166 réponses à ce sujet

[mikemike37]

chasind crusher (the "common" one with the pig skull on top) is using maul 1: "mal_ml01a" and chasind great maul (the unique one with the pretty plain cylinder on top) is using maul 6: "mal_ml06a"



hope that helps

[Ambaryerno]

I'm not talking about the appearance variations, I'm talking the actual UTI file name (IE, gen_im_w_mel_lsw_lsw).

[mikemike37]

oh sorry, was making the mistake of reading what i was *expecting* was being asked, rather than reading what you actually asked. my mistake.



gen_im_wep_mal_cha (chasind great maul, unique)

gen_im_wep_mel_mal_cha (chasind Crusher)



confusing names...

[Ambaryerno]

Thanks much.

[JHByrne]

Be careful of your sword types, BEFORE you render them.



The 'Cousland' swords above are rendered from 14th century blades. Notice the tapering tip. These blades could be used for thrusting, as well as a slash, and were somewhat 'handier' than the earlier broadsword.



The suggested 'Warden' sword, above, is a rendering from a Norse blade, from the 9th to 11th centuries. Notice the relative lack of taper, and heavier blade. It also has a broad channel along the spine of the blade. This is to reduce weight, increase strength, and to prevent the blade from sticking in flesh or armor. However, this is more properly termed a 'broadsword': it is primarily intended for heavy chopping and slashing, and is not a good thrusting blade. The broadsword was heavy and somewhat clumsy, but durable. Notice also the mottled appearance of the blade. This was a result of folding the steel. Notable medieval masters of metallurgy were the Arabs (Damascus steel, and Toledo steel). Their blades also featured this mottled look, and were known for flexibility and durability.

The Japanese perfected this technique with the Samurai katana... by careful refolding, and application of clay to the blade during the forging process, the metal of the blade could be instilled with a wave design.



Notice also the pommels. Pommels, historically, were NOT just for decoration. They were counterweights to the blade, and were also used as rear grips.



The viking sword (and most other Dark Ages blades) featured heavy pommels with a rounded end. A warrior can use this feature to twist the blade if it sticks in a target. Note also that a heavy pommel can double as a club... the term 'to pummel' someone is a direct reference to clubbing someone down with the butt end of a blade.



Later swords (12th-14th centuries) used a 'coin' or disc grip. Again, it is still useable as a counterweight and twist-grip.



The 'estoc' shown is not really a true 'estoc'. The estoc is actually a brief 12th century weapon, used almost exclusively in France. It was not really a 'sword', but a heavy triangular bladed thrusting weapon, designed to be thrust overhand into a target. The triangular blade allowed it to pierce chainmail.

The weapon shown is actually more like an early 15th century rapier, which was a sort of light longsword. Cortez and friends used this weapon to cut the hell out of numerous Aztec warriors, who were themselves stuck with using a weapon like a broadsword, bladed with obsidian.



Be careful of just tossing out weapon designs because they look 'cool'. Weapons have functions. Also remember that it is no joke to be in hand-to-hand combat... it is exhausting work. My own experience with bayonet drill may be instructive -- after a few brief minutes of thrust/slash/smash with a 7 pound M16 with bayonet, I am wiped out. If I had to do so while wearing standard soldier's armor (bulletproof vest, about 40 pounds) and all the rest of the gear (another 20+), I'd want that fight to be over fast... so, you can see why lighter blades evolved over time.



After the 14th centuries, pommels evolved, and not necessarily for the better. By the late 14th century, there was the advent of the 'pomegranate' pommel, which is a smallish knob. It is too fancy to really use for heavy use. It was more seen on greatswords and two handers, which were heavy slashers anyway.



A 'bastard' sword was also called a 'hand and a half' sword. It could be used with one or two hands. Often, it featured a blade that was half covered in leather, so that the lower blade itself could be gripped.

[JHByrne]

Hammers:



The 'mauls' used here are not really realistic. Do you suppose many people can REALLY haul around the equivalent of a sledgehammer all day long? Using a 20 pound sledgehammer is hard work. This explains why they were not that used in actual combat.



After all, if you want to kill someone, you don't need to obliterate them, just apply a bit of concentrated force on a small area. Efficiency is a life-saver, when every blow counts, and if you lose your wind, you're dead.



The REAL war hammer was called a 'martel'. It was something like a long-handled claw hammer with a spike on one end, and a hammer on the other. It is NOT 20 pounds... more like 4 to 6 pounds.



