Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BaronIveagh wrote:No, that's just nasty. My reason for championing this view is that it's more realistic

Feth realism, this is science fiction. Science fantasy even.

That said, choosing both is very much an option, because of how a monastic order's Rule work

According to the voices in our head, sure, but that's not the lore.

BaronIveagh wrote:Source please? I can point to three where it's not true.

I'm sure you can find even more sources that differ from this if you look outside studio material.

As Gav Thorpe said: "Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."

I however have adopted a policy of relying on Games Workshop's own books, and they are pretty uniform in how an Order of the Adepta Sororitas is run, and they all have a convent shared by its members, with the Sisters Superiors in command of the squads. I do believe every single Codex mentions this, as does GW's own homepage.

Oh, and Schola Progenium education is conducted by Drill-Abbots, including that of potential Sororitas candidates - who do not get segregated into special classes. They become novices the moment they join an Order, and the only time a Sister Superior visits a Schola is for the evaluation of potential recruits forwarded by the Drill-Abbot. I suppose this is another aspect of the Sororitas that Sandy Mitchell quite simply did not bother researching, or did not care about.

BaronIveagh wrote:No reason it can't be both. Again, as I said before, the Codex talks ideals. Ideally, yes. But, as we see in many books, the ideal and reality are two different things.

Of course it can't be both, it's an either or matter. And again, these "many books" you are referring to are not the ones put out by Games Workshop. They are, in essence, licensed fan-fiction written by freelance authors who managed to have their story picked by the editors at BL.

BaronIveagh wrote:You apparently do not understand what a Rule is in the context of a religious military organization. A 'Rule' is the traditions, oaths, doctrines, livery, and titles of an Order. (as well as how they take oaths, the seating arraignments at table and mass, and when to stand, when to bow and when to sit.)

I think there's a flaw in your logic.

-> All rules are part of traditions.
-> Not all traditions are rules.

Conclusion: It is perfectly possible to have some traditions be different whereas all rules stay the same. As is the case with the various Sororitas Orders. As is written in the studio material.

I really do not understand why this has to be debated to such an extent, given that the conflict between these sources is so utterly and clearly visible.

But let's reiterate!

"They seek perfection of their martial skills in order to purify their minds and dedicate themselves utterly to the Emperor." [...] Their one purpose is to strive for his honour and glory and to protect the Imperium from all threats. The faith of the Adepta Sororitas is unswerving; they are raised from birth to believe the Emperor is the only hope for humanity. Their pious, rigid way of life allows the Battle Sisters no room for pleasure, there is only prayer and war."
- WD #211

"The Adepta Sororitas is a penitent order where constant hardship, deprivation and arduous work are part of an unrelenting devotional regime. Its members are fanatical in their commitment. The slightest deviation from approved stricture leads to the most severe chastisement."
- 2E Codex Imperialis

"To the Adepta Sororitas, penitence and self-mortification are a vital part of life as a devout servant of the Emperor, for only through extreme self-denial can one truly gain an inkling of the sacrifice that the master of Mankind Himself has made for His faithful subjects."
- 3E Codex SoB

"By the standards of the 21st century, these girls are fanatical zealots, but in the context of the 41st millennium, they're paragons of virtue whose every action is a manifestation of the divine will of the God-Emperor of Mankind."
- WD #292

"Their fanatical devotion and unwavering purity is a bulwark against corruption, heresy and alien attack. [...] The perfervid, unquestioning nature of this faith is a potent weapon, manifesting as divine inspiration that drives the Adepta Sororitas to unprecedented feats of prowess."
- WD # 380 / 5E Codex SoB

I put forward the notion that these facts - if one were to view the GW material as gospel as I do - stand in stark contrast to the interpretation propagated by the author Sandy Mitchell and it is impossible to reconcile both visions with one another.

And no, I will not accept any excuses about "exceptions". Since its infancy, this setting has been one of extremes, so perhaps any ideas about ordinary people in our contemporary modern world should be put to rest when considering the modus operandi of Imperial citizens.
If you go down the "exceptions" route, all you achieve is unlocking Pandora's Box of Silly Groxgak™ and opening the door for Ultramarines that surrender in battle, "misunderstood" Dark Eldar who fall in love with their human arch-enemy, and Demon Princes who are actually good guys. Maybe some of this has already happened in some other Black Library novel - I don't know, but I do know that a lot of other funny stuff happens there. Anyways, if this is the setting you prefer ... well, who am I to stop you. But it's quite simply not "my" 40k and not the one presented in any and all GW material. I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. As I said: If you like Mitchell's vision more, go with it.

[edit]

Melissia wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:No, that's just nasty. My reason for championing this view is that it's more realistic

Feth realism, this is science fiction. Science fantasy even.

That said, choosing both is very much an option, because of how a monastic order's Rule work

According to the voices in our head, sure, but that's not the lore.

Well said.

The FFG material also supports Lynata's interpretation.

It's mostly just the Cain material that doesn't.

Melissia wrote:Feth realism, this is science fiction. Science fantasy even.

The problem is that first word in 'Science Fantasy'. Science Fantasy, people behave normally, you push a button, and it works in a way we know it does not. Fantasy people still behave normally, it's the world that works differently. Science fiction, people are the same (unless they're aliens robots, etc) and the world works on principals we know or think might work. This is none of the above.

