly, svedes also used pikes during bayonet charges, one of the last european armies to do so) Well it seems muskets was lighter than pike, and better balanced. This manual 👇(it hard to tell when it was made..🤔) suggest it was used for thrusting along with the sword

On 12/21/2022 at 12:51 AM, Morien said:

My memory was that Delbrück tends to go more minimalistic than the modern ones, although the modern estimates are closer to his than to the chroniclers' numbers. And I have a vague memory that in some cases he went well below what the modern consensus is

Earlier here was example of Battle of Iconium, to which most of modern estimates are larger then some numbers from chronicles 😅

Question about Berrocingas ("Saxons!" mentioned another group of "pre-hengist" saxon, Wilrningas, this question relevant for them too), since they wasn't invaders but settled peacefully, do they actually have any slaves? It seem logical to assume they had mostly laets 🧐

19 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

unrelatedly the Russian discussion of the Swedish forces has an illustration that looks almost exactly like a woman with a fake moustache. Just thought I'd throw that in there because instead of paying attention I was like "did this illustrator use women as his models?"

I suppose it more just a low quality of art 😅. Interestingly through, medieval art often depicted knights as longhaired youth, thus creating some confusion 😀. (although, anime fans like this aspect apparently. I mean, bishōnens and all that)

20 hours ago, Morien said:

OK, looks like that they are more like carrying the musket (makes sense, you wouldn't want to just leave it), rather than 'dual-wielding'. Especially when you have it tucked under your armpit like that, sure, you might be able to run into someone, but it is more as a static defense to keep people from charging you. While the sword would be doing most of the attacking

Probably, although it important to note that it's basically same way phalangists often depicted wielding pikes with shield. It still possible to thrust with it, but you need to turn your whole body... Anyway, it was completely different era, with different military doctrine... More relevant, dueling fencing (rapier and dagger) had occasional attack with both weapons, however this seem to be quite risky maneuver.

B.t.w. here are some medieval examples from art:

23 hours ago, Morien said:

The highland charge was more of a sword and a targe, i.e. a sword and a small shield. Sure, they had a dagger in the shield hand as well, but the primary function was to parry/block with the shield and attack with the sword.

Of course, yet it logical to assume that they used this daggers too. +some targes was also equipped with spikes, so too was effectively a weapon. 😉

23 hours ago, Morien said:

Are you sure it wasn't more of a case of the sword being a backup weapon? Fight normally two-handed with the bayonet and then switch to the sword if needed?

This is information mostly from eastern european sources (from countries which fought either against swedes, or on both sides of the war), there aren't many information on swedish army in english, and i don't speak swedish:

This one referring to 1701 military regulations.

Anyway, this one are way more relevant (From Battle of Clontarf):

On 12/16/2022 at 1:46 PM, Morien said:

Historically, dual-wielding weapons wasn't really a common thing in the battlefield. You had your spear/sword and your shield, or later on, a two-handed weapon (usually a polearm or a pollaxe for the English knights in particular). Dual-wielding in the sense of having two weapons was much more common in the civilian context where you wouldn't be carrying around a big shield during your everyday life, but might carry a sword and/or a long knife for self-defense purposes. In those situations, might as well pick up pretty much anything you can use to help you parry the opponent's weapon, but it doesn't mean that you'd be attacking with both windmill style, which is what many of the RPG dual-wielding rules tend to imply (double attacks and so forth). It is much more about being able to parry and control the opponent's weapon with one of your own while you are stabbing/cutting him with your free weapon. So bonuses to parry seem appropriate (similarly to, but worse than, an actual shield), double attacks less so.

While it was certainly uncommon, viking sagas mention couple of cases of it use in battle (including occasional double attacks), admittedly, mostly in small skirmishes on foot. Through, i reed in one book (although quite old, and popular science one, so no proper sources was listed) about two cases when knight charged with lance in one hand and sword in other. +one chronicle (i forget which one...😑) mentioned knight fighting with lance and sword in melee, mounted, with double attack included. There also quite a lot of medieval depictions, so there that.

P.s. Interestingly, in gunpowder era armies of dual-wielder actually existed, like scottish highlanders charging with broadsword and dagger. Or swedish brief experiments (sword and bayoneted rifle).

22 hours ago, Morien said:

Regular rules don't have dual-wielding, but there are rules for it in the Tales of Mystic Tournaments. It doesn't give you two attack rolls, but it does give you two damage rolls. But you need a special skill too. 

I wonder would be rules for dual-wielding added in 6ed?🤔 It has rules for parrying with two weapons after all...

19 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

I would make them Christians, with Angle Culture (so, a cruel view). They were probably christians at the beginning, and I do not see why they would convert to Odinism.

Well, there was quite a few pagans even in Arthur time, i assume there was more 20 years before his birth 🤷‍♂️. +if they was assimilated into saxon culture, they could also convert. I specifically chose Aegir worship because it has Cruel, Vengeful and Selfish as virtues, thus "good" synergy with Angles 😅.  In fact, Christian (especially RC) would "cancel" their cultural modifiers.