The question of armies

[Morien]

3 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

About lance sizes in wiki, rest, if i remember correctly, in wiki too +i consulted with my friend, historian-medievalist.

OK, let's back off a bit, since we might be talking about two different things here.

Are you arguing that the 'lance' in KAP should be 3-man unit: a knight + a squire + light horseman? Sure, go ahead and make that change, the light horseman replaces the two footmen, no other change needed.

But you made this argument:

On 11/25/2022 at 10:24 AM, Oleksandr said:

in the beginning of High Middle Age - golden age of knighthood - armies consisted almost exclusively from cavalry, knights and mounted sergeants, with dismounted cavalry playing infantry role if required.

Claiming that there was no actual infantry in the High Medieval battles. This is clearly, obviously wrong based on the historical record.

[Oleksandr]

19 hours ago, Morien said:

Are you arguing that the 'lance' in KAP should be 3-man unit: a knight + a squire + light horseman? Sure, go ahead and make that change, the light horseman replaces the two footmen, no other change needed.

Well, in some realms this was the case, knight + mounted sergeant + squire, or knight + older (fighting) squire + younger squire (trainee/servant). (then again, there was variations with 4+ soldier/horseman...😅). That is interesting opinion i think.

20 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

They may have been on extremely rare occasions, but I cannot recall any battle when a western European army was in that situation, nor Russian, Polish or Byzantine.

Aforementioned Battle of Kircholm (while out of medieval era, PLC was wery old fashioned - they used quazy medieval military structure until 18thc...). 2600 cavalryman (2100 heavy cavalry), 1000 infantry (played mostly supportive role).

More appropriate example, again, Agincourt - while numbers are probably exaggerated, it stated that there was at least 5 times more Man-at-arms (i.e. knights and mounted sergeants [*], in this case mostly dismounted) than archers/crossbowmen. + armed servants who didn't participate in battle. Battle of Poitiers, in french side 2/3-3/4 Man-at-arms, on english 50%, almost all dismounted. In battles of Patay and of Formigny french seemingly had only Man-at-arms. French too seem to be quite old fashioned...😀

In fact, reading about a lot of medieval battles, i noticed that, while common infantry often mentioned, in description of action they rarely described doing anything (like in Battle of Crécy). It would be easy to assume that they was ignored by chronist in favor of aristocrats, yet it clearly not the case, for equally commoner archers/crossbowmen are mentioned regularly, and commoner infantry are described as decisive force occasionally (flemish and swiss militia, scottish schiltron infantry, longbowmen fighting in melee...). Similarly, Bayeux Tapestry depict norman army consisting of only cavalry and archers, while anglo-saxon as heaving mostly heavy infantry (and depicting as formidable opponents). It was made nearly century after depicted events, so probably represent newer style of combat.

I again discussed aforementioned discrepancy with my historan friend, he recommended to read Hans Delbrück, and said that in many medieval battles infantry played more support role, like guarding camp/baggage train and the like. With some notable exceptions, mentioned above. He also said that perception of medieval warfare heavily warped by memory of 18th century, were conscripted peasant became basis of militaries, as opposed to middle and upper classes as it was earlier.

 

 

[Morien]

46 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

I again discussed aforementioned discrepancy with my historan friend, he recommended to read Hans Delbrück, and said that in many medieval battles infantry played more support role, like guarding camp/baggage train and the like. With some notable exceptions, mentioned above. He also said that perception of medieval warfare heavily warped by memory of 18th century, were conscripted peasant became basis of militaries, as opposed to middle and upper classes as it was earlier.

Hans Delbrück is a rather old source (lived 1848 - 1929), and IIRC, one of those who are in favor of tiny Medieval Armies. So there might be some bias there.

Also, from Wiki (bolded emphasis mine): "Regarding medieval warfare, Delbrück's findings were more controversial. He made a distinction between knights, mounted warriors, and cavalry, an organized mass of mounted troops. He regarded the medieval warrior as an independent fighter, unable to join others and form units with any decisive tactical significance. His conclusions were tested by later scholars, in particular the Belgian historian J. F. Verbruggen."