As a game factor, I'd like to see a martel or two.

Also, note the historical 'francisca' ax... (for which the Franks were named... you know, the ones who founded 'France' under Charlemagne). This was a one handed ax that was balanced enough that it could be thrown. The Franks of the 9th century were notorious for launching a barrage of axes before their warbands would charge.



Meanwhile, another dark ages Germanic group had the 'Seax', a heavy chopping short sword. This was such an effective weapon that it too became their tribe's title... as Saxons.

[JHByrne]

Daggers:



Historically, there were a few famous ones.



The Italian Cinqueda dagger was a broad dagger, approximately the width of a man's hand at the base of the blade, with 4 grooves running down the blade... hence, the name 'Five Finger Dagger'.



The French poniard, a long, heavy dagger designed to punch through plate armor. Also sometimes called a 'misericord', for its use in killing the wounded, by sticking it through the visor of a wounded knight.



The daggers in DAO are more like short swords. Frankly, I don't understand why the DAO development team didn't just term them short swords. The Gladius Hispanica (what we recognize as the Roman shortsword) is the classic example. Others, as mentioned above, are the Seax, the Sica, etc.



DAO plays fast and loose with swordplay. Well, it's just a game, but dual wielding was a late development, in Northern Italy and France. 'Florentine' swordplay used a rapier and a main gauche (left handed dagger). I suppose it required the development of lighter blades, and the concept of the gentleman's duel to give Florentine swordplay its day. In a close combat, heavy fight, such as fighting hordes of darkspawn in tunnels, what you would really want in reality is a durable, heavy blade that can kill even if it is somewhat dull.

[Ambaryerno]

Byrne,



Consider that I thought VERY carefully about the types of weapons before beginning designs of them. I'm also WELL aware of the purpose of the pommel and much of the unnecessary (and some of it flawed) errata of your posts.



"Broadsword" is NOT a period-correct term for any Medieval sword, but specifically referred to later forms of basket hilt swords of the 17th C. It's application to any form of medieval sword originated in the 19th. C and later. In fact, Germano-Norse period swords are much more accurately described as a form of the Roman spatha. I chose the use of Germano-Norse designs for the Wardens to reflect that this is a very old martial culture. Asturian's sword deliberately was redesigned after Migration-period swords for this reason as well: as an ancient Warden, it was appropriate to use the historical predecessor to the Viking-pattern blades I used for the Wardens.



There's nothing about a bastard sword that indicated it had a leather covering on the ricasso. This is a feature that you would see in some of the later greatswords to more safely facilitate half-swording. A bastard sword was merely a shorter form of longsword sized between the arming sword and larger, fully two-handed longsword patterns.



The Estoc is also based on a historical piece dating to the 15th C. The purpose for the development of the narrow cross section of the blade was to more easily penetrate the gaps in full plate kit. It had nothing to do with piercing mail. The longsword was of ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the rapier.

[JHByrne]

Hey, genius, I'm going on what I've seen in museums and the like.



Sure, if you want to get technical, you can say that a broadsword more properly refers to your heavy baskethilted blade.

My point is to draw a distinction between the straight blade of the viking sword and the taper of later blades.

All snotty commentary aside -- my understanding is that the spatha was a roman cavalry sword. Do you suppose that the Scandinavian/Germanics of 1st century BC - 3d century AD had no reference to swords of their own?



The 'estoc' reference is from a French woodcut, circa 1120, showing the triangular bladed estoc being used overhand, not in a slash, but a piercing blow. If you don't like the observations offered, blame the French, not me.



I've seen many greatswords/2H swords, notably in the Austrian Natl. Museum in Vienna. Some did, in fact, have the leather sheath. Others did not.

Then again, I've also seen renaissance era German woodcuts of a 'sworddance', featuring 6 men holding a platform made of 2H swords on their shoulders, and two others fighting on that (tiny and unstable) platform, presumeably to demonstrate their skill.

[JHByrne]

Ambar: sure, we can discuss finer points of medieval arms and armor... but let's not get caught up in technical details. My point was to elucidate, not confuse.

So -- summation.... no, I am _not_ criticizing your choice of a viking blade for a Warden's blade. YOU were the one who made the choice, you put the effort in. You also clearly cared enough about the art inherent in the original blade, and in your rendering of it, to show the rippling of the steel. Nice touch.



