The discussion originally started here: https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?p=637799#post637799
PM Dark Minion if a post is missing.

A minor complaint;

There's something unclear, here. This quote could be interpreted as men not using lances to "trade blows" - but on the other hand, it could also be interpreted as them not being used for war at all.

In case it was the latter - then that is a pretty grave error on your part. The lance was the primary weapon of the medieval knight - a lance is basically a thick pike made for use on horseback. Perhaps you were thinking of tourney lances, which tend to be conical and are ultimately designed to be less-lethal weapons.

Oh, and actually, it may not be as dangerous to joust as it is to fight in a melee, but it's still very much potentially lethal. In a joust, you're charging at each other on horseback with big, pointy sticks at a relative velocity of up to 160 km/h, when both participants are taken into account - there's a lot more energy being thrown about than when people fight in a melee - the lance was the most devastating weapon (if essentially a one-use one in most circumstances) of the pre-gunpowder era, possibly excluding the steel-bow arbalest. The tourney lance was blunt, yes - but "sharpness" is ultimately a measure of how much force you're putting out per unit of area, and there's a lot of force behind a lance.

People died in jousts from time to time. Hell, I think Sandor killed someone in a joust in the first book, and from real history, we have King Henry II of France as a prominent example of someone who died jousting, and death from jousting was frequent enough that it was repeatedly banned by many authorative figures - such as kings and popes.

My apologies if I misinterpreted that quote - but you're either misinformed as to the nature of lances, or you're being unclear, so either way... *shrugs*

 

You misinterpreted - it was unclear. I've read quite a bit on medieval warfare for this fic.

 

What are you even arguing about? This is the character's thoughts on the jousts. It doesn't matter if jousts are fought by big-breasted naked women covered in honey, he finds the competition dull and less dangerous than the melee. Or at least duller than the melee.

Also, the sword was the primary weapon of the knight, not the lance. It's true that they did use lances in battle though, but only for facing against other mounted knights while they themselves were mounted. The author is correct in that they didn't trade blows with the lances; they charged each other on horseback. If you were unhorsed -- and if you survived the process -- you immediately dropped the uselessly large lance and drew your sword. Fighting with that bigass lance on the ground would be like trying to scratch your nose with a pool cue.

 

Right, right.

No. False. It wasn't. The sword was considered a holy weapon, but it was no more a knight's primary weapon than a Samurai's katana was his. (For the record, most Samurai prefered the use of naginata - glaives - and yumi, a sort of assymetrical bow in actual battle, and later on they adopted the use of guns - katanas were for duels between Samurai.)

No, seriously, that's just bullshit. A sword is a versatile weapon, but it was typically used as a sidearm - a backup weapon. The typical arming sword used by knights was by no means a bad weapon - it just so happens that it is completely useless against plate armor. It was a decent enough weapon before plate armor became common, but it does not impact with enough momentum to break a man's bones through plate armor, nor is it a good enough thrusting weapon to break through that same plate armor - and it's not a particularly good weapon for breaking through maille, either. It can do it, but it's not good at it - thrusting swords such as the estoc were better, and many knights (not to mention common soldiers - the longbowmen at Agincourt, for instance) used specialized thrusting daggers to stab through whatever parts of the body not covered in plate - such as the armpits. Or it might be used to stab through the visor.

Against men wearing plate armor, swords were all but useless. A duel between a pair of knights using nothing but swords would involve primarily the two knights wrestling one another until one of the combatants gets the chance to stab through the visor - which, needless to say, tends to involve subduing the opponent through other means first.

Good plate armor can withstand musket shots. It can shrug off hit from half-inch caliber musket shots, which impact with considerably more force and force/area than a sword strike.

When plate armor came into vogue, the primary melee weapon of the knight became the mace - though pollaxes and warhammers were common alternatives, and some used gigantic Zweihänders - though in such cases, the Zweihänder was typically used in a "half-sword" fashion as to better facilitate thrusting.