Even Verbruggen's book is almost 70 years old. Research has continued on.

I think Delbrück needs to be taken with a fistful of salt. He was a pioneer in military history, but that doesn't make him right in his conclusions.

[Ali the Helering]

5 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Aforementioned Battle of Kircholm (while out of medieval era, PLC was wery old fashioned - they used quazy medieval military structure until 18thc...). 2600 cavalryman (2100 heavy cavalry), 1000 infantry (played mostly supportive role).

Nonetheless, this is not a purely cavalry army, only 72%.  I am afraid that Delbrueck's work - particularly that relating to the medieval period - is quite undermined by other scholarship, and has been since 1907.

[Oleksandr]

18 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

Nonetheless, this is not a purely cavalry army, only 72%.

1) i said "almost" purely cavalry. Don't forget that missile troops couldn't shoot in to melee, therefore played more supportive role for significant % of battle time; 2)That was 17th century battle, long after what historian call "military revolution" (radical increase of infantry importance), which affected even extremely conservative PLC. There other example frome same time, Battle of Klushino, where PLC force had at least 80% heavy cavalry (+some light cavalry).

More relevant to the era was Battle of Brémule, which had only knights on both sides.

23 hours ago, Morien said:

Hans Delbrück is a rather old source

Old=/=outdated. He was first person to analyse armies from the point of socio-economic sustainability, approach which many modern historians support. As my friend point out, when medieval sources list separate units, with points of origin and commander names, typically stated sizes match Delbrück calculations much closely then more broad descriptions from chronicles. So he say Delbrück is good starting point.

My friend also gave example of Battle of Visby, when infantry force - militia from entire island, who had combat experience (baltic...) - was wiped out by cavalry based feudal army.

 

[Ali the Helering]

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

1) i said "almost" purely cavalry. 

I can't help feeling that 28% is a rather significant portion of the army.  This was a force that was less than 3/4 cavalry.

At Bremule the English were almost all dismounted.

[Oleksandr]

18 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

At Bremule the English were almost all dismounted.

Dismounted cavalry is not infantry. Just like mounted infantry is not cavalry. Importantly, knight are supposed to be universal soldier.

18 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

I can't help feeling that 28% is a rather significant portion of the army.  This was a force that was less than 3/4 cavalry.

In KAP standard composition is 1/3 cavalry at most.

[Morien]

42 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

In KAP standard composition is 1/3 cavalry at most.

Standard, yes. But I'd argue that the Battle of Mt. Damen (as presented in BoU) is likely close to 100% knights (and squires) on the Cymric side. However, very much not so on the Saxon side.

Nor would there be anything stopping Uther from calling for 1000 knights and no foot soldiers, if his plan would be to just raid across a Saxon Kingdom. Arguably, this is what is going on in Essex in late 480s, skirmishing with the knights rather than the slower infantry.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Morien

[Ali the Helering]

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Dismounted cavalry is not infantry. Just like mounted infantry is not cavalry. Importantly, knight are supposed to be universal soldier.

In KAP standard composition is 1/3 cavalry at most.

I don't own a copy of KAP.  I am simply commenting as an historian with particular interest in the periods involved.

Mounted infantry aren't cavalry either.

[Oleksandr]

21 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

Mounted infantry aren't cavalry either.

🤨👇

23 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Just like mounted infantry is not cavalry

 

23 hours ago, Morien said:

Standard, yes. But I'd argue that the Battle of Mt. Damen (as presented in BoU) is likely close to 100% knights (and squires) on the Cymric side. However, very much not so on the Saxon side.

Saxons are supposed to be more archaic, in fact, they was. During norman conquest even those who arrived on horses dismounted before battle. There was similar tendency with scandinavians - given that in viking age they primarily engaged in coastal raids and boarding (+generally more rough terrain) it understandable, although, there was curious episode in one saga, when viking returning from France after many years started fighting mounted, to everybody surprise 😅.