Melissia wrote:According to the voices in our head, sure, but that's not the lore.

I might take the time to point out that your position is also that nothing is Lore except what agrees with your position, no matter the source. Games Workshop, final ruler on what is and is not 40k says you're wrong, and that it's all canon.

Lynata wrote:
I think there's a flaw in your logic.

-> All rules are part of traditions.
-> Not all traditions are rules.

Conclusion: It is perfectly possible to have some traditions be different whereas all rules stay the same. As is the case with the various Sororitas Orders. As is written in the studio material.

I really do not understand why this has to be debated to such an extent, given that the conflict between these sources is so utterly and clearly visible.

Let me take a moment again, to try and explain what I just said, because from your response, you did not understand what I was saying.

A Rule (notice the capital R) is a document, that lays out the traditions, oaths, doctrines, titles, and livery of a Order. Now, here's where things seem to be falling down. An Order's traditions are based on it's doctrines. Doctrine and Tradition shape it's precepts (the 'rules' you are referring to). In the case of a monastic Rule, what everyone here seems to be thinking of, a military doctrine, is a precept.

So, by saying that all those other things are different, the Precepts would have to be different as well, because they're shaped by the doctrines and traditions, which are stated to be different.

Lynata wrote:
"By the standards of the 21st century, these girls are fanatical zealots, but in the context of the 41st millennium, they're paragons of virtue whose every action is a manifestation of the divine will of the God-Emperor of Mankind."
- WD #292

I'll stop and respond to this one. That was why I was rebutting you using groups who are or were, in the real world, fanatical zealots. Ideally.

Lynata wrote:
I put forward the notion that these facts - if one were to view the GW material as gospel as I do - stand in stark contrast to the interpretation propagated by the author Sandy Mitchell and it is impossible to reconcile both visions with one another.

Except that, again, they also state in the Codex that not all the Orders follow the same doctrines. This would mean, in this context, that GW has, once again, said 'They generally do this. But it's not an absolute.'

Lynata wrote:
And no, I will not accept any "exceptions". Since its infancy, this setting has been one of poorly considered writing and contradicting fluff, so perhaps any ideas about human beings in any time or world should be put to rest when considering the modus operandi of Imperial citizens, who are not human beings, but robots that happen to suffer when the plot calls for it.

Fixed that for you.

Lynata wrote:
If you go down the "exceptions" route, all you achieve is unlocking Pandora's Box of Silly Groxgak™ and opening the door for Ultramarines that surrender in battle, "misunderstood" Dark Eldar who fall in love with their human arch-enemy, and Demon Princes who are actually good guys. Maybe some of this has already happened in some other Black Library novel - I don't know, but I do know that a lot of other funny stuff happens there.

Um, actually, all of it has happened in WD and/or Codices at one point or another, except the Dark Eldar thing, that was a regular Eldar and gave the Ultramarines a half Eldar Librarian Astropath at one point. (the daemon prince = good guy thing has happened both inside and outside 'official' material, by your definition, though pretty much always a Lord of Change, so Tzeench only knows if he was there at random or it was part of some plot that has not yet played out).

Melissia wrote:The FFG material also supports Lynata's interpretation.

It's mostly just the Cain material that doesn't.

Except that it mostly does - see previous posting............

BaronIveagh wrote:Science Fantasy, people behave normally, you push a button, and it works in a way we know it does not.

That's an arbitrary definition which has nothing to do with fantasy.

Melissia wrote:That's an arbitrary definition which has nothing to do with fantasy.

Actually that's the definition of it, at least, according to Orson Scott Card, who would be in a position to know, he's made more money at it than any of us.

Science Fiction: You push a button, use a computer, or throw a leaver and something happens in a way the world might work.
Science Fantasy: As above only the world works in a way that it is known not to work
Fantasy: You wave a wand, pray to a tree, read a scroll, or rub a toads belly, and something happens in a way that it is known not to work.

The constant is that people still behave like people. For any fiction to work, this is a constant. Doing otherwise breaks immersion as the reader wonders why on Earth (lol) they would do such a thing. This is why a BL novel differ from the badly written fluff in the codex. For example, there are authors who have written both the fluff in the codex and the fluff in the novel, and had to change things when they realized that the fluff in the codex would never happen in any world where human beings were involved. (Thorpe in particular, who's above quote was more about him dodging the question)

I might point out that the BL novels that try to stick closest to the codex fluff are also usually the ones no one buys because they're incredibly bad. The ones that have generally proven popular are, oddly, the ones that have ignored fluff to a degree (Thorpe, Mitchell, Abnett, and McNeill) without totally abandoning it (Goto).

Orson Scott Card, having written a series of novels where a five year old child is the smartest living being and wins intergalactic wars as well as Terran wars of dominion in his sleep and spare time may not be the best authority on what defines "how it works in the real world".

Psienesis wrote:Orson Scott Card, having written a series of novels where a five year old child is the smartest living being and wins intergalactic wars as well as Terran wars of dominion in his sleep and spare time may not be the best authority on what defines "how it works in the real world".

Never said 'how it works in the real world' I said 'how it might work based on what we know.' And I might point out that child prodigies are hardly an unknown phenomena. Mozart, Picasso, Gauss, von Nuemann, and Kripke all spring to mind, so it is something that exists 'in the real world'. Alexander the Great and Leonidas of Sparta were barely teenagers when they first took command. Joan of Arc had her greatest victory at the age of 17.