The rapier was, to my understanding, a late 15th century blade. Used when firearms hit the field, as a stopgap, etc. No relation? Well, I dunno... it was certainly a heavier blade than the 'dueling' blades made famous in the 17th century. The rapiers I've seen, handled, and held at arms length for weight are about 3 pounds, pretty solid. Not going to bash through armor with them, but clearly able to take an arm off. Hence, the commentary about Cortez.

[Ambaryerno]

No rapier was ever used as a battlefield weapon, it was purely a civilian sidearm for defense and duelling. It was also incapable of delivering more than light, flicking cuts due to the narrowness of the blade cross-section (most rapiers didn't even have sharpened edges, for that matter), and CERTAINLY not taking an arm off. The use of the rapier was primarily focused on thrusting, with cuts or slashes as a secondary consideration. You're definitely confusing it with the side-sword (modern terminology, FYI) which featured similar hilt designs.







This is a rapier. Although some weighed in up to 3lbs, most of that weight was in the hilt for better point control. This is NOT a blade that's going to cut an arm off, and is definitively geared towards the thrust.







This is a side-sword. Note the much heavier, broader blade akin to the Medieval arming sword (of which this was a development).



And as far as the Estoc goes:







This is most definitively NOT a one-handed, 12th C. pattern sword. See also here:



http://www.christies...bjectID=5164400



This one is authentic and not a reproduction. Keep in mind also that "estoc" is only the French form of the name. The English called it a "tuck." I don't know what the German word was.

[JHByrne]

Yea, so after our terse one-off, I went and looked up the references on wikipedia, knight's edge, etc. Turns out we are both right, and wrong.



The estoc reference I had was from an old medieval woodcut, from the 12th century. It may be that the (later) descriptions of the woodcut (from the 14th century) described the knights using an 'estoc'. The probable reason for this was that the blades were NOT being used like swords, but were held overhand, like shaftless spears. The wiki ref I found said that the estoc was used for both armor chinks/joints AND for chainmail. That reference also noted that some estocs were used with two hands.



Interestingly, years back I was in Central Europe, and came across what were (modernly) termed 'Cretan Rapiers'. These were square-sectioned 3' long BRONZE weapons, with no crossguard at all, from about 1500 BC. It was uncertain how they were used, but I suspect that they may have been used for bull fighting (remember the Cretan bull leapers on the old murals). Clearly, not a battlefield weapon.



Your picture of a 'side sword' is closer to what I ran across in an antique store in Anchorage, Alaska (oddly enough, AK is an excellent place to find authentic antiques, because once an item gets there, there's not much of a market to lose it again... so any items eventually find their way to a museum, or that particular shop... which also featured numerous mastodon skulls, and several Walker Colts, circa 1850). The side-sword was authentic (but narrower, and longer than your picture), and was covered in nicks, notches on the blade. I don't know what the weapon would have been termed in its own time. According to the wiki reference, 'rapier' was a derogatory term for a 'fireplace poker'.



Knight's Edge featured a weapon I'd forgotten about: the falcion, itself a sort of medieval rediscovery of the seax I referred to. However, the seax I was referring to was the dark ages short broad blade... the original term was from 1st century Germany, as a 'heavy dagger'.



I do NOT think that the spatha was the origin of the viking longsword. No, I am not going from any reference, just logical reasoning. We know from history that the Germans/Gauls, etc had swords long before the Romans. We also know from contemporary sources (Julius Caesar) that the Romans themselves regularly hired Gauls and Germans as cavalry, because the Romans were far inferior to Gauls/Germans as cavalry. I suspect that the Romans adopted Gaulish designs, and regularized the form in the spatha... remember that the Gladius Hispanica was originally an Iberian design.

Note also that Germany was never conquered by the Romans. The two major battles of the ancient times in that area were the fights that Julius Caesar had with them, about 50 BC, and Teutoburg Forest, about 50 AD... admittedly, the Romans lost some 5 legions in Germany during the Teutoburg disaster... but the probable loss of 25,000 legionnaires likely only included 1000-2000 'spatha' wielding auxillaries. Where, then, would the Germans have gained the spatha, unless they already had their own native version? 'Trade' is not a sufficient answer, as all Roman authors from J. Caesar to Tacitus state that the Germans avoided trade with the Romans.