A mace is a cheap, yet effective and prestigious weapon. Arming swords were only better against lightly armored opponents and for ceremonial uses - the fact that most European swords were shaped like crosses was a large part of why they were so prestigious. They were expensive to make and not all that good against heavily armored opponents, though a good sword of crucible steel or the like could pierce riveted maille on a good day when wielded by a skilled and strong user.

Patently false. Alexander the Great's Companion Cavalry used a lance as their primary weapon against both cavalry which themselves lacked lances and in flanking attacks against light and heavy infantry. The cavalry of the Byzantine Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) relied primarily on lances and maces for close combat during their time - though many did carry swords as well (in addition to composite bows), those were no more prominent than maces. The lance was a proven weapon, and a common one at that. Hell, IIRC, in ASoIaF mercenary lancers are mentioned fairly often.

The idea of a bunch of knights charging straight into each other, head-on, using lances, is patently ridiculous. It's downright suicidal. Only someone who wanted to die would try and pull something as idiotic as that off - it'd be like charging head on into a pike block, except the pikes are moving at 160 km/h. It might be used against other knights, but then only if you didn't care about taking them in for ransom and only if they either lack lances themselves or if you manage to flank them.

Ever heard the term "Mutually Assured Destruction?" Yeah, people don't like engaging in that sort of thing.

 

In Europe maybe. Clearly you've never been to Westeros.

 

*shrug*

What can I say? I'm an aspiring writer who happens to be highly interested in warfare in all of its forms, and I actually like doing my research, so I pick up on things like this.

Admittedly, G.R.R.M. doesn't know much about pre-modern warfare, and it shows. Painfully so for those of us who do know about it. Protip: Never bring up the Unsullied on any forum where the membership is interested and knowledgable about Medieval and Ancient warfare unless you want to see them screaming for blood.

I suppose there's not much Cx can do - he has to follow what G.R.R.M. has written if he wants to keep things canon-compliant, and since warfare is a rather large part of the franchise, it's not something he can just retcon away easily. I acknowledge that.

I just get unreasonably angry when people state their misconceptions about stuff that I happen to be knowledgable about as if though they were facts.

 

What's wrong with the unsullied?

 

A lot of things. They combine all the worst aspects of the Ottoman Janissaries and ancient Greek citizen-army hoplites without taking any of the good parts from either. Basically, in combat they are comparable to Greek hoplites... with shorter spears, making them significantly less potent in the phalanxes that they fight in... physically inferior, because of their castration... with smaller shields... and no armor.

I could go on about them all day, but instead I'm just going to quote a few select posts from this thread from SpaceBattles.

And, yes, I know the Unsullied are unfailingly loyal to whoever's their master. This is G.R.R.M failing at psychology, and their loyalty essentially only works by author fiat.

Here's a link to a post that's too long to quote without taking up way too much space, and here's another... and another. And here's a final quote for y'all.

If those posts aren't enough for you, feel free to read the rest of the thread, but I think the posts I've linked and quoted are enough for anyone to get a gist of why the Unsullied are a terrible, terrible idea.

 

Ah. I assumed that the spears/tiny shields were ceremonial in nature (like dress uniforms), the psychology thing (unfailing loyalty) is a definite author fiat, or accomplished with magic.

 

Admittedly, I'm not entirely sure about the shields. We're never given any explicit description of them, so they could be as large as a Roman Scutum, theoretically - and indeed, I've seen at least one fanart picture of them using such shields. However, they are modeled after Greek hoplites, so it's a fairly safe bet that their shields are round - besides, if they used Scutum-type shields, their shortswords would be far more effective when fighting other infantry than their spears.

I do suspect that if Martin's ever called on the loyalty thing, he'll opt to explain it away with magical drugs. Chemistry doesn't really work the same way in the ASoIaF universe as it does in the real world (Wildfire becomes far easier to make if large quantities of magic are present) so it wouldn't be particularly shocking if the drugs worked like that.