Ender was 11 at the end of the war. So, no, not that far out of true.

BaronIveagh wrote:Never said 'how it works in the real world' I said 'how it might work based on what we know.'

40k isn't even REMOTELY based on what we know.

Physics in 40k follows an entirely different set of rules.

Melissia wrote:40k isn't even REMOTELY based on what we know.

Physics in 40k follows an entirely different set of rules.

Psienesis was talking about Ender's Game, not 40k. And the fact that 40k is not Science Fiction I already said in an earlier post. Sadly, Rule of Cool wears thin when overused. If anyone has a doubt about this, watch some of Micheal Bay's 'Transformers' movies a few times in a row.

BaronIveagh wrote:Sadly, Rule of Cool wears thin when improperly used.

Fixed.

Everything in 40k follows it. Boltguns, lasguns, Orks, power armor, walkers, Orks, titans, plasma guns and meltaguns, Orks, power weapons, the aesthetics, Orks, and also Orks. If anything overdoes it, then 40k does. But 40k does it so well in many cases that we're very much willing to overlook it.

What I was mainly talking about was using a single author's definition of a setting, or a term, as the "gospel definition" of what that means. How things work in an OSC book has no meaning or bearing on how things work in 40k. They're based on entirely, and radically, different sciences and physics models... insofar as 40K has a physics model it's based on, which is questionable at best. While you can have super-intelligent children who lead armies via FTL communications and video game simulators in an OSC story, in 40K, a child that young would be coming from a much more primitive society in 40K... either one that worships technology such as that as a sign of the divine, or one that utterly lacks such technology completely. If the child could perform FTL communication? That makes him a psyker, and dooms him to the Black Ships.

As an aside, there's a world of difference between a 5 year old (Bean) and a 17 year old (Alexander the Great or Joan of Arc). Only in relatively recent years (20th century) have we considered someone a child at the age of 17. In times past, especially in most of the Ancient World, well into the 17th and 18th centuries, someone of that age would have been considered an adult, perfectly able to make their own decisions. There are some cultural variations and exceptions to this throughout history, of course, but, by and large, the age of majority being as late as it is is a relatively modern invention (and one also not reflected in 40K, where 16 seems to be the norm).

BaronIveagh wrote:I might take the time to point out that your position is also that nothing is Lore except what agrees with your position, no matter the source. Games Workshop, final ruler on what is and is not 40k says you're wrong, and that it's all canon.

I believe your understanding of how this franchise is handled is flawed, as mine once was. I'm pretty sure that you will be unable to provide any sort of proof for this "it's all canon" urban myth, whereas I can provide this:

"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
- Gav Thorpe [src]

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
- Andy Hoare [src]

So we all have our own unique visions, depending entirely on a mixture of what 40k books we have read over the years and our personal preferences (which then may have influenced our choice in books - it's sort of a vicious cycle). My vision is an interpretation that focuses on the fluff put forth by Games Workshop above all else, and I dismiss anything that contradicts it. Your vision obviously attempts to reconcile the conflicting interpretation of Mr. Mitchell with all the other stuff. As Gav said, neither of us can be wrong. Me, I'm just pointing out that these books aren't really compatible - they're not meant to be.
I also find your line of reasoning especially puzzling since you are defending a source which goes against what GW themselves have said.

BaronIveagh wrote:Let me take a moment again, to try and explain what I just said, because from your response, you because from your response, you did not understand what I was saying.

Indeed I did misunderstand you - as you misunderstood me before. I have never actually talked about any "Rule with a capital R", I have been talking about rules, their set of laws. These are obviously part of a tradition (or their Rule), but they do not form its entirety.

And as we learn in WD# 293, there is indeed just a single set of books for all Adepta Sororitas. The Liber Sororitas article even contains example laws.

BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, all of it has happened in WD and/or Codices at one point or another, except the Dark Eldar thing, that was a regular Eldar and gave the Ultramarines a half Eldar Librarian Astropath at one point. (the daemon prince = good guy thing has happened both inside and outside 'official' material, by your definition, though pretty much always a Lord of Change, so Tzeench only knows if he was there at random or it was part of some plot that has not yet played out).

I'm aware that there were quite a number of weird and nonsensical things in GW books even after the great rewrite of 2E, but I'm fairly sure there wasn't anything as silly as this. Do you have a source?
And for the "good demon" thing, I was obviously referring to genuinely good-hearted demons, not ones simply claiming to be good.

BaronIveagh wrote:I might point out that the BL novels that try to stick closest to the codex fluff are also usually the ones no one buys because they're incredibly bad. The ones that have generally proven popular are, oddly, the ones that have ignored fluff to a degree (Thorpe, Mitchell, Abnett, and McNeill) without totally abandoning it (Goto).

We're just going to have to disagree about Mitchell being any different from Goto, and even Abnett has produced a number of strange ideas (mixing up Primarchs with Chapter-Masters or inventing the concept of a "Servitor-Navigator"). It's interesting that you are willing to admit that BL novels can indeed ignore studio fluff - for a moment it sounded as if you were certain this would not be possible. So, this obviously just leaves us with our individual interpretations of what constitutes an ignorance of fluff. I maintain the opinion that Mitchell's conflicting description of Schola life and organization does, whereas you maintain the opinion that all these things would simply be "exceptions".

