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 / Other Topics / Medieval weapons, matters and manners

Next 20 Messages

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 25th 12:47 PM
We started this in "Best Lines" - where it does not belong.

A topic for some weirdos who like to discuss medieval weapons. As I think about it, if someone is interested in discussing other medieval manners and matters, we could do this here, too.

After all, ASoIaF is a kind of medieval society, and we can talk about parallels and differences of history and the series.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 25th 12:56 PM
The last posts:

KAH
User ID: 9209903
Sep 7th 6:32 AM
Isn't a morningstar like a big ball with sharp,
thorny things poking out of it, hanging from a
chain, connected to a stick?

Hmmm...
Could I possibly have explained that in a more
stupid way? :o)

____________________________________
Claidhaim
User ID: 9544623
Sep 7th 8:29 AM
I think the morningstar is as described above but
without the chain. Just a big spiked ball on the
end of a stick. If it has a chain, It's then a flail.

_____________________________________
Min
User ID: 1446254
Sep 21st 8:57 AM
No, Kay's right with the chain. I just saw the
weapon you described in a museum, and its name
was another. I forgot it though, heck me. But
even if I remembered, I guess I would not know
the right term in English. Anyway, I saw a
morningstar there, and it was just that what Kay
tried to describe in his poor words - as ususal. ;-)

My question is: Why the heck should that be a
poor weapon? I studied medieval history, and all
the books about weapons say that the mornigstar
was deadly and dangerous. Wielded by the right
hands, it was able to beat nay sword, any lance
or hellebarde (if _that_ is the right English term, again).

The only disadvantage of a mornigstar: It has no
defensive possibilities, and thus was mostly used
combined with a shield.

_____________________________________
Jeff
User ID: 0227464
Sep 24th 12:55 PM
The other disadvantages of a morningstar would
be a lack of reach (as opposed to a lance, halberd
or large sword), and an inability to stab or slash. Basically, its a clubbing weapon.

____________________________
Claidhaim
User ID: 9544623
Sep 24th 2:22 PM Well, I really wouldn't say it was disadvantageous, except when fighting someone
armed with either a lance, halberd, large sword.
But really it's not much smaller than an axe and
can be large enough to need two hands to weild.
Remember Robert used a hammer quite
effectively, also.

___________________________
Min
User ID: 1446254
Sep 25th 12:41 PM
I agree with Claid. The thing that
makes the mornigstar a dangerous weapon, and
that is his disadvantage alike, is the chain. That
prevents you from defending yourself.
A skilled fighter of the morningstar had
possibilities, though, if meeting a sword or
halberd (_that_ was the term, thanks, Jeff). They
just struck with the chain, so that it wound
around the opponents weapon, and then pulled it
out of his hands. When they managed to do this,
they had almost won. Until then, it was mainly
ducking under the opponent's longer weapon and
trying to hit his legs (for a good morningstar blow can easily break a leg).

Jeff, lances were very seldom, if ever, used in
single hand-combat. The fight with lances always
was on horseback - they were the most preferred
tourney-weapons. Even in a tourney, when the
opponents had blown each other from their
horses, they changed to swords or other weapons.
If piercing weapons were used in single
hand-combat, it were spears. But even these
never had a revival in the middle ages that lifted
their importance to that of the pilums in ancient
Rome.

Sorry for the lecture - I studied old weapons and
looove the topic!

labor
User ID: 8479113 Sep 25th 1:18 PM

If we are speaking about medieval matters there is one, which made no sense to me in ASOIAF context - namely inheritance of all those lordships, etc. In ASOIAF, the lord owns all land of his clan, yet his relatives can marry unrestrainedly and produce the large numbers of offspring. So, how are all those relatives supporting themselves? Is the lord compelled by law to support them, i.e. they have claim on certain percentage of his income? Then wouldn't he try to curtail the reproduction of his kin, by giving them to the Faith or to the Citadel? I mean, according to Lord Hoster Tully it is lord's right to make (or not to make) the matches for his kin. Also, it looks that the concept of dowry doesn't exist in Westeros.

