A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings II / Warriors: Weapons, Armour and Styles

Next 20 Messages

Markus
User ID: 2936914 Nov 3rd 12:24 PM
This thread continues the "Celebrity Death Match II" - topic.

Markus
User ID: 2936914 Nov 3rd 12:31 PM
The last three messages:

Steve:

Markus, smaller warriors, while they may occassionaly be more coordinated etc..., do not have those advantages in sufficent quantities to matter against a larger top tier warrior. If it were otherwise medieval society would prefer that their knightly sons be 5'6", rather than 6'6". This was not the case and smaller men have always tended to lose to larger men, not vice-versa.

I'm just going to have to disagree with you folks on the armored size issue.

A to my psycology first position, GRRM apparently believes the foremost aspect of fighting is to know ones enemy, per Jon recalling his trainer's advice and Syrio to Arya.

KAH:

Steve;

Insofar that medieval society actually could _choose_ what height their knightly sons should be, they might prefer a tall son before a short one.
But I doubt that has much to do with fighting abilities.

I suppose that a 'lordly' look also suggests towering over one's subjects. Some people have the charisma to offset their shortness, and thus look more like the lord.
Those who don't have it, would benefit from not having to crane their necks upwards when nobly greeting the lowly peasants. :P

Thus I believe height can be good for entirely different reasons than fighting ability.

Snake:

I agree with Steve. I am not well informed about armor or fighting techniques but from what Iv'e witnessed firsthand, a small guy has a disadvantage to a bigger stronger guy. They can slip and slide and move but once they get tagged it's over. And if the big guy is good at fighting, the small guy hardly stands a chance.
However, that might not apply to what we're talking about. But if like you guys say, that armor will allow a small guy to counter-attack because one blow won't stop him then I assume that a big guy could just walk through a few attacks from a little fella and pulverize him.

Markus
User ID: 2936914 Nov 3rd 12:55 PM
Jeff, I agree with you.

A smaller man isn't just potentially better coordinated in my opinion, he himself has to defend less space than a taller opponent, who might find it even difficult to defend some parts conveniently. I also agree that in close quarters a greater reach is a disadvantage.

Steve,

what people might have preferred their sons to look like isn't necessarily an indicator to judge fighting skill, I completely agree with Kay-Arne.

Further, that larger men tend to beat smaller guys isn't as relevant to the question which advantages and disadvantages taller guys have as you might think.;)

At first, while taller men have quite automatically a greater reach, smaller men don't _have_ to be better coordinated, although the highest potential level of coordination of very highly trained smaller men is superior to taller ones.

Secondly, the difference in reach between 5'6'' and 6' is the same as between 6' and 6'6''.

But is the same true about the coordination with (near-) perfectly coordinated -- in relation to their size -- men of these heights?

I rather doubt it.

Thirdly, it has also to be considered that a larger height is often accompanied by a greater mass and strength, but not necessarily always so. Loras' blows, for example, _might_ just be as forceful as Jaime's.

These three factors alone let it seem very questionable if it can be concluded that larger men have always some kind of initial advantage over smaller ones -- only based on their height -- on the basis that larger men beat smaller men more often than not.

A more relevant information would be how tall the very best warrior's in medieval times were, especially in relation to all other heights.

Were they the largest guys around, or rather not?

Snake,

have you witnessed _armed_ combat, with swords?

You see, weapons somewhat equalize disadvantages in mere strength which apply to boxing and wrestling, for example.

However, I agree that a stronger swordsman in plate might decide to risk more than his opponent. For what it's worth.;)

He still has to hit nearly as often as his opponent to have a real advantage, and this isn't guaranteed in my opinion since the number of hits isn't determined by height or strength, but by being able to parry/avoid a strike. This requires mainly footwork, reflexes and antipication/tactic, not strength.

Presupposed an equal number of hits, however, the stronger one would certainly have an advantage.

Steve
User ID: 9084913 Nov 3rd 1:39 PM
Everyone except Snake:)

Reach and size matters in boxing, fencing wrestling, etc... All "modern" close combat sports. While it matters, it is not the sole and exclusive factor, which I think I've been clear on.

Any experienced fencer could tell you about distance and tempo, and how a good smaller will have problems against a good larger man.

I fail to see how adding armor into the equation chances the benefit of being larger as opposed to smaller. Any benefit the smaller opponent has by wearing plate (absorption of damage) will be shared by his larger opponent.

These guys were good. I find it extremely unlikely that they were ignorant of distance and tempo. They literally trained for years just to reach knight status and trained an entire lifetime after. Battle, up close and personal, was their reason for existence. I personally don't doubt that they were able to maximize every advantage, including a inch of reach.

As to historic knights/champions, I have my books out, including a biography on William Marshall, and will report shortly.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Nov 3rd 1:48 PM
I've tried to state more than once that the problem is that one inch makes a difference in sport fencing or fighting without armor much, much more than it does with guys in armor.

A smaller guy in plate versus a bigger guy in plate only needs to keep moving in. If he's skilled, he should be able to nullify the danger.

One inch means that you have a slight edge when you're in plate. It's not the very large advantage that some find it to be in sport fencing. A touch at maximum distance means no damage to plate armor, or a nick.

You're looking to kill, and that means moving in close enough to start denting and breaking the armor. If you move in five inches, giving you effectively 6 inches of steel to put on someone, you could start doing this. But it means _they_ can put 5 inches on _you_, and while this slightly reduces their ability to do significant damage, it means they can still hit you.

IF they're luckier, if they're quicker, if they're more skilled, whatever -- they can win. It's not a Renaissance fencer lunging, stabbing two inches of sword through an eye and into the brain, and not ever having been in danger of harm. You _must_ risk damage to effectively attack another plate armored opponent, unless you have a massive reach advantage (see Gregor Clegane.)

Markus
User ID: 2936914 Nov 3rd 3:13 PM
Besides, I also very much doubt that reach was _as_ much a factor in medieval unarmored combat as it might be in modern sports fencing.

Sidenote: The World Fencing Championships are just hold in Seoul, and I wonder how tall the winners are. Does somebody know a website?

Personally, I somehow doubt their heights are in the near vicinity of Sandor's or Robert's, or that they are especially tall in general.;)

Well, back to the question why modern fencing is insufficient to judge the advantage of reach between medieval swordmen, even without armour:

At first, the kind of swords and therefore their probable application (very heavily cutting oriented) are just different from even sabre fencing, not to speak of foil and epee.

Secondly, and perhaps even more important, a real combat situation is also very different from the heavily regulated sports-fencing of today. In real, you can move to whereever you like, for example;)

This seems to strengthen the importance of footwork and also balance -- in which a large height is definitively not favourable -- and allows more maneuvers in general, either.

Thirdly, sports fencing doesn't evaluate the severeness of a hit. A simple light cut or stab achieved by a reach advantage would count as much as a lethal hit achieved by a better reflex or footwork achieved while in a more closer contact.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 3rd 4:38 PM
A good big man usually beats a good little man. Even with armor. Greater size usually means greater strength, which translates into more effective blows. I think the reach thing is a little overrated because the attacks used generally will be clubbing rather than stabbing.

I've never fought in armor, but I have used pugil sticks and padding for hand to hand combat training. A strong guy has an advantage because 1) his parries will be more effective 2) his blows will be harder, and 3) his increased strength means that his weapon speed likely will be greater as well. I suppose leverage also can be thrown in there as well. The guys who usually won the tournaments were larger than average but rarely among the biggest. The really big guys usually seemed too slow.

Markus
User ID: 2936914 Nov 3rd 6:29 PM
Well, this tends to speak against Gregor, Sandor and Robert since they are certainly _very_ big, and might speak in favor of Loras who has to be quite strong to successfully wield a longaxe for hours without signs of tiring and whose exact height we don't know.;)

I would agree that strength is certainly an important factor -- between heavily armored opponents probably more so -- but the physical attributes which determine who is among the very best warriors are a combination of various factors like speed (footwork, coordination, reflexes), balance and strength.

Larger (tall and heavy) guys have generally an advantage when it comes to strength, but I would maintain that:

a) small and average seized man can be quite strong too, especially considering that their blows could certainly still have a great(er) acceleration.

b) even a small man is strong enough to completely take advantage of the equalizing nature of swords when it comes to killing: A lethal wound is still only lethal even when delievered with even greater force.

c) tall man have potential disadvantages when it comes to their speed and balance.

Alltogether, I would certainly say that if a warrior isn't extremely short or tall, his height and frame are very inconclusive attributes to determine his abilities, even while considering that large guys might more often beat smaller ones than the other way around.

The ultimate point is that I think nothing whatsoever about his size prevents Loras, for example, from defeating taller and even stronger opponents, or even puts him at a disadvantage which couldn't be potentially equaled by other physical factors like speed and balance.

Steve
User ID: 9084913 Nov 4th 1:20 AM
Without addressing prior posts (I'm drunk), here's what I've found out about William Marshall. My source is "William Marshall: Court, Career, and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire, 1147-1219" by David Crouch.

William Marshal was considered the best knight of the Middle Ages, at least by the English. He went from being the third son of a minor baron to regent of England and an Earl. The main thrust of his rapid rise was that he was a kick ass fighter, both individually and as a commander.