Tl;dr - as I've been saying, it's all a matter of incompatible interpretations and opinions, and I do not believe we will ever find a consensus in this matter.

Melissia wrote:
Everything in 40k follows it. Boltguns, lasguns, Orks, power armor, walkers, Orks, titans, plasma guns and meltaguns, Orks, power weapons, the aesthetics, Orks, and also Orks. If anything overdoes it, then 40k does. But 40k does it so well in many cases that we're very much willing to overlook it.

Sorry, after all the abuse of Rule of Cool in media lately, I'm no longer willing to overlook it. And, frankly, when it reaches such preposterous levels as, say, Codex: Grey Knights, even people into it start bitching about it, because it's no longer being done well, and has not been for some time. (BTW: boltguns, lasguns, power armor, walkers, and plasmagun are not Rule of Cool. Prototypes of all of those already exist, some of which are more dangerous than the 40k versions.)

Psienesis wrote:What I was mainly talking about was using a single author's definition of a setting, or a term, as the "gospel definition" of what that means. How things work in an OSC book has no meaning or bearing on how things work in 40k. They're based on entirely, and radically, different sciences and physics models... insofar as 40K has a physics model it's based on, which is questionable at best. While you can have super-intelligent children who lead armies via FTL communications and video game simulators in an OSC story, in 40K, a child that young would be coming from a much more primitive society in 40K... either one that worships technology such as that as a sign of the divine, or one that utterly lacks such technology completely. If the child could perform FTL communication? That makes him a psyker, and dooms him to the Black Ships.

As an aside, there's a world of difference between a 5 year old (Bean) and a 17 year old (Alexander the Great or Joan of Arc).

Again, Orson Scott Card has nothing to do with the setting of 40k. Please stop trying to work this angle, it's not what I said. What I said was that Card explained at one point how a book is considered fantasy or science fiction by editors. He's never written anything on 40k, and as far as I know, has no idea what it is. However, when applying Card's explanation to 40k, it does not work. Almost every BL that is generally considered any good has altered 40k to fit Card's explanation, however, either by altering or downplaying certain aspects of it.

Why?

Because people who are not rabid drooling 40k fans don't read them otherwise. This translates into low sales, which cause reduced profit. The cause? None of the characters are believable or interesting. Sure, Draigo wipes his ass with the warp and shoots it out with a bazillion daemons. You know what? He's boring. If we wrote a novel about him, no one would buy it. That's why Mitchell's work is much better then the codex. (also why they outsold the Codex, I'm given to understand, in the case of SoB).

Why?

Because novels are stories, and stories are about people. And 40k for all it's Rule of Cool, has no people. Or at least, nothing the average reader would recognize as a person. And they Shall Know No Fear. It sounds awesome, doesn't it? You know the problem? The reader would never relate to them. Ever. And they have to for a novel about them to work. Guess what? McNeill has Ultramarines with fears and doubts and anxiety. Totally against the codex. But you knoiw what? People read them. They like it. They buy SM crap because of it. Mitchell has IG that act more or less liek real people. Guess what? People buy it, and then get into IG.

Notice, Mozart was also in there, who started composing at the age of 5. Oh, and, btw: Alexander was 10. Not 17. The odd thing was they were leading, not just taking part. You seem to be confusing what age it was common to start getting involved in violence and what age they started commanding troops, which was generally much older.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:
And as we learn in WD# 293, there is indeed just a single set of books for all Adepta Sororitas. The Liber Sororitas article even contains example laws.

WD 293 also implies at one point that the Battle Sisters of the Orders Majoris are the entirety of the Adepta Sororitas, IIRC. And you complain about BL novels?

Lynata wrote:
I'm aware that there were quite a number of weird and nonsensical things in GW books even after the great rewrite of 2E, but I'm fairly sure there wasn't anything as silly as this. Do you have a source?
And for the "good demon" thing, I was obviously referring to genuinely good-hearted demons, not ones simply claiming to be good.

From the old days to you:


Also, I have an even better one, and much more recent: the Ultramarines violating the Codex as a Chapter. The Codex states that Space Marine chapters are not to be building large anti-ship warships.

BEHOLD! Directly from the yards at Calth to you:


Seditio Opprimere

A massive lance boat with more anti-ship firepower than just about anything else in space. It does not just bend the Codex over a rail, it violates it with a chain sword.


As far as the Daemons being actually good hearted bit, the one in Pawns of Chaos commits suicide to save the people on the planet from Orbital Bombardment. As far as one in the codex meeting your requirements, not enough information is given.

BaronIveagh wrote:WD 293 also implies at one point that the Battle Sisters of the Orders Majoris are the entirety of the Adepta Sororitas, IIRC. And you complain about BL novels?

WD #293 is the most comprehensive source we have for the Non-Militant Orders. I don't see what you are referring to.

BaronIveagh wrote:From the old days to you:

Spoiler:

Yep, that looks like 1st Edition. As I suspected.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Also, I have an even better one, and much more recent: the Ultramarines violating the Codex as a Chapter. The Codex states that Space Marine chapters are not to be building large anti-ship warships. [...] Seditio Opprimere [/center]

That's not a contradiction between sources, that's a Marine Chapter bending the rules - they have done this for millennia and you know it. Just look at the size of the Black Templars.