This whole system has to function by very different laws than those of a medieval society, where only the (noble, gentry)men who held land could marry, dowry played an important role in choice of a bride, lands changed hands frequently and the "supernumerary" offspring of both sexes was given to the Church in the spirit of economy. So what are those laws in ASOIAF?

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Sep 25th 1:28 PM
A shield helps a lot against a morningstar. ;) The speed of such a weapon is also troublesome. After a certain amount of swings, unless things went really well, you've lost a fair bit of 'bite' compared to the optimum.

So ... it's a scary weapon, yeah, but someone experienced and with the right equipment stands good odds.

Min
User ID: 9433023 Sep 26th 5:34 AM
We should not forget that the morningstar is good to be fought on horseback _as well as_ in single-hand-combat. Another advantage.

labor, you are surely right about the heritage system. But how it works, we do not really know, as GRRM doesn't indicate it.
If we take the Starks as an example, though, we could guess that for each of the children will be cared. If all would have happened as planned, Robb would have followed Ned as Lord of Winterfell, Sansa would have been married to the King-to-be, and there would have been found a suitable husband for Arya, too. The younger boys would have, like in the real medieval society, had two possibilities - either joining the church (which in ASOIAF would mean, becoming a maester or a septon or some such) or becoming a knight, earning his lands and honours later.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Sep 26th 7:43 AM
It's noted that Bran could have ended up commanding a hold for Robb. I suspect they mean they'd build a new towerhouse somewhere, let some smallfolk start a new village around it, and voila.

I suppose the Great Houses can afford limited landing for their offspring.

Min
User ID: 9433023 Sep 26th 10:05 AM
I suppose they can. But having as much offspring as, let's say... Walder Frey would make things really difficult, now would it not?
Perhaps that's why he's so eager in marrying his children away. :-)

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Sep 26th 11:05 AM
Of course, yeah, but I don't believe Walder Frey should be held up as anything but an exception to the rule. He's obviously extremely ... eccentric. :)

I really don't want to think about what will happen when Walder Frey dies and someone less interested in family takes his place. There's going to be many hungry mouths.

Actually, one could almost go so far as to argue that Frey's large number of offspring is tied directly to some sort of deep-rooted paranoia. The line of thinking would go that he figures, so long as he has a bunch of children who depend on him, the chances of anyone growing tired of his longevity and trying to kill him will be counter-balanced by the many mouths who look to him for sustenance.

There's only a small number of people in anywhere near reasonable closeness to the lordship of the house, whilst there are many, many more who are like to be kicked out of the Twins once Lord Walder dies. It behooves the greater number to make sure he doesn't die prematurely.

Of course, this is probably all moot. Like as not Roose Bolton is going to burn the Twins around their heads or something such. I could see, as some have suggested, a general slaughter of Freys coming up.

Min
User ID: 9433023 Sep 26th 12:56 PM
He is obviously extremely fertile, do you mean? Do you think he has other hobbies? ;-)
You could be right concerning the Freys, though. There are just too many of them, and GRRM has to solve the issue that two Starks are promised to Freys - whom they definitely will not marry, imho.

labor
User ID: 8479113 Sep 27th 1:46 PM

Hmm... The Lannisters are pretty numerous as well, though nowhere near the Freys. And it sure looks like Ser Kevan and Co aren't holding any lands - yet they seem well-supplied with personal money. Concerning the Freys - Ran I'm not sure that the next Lord Frey can kick anyone out, at least the Freys we have seen never seem to be concerned about the possibility, although it is pretty clear that Lord Walder doesn't have long to live...
Min, in comparison with the Middle Ages very few noblemen in Westeros seem to become maesters/septons (and we haven't seen a single noble septa yet) and those who did become maesters apparently did so of their own free will. Most of the nobles marry and have children, and while it and an occasional taking-on of the mother's surname does explain how the noble families could continue for millenia, it is a bit of a puzzle how it all(i.e. distribution of the livelyhood) works.

Oh, well. The other puzzle is their religion - it certainly plays a very small role in their lives compared to the Middle Ages and is surprizingly tolerant. I don't see how it works as well (gods old and new coexisting peacefully?!) - although perhaps Melisandre will treat us to some good old religious fanatism.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Sep 27th 2:05 PM
Doesn't have long to live? The man's loomed eternal. He may be there another 10 years, all things considered.