He came to the attention of Eleanor of Aquitaine (Richard the Lionheart's mom) when she witnessed his enraged effort to avenge his uncle's death. While the uncle's retainer's fled, he charged though greatly outnumbered. After a fierce battle he was grievously wounded and captured, though that did not stop him from mouthing continual insults and threats. Eleanor was so impressed she paid his ransom (he was destitute), taking him into her service.

Subsequently he took over 500 ransoms from knights in tournaments within two years, an unheard of figure both before and after his heyday. This is an addition to participating in AT LEAST (probably more, records are sketchy) two pitched battles between armies, seventeen sieges, three years of crusading, and a lifetime of raid and counter raid. He was so successful that he was called upon to train and knight more than one king, in addition to serving as a protector or bodyguard.

Earliest records (while a child being threatened with catapulting into his father's castle who refused to surrender to King Stephen-dad refused, telling King Stephen go ahead, he could make more sons) state that even at age 4-5 he demonstrated an unsual courage and a "certian physical dexterity".

As an adult he had "mental assurance was complemented by physical co-ordination and confidence." He was described as a "big, healthy and prepossessing man, a fine athlete and horseman. This mixture of quick wit and hand made him the perfect warrior...". He had "an open face, a ready humor, and an underlying alertness...". He demonstrated aggression only in "tournament and war". He had the "natural vigor of a big, powerful and tireless physique." His defining attribute was a "limitless self-control."

That's almost all of the physical detail I could garner from his short bio. Unfortunately, they didn't give vital statistics. Tommorrow I'll pull my more generalized books on a knight's training and life.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 4th 7:54 AM
Sounds like a big guy but not huge. About what you'd expect.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Nov 4th 9:05 AM
Here's information on the legendary Bertrand du Guesclin, the famed commander of the French who was known for his skill in battle and tournaments as well as his ability as a commander:

"Bertrand is described at this stage [15-16 years olds] as of middle height (probably not much over five feet.)"

Maybe he was 5'2" to 5'5" when fully grown.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Nov 4th 9:10 AM
Oh, also, that bit came from _The Knight in History_ by Frances Gies. Very nice general overview.

Steve
User ID: 9084913 Nov 4th 9:48 AM
Ran, de Guesclin is a central figure in Barabara Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century". There is no mention of him having a reputation as a individual fighter, whether in tournaments or battles, only that he was a very effective commander.

Physically, Guesclin is described as "flat-nosed, dark-skinned, short and heavy." King Charles of France called him a "hog in armor". There was "none so ugly."

He did not become a knight until age 35. He fought in his youth in a prolonged guerilla war. He was known for "ambush and ruse... bribes... torture and killing of prisoners... and surprise attacks launched during the Truce of God." He was "fierce with a sword... hard, tricky and ruthless ...".

The only tournament reference is that he did not participate in them his youth, which is one of the reasons attributed to his no rules attitude toward war. No mention as to his participation as an adult.

Do you have any more detail and to his individual success rate? I know that he constantly advised Charles to avoid battle with the Black Prince and his army, calling them the "best fighting men on earth".

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Nov 4th 11:20 AM
"... he fought in a half-dozen large battles, in doznes of smaller battles, and in hundreds of sieges, in addition to uncounted and nameless skirmishes, raids, sorties, surprises, and ambushes. Besides the thousands of blows dealt and recieved in these with sword, axe, mace, and lance, he fought many duels and took part in numerous tournaments. By the time of his death at sixty, his body was covered with scars. Taken prisoner four times . . . "

At 17 or 18, he took part in his first tournament, where he unseated several opponents, according to the poetic record of his deeds.

He killed three English soldiers alone when he ambushed them as they carried a chest of coins. According to further tradition, he led a sneak attack (dressed in the garb of peasant women) on a castle and was the first to leap to the attack.

He was the champion in several tournaments in Pontorson, also, and soon after led a counter-ambush which led to the capture of some hundred enemy knights and squires that got him his spurs. There are many other similar feats of arms and activities in the chapter devoted to him, but I think one can draw that he was exceptional.

Also, the fact that he was knighted at 34 doesn't say overmuch. By the time he was living in, knighthood was seen as the due of sons of the upper nobility, but the sons of lesser nobles often languished for awhile. There was a growing class of esquires throughout France and England in those days.

Steve
User ID: 9084913 Nov 4th 7:56 PM
Ran, it looks like you've have access to the same source I discovered this afternoon going through my book boxes. "The Knight in History" by Francis Gies.

What you fail to mention is de Guecslin's physical description in that work. He's described as "middle height (probably not much over five feet), with a swarthy complexion, a flat nose, grey eyes, broad shoulders, long arms and small hands." He was reputedly so ugly that even his mother resented him. This caused him to express himself in savage outbursts, at least while a younger man. "He owed his success to reckless bravery, physical hardihood, and ..."

All in all, he doesn't help you with your reach argument. You have a short or average height guy who was as tough as nails and bore a passing resemblance to a knuckle dragging gorilla. And as I said earlier, big men or those with longer arms have an advantage. de Guesclin happens to be in the second category.

I found no record of tournaments other than he organized the children of his neighborhod into imitations of a melee when younger. I might have missed it. Or the poetic record may have been exagerating these children's brawls.

The only individual fight (other than the three men he killed-he was a tough bastard) I saw was him being captured by Sir Hugh Cavelry, a giant Englishman, in a skirmish. Though he had previously captured Hugh, also in a skirmish. The details of their respective capturings aren't provided, or even if they crossed blades (or axes).

His best character traits were loyalty to his king and a protectiveness to the poor.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Nov 5th 4:26 AM
The listing of his being a champion at tournaments in Pontorson is on page 168 of my addition.

I'm dubious about just how long his arms might be. Longer than average, fine, but I'm not sure just how long that might be.

If he topped out at 5'2" - 5'4" when he got his full growth, him having reach longer than that of a guy who has 5'8" seems extraordinary -- and the fact is, as you note, he had defeated Hugh Cavelry once. If "huge" is measured by medieval standards at 6'0" (or more) then he certainly didn't have an advantage, I expect.

And there's the matter of strength. Even if he was squat and longarmed, would he have been as strong as, say, this Sir Hugh Cavelry? It's possible.

BTW, his description rather reminds me of Boros Blount. He's squat, ugly, bow-legged, etc. too. Fortunately, the resemblance ends there.

Steve
User ID: 9084913 Nov 5th 7:56 AM
Ran, they describe de Guesclin of "middle" hieght with long arms. By our standards he was half way to being a midget. By his, he was average. And I don't think they'd mention "long" arms as a throw away line. Apparently it was significant enough to be noticed and commented on. I think it reasonable to assume that this average guy had a tall man's reach.

Page 168 of my edition begins page 1 of the Sir Falstaff chapter. My copy has no record of tournament victories other than his childhood impromptu melees. I have the First Perennial Librabry Edition, 1987.

It also never says that de Guscelin and Calvelry ever fought one on one. They captured one another while leading forces on skirmishes.

I have another book "Warlords: Ancient, Celtic anf Medieval" by Tim Newark who has a chapter on de Guesclin. He describes the young de Guesclin as a bully and thug, disliked by his own parents, who had little fear of physical violence or pain. His own father locked him in the dungeon for beating both aristrocrats and servants. At 21, he was described as muscular and stocky, and able to make other men feel anxious. He liked to wrestle and joust.

He captured the "giant" Calverly by ambushing him along a forest road, cutting down his escort with archers and forcing Calverly's surrender. He didn't defeat him on one on one battle.

It does describe a duel between Thomas of Canterbury and de Guesclin. It was proviked because Canterbury had captured one of de Guesclin's brothers during a truce. They hacked at one another with swords, neither could penetrate. de Guesclin then ripped Caneterbury's sword from his hand, body slammed him, tore off his helmet and proceeded to beat him bloody with armored fists. Sir John Chandos was given partial credit for the victory as he loaned de Guesclin his armor as his was in very bad shape. Canterbury probably would have chopped him into bits wearing the junk he arrived in. Chondos later captured de Guesclin in a battle in Navarre.

It references similar duels without giving details. No references to tournaments, whether as a champion or participant.

One thing that all this reading had shown is the ineffectiveness of swords against 1300-1500 armor. Axes, maces etc... would work fine. But when swords were used, they either: knocked down their opponent who either surrrendered or was daggered; or, were impaled by a thrusting sword with lots of leverage. So why were swords so popular?

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 5th 8:03 AM
Sounds like DuGuesclin was a bit of an orc.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 5th 10:34 AM
Steve, to answer your question, I would say there might be a few reasons why swords would be popular. One would be simply the noble connotation attached to a sword -- that's just a guess, though. How about the fact that not everyone had state of the art armor? A sword would be a more versatile weapon if one were to encounter a mixed force of heavily armored knights and less armored men-at-arms, archers, etc. Unless you're talking about full plate armor, which was very rare, most armor still might afford a limited vulnerability to cuts aimed at joints or extremities.

Who really knows? We're all just guessing here anyway. I still think you're slightly overstating the reach advantage. Since the weapons weren't thrusting weapons, reach would seem to be a rather limited advantage. It is one advantage, but I don't think it overwhelms the rest. All else being equal, a man with greater reach usually would win. The problem is that everything else rarely is equal.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Nov 5th 11:29 AM
And completely unwitting, Jeff struck at the heart
of every economist's woe. :o)

Next 20 Messages