Even more, its background specifically explains its heavier armaments as resulting from the Imperial Navy's inability to keep the 'nids contained in that area of space.
Also: didn't they "fix" this one? Because looking at the FAQ, I see its weaponry being bombardment cannons, not lances.

BaronIveagh wrote:As far as the Daemons being actually good hearted bit, the one in Pawns of Chaos commits suicide to save the people on the planet from Orbital Bombardment. As far as one in the codex meeting your requirements, not enough information is given.

I assumed as much, as far as GW material is concerned. Did not know a BL novel actually pulled this off - although I would hope that the author provides a very good reason for this (such as the daemon or his "boss" intending to use the people for something important).

Notice, Mozart was also in there, who started composing at the age of 5. Oh, and, btw: Alexander was 10. Not 17. The odd thing was they were leading, not just taking part. You seem to be confusing what age it was common to start getting involved in violence and what age they started commanding troops, which was generally much older.

So Alexander was a Space Marine, is what you're telling me?

Though you seem to be conflating some things, as Alexander the Great was not commanding men at the age of ten, he was tutoring under Aristotle at that time, as his father, Philip, was still alive and waging wars. His first known military command was when he crushed a revolt by the Thracians, while regent of Macedonia, and this would have been around the time when he was 16 to 18.

Lynata wrote:]That's not a contradiction between sources, that's a Marine Chapter bending the rules - they have done this for millennia and you know it. Just look at the size of the Black Templars.

Even more, its background specifically explains its heavier armaments as resulting from the Imperial Navy's inability to keep the 'nids contained in that area of space.
Also: didn't they "fix" this one? Because looking at the FAQ, I see its weaponry being bombardment cannons, not lances.

I assumed as much, as far as GW material is concerned. Did not know a BL novel actually pulled this off - although I would hope that the author provides a very good reason for this (such as the daemon or his "boss" intending to use the people for something important).

Yes, I am aware that the FAQ fixes this. If you turn to the credits page, my name is in there, after all. Sadly, FAQ 2010 is not canon, according to GW, but is according to the BFG rules panel they appointed. (Begin head explody in 10...9...8...)

The problem wasn't that 'a space marine chapter' broke with the codex, it was the fact that The Ultramarines broke with the codex. You know, the Ultramairnes? Who every time they talk about the Codex actually sound like the word is in capital letters? Who think that it is the be all and end all of all military thinking? The divine wisdom of their founder made manifest? Those guys?

AS far as the daemon goes: the sudden explanation for this is that the entire plot of the novel was an ancillary plot to a grand scheme of Tzeench to take place at some unknown future date and Tzeench was actually happy that a few imperial ships escaped because it raised the degree of difficulty pulling off his future plot. Or so he claimed. Frankly, that last bit seemed a bit tacked on, with Tzeench allowing one of the locals to decide if some of the Imperial ships escaped or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:
Though you seem to be conflating some things, as Alexander the Great was not commanding men at the age of ten, he was tutoring under Aristotle at that time, as his father, Philip, was still alive and waging wars. His first known military command was when he crushed a revolt by the Thracians, while regent of Macedonia, and this would have been around the time when he was 16 to 18.

Incorrect. Alexander was gifted with a horse (at the time a sign of his first command, though the legend says, he found the horse difficult to master) at 10 while Phillip was waging wars in the Balkans. He began tutoring under Aristotle at 13. He left Aristotle at 16 to assume the regency.

Having a horse is not the same as commanding men in battle. He got a pony, and you think he's suddenly JEB Stuart?

ETA: To keep it on-topic, while the Sisterhood exists as an organization, we're given a pretty good idea of how it fundamentally functions. While we might not know the specifics of how they do a given ritual, whether they brush their teeth after breaking fast but before Second Prayers or after, or whether or not the Sisters of the Mission Order of Castle Aaagh do, or do not, while away the hours by knitting exciting underwear to be worn under their power armor, we do know how the Sisterhood basically functions. In this, we know that they're hard-core nuns-with-guns, and since we have a number of Holy Orders of nuns in the real world, obviously inspiring the Sisters of Battle, as well as enough in-universe quotes, images and references to real-world religious orders, organizations and such, we can draw logical conclusions about how the Sisterhood functions.

Through this, we can logically surmise that the Sisterhood is a chaste, militant order that provides a number of functions (primarily four) to the Imperium. They are either doctors/healers/chemists/apothecarists (Orders Hospitaller), Holy Warrioresses (Orders Militant), or master eugenecists, match-makers, ambassadors, governesses, and liasions (Ordo Famulous) or keepers of forbidden lore, languages, records and other knowledge deemed "dangerous" by the Imperium (Orders Dialoguous). All of these orders are required to maintain purity and adherence to their rules in order to do their jobs.

Will all of them succeed? Of course not. Will all of them strive to? Of course.

For those who fail, there's the suggestions (some more overt than others) of all sorts of punishments, penalties and consequences, from various corporal mortifications to taking the oath of the Repentia, which ends only in death. This is not too far from some of the old-school stories of life in a real-world Convent... or any Catholic school in the modern world in some areas. Well, the Repentia squad might be, various corporal punishments, fastings, etc not so much.