I don't know, exactly, what Kevan does. But as NEd noted, it was only one of Bran's many possible options. Clearly, Kevan is Tywin's right-hand man and probably served as castellan whenever Tywin was away. That's a pretty hefty position.

Why should there be lands for him when he been #2 man in Casterly Rock for the last 20-odd years? His son Lancel was certainly benefitting from the position and rank of his father, at least until the point where he was like to lose an arm (and maybe his head.)

Tex
User ID: 1808544 Sep 27th 3:12 PM
another thing to remember with the weapons is hte money. swords and other large or all metal weapons were expensive. the morning star and flails, maces, small axes, hammers and polearms were all cheaper weapons. they were mostly made of the wooden handle with a metal tip. all could be deadly implements of destruction if used properly. more often than not the shield was a small buckler made of wood and covered with boiled leather. some of the fancier ones had a metal band around the outside to give it added strength. each weapon definitely took a certain skill set in order to be an accomplished and old warrior. the smaller and liter weapons were favored by the smaller and weaker people also, mostly because they did not have the strength to weild the larger more heavier ones.

in the earlier times even the swords would be considered clubbing weapons because the edge was blunt and the size of the sword would cause a serious blow if swung in full force. eventually the "technology" was discovered (by whom i do not know) to give an edge to a sword that would cut more fiercly than it would bludgeon. thus it then became a slashing weapon. of course as this happened, the steel armor also became more prominent.
sorry about the lengthy post. I love the medevil periods weaponry/armor/chivalry also.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Sep 29th 3:49 AM
Thanks for bringing up that about the swords, as I forgot to. Of course, the medieval swords were used to club, not to cut. Thus, they were heavy - good for breaking bones. :-) But not good to cut a limb off.
There _were_ sharp weapons, though: Scythes and the like. Others were not sharb, but pointed, so that you could not cut, but stab with them. Wielding a sword required a lot of strength, especially a two-handed sword. I saw one of those lately, and tried to move it. I was barely able to lift it, and I'm not weak. Those were _really_ heavy. :-)

I wonder why, in fantsy books, knights are always sharpening theirs swords... :-)

labor, the "Religious Wars" started with that question. :-) I mean those on the board. GRRM's religions resemble real religions, at least some of them. And it is not true that the middle ages were that intolerant. It only came in the later middle ages, and with the growing political influence of the roman catholic church. In the earlier middle ages, and up to the 10th, 11th century, religions existed next to each other quite tolerantly. Old gods and new - like in ASOIAF. It was only later that the catholics called the religious wars.

Perhaps that is what Melisandre plans to do, too.

Ran
User ID: 2212414 Sep 29th 4:13 AM
Well ... the development of the sword in Europe is something that a scholar could spend a lifetime on (and, indeed, some have.)

I think suggesting that swords were primarily meant to _club_ isn't exactly right. Certainly, there were better weapons for this purpose (maces, for example.) What we may find odd is the fact that the edge of many medieval swords were, by and large, blunt when compared to your average kitchen knife. The more honed the edge the easier it is for notches to form, which isn't good when you're fighting armored opponents.

Bronn's sword is exceptionally honed and as I recall it comes out notched after fighting Ser Vardis Egan. I'll assume that Bronn in general depended on a sharp sword for day-to-day encounters (I can't shake the feeling that he did a little robbery and the like when not employed) and may have regretted having quite so much work to do to fix his sword after dealing with anyone in metal armor. ;)

The right amount of edging, however, gave durability and usability against chainmail armor. At the same time, these weapons very well could -- and did -- hack through limbs. The Visby battlesite in Gotland, where Danish mercenaries fought native Swedish defenders, shows this because several of the bodies found show legs being hacked clean through by swordstrokes.

Thrusting swords in Europe are a fairly late development, beginning with the French estoc which had no edge to speak of but a mean point. This, of course, was in reaction to plate armor. The point of it was to hammer away at an opponent until they fell and then to issue the coup de grace with the point.