[Ambaryerno]

One doesn't need to conquer a territory in order for its inhabitants to adopt your technology. The Romans themselves had a history of this: If an enemy used a tactic or weapon that defeated them in battle, they tended to adopt it into their own arsenals. The same was the case of the Germanic tribes. As they continued to be in contact with the Romans, they began to adopt more and more Roman technologies and customs, until by the time they swept into the Empire in the 5th Century, many of them had actually
adopted Roman customs, and been partially absorbed into the Roman
military tradition.

Also, Keep in mind that the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest was NOT a field battle, it was an ambush: Varus' legions were spread out in a marching column and were not moving in formation. The road was narrow, and mud was hindering their movements. The Germanic tribesmen of the period could NOT face the Roman army in a traditional field battle precisely BECAUSE of the materiel and training advantages of the Romans. Their armies were too large, too well-trained, and too well-equipped. It wasn't until much later that the Germanic barbarians reached anything approaching technological parity, in large part BECAUSE they adopted Roman technology.

If you look at the immediate predecessor to the Norse swords--the Migration Sword; my model for Asturian's Might is an example of this style of weapon--they share a VERY similar pattern to the spatha:



Migration Sword



Spatha

Note the similarities in the blade pattern, particularly the long, broad blade with only a slight taper, rounded tip, and broad fuller. I've even seen some spathae with hilts much more closely resembling the later Migration period hilts.

The seax itself was actually a term for a BROAD array of single-edged knives for both utility and weaponry (the whole langseax, scramseax, etc. thing is a modern categorization. To the Germanic tribes--specifically the Anglo-Saxons, as the term originates from Old English--they were simply: seax). Some seaxes were small utility knives not much larger than a regular table knife. Others were almost the size of small swords. However they were ultimately still forms of knives. Falchions were much larger weapons.

[JHByrne]

Yes yes... but you're using your seax to split hairs.



I'm aware that the 'seax' is a catchall term... you'll notice that I didn't use any of the other terms, particularly not 'scramseax' (quoted just once in near contemporary sources). I'm also aware that it was a utility knife (ie, scramseax possibly translating to 'food knife').



But... shoot forward... to say, 2010. We have to have _some_ term to designate various blade types. We can't really call a short, chopping sword in a computer game a 'short choppy thingie'. So, settle for falcion (didn't they use this term once or twice in Oblivion?) or seax. Shrug.



Spatha -vs- Germanic/Gaulish blade: which came first? I don't know. I do know that the Gauls and Germans had swords... and really, there's only so many ways you can construct a blade so it can slash. Admittedly, sword technology is one of those things that was likely considered 'top priority'... so a significant advance in one area would likely spread fast and wide.

However, this doesn't answer the question of which direction the technology went.



I'd want to see a picture of a 1st century BC Gaulish blade/German blade... and then compare THAT to a spatha.



Teutoburg Forest: yes, Tacitus relates that it was a 20 mile 'ambush' (or really, series of ambushes on a ridiculously overstretched column). Trouble is, it's a numbers game. If there were 5 legions, with auxillaries, we can figure it was about 1000-2000 'spatha' armed cavalry auxillaries. However, as it WAS a long series of running battles along a miles long column, in a dense forest, many of those 'spathas' would go missing. There would not be enough around to generate invention critical mass... of our 1000-2000 possible 'spatha' finds, how many would be captured, especially considering that if anyone survived, it would be a guy on a horse?



So: logic suggests that even if the spatha came first, and influenced the migration blades, we can deduce that it was NOT via Teutoburgerwald battle loot.



However, there may be another way out of this issue. Remember that Rome had a little tiff w/ Vandals, Goths, and especially Huns. Attila's massive army was met in a huge battle in Eastern France. To my recollection, the battle involved some 500,000 combatants (an exaggeration? I don't know... but contemporary sources insisted that the entire force of the Western Roman Empire was there). I can imagine that it MIGHT have been possible for the multinational forces following Attila might have captured spathas there...



But -- I still suggest that the weapons technology of the Germans/Gauls themselves mght have generated the broad fuller longsword, which then inspired the spatha, which then influenced later Germanic blades, in a feedback loop. The only way to check would be to have reference to several Gaulish/Germanic blades, from 1st century BC to 3d century AD.

[JHByrne]

Took the time to do a bit of research, as best can be done from the internet.



Turns out that a broad fuller and tapering blade were widely known. Look up Mycenean blades, circa 1500 BC... the beginnings of a fuller, on bronze and iron weapons.



The square pommel and square crossguard (similar to Anglo-Saxon 'migration' blades) can be seen on Scythian blades, from 500 BC.