Why are there so few Sisters? Because it's not an easy life, and a woman can choose to not become one before she takes her Oaths. The Imperium is vast, and needs people doing all sorts of jobs all over the place, and the Sisterhood has no use or time for people of false piety or an unconstant heart. If a woman feels she's not cut out for the Sisterhood during her time in the Scholam, even if she's passing the tests and whatever other trials are there to endure, she's not going to become one. While their pool of potential candidates may be vast indeed, only a handful actually make it to the stage where they take the Oath of Suffrage and become Initiate Sisters. As the saying goes "many are called, most are found wanting".

Given all of this, then, it is not difficult to see that while a given Sister might not be particularly good at her job, her time in that job is going to be brief at best, because it's almost inevitable that some Sister Superior is going to come around with a rather big stick (literally and/or figuratively) and set her back on the pious path.

BaronIveagh wrote:Sadly, FAQ 2010 is not canon, according to GW, but is according to the BFG rules panel they appointed. (Begin head explody in 10...9...8...)

This sounds interesting, especially given all I've read so far points to the concept of "canon" (as understood by us around here, meaning a consistent setting encompassing any and all official sources) being non-existent. On the other hand, depending on how they worded it, this would fit to GW simply ignoring what various "outsourced" writers come up with, as Gav Thorpe tells us they do.
Would you happen to have links to the exact wording of both statements, perchance? I'm always on the hunt for more quotes regarding this subject.

Psienesis wrote:Having a horse is not the same as commanding men in battle. He got a pony, and you think he's suddenly JEB Stuart?

Well, considering he used the same horse for the next 15 years, somehow, I doubt it was a pony. And yes, in much the same way being given a sword or a set of spurs by a noble in the middle ages made you a knight. It's a symbol of his right to command. Remember at the time Horses were rare and expensive. The only one Phillip could lay his hands on was, to his chagrin, somewhat inferior in his opinion.

Psienesis wrote:
ETA: To keep it on-topic, while the Sisterhood exists as an organization, we're given a pretty good idea of how it fundamentally functions. While we might not know the specifics of how they do a given ritual, whether they brush their teeth after breaking fast but before Second Prayers or after, or whether or not the Sisters of the Mission Order of Castle Aaagh do, or do not, while away the hours by knitting exciting underwear to be worn under their power armor, we do know how the Sisterhood basically functions. In this, we know that they're hard-core nuns-with-guns, and since we have a number of Holy Orders of nuns in the real world, obviously inspiring the Sisters of Battle, as well as enough in-universe quotes, images and references to real-world religious orders, organizations and such, we can draw logical conclusions about how the Sisterhood functions.

Through this, we can logically surmise that the Sisterhood is a chaste, militant order that provides a number of functions (primarily four) to the Imperium. They are either doctors/healers/chemists/apothecarists (Orders Hospitaller), Holy Warrioresses (Orders Militant), or master eugenecists, match-makers, ambassadors, governesses, and liasions (Ordo Famulous) or keepers of forbidden lore, languages, records and other knowledge deemed "dangerous" by the Imperium (Orders Dialoguous). All of these orders are required to maintain purity and adherence to their rules in order to do their jobs.

Will all of them succeed? Of course not. Will all of them strive to? Of course.

For those who fail, there's the suggestions (some more overt than others) of all sorts of punishments, penalties and consequences, from various corporal mortifications to taking the oath of the Repentia, which ends only in death. This is not too far from some of the old-school stories of life in a real-world Convent... or any Catholic school in the modern world in some areas. Well, the Repentia squad might be, various corporal punishments, fastings, etc not so much.

Why are there so few Sisters? Because it's not an easy life, and a woman can choose to not become one before she takes her Oaths. The Imperium is vast, and needs people doing all sorts of jobs all over the place, and the Sisterhood has no use or time for people of false piety or an unconstant heart. If a woman feels she's not cut out for the Sisterhood during her time in the Scholam, even if she's passing the tests and whatever other trials are there to endure, she's not going to become one. While their pool of potential candidates may be vast indeed, only a handful actually make it to the stage where they take the Oath of Suffrage and become Initiate Sisters. As the saying goes "many are called, most are found wanting".

Given all of this, then, it is not difficult to see that while a given Sister might not be particularly good at her job, her time in that job is going to be brief at best, because it's almost inevitable that some Sister Superior is going to come around with a rather big stick (literally and/or figuratively) and set her back on the pious path.

Largely I agree with you, there are a few points I do not. One, the number of sisters fluctuates wildly depending on the writer of a given book, so the 'few' thing is questionable, because it contently changes, and frankly, the numbers given would barely make a dent in a modern nation's armies, let alone some of what's floating around 40k. Beacuse...

Also, the idea that the Battle Sisters are based on nuns has been a long standing misconception, as has been pointed out by GW themselves on occasion. They're actually based on medieval knightly orders. They're Space Brettonians. (to go with our Space Elves, Space Orks, Space Vampire Counts, Space Empire, Space Tomb Kings, and Space Chaos.)

Lynata wrote:This sounds interesting, especially given all I've read so far points to the concept of "canon" (as understood by us around here, meaning a consistent setting encompassing any and all official sources) being non-existent. On the other hand, depending on how they worded it, this would fit to GW simply ignoring what various "outsourced" writers come up with, as Gav Thorpe tells us they do.
Would you happen to have links to the exact wording of both statements, perchance? I'm always on the hunt for more quotes regarding this subject.