As to weight .. surprisingly, most swords were about 3 pounds in weight (1.4-1.5kg?) This includes swords of war (also hand-and-a-half swords or bastard swords.) Consider the largest sword of bastard sword, the Scottish claymore. The ones found in the Wallace collection (an extensive armory of medieval arms and armor) don't go past four and .. a quarter pounds, I think.

On top of this, good swords were often superbly well-balanced. This makes handling them easier.

On the other hand, when you get into the largest of the greatswords, then you're getting some hefty weight. Those _were_ primarily meant to smash things up really good, although surprisingly greatswords were not a mainstay of knighthood. The most famous users of that particular form of sword, I think, would be the Landschnekts (undoubtedly misspelled.)

They basically employed groups of infantry men armed with these to cause havoc in the enemy formations. Little finesse in it beyond swinging back and forth and not getting killed. I think I've heard of one greatsword going in at some 8 pounds.

Claidhaim
User ID: 9544623 Sep 29th 9:34 AM
One of the uses for these 'great swords' such as the two-handed sword were to decimate ranks of pikemen. The sword weilders would stand in front of the ranks and cut the points off of the pikes, thus renedering them rather useless except as long , flimsy clubs. Pikes were rather good against the cavalry, but not very useful against foot.

Most peasant foot soldiers were armed by themselves with pole-arms which were derived from farm implements. Most every pole-arm was derived from a farm implement such as the Voulge, Guisarme, Pike, Halberd (pole-axe), etc. But there were many more such as the flail (generally used to thrash grain) which came in various sizes depending upon it's use (farm or war) and the wielder's size and ability to buy or fashion a better one for war.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Sep 29th 10:24 AM
Ran and you others obviously have pretty extensive knowledge about this subject. More than I, and I always thought I was fairly well-versed.

There was a least one thrusting sword, the gladius, long before the estoc.

Is it "landsknecht"? I always thought that they also employed some pikemen but perhaps I'm wrong. I do know that they used to have some nice battles with the Swiss which they generally lost.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Sep 29th 11:42 AM
Well, I should say medieval Europe's first thrusting sword. :) Otherwise, yeah.

Tex
User ID: 1808544 Sep 29th 2:12 PM
I agree with you guys on the sword. the notching was a bad thing. ease in notching was often the sign of either cheap metal or bad workmanship. if the metal wasn't folded properly or was folded too many times then nothing would easily occur. of course firing tempurature was also important. if the metal was tempered to long or to hot then the metal would become brittle and notch easily. one of the objectives of the sword was to put large gashes in the armor. the gash would then continue to cut into the enemy and the only way to stop it was to take the armor off and hammer it out. which was highly unlikely in battle. eventually the person would grow weak in battle from loss of blood or bleed to death.

Archers usually did the same thing. the armor was usually thicker in the front and rear and thinner on the top and bottoms. they also tried to stay away from the flat areas and use curves in order to avoid the 90 degree point of entry.
of course this armor was very expensive and most had to use implements they fashioned themselves or had laying around (farm implements) this was also very popular in the eastern cultures as well.

the later Renaissance period provided much of the "thrusting swords" such as the sabre and foils. the earlier medevil periods were mostly clubbing adn then developed into slashing and archery and eventually led to a more "civilized" thrusting. by then firearms had been discovered and the art of armor had not caught up with the gun so wearing heavy armor was considered outdated and usuless against the more powerful guns.

I might have a few facts messed up but that is pretty much my knowledge of medevil weaponry.
I really enjoy this so if any of you others have anything to correct or add please let me know this is great.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Sep 29th 2:32 PM
Well, I still don't know about 'swords as clubbing.' Again, there were better weapons for it. Certainly, a large part of the damage done by a sword stroke was bruising force -- driving chain links into flesh, breaking bones -- but the goal of the sword was to break through the armor and cut into the flesh.

Now, clubbing actually gets a resurgance when plate armor comes into effect, because then the entire goal is to bash the guy until he falls down so that you can get a clean thrust (either into a joint in the armor or just brute forcing through a weakened section of plate.)

Claidhaim
User ID: 9544623 Sep 29th 2:44 PM
And then, of course, man-catchers were developed to hold these heavily armored men on the ground as someone would move up and "pokeity, pokeity" he's dead.

Next 20 Messages

Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 25th 12:47 PM We started this in "Best Lines" - where it does not belong. A topic for some weirdos who like to discuss medieval weapons. As I think about it, if someone is interested in discussing other medieval manners and matters, we could do this here, too. After all, ASoIaF is a kind of medieval society, and we can talk about parallels and differences of history and the series.
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 25th 12:56 PM The last posts: KAH User ID: 9209903 Sep 7th 6:32 AM Isn't a morningstar like a big ball with sharp, thorny things poking out of it, hanging from a chain, connected to a stick? Hmmm... Could I possibly have explained that in a more stupid way? :o) ____________________________________ Claidhaim User ID: 9544623 Sep 7th 8:29 AM I think the morningstar is as described above but without the chain. Just a big spiked ball on the end of a stick. If it has a chain, It's then a flail. _____________________________________ Min User ID: 1446254 Sep 21st 8:57 AM No, Kay's right with the chain. I just saw the weapon you described in a museum, and its name was another. I forgot it though, heck me. But even if I remembered, I guess I would not know the right term in English. Anyway, I saw a morningstar there, and it was just that what Kay tried to describe in his poor words - as ususal. ;-) My question is: Why the heck should that be a poor weapon? I studied medieval history, and all the books about weapons say that the mornigstar was deadly and dangerous. Wielded by the right hands, it was able to beat nay sword, any lance or hellebarde (if _that_ is the right English term, again). The only disadvantage of a mornigstar: It has no defensive possibilities, and thus was mostly used combined with a shield. _____________________________________ Jeff User ID: 0227464 Sep 24th 12:55 PM The other disadvantages of a morningstar would be a lack of reach (as opposed to a lance, halberd or large sword), and an inability to stab or slash. Basically, its a clubbing weapon. ____________________________ Claidhaim User ID: 9544623 Sep 24th 2:22 PM Well, I really wouldn't say it was disadvantageous, except when fighting someone armed with either a lance, halberd, large sword. But really it's not much smaller than an axe and can be large enough to need two hands to weild. Remember Robert used a hammer quite effectively, also. ___________________________ Min User ID: 1446254 Sep 25th 12:41 PM I agree with Claid. The thing that makes the mornigstar a dangerous weapon, and that is his disadvantage alike, is the chain. That prevents you from defending yourself. A skilled fighter of the morningstar had possibilities, though, if meeting a sword or halberd (_that_ was the term, thanks, Jeff). They just struck with the chain, so that it wound around the opponents weapon, and then pulled it out of his hands. When they managed to do this, they had almost won. Until then, it was mainly ducking under the opponent's longer weapon and trying to hit his legs (for a good morningstar blow can easily break a leg). Jeff, lances were very seldom, if ever, used in single hand-combat. The fight with lances always was on horseback - they were the most preferred tourney-weapons. Even in a tourney, when the opponents had blown each other from their horses, they changed to swords or other weapons. If piercing weapons were used in single hand-combat, it were spears. But even these never had a revival in the middle ages that lifted their importance to that of the pilums in ancient Rome. Sorry for the lecture - I studied old weapons and looove the topic!
labor User ID: 8479113	Sep 25th 1:18 PM If we are speaking about medieval matters there is one, which made no sense to me in ASOIAF context - namely inheritance of all those lordships, etc. In ASOIAF, the lord owns all land of his clan, yet his relatives can marry unrestrainedly and produce the large numbers of offspring. So, how are all those relatives supporting themselves? Is the lord compelled by law to support them, i.e. they have claim on certain percentage of his income? Then wouldn't he try to curtail the reproduction of his kin, by giving them to the Faith or to the Citadel? I mean, according to Lord Hoster Tully it is lord's right to make (or not to make) the matches for his kin. Also, it looks that the concept of dowry doesn't exist in Westeros. This whole system has to function by very different laws than those of a medieval society, where only the (noble, gentry)men who held land could marry, dowry played an important role in choice of a bride, lands changed hands frequently and the "supernumerary" offspring of both sexes was given to the Church in the spirit of economy. So what are those laws in ASOIAF?
Ran User ID: 0283314	Sep 25th 1:28 PM A shield helps a lot against a morningstar. ;) The speed of such a weapon is also troublesome. After a certain amount of swings, unless things went really well, you've lost a fair bit of 'bite' compared to the optimum. So ... it's a scary weapon, yeah, but someone experienced and with the right equipment stands good odds.
Min User ID: 9433023	Sep 26th 5:34 AM We should not forget that the morningstar is good to be fought on horseback _as well as_ in single-hand-combat. Another advantage. labor, you are surely right about the heritage system. But how it works, we do not really know, as GRRM doesn't indicate it. If we take the Starks as an example, though, we could guess that for each of the children will be cared. If all would have happened as planned, Robb would have followed Ned as Lord of Winterfell, Sansa would have been married to the King-to-be, and there would have been found a suitable husband for Arya, too. The younger boys would have, like in the real medieval society, had two possibilities - either joining the church (which in ASOIAF would mean, becoming a maester or a septon or some such) or becoming a knight, earning his lands and honours later.
Ran User ID: 0283314	Sep 26th 7:43 AM It's noted that Bran could have ended up commanding a hold for Robb. I suspect they mean they'd build a new towerhouse somewhere, let some smallfolk start a new village around it, and voila. I suppose the Great Houses can afford limited landing for their offspring.
Min User ID: 9433023	Sep 26th 10:05 AM I suppose they can. But having as much offspring as, let's say... Walder Frey would make things really difficult, now would it not? Perhaps that's why he's so eager in marrying his children away. :-)
Ran User ID: 0283314	Sep 26th 11:05 AM Of course, yeah, but I don't believe Walder Frey should be held up as anything but an exception to the rule. He's obviously extremely ... eccentric. :) I really don't want to think about what will happen when Walder Frey dies and someone less interested in family takes his place. There's going to be many hungry mouths. Actually, one could almost go so far as to argue that Frey's large number of offspring is tied directly to some sort of deep-rooted paranoia. The line of thinking would go that he figures, so long as he has a bunch of children who depend on him, the chances of anyone growing tired of his longevity and trying to kill him will be counter-balanced by the many mouths who look to him for sustenance. There's only a small number of people in anywhere near reasonable closeness to the lordship of the house, whilst there are many, many more who are like to be kicked out of the Twins once Lord Walder dies. It behooves the greater number to make sure he doesn't die prematurely. Of course, this is probably all moot. Like as not Roose Bolton is going to burn the Twins around their heads or something such. I could see, as some have suggested, a general slaughter of Freys coming up.
Min User ID: 9433023	Sep 26th 12:56 PM He is obviously extremely fertile, do you mean? Do you think he has other hobbies? ;-) You could be right concerning the Freys, though. There are just too many of them, and GRRM has to solve the issue that two Starks are promised to Freys - whom they definitely will not marry, imho.
labor User ID: 8479113	Sep 27th 1:46 PM Hmm... The Lannisters are pretty numerous as well, though nowhere near the Freys. And it sure looks like Ser Kevan and Co aren't holding any lands - yet they seem well-supplied with personal money. Concerning the Freys - Ran I'm not sure that the next Lord Frey can kick anyone out, at least the Freys we have seen never seem to be concerned about the possibility, although it is pretty clear that Lord Walder doesn't have long to live... Min, in comparison with the Middle Ages very few noblemen in Westeros seem to become maesters/septons (and we haven't seen a single noble septa yet) and those who did become maesters apparently did so of their own free will. Most of the nobles marry and have children, and while it and an occasional taking-on of the mother's surname does explain how the noble families could continue for millenia, it is a bit of a puzzle how it all(i.e. distribution of the livelyhood) works. Oh, well. The other puzzle is their religion - it certainly plays a very small role in their lives compared to the Middle Ages and is surprizingly tolerant. I don't see how it works as well (gods old and new coexisting peacefully?!) - although perhaps Melisandre will treat us to some good old religious fanatism.
Ran User ID: 0283314	Sep 27th 2:05 PM Doesn't have long to live? The man's loomed eternal. He may be there another 10 years, all things considered. I don't know, exactly, what Kevan does. But as NEd noted, it was only one of Bran's many possible options. Clearly, Kevan is Tywin's right-hand man and probably served as castellan whenever Tywin was away. That's a pretty hefty position. Why should there be lands for him when he been #2 man in Casterly Rock for the last 20-odd years? His son Lancel was certainly benefitting from the position and rank of his father, at least until the point where he was like to lose an arm (and maybe his head.)
Tex User ID: 1808544	Sep 27th 3:12 PM another thing to remember with the weapons is hte money. swords and other large or all metal weapons were expensive. the morning star and flails, maces, small axes, hammers and polearms were all cheaper weapons. they were mostly made of the wooden handle with a metal tip. all could be deadly implements of destruction if used properly. more often than not the shield was a small buckler made of wood and covered with boiled leather. some of the fancier ones had a metal band around the outside to give it added strength. each weapon definitely took a certain skill set in order to be an accomplished and old warrior. the smaller and liter weapons were favored by the smaller and weaker people also, mostly because they did not have the strength to weild the larger more heavier ones. in the earlier times even the swords would be considered clubbing weapons because the edge was blunt and the size of the sword would cause a serious blow if swung in full force. eventually the "technology" was discovered (by whom i do not know) to give an edge to a sword that would cut more fiercly than it would bludgeon. thus it then became a slashing weapon. of course as this happened, the steel armor also became more prominent. sorry about the lengthy post. I love the medevil periods weaponry/armor/chivalry also.
Min User ID: 1446254	Sep 29th 3:49 AM Thanks for bringing up that about the swords, as I forgot to. Of course, the medieval swords were used to club, not to cut. Thus, they were heavy - good for breaking bones. :-) But not good to cut a limb off. There _were_ sharp weapons, though: Scythes and the like. Others were not sharb, but pointed, so that you could not cut, but stab with them. Wielding a sword required a lot of strength, especially a two-handed sword. I saw one of those lately, and tried to move it. I was barely able to lift it, and I'm not weak. Those were _really_ heavy. :-) I wonder why, in fantsy books, knights are always sharpening theirs swords... :-) labor, the "Religious Wars" started with that question. :-) I mean those on the board. GRRM's religions resemble real religions, at least some of them. And it is not true that the middle ages were that intolerant. It only came in the later middle ages, and with the growing political influence of the roman catholic church. In the earlier middle ages, and up to the 10th, 11th century, religions existed next to each other quite tolerantly. Old gods and new - like in ASOIAF. It was only later that the catholics called the religious wars. Perhaps that is what Melisandre plans to do, too.
Ran User ID: 2212414	Sep 29th 4:13 AM Well ... the development of the sword in Europe is something that a scholar could spend a lifetime on (and, indeed, some have.) I think suggesting that swords were primarily meant to _club_ isn't exactly right. Certainly, there were better weapons for this purpose (maces, for example.) What we may find odd is the fact that the edge of many medieval swords were, by and large, blunt when compared to your average kitchen knife. The more honed the edge the easier it is for notches to form, which isn't good when you're fighting armored opponents. Bronn's sword is exceptionally honed and as I recall it comes out notched after fighting Ser Vardis Egan. I'll assume that Bronn in general depended on a sharp sword for day-to-day encounters (I can't shake the feeling that he did a little robbery and the like when not employed) and may have regretted having quite so much work to do to fix his sword after dealing with anyone in metal armor. ;) The right amount of edging, however, gave durability and usability against chainmail armor. At the same time, these weapons very well could -- and did -- hack through limbs. The Visby battlesite in Gotland, where Danish mercenaries fought native Swedish defenders, shows this because several of the bodies found show legs being hacked clean through by swordstrokes. Thrusting swords in Europe are a fairly late development, beginning with the French estoc which had no edge to speak of but a mean point. This, of course, was in reaction to plate armor. The point of it was to hammer away at an opponent until they fell and then to issue the coup de grace with the point. As to weight .. surprisingly, most swords were about 3 pounds in weight (1.4-1.5kg?) This includes swords of war (also hand-and-a-half swords or bastard swords.) Consider the largest sword of bastard sword, the Scottish claymore. The ones found in the Wallace collection (an extensive armory of medieval arms and armor) don't go past four and .. a quarter pounds, I think. On top of this, good swords were often superbly well-balanced. This makes handling them easier. On the other hand, when you get into the largest of the greatswords, then you're getting some hefty weight. Those _were_ primarily meant to smash things up really good, although surprisingly greatswords were not a mainstay of knighthood. The most famous users of that particular form of sword, I think, would be the Landschnekts (undoubtedly misspelled.) They basically employed groups of infantry men armed with these to cause havoc in the enemy formations. Little finesse in it beyond swinging back and forth and not getting killed. I think I've heard of one greatsword going in at some 8 pounds.
Claidhaim User ID: 9544623	Sep 29th 9:34 AM One of the uses for these 'great swords' such as the two-handed sword were to decimate ranks of pikemen. The sword weilders would stand in front of the ranks and cut the points off of the pikes, thus renedering them rather useless except as long , flimsy clubs. Pikes were rather good against the cavalry, but not very useful against foot. Most peasant foot soldiers were armed by themselves with pole-arms which were derived from farm implements. Most every pole-arm was derived from a farm implement such as the Voulge, Guisarme, Pike, Halberd (pole-axe), etc. But there were many more such as the flail (generally used to thrash grain) which came in various sizes depending upon it's use (farm or war) and the wielder's size and ability to buy or fashion a better one for war.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Sep 29th 10:24 AM Ran and you others obviously have pretty extensive knowledge about this subject. More than I, and I always thought I was fairly well-versed. There was a least one thrusting sword, the gladius, long before the estoc. Is it "landsknecht"? I always thought that they also employed some pikemen but perhaps I'm wrong. I do know that they used to have some nice battles with the Swiss which they generally lost.
Ran User ID: 0283314	Sep 29th 11:42 AM Well, I should say medieval Europe's first thrusting sword. :) Otherwise, yeah.
Tex User ID: 1808544	Sep 29th 2:12 PM I agree with you guys on the sword. the notching was a bad thing. ease in notching was often the sign of either cheap metal or bad workmanship. if the metal wasn't folded properly or was folded too many times then nothing would easily occur. of course firing tempurature was also important. if the metal was tempered to long or to hot then the metal would become brittle and notch easily. one of the objectives of the sword was to put large gashes in the armor. the gash would then continue to cut into the enemy and the only way to stop it was to take the armor off and hammer it out. which was highly unlikely in battle. eventually the person would grow weak in battle from loss of blood or bleed to death. Archers usually did the same thing. the armor was usually thicker in the front and rear and thinner on the top and bottoms. they also tried to stay away from the flat areas and use curves in order to avoid the 90 degree point of entry. of course this armor was very expensive and most had to use implements they fashioned themselves or had laying around (farm implements) this was also very popular in the eastern cultures as well. the later Renaissance period provided much of the "thrusting swords" such as the sabre and foils. the earlier medevil periods were mostly clubbing adn then developed into slashing and archery and eventually led to a more "civilized" thrusting. by then firearms had been discovered and the art of armor had not caught up with the gun so wearing heavy armor was considered outdated and usuless against the more powerful guns. I might have a few facts messed up but that is pretty much my knowledge of medevil weaponry. I really enjoy this so if any of you others have anything to correct or add please let me know this is great.
Ran User ID: 0283314	Sep 29th 2:32 PM Well, I still don't know about 'swords as clubbing.' Again, there were better weapons for it. Certainly, a large part of the damage done by a sword stroke was bruising force -- driving chain links into flesh, breaking bones -- but the goal of the sword was to break through the armor and cut into the flesh. Now, clubbing actually gets a resurgance when plate armor comes into effect, because then the entire goal is to bash the guy until he falls down so that you can get a clean thrust (either into a joint in the armor or just brute forcing through a weakened section of plate.)
Claidhaim User ID: 9544623	Sep 29th 2:44 PM And then, of course, man-catchers were developed to hold these heavily armored men on the ground as someone would move up and "pokeity, pokeity" he's dead.