[Ambaryerno]

Germanic swords prior to the Migration period would have most closely resembled the Celtic bronze or iron swords. The spatha itself originated from the long blades carried by Celtic auxilliaries, at which point it was adopted by Roman cavalry (remember what I said about the Romans and adaptability? ) before eventually displacing the gladius. It found its way into the Germanic tribes from there.

Who said you had to CAPTURE something to realize, "Hey, this is better than what we've got."? That only becomes necessary if you don't have the knowledge on how to produce it yourself, (IE, Soviets stealing US nuclear secrets in the late-40s and 50s) and this was NOT the case of the early spathae, which were merely longer iron swords. Any culture at the time with a knowledge of how to produce viable iron weaponry could reproduce a spatha without an actual example (and even if they did, it only really takes one. You're forgetting a little thing called trade: Tribe A produces a number of spatha based off one they recovered from the battlefield, and trades them to Tribe B. Tribe B figures out how to make their own copies and trades them to Tribe C, etc. etc. etc. until the entirety of Germania is equipped with spathae).

Way to go ignoring decades of professional research into the history sword development. ::Thumbs Up:: The connection between the Migration period swords and the spatha was made a long, LONG time ago. But hey, who cares about history if you just don't believe it's possible.

Modifié par Ambaryerno, 28 juillet 2010 - 11:49 .

[JHByrne]

No need to get snotty. Was I under the mis-impression that this threat had morphed into a note comparison?



Look back through my posts, in which I suggested that the spatha itself might have been an adoption of 'barbarian' technology, which then fed back into barbarian tech.



I am not so sure about your proposition that Germanics could reproduce a sword based on word of mouth and a few looted/traded for examples. After all, it's not the 'sword' technology which is critical, but the reproducibility of that sword.

Two issues spring to mind: ironworking tech involved in making a pattern weld blade (twisted iron rods) combined with steel edges. It's a major advance in metallurgy. You may remember that the Celts/Gauls of 300 BC had 'soft iron' blades (ie, not pattern welded), and that the Celts/Gauls that the Romans fought against in 300 BC often had to physically restraighten their swords with a boot on the ground, after a hard strike. Somewhere in the succeeding 800 years, the barbarians north of the Alps learned to make pattern weld blades and steel edges. How do you beg/borrow/steal that technology?

Another technology issue is the long, broad fuller extending the length of the blade. I am not a blacksmith, but I can imagine that without some kind of real technical skill, it would be very hard to create such a technical improvement, and have the fuller be a straight channel without warping the iron. Remember that the starting material is likely bog iron, pounded with a hammer.



You stated something to the effect that professional research trumps everything... so that any questioning of the results of that research are, ipso facto, wrong.

BUT -- consider:

1) Professional research insisted that the lost city of Troy was just a legend, until an amateur, Heinrich Schleimann, proved the professionals wrong.

2) Professional research insisted numerous things about the ancient days, which were contradicted by Herodotus (for instance, the height and length of the walls of Babylon). New discoveries are now finding that Herodotus, the contemporary source, was right after all, and the professional historians were wrong.

3) same goes for paleoanthropology. For instance, Christopher Stringer insisted for most of his professional life that early human evolution had followed one path, and he wrote voluminous documentation to prove it... only to be proven flat wrong, when he himself made a discovery that trumped all his scholarly research.



I admitted to lack of exact knowledge on the origins of some medieval technologies. However, I also explored the possibility of other sources for those techs, using logical deduction, rather than 'established research'. Established by whom? Does another man's credentials short-circuit your own ability to weigh and balance facts?



But, we are losing focus.



This is about a computer game, after all, not a scholarly discussion of ancient/medieval weapons technologies.

However, we both are apparent sticklers for details. I think one of the sticking points was in having some kind of technological continuum, so as not to see, for instance, a 5th century weapons tech alongside a 17th century one as 'comparative'. In other words, is it really reasonable to place a Dark Ages barbarian blade next to High Renaissance?

'Course, as a computer game, a lot of issues are simply skipped, or can be inferred by reference to the constant recurring Blight theme. So, we have the rough looking Darkspawn with their ragged, corroded looking tulwars/scimatars... and the reference to Qunari having cannon.



So, if it WAS possible to compare actual historical periods with the game 'period', what era do you think it would be? Some developer notes suggest 'alternative history' Anglo-Saxony, circa 1230... but then we go right back to the incongruity of 15th century full plate armor and so forth making its appearance.