Sadly, the actual exchange between Jervis and the BFG Rules committee was not recorded. Sadly, because it sounds like it was pretty good.
http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=2623.75

In a nutshell, Jervis informed the Committee that they would not post the FAQ on the site (which is how BFG documents are made 'official' atm), as the FAQ conflicted with the printed material. [One must wonder if Jervis is being serious, since the existing FAQ (2007) directly conflicts with the printed material as well, and he was the one that requested a new FAQ in the first place] Apparently he also talked some trash on the rules committee, enough that Ray Bell actually mentions being angry about how it went.

BaronIveagh wrote:Sadly, the actual exchange between Jervis and the BFG Rules committee was not recorded. Sadly, because it sounds like it was pretty good.
http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=2623.75

Damn, could've been interesting. Were those people actually tasked with including an errata in the FAQ or was it their own initiative? In case of the former, the propagated response is a bit puzzling, given that an update's very purpose is to conflict the established material in some way. In case of the latter it would've been a simple misunderstanding and GW was simply backpedaling from what they could've perceived as too much intervention.

Oh well. Kudos to the layouter of this PDF; I actually "fell for it".

BaronIveagh wrote:Largely I agree with you, there are a few points I do not. One, the number of sisters fluctuates wildly depending on the writer of a given book, so the 'few' thing is questionable, because it contently changes, and frankly, the numbers given would barely make a dent in a modern nation's armies, let alone some of what's floating around 40k.

The number of Sisters is less fluctuating if one were to limit his perception to the studio material alone. It's not so much a question of who is the writer of any given book, it's more a question of "does it originate in GW or is it an outsourced (BL/FW/FFG) production". For some reason, most Black Library writers are pretty consistent with the "millions of Sisters" idea, whereas the studio books continue to point the other way. So there is some consistency.

Also, that their numbers aren't quite enough to do all they should is, I believe, quite intentional and part of the Grim Darkness™ of the setting. It's like with the million Space Marines, which aren't enough to do it either.

BaronIveagh wrote:Also, the idea that the Battle Sisters are based on nuns has been a long standing misconception, as has been pointed out by GW themselves on occasion. They're actually based on medieval knightly orders. They're Space Brettonians.

I don't think so. Just like you cannot pinpoint a singular source for any other faction, the Battle Sisters are inspired by an amalgamation of multiple images. Knightly orders are one, as is Jeanne d'Arc, as are nuns. And I'm fairly sure there are even more things that share similarities with 'em. Given their hierarchy and terminology ("Sister", "Canoness", "Prioress", ...) and their background (a monastic order in service to the church based on utterly devoted worship of a deity, including regular prayers, mass service, self-deprivation and -mortification), I'd say that nuns probably occupy the larger part of their origin.

Hell, the very first picture of a Battle Sister is one where she wears a nun's scapular.

Didn't one of the old SOB Canoness miniatures have a wimple? Might not have been a Canoness, though, might have been some other model....

Hmm, I don't think so - or maybe I've just not seen it yet, if it was one from the Rogue Trader era.

Or were you referring to the Hospitaller?



GW's Sisters of Sigmar (probably a better comparison to the SoB, if one were to look for a Warhammer Fantasy army) also had head dresses, though - and I know that some 40k players have mixed or converted them to Sisters of Battle. If it's been a long time, perhaps you're just confusing the two, or you could have seen a custom job?

That's the only one that I know of that has a wimple.

Lynata wrote:Damn, could've been interesting. Were those people actually tasked with including an errata in the FAQ or was it their own initiative? In case of the former, the propagated response is a bit puzzling, given that an update's very purpose is to conflict the established material in some way. In case of the latter it would've been a simple misunderstanding and GW was simply backpedaling from what they could've perceived as too much intervention.

Oh well. Kudos to the layouter of this PDF; I actually "fell for it".

It wasn't hard, members of the original Battlefleet Gothic Magazine team were on board with it. I didn't attend the Gamesday meetings, but my understanding of it was that it had started out as Jervis idea to bring the material from BFGM and the PDFs into a single FAQ to clear up if they were 'official' or not. Some of the lists in BFGM were broken and others had some awkward rules (Fleet Defense Turrets and SM lances were subjects of some debate) so they ended up needing rebalanced. FFG's Sam Stewart helped write the Rogue Trader fleet section to try and keep it in step with the changes FFG had made. A few classes got renamed (Long Serpent became Mercury, for example) and some got new rules to avoid abuse (Jovian) from BFGM.

Lynata wrote:The number of Sisters is less fluctuating if one were to limit his perception to the studio material alone. It's not so much a question of who is the writer of any given book, it's more a question of "does it originate in GW or is it an outsourced (BL/FW/FFG) production". For some reason, most Black Library writers are pretty consistent with the "millions of Sisters" idea, whereas the studio books continue to point the other way. So there is some consistency.

Also, that their numbers aren't quite enough to do all they should is, I believe, quite intentional and part of the Grim Darkness™ of the setting. It's like with the million Space Marines, which aren't enough to do it either.

Sadly, GW rides herd on FFG much tighter then they do BL or the Codex writers. This could be why they specifically declared FFG's work canon at Gamesday when the question came up (or so I'm told). FFG took five tries just to get the battle cry of their in house SM chapter approved.