 

Unfortunately I can't give you any one source. What I know I've picked up from years and years of, among other things, reading the blogs and websites of archaeology and history majors, engaging in or watching debates where knowledgable people were involved, watching documentaries and TV shows... there's no one book you can read to get a good grasp of pre-modern warfare, weaponry, and armor, I don't think, especially since "pre-modern warfare" the way I use the word covers over two thousand years of history - everything from the middle of the bronze age and forwards.

One source I can recommend right away is the history channel's "Conquest" documentary series, which is a fairly good introduction to this sort of thing for the layman, though it doesn't go very in-depth most of the time. You can look it up on YouTube. Wikipedia is, of course, another source, though a rather unreliable one - wouldn't recommend relying on it, but you can always look up its sources or use it as a starting point for an Internet-based search.

Another source would be lindybeige's channel on YouTube - while he doesn't talk exclusively about this sort of thing, he is a historian and likes sorting out various popular misconceptions about various topics, and unlike a bunch of other people, he readily admits when he's speculating, which he often ends up doing when we don't have a lot of sources from the time period in question. But then that's kind of what historians do, neh?

Do note that that playlist isn't completely in order - "another point about spears," for instance, comes before "a point about spears," so you may have to do a bit of micromanagement if you want to see those videos in the correct order.

Oh, and on-topic... Harry/Myrcella OTP!

 

Won't quite agree on this one. A sword is a great weapon to fight from horseback but only against specific enemies, with specific types of sword.

Let's get things into perspective.
One, plate armour appeared in the late 14th century when the era of knights was already ending.
Two, chainmail is just still very useful at stopping sword cuts, that's why it was extensively used through all the ages of warfare. Plate armour was not the gamebreaker people think it was.
Three, full plate mail considerably lowers your mobility, and though it looks cool it isn't as useful in a real battle.
Four, you said that Byzantine cavalry did not use swords as a primary weapon. Not right. A long sword (copied from the goths) was the primary weapon of a Byzantine cavalryman (apart from the bow). It is great at cutting infantry. When the lance was shattered they used mostly swords, and axes or maces as backups against heavily armoured cavalry.
Five, look at the Bayeux tapestry, Norman knights fight with sword and spear on horseback.
Six, already during the crusades of Saint Louis, when fighting Saracens, French knights used THRUSTING swords as an additional weapon. After 1350 (when plate armour began to be perfected) most swords produced were thrusting swords.

 

Of course, there are many types of swords. Sabers and the like were quite popular in some periods, though more so in places where armor was not as advanced as it was in Europe. There's a reason they were popular with cavalry long after knights went the way of the Dodo.

False. While that was when plate armour started coming into its own, plate armour was not invented all at once - the first form of plate armour was the helmet, the best example of which would be the "Great Helm." Other elements of plate armour started appearing over the centuries during the High Middle Ages, eventually culminating in 16th century Gothic full plate.

(well, strictly speaking I suppose the Romans were the first to use plate armor in their legions, but let's disregard them for the purposes of this discussion.)

Another completely bullshit misconception. Full plate is considerably lighter than what a modern soldier wears into combat, and its weight is better distributed over the entirety of the body. Here, have a video of a nurse doing cartwheels in full plate. And have another slightly less impressive video of someone running a small obstacle course in one. Plate is actually easier to maneuver in than maille, which was typically of comparable weight but was supported primarily by the shoulders and the hips.

In addition, plate armour was enough of a "game breaker" to render shields utterly obsolete. There's a reason that two-handed weapons started coming into vogue at the same time that plate did...

It is great at cutting lightly-armored infantry, yes. Try it against someone wearing a good set of maille, and you'll be disappointed, however. I've never seen anyone cut through any half-way decent set of riveted maille using a sword.

Tapestries are made to look pretty. Art gives us a clue as to what things looked like, but it's not to be taken as an absolute. And, of course, this is talking about an era when maille was the primary form of armour used by knights, which is hardly what I'm talking about, anyway - I'll acknowledge that well-made swords, when thrust, were decent enough weapons for penetrating maille, but trying to cut through maille is silly. Soldiers wearing maille typically went down from being cut in places where their hauberks didn't reach, typically the knees.

Yes, and they were still backup weaponry. To use a thrusting sword against a man in plate is possible, but it's a task that requires great skill, luck, and the opponent to be less skilled and fit than you are or alternatively outnumbered. Besides, swords being used as thrusting weapons is an ancient idea - the Roman gladius, its spatha and viking swords descendants were all designed for thrusting. "Two inches of thrust is worth two feet of cut," to paraphrase a common saying.

To kill a man in plate with a thrusting sword, you need to get it into one of the vulnerable holes in the plate - the armpits, the back of the knees, or some other inaccessible place like that. Meanwhile, to take one out with a mace? Bump him over the head with it. Simple as that, and the same holds true when using a pollaxe or warhammer.

 

As stated many times already straight bladed swords are by and large foot infantry weapons against "medium" armour that has slashable parts - unless one is very strong the blade will score and skitter off the armour, bringing the sword user nice and close after the thrust lunge and promptly get brained by the other nasty blokes gauntlets or whatever they use. That is counting on the plate not being designed well as good plate armour was quite rounded to deflect attacks.

Flanged maces, warhammers and war axes give enough power and momentum behind a swing to crush and pulp organs though full plate. Later warhammers would either have a spike behind the head to pierce or pull armour.

Cavalry combat - the sword is generally not the primary weapon - both heavy and light cavalry would employ the use of a lance or similar spear weapon in order to utilise the momentum from a charge. Light cavalry flanking auxiliary units might forego the lance in favour of the curved blade due to quicker butchering work but straight blades on cavalry isn't a great idea as by geometry and body mechanics they would be harder to draw and inflict less damage than a curved blade that can be drawn and swung without fouling the tack and the curvature concentrates the force at the apex of curvature which enhances slashing power. Against armoured opponents cavalry tended to charge with lances and clear out unless they had a crushing weapon like a mace for close combat.

Edit: Apparently bishops of homicidal inclination went into battle with rounded maces - they could spill blood of heathens but if they were fighting other Christians that is a no-no. A caved in chest kept the blood in yet does a nice killy job.

 

Sabres are not strictly speaking swords. They are a different kind of weapon. I am talking about swords, straight edged or thrusting weapon.

I think we are talking about different things here. I meant real plate, as in a more all less homogenous piece of steel... Small plates attached to a chain shirt appeared definitely in the middle of the 13th century (St. Maurice in Magdeburg).

No it isn't. You do not understand how a medieval knight looked. This is how he prepared for battle (14th century):
Cloth undershirt, cloth pants and tight fitting leggins. Then came chain leggins with leather shin pads. Shin protection made from iron, whale bone or leather came next, then came armoured (leather or iron) boots. Then came a wool shirt, chain mail with arm protection and finally a tunic with plates sewn on it. Before battle he adorned plate gloves and one, or even two helms. All of that weighs a lot, not to mention a sword, shield and a backup weapon. He had to have help, from a squire for example, to mount a horse, as did all heavy cavalrymen since antiquity (e.g. Byzantine Catapharktoi).
Fused plate appeared only in the middle of the 14th century and chain mail was worn underneath plate for at least until the end of that century.
Here you have a tombstone of Dieter von Hohenberg from Grossheim (ca 1380) you can clearly see chain underarmour underneath the plate.
Link

No they weren't. It was the other way round. After you lost your lance, and discarded your sword, you used your mace or hammer, in the later stages of the battle, when it turned into melee.


I do not understand your comment about THE most common resource when analysing arm and weapon history in Europe. Tapestries together with carved and painted depictions are one of the most useful, and often only, source of our knowledge.

I am sorry for saying this but no amount of Discovery Channel programmes will change real history science.

 

How the flopping hell are sabres not swords? They share all the same essential characteristics. The grip, the crossguard, the blade - the basic layout and the crafting techniques are the same.

And by "a lot" you mean "60 pounds, evenly distributed across the body."

Bullfucking shit. You just lost all fucking credibility, my friend. Holy shit. :facepalm

Fuck, apparently I am more fit and stronger than knights who trained all their lives all the way from childhood. Who would've thought?

Knights did not wear full maille underneath their armor - they wore strips of it to cover areas that their plate simply could not cover, such as the armpits. Those strips were generally attached to the padding underneath the plate.

Aside from archaeology and literature, the former of which is kind of extremely hard to dispute and the latter of which tends to be written by professionals. And tapestries and the like is art.

Just look up the whole hoplite "underarm VS overarm" spear-wielding mess. Look at this video - art is not particularly reliable. It often depicts nonsensical things - art is meant to look good and to be sold. You can no more rely on paintings or vases or whatever to accurately depict the way men fought than you can look at James Bond movies to see how espionage works or WWII movies to see how WWII was fought. Wielding a spear overarm is insane unless you're about to throw it - underarm is a better idea in virtually any scenario, yet they're both about as commonly depicted on Greek vases.

Art might resemble reality, but in no means should they be mistaken for each other or be mixed together.

I'm sorry, but after that comment about plate armour I find it somewhat hilarious that you would dispute the accuracy of any such sources, because you clearly have no idea what "real history science" is. :fire

I mean, I'm harping on this a lot, but holy shit your ignorance about plate armour is amazing.

I'm at a loss as to why someone would use their most effective weapon as a backup. I'm also at a loss as to someone would discard their sword, when the sword is the single most expensive weapon a knight has.

 

Please, you did not quote a source, even after I linked you a genuine 14th century knight with chain underneath his plate. History is about fact, not speculation...

I'm sorry, but this discussion is pointless. Let's stick to the topic and drop all this. It was nice talking to you.

 

For the most part armies in Westeros are modeled after those in the 15th century, just without gunpowder. Yeah, G.R.R.M took bits and pieces from numerous time periods, but the bulk of it - their armor, tactics (or lack thereof), came from the War of the Roses. GRRM's primary source about warfare, according to his website, is the book "Medieval Soldier", which deals primarily with the 15th century. You've specifically stated the year 1380; that's too early. Tell me about armor a century later... you mention iron - I'm almost positive that plate in Westeros is made of steel. And most everything I've read says that neither plate armor, nor swords, were 'heavy', which makes me wonder just how light Valyrian steel could possibly be.

 

Speaking about fact, I'm baffled as to how you could possibly believe that a suit of armor composed of a few 4mm thick plates of steel could weigh the hundreds of pounds it'd have to be to keep a knight from mounting his horse without external assistance. I'm also baffled as to how you could believe that a Knight would wear a full set of maille underneath his armor. Why not just wear thicker plates? What kind of logic are you bloody operating on, here?

Personally, I find it hilarious how you're complaining about me not having any sources when you provide none yourself - though, granted, the way things are looking I'm pretty sure your primary "source" is "A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" by the blatantly obvious flaws in your arguments.

As for sources, I can quote museums with access to the real deal, historians and archaeologists, Ewan fucking Oakeshott, and those are just the sources I could get by spending twenty seconds looking for them.

Now, tell me, what are your sources?

It's amazing how unwilling you are to admit that you're wrong. You even used the old "oh hey let me give you a parting shot and then say that I'm dropping the argument because that's so classy and all" trick.

For reference and as a corollary - the heaviest plate armor worn in battle weighed about 70 pounds, and the largest swords ever used about 6-7 pounds. (Ceremonial weaponry and armor made specifically for tourneys and jousting could be much heavier, with weapons weighing over ten pounds and armor over a hundred, but those were not used for warfare.)

 

Actually steel and iron are often interchangeable in history nomenclature. The reason for this is that almost no one ever used pure iron. It's too brittle and cannot be sharpened enough. (I purposely not mentioned the impurities in the refining process, it would make a 200 page long lecture). Steel is, scientifically speaking, iron mixed with small amount of carbon to strengthen it, plus sometimes other metals...

Yes, G.R.R.M. changed it all and created a sort of a synergy of different styles, periods and countires. War of the Roses was a peripheral conflict in the late Medieval, early Modern period, which began 1453 or 1492, depending on the historian, and it had its own flavour.