More importantly, as demonstrated above, such cavalry heavy armies certainly was a thing, even after it has repeatedly demonstrated that good infantry can be useful.

[Ali the Helering]

36 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

🤨👇

 

Saxons are supposed to be more archaic, in fact, they was. During norman conquest even those who arrived on horses dismounted before battle. There was similar tendency with scandinavians - given that in viking age they primarily engaged in coastal raids and boarding (+generally more rough terrain) it understandable, although, there was curious episode in one saga, when viking returning from France after many years started fighting mounted, to everybody surprise 😅.

More importantly, as demonstrated above, such cavalry heavy armies certainly was a thing, even after it has repeatedly demonstrated that good infantry can be useful.

I am afraid you miss the point.  The English very seldom fought mounted.  Agincourt and Crecy are the most obvious examples of this.

Fighting dismounted was a choice, not an archaicism.  

[Oleksandr]

On 12/2/2022 at 12:08 PM, Ali the Helering said:

I am afraid you miss the point.  The English very seldom fought mounted.  Agincourt and Crecy are the most obvious examples of this.

Fighting dismounted was a choice, not an archaicism.  

1) Britain on KAP is a mix of english and french cultures, with centuries of history pressed into decades. And french very much used a lot of cavalry.

2) Agincourt and Crecy are in LMA, earlier english clearly used cavalry charges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lincoln_(1141) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn ("This was because the woodland gave Bruce and his foot soldiers an advantage since the English were very adept at cavalry"😉)

On 12/2/2022 at 12:08 PM, Ali the Helering said:

Fighting dismounted was a choice, not an archaicism.

For saxons (and scandinavians) it wasn't a choice, they had no training in mounted combat. It simply wasn't part of their culture.

On 11/28/2022 at 2:28 PM, Ali the Helering said:

but I cannot recall any battle when a western European army was in that situation, nor Russian, Polish or Byzantine.

Interestingly, art in medieval russian chronicles almost never depict field armies any other way as cavalry. Few examples of soldiers on foot is during sieges/city fights, like crews of mongolian stone throwers.

[Ali the Helering]

3 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

1) Britain on KAP is a mix of english and french cultures, with centuries of history pressed into decades. And french very much used a lot of cavalry.

2) Agincourt and Crecy are in LMA, earlier english clearly used cavalry charges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lincoln_(1141) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn ("This was because the woodland gave Bruce and his foot soldiers an advantage since the English were very adept at cavalry"😉)

For saxons (and scandinavians) it wasn't a choice, they had no training in mounted combat. It simply wasn't part of their culture.

Interestingly, art in medieval russian chronicles almost never depict field armies any other way as cavalry. Few examples of soldiers on foot is during sieges/city fights, like crews of mongolian stone throwers.

While there were some cavalry charges in warfare against fellow English or Scots, they didn't tend to fight mounted against other armies.  I assume the Battle of Lincoln you cite is 1141, rather than 1217.  The already outnumbered horse under King Stephen defected, so this was hardly a normal battle in any way.  At Falkirk the English cavalry routed the lighter armed Scots horse, and then signally failed to make any impression until the Scots were routed by massed archery.

At Bannockburn cavalry made up around 15% of the English army.  It was the schiltroms who charged, not the English.

With respect to Russian forces, they can be divided into pre-Mongol conquest and later.  Before, they were almost entirely composed of militia infantry.  After, the boyars and retinue formed the majority, but the nobles and their detachments frequently fought dismounted.

If you relied upon art to indicate unit and equipment prevalence then you would get extremely distorted pictures of forces' strength throughout the whole of history.  Compare the relative frequency of depictions of Armour as against horse-drawn equipment in the Wehrmacht, or of the Pzkfw-I as opposed to Pzkfw-VI.  Art is almost meaningless as a guide to historical forces.

[Oleksandr]

20 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

At Falkirk the English cavalry routed the lighter armed Scots horse, and then signally failed to make any impression until the Scots were routed by massed archery

Point is, at first they attacked with cavalry only, not waiting for rest of the army to arrive. Only when schiltrons proved to be unexpectedly formidable, they decided to soften them up with missiles.

21 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

At Bannockburn cavalry made up around 15% of the English army. 

Supposedly. As i said, numbers in such sources are unreliable. More importantly, description of the battle itself has no mention of english foot soldiers. Only cavalry and archers, while scottish infantry are prominently mentioned.

21 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

I assume the Battle of Lincoln you cite is 1141, rather than 1217.

Em, date are in the link 🤨

21 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

The already outnumbered horse under King Stephen defected, so this was hardly a normal battle in any way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wilton "Stephen attempted to break out from the siege, but his army was forced back and dispersed by a cavalry charge from Earl Robert's army"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alnwick_(1093) " and catching the Scottish army by surprise, the English knights attacked them before the ramparts of Alnwick"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alnwick_(1174) only cavalry on english side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baugé reverse Agincourt?😀

That what i found over few minutes, there probably more.

21 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

With respect to Russian forces, they can be divided into pre-Mongol conquest and later.  Before, they were almost entirely composed of militia infantry.  After, the boyars and retinue formed the majority, but the nobles and their detachments frequently fought dismounted.

That's definitely not correct. For starters, there is no such thing as pre-Mongol russia (i was specifically referring to chronicles from actual russia), there was Ruthenia/Rus'. Princes/boyars with retinues was mentioned even in oldest chronicles as part of an ancient tradition, of course with some support from militia (it should be mentioned that at least Novgorod militia had company of heavy cavalry, formed from citi patricians). While the northern Rus' for a long time relied mostly on scandinavian stile of combat, southerners quickly adopted the way of their nomadic adversaries (contrary to popular belief steppe nomads used more lancers then mounted archers).

[Ali the Helering]

16 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Point is, at first they attacked with cavalry only, not waiting for rest of the army to arrive. Only when schiltrons proved to be unexpectedly formidable, they decided to soften them up with missiles.

I am half-Scots, half-Welsh.  You surely don't expect me to defend stupidity on the English side?😜  Point is, they expected the Scots to run.  When they didn't, it required infantry to break them.

 

16 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Supposedly. As i said, numbers in such sources are unreliable. More importantly, description of the battle itself has no mention of english foot soldiers. Only cavalry and archers, while scottish infantry are prominently mentioned.

You seem to favour the sources that back you up.  Anything else can be derided.  By the way, archers are foot soldiers.

 

16 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Em, date are in the link 🤨

My bad.

 

16 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wilton "Stephen attempted to break out from the siege, but his army was forced back and dispersed by a cavalry charge from Earl Robert's army"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alnwick_(1093) " and catching the Scottish army by surprise, the English knights attacked them before the ramparts of Alnwick"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alnwick_(1174) only cavalry on english side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baugé reverse Agincourt?😀

That what i found over few minutes, there probably more.

At Wilton Stephen's army was 'forced back' by the whole army before it was 'dispersed' by cavalry, indicating it was on the point of routing anyway..

In 1093 it was 'by surprise', not exactly open battle!  In 1174 they were part (400) of a larger army who happened upon the Scots after getting lost in heavy fog.

At Bauge the rest of the English commanders told Clarence not to go ahead with only his 1500 men at arms.  The attack was sheer stupidity, for which he suffered.

16 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

That's definitely not correct. For starters, there is no such thing as pre-Mongol russia (i was specifically referring to chronicles from actual russia), there was Ruthenia/Rus'. Princes/boyars with retinues was mentioned even in oldest chronicles as part of an ancient tradition, of course with some support from militia (it should be mentioned that at least Novgorod militia had company of heavy cavalry, formed from citi patricians). While the northern Rus' for a long time relied mostly on scandinavian stile of combat, southerners quickly adopted the way of their nomadic adversaries (contrary to popular belief steppe nomads used more lancers then mounted archers).

In which case, they are still named the Rus in 1460, and Ivan IV isn't crowned first Tsar of Russia until 1547, having previously been Grand Prince of Moscow.

If you are shifting your argument to well outside the medieval era, you really should say so.

Anyway, I am bored with this, since you are shifting the goalposts of your argument with each post, and citing atypical battles as though they were the norm.  Bye.

[Oleksandr]

I think you are treating this discussion way too seriously...

6 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

I am half-Scots, half-Welsh.  You surely don't expect me to defend stupidity on the English side?😜 

I would say it ease for you to pick sides😉. I am partly Ukrainian, Romanian, Moldovan, Polish and German. Everybody in this list fought each other at least half a dozen times...😱😅

6 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

You seem to favour the sources that back you up. 

6 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

and citing atypical battles as though they were the norm.

The thing is, i didn't actually looked for such battles. Most of this i found by randomly clicking on lists of medieval battles. Except in few regions (such as Scotland, Spain (Almogavars)...) in examples when infantry was described actively fighting in melee, it was usually specifically mentioned to be militia, not part of feudal retinues, and this was pretty desperate situations. So what was norm and what was outlier?🧐

6 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

At Bauge the rest of the English commanders told Clarence not to go ahead with only his 1500 men at arms.  The attack was sheer stupidity

Just like Agincourt and Crecy. Point is, just like at Falkirk, they was sure that cavalry was all that they needed. Think about it, would it be the case if it wouldn't be mostly reliable tactics?😉

6 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

Point is, they expected the Scots to run.  When they didn't, it required infantry to break them.

First it required archers, javeliners and slingers. Only when formation was already almost broken infantry AND cavalry attacked.

6 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

At Wilton Stephen's army was 'forced back' by the whole army before it was 'dispersed' by cavalry, indicating it was on the point of routing anyway.

Well, wording suggest that 'forced back' and 'dispersed' was both done by cavalry. Not sure more detailed description could be found.🤔

6 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

If you are shifting your argument to well outside the medieval era, you really should say so.

So far i only used two examples from outside medieval era, both by force which continued to use medieval military doctrine. Information from this period generally more reliable, and better researched, therefore useful for extrapolation.

 

[Oleksandr]

On 11/29/2022 at 1:36 PM, Morien said:

and IIRC, one of those who are in favor of tiny Medieval Armies.

BTW, returning to this point, look at this:

Spoiler

Here, in the middle, you can see camp of early 17th century army (mind you, army that rushed to battle without finishing muster!), and in red circle you can see what just 3 centuries ago was considered ohmygoditshuge castle, which by this point could hold just tiny fraction of the army😀. And in the left you can see camp of much larger ottoman army😱... It's very nearly to scale...

[Oleksandr]

Does beings with multiple attacks (and dual wielding humans) capable to split attacks as normal?

P.S.

On 11/28/2022 at 3:12 PM, Morien said:

Are you arguing that the 'lance' in KAP should be 3-man unit: a knight + a squire + light horseman?

Here are that article. Interestingly, it seems Lances was formalised only in 13thc, although, something similar undoubtedly existed for some time.

As for army sizes and compositions, that's good example of why it such big discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1190) funnily, out of all provided numbers, smallest one are from oldest (and closest to event) sources. And even 10000... that's in same range of numbers as battles of Hundred years war, when population was significantly larger. Also notable that, as most sources of this era, there no detailed description of armies and battle (although interestingly, Seljuk didn't notice presence of infantry..)

As was said earlier, historical analysis of this events started when armies reached impressive sizes, and only later some start to realise that armies of such sizes was demographically and economically unsustainable (in fact, in some of the known battlefields armies of stated sizes wouldn't fit physically 😃), and this problem still linger.  Furthermore, early historians often used contemporary (and ones from relatively recent past) militaries for extrapolation, and it was an era of fascination with greco-roman history, and often disdain for middle ages. This was era when majority of soldiers was from poor classes, which generated persistent stereotype that medieval armies mostly consisted from press ganged peasants. This was, in fact, the case in huge bureaucratic empires, like Byzantine and China, but there serious doubts as for feudal realms (*)- "The persistent old belief that peasants and small farmers gathered to form a national army or fyrd is a strange delusion dreamt up by antiquarians in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries to justify universal military conscription". Evidence seem to support such doubts. In Battle of Bouvines that you mentioned, call for militia was explicitly such emergency. And that's militia here played only minor role, and wasn't all that useful even for that...

On 12/7/2022 at 5:58 AM, Ali the Helering said:

You surely don't expect me to defend stupidity on the English side?

If you think that was stupid, you should read about hussite wars. Armies of exclusively knights mindlessly charging (multiple times even) at enemy armed to the teeth with firearms, artillery, two-handed flails, mobile fortresses...

[Morien]

26 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

Does beings with multiple attacks (and dual wielding humans) capable to split attacks as normal?

Yes on creatures, no on dual-wielding humans. 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 forget if BoA has some 'rulebreaking' rule of cool units. I know that some units have a javelin missile attack followed by a melee attack, which is a bit unfair if the knights have to split their skill. BoB2 is not fully compatible with normal combat rules. 

[Oleksandr]

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...

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

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

My take:

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.

[Call Me Deacon Blues]

7 hours ago, Morien said:

My take:

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.

Since I've got a player interested in dual wielding, though we're waiting to see if 6th edition has more in-depth rules, I think some pretty fair dual wielding rules would include the bonus to Parry that we already know about, if the weapons are under different skills you have to use the lowest, one a hit you can deal damage from either of your weapons (so, if you're wielding an axe and a mace, you can use the axe on shield-users and the mace on chainmail wearers), and on a crit you get the benefits of both special weapons (in the aforementioned example, if you were fighting an enemy with a shield and mail, you'd get both bonuses). Maybe this will require some kind of penalty to get the attack benefits... -5 seems a bit harsh, -1 seems a bit light, and this game doesn't really do in-between very much. It's still got kinks to work out but I think it's a way to let players who really want to do it that option, without making it better than the baseline, but also not making it so much worse that no one wants to do it. I'm also saying this without seeing the full combat rules of 6th edition, so they may well have rules for this already.

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

on a crit you get the benefits of both special weapons (in the aforementioned example, if you were fighting an enemy with a shield and mail, you'd get both bonuses)

I wouldn't give this. Critical itself is powerful enough as it is.

On the other hand, allowing a pick of the weapon boni is probably balanced OK vs. the lack of the shield. Indeed, shield + favored weapon is clearly superior against a specific enemy. On the other hand, I might give the dual-wielder a chance to just continue whacking away with the remaining weapon, if one of them is broken by a fumble/tie (I would only cause one weapon to be broken in such a case, not both, since a shield-user doesn't lose a shield).

In 6e, both axe and mace use the same skill, so that is not a limiting factor for dual-wielding here. The adventure had a separate dual-wielding skill, but admittedly that one would be overkill vs. the benefits proposed here.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Morien

[Oleksandr]

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).

 

[Morien]

58 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

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).

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. (Individual loadout of course varied, and I don't doubt that some had just sword and dagger. In any case, this would be more the civilian context I referred to, used in the gunpowder battlefield, since armor is no longer a thing.)

As for the sword and the rifle, I am not aware of it, but it is frankly physically impossible to fight one-handed with a musket/rifle+bayonet. It is too heavy, heavier even than most short polearms. Having it in the other hand as a clumsy parrying stick, sure, better than nothing to block enemy sword swings, but I think there is a reason why this didn't take off as the new style. 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?

Edited December 19, 2022 by Morien