And it's not that they're too few to do everything they should, it that, at current numbers, they're too few to do anything at all. Even if they're viewed as each being equal to ten soldiers, the few thousand of them there are would be overpowerd en mass by most modern nations armies. So, either regular soldiers really suck in the grimderpness of the far future, or SoB are so few they're really not worth the expenditure in resources to outfit, even compared ot SM.

Lynata wrote:I don't think so. Just like you cannot pinpoint a singular source for any other faction, the Battle Sisters are inspired by an amalgamation of multiple images.

SW: Vikings
Blood Angels: Vampires
Eldar: WH Elves (who in turn are based off the Melnibonéians of the Elric books, since GW recycled the design when they lost that license)
Squats: Do I need to?
IG: Alien

..and the list goes on...

Lynata wrote:Knightly orders are one, as is Jeanne d'Arc, as are nuns. And I'm fairly sure there are even more things that share similarities with 'em. Given their hierarchy and terminology ("Sister", "Canoness", "Prioress", ...) and their background (a monastic order in service to the church based on utterly devoted worship of a deity, including regular prayers, mass service, self-deprivation and -mortification), I'd say that nuns probably occupy the larger part of their origin.

I might point out that there is apparently something you don't know. Nuns, monks, and monastic knightly orders use the same terminology. They also, largely, follow the same prayer and mass service, though usually instead of self mortification it's weapons practice and study. Typically one to three hours are set aside as 'me' time for contemplation, etc. However, this is only when 'at home' so to speak.

Lynata wrote:Hell, the very first picture of a Battle Sister is one where she wears a nun's scapular.

I assume you mean this image. (I love her 'Sister Sin' motto) Somehow I don't see the habit here. It looks more to me like she's wearing an Italian style chaperone, as you can see where the artist has it folding over, that has had some studs and metal bits added to it.
Here's Lorenzo De Medici wearing one without the 40k bits:


It was a common 14th and 15th century hat, and took a wide number or forms, but was basically a hood or cap (in this case) with a cape. These could be simple, or so elaborately worn as to look like a turban. I just figured it was to make it look more 'middle ages in space'.

BaronIveagh wrote:Sadly, GW rides herd on FFG much tighter then they do BL or the Codex writers. This could be why they specifically declared FFG's work canon at Gamesday when the question came up (or so I'm told).

I'll believe it when I see an actual quote with a source as valid as the ones I provided - in the case of Andy Hoare actually from one of the guys writing for FFG and being ex-GW, so he should know best.

I too have heard that FFG faces a stricter approval process than various BL novels, probably because their stuff goes directly to a studio editor, whereas novels "just" go to an editor within Black Library. Yet there either still seems to exist a considerable room for artistic license, or whatever editor is approving FFG's concepts is just more sticky than the guy at BL - individual people will have differing opinions about both the setting as well as how tight they'd like to control it. Again, I recommend reading Gav Thorpe's blog, as he does explain a few things on GW's approval process.

Also, there are some simple facts and glaring contradictions you will notice when comparing the various books with each other. Example:
3E SoB Codex: All Battle Sisters are Schola orphans. They are described as a capable force fighting and winning against the most terrible foes, including Marines and Daemons.
FFG: Battle Sisters can be Schola orphans, ordinary Feudal and Imperial world citizens or Noble scions. They are described as being barely able to "turn back armies of Orks and renegade Guardsmen". (whee!)
5E SoB Codex: All Battle Sisters are Schola orphans. They are described as a capable force fighting and winning against the most terrible foes, including Marines and Daemons.
Conclusion = The writers at GW care a rat's ass about anything FFG came up with, they will keep writing their own stuff just like they have always done.

BaronIveagh wrote:And it's not that they're too few to do everything they should, it that, at current numbers, they're too few to do anything at all.

My common sense as well as the studio material disagree with this assessment. The six Major Orders are highly mobile task forces operating across Imperial space and focusing on committing their forces to important battles and campaigns such as Imperial crusades and Wars of Faith. It's why they pop up all over the place again and again for particularly important fights such as the Third War of Armageddon, or during the 13th Black Crusade. The various Minor Orders on the other hand concentrate their smaller numbers on filling various support roles for the Inquisition and the Ecclesiarchy, ranging from VIP and shrine guard duty to providing escorts for the Black Ships to accompanying Inquisitors on a mission requiring martial force.

In short: They don't have enough numbers to show up everywhere they'd be needed, but where they show up, they do so in sufficient strength to (hopefully) get the job done. Exactly like the 1 million Space Marines or the 10.000 Imperial Guard Storm Troopers.

BaronIveagh wrote:Even if they're viewed as each being equal to ten soldiers, the few thousand of them there are would be overpowerd en mass by most modern nations armies. So, either regular soldiers really suck in the grimderpness of the far future, or SoB are so few they're really not worth the expenditure in resources to outfit, even compared ot SM.

Are we talking 40k bolters and power armour versus modern nation armies? If so, I could totally believe that ~100k SoB could wreck most modern nations' armies, because the vast majority of infantry weapons will prove to be 99% useless and morale would break down quickly.

Also keep in mind that large armies usually cover a wider area, in turn making them vulnerable against smaller force able to mobilize a focused strike and then mopping up the resistance piece by piece, for it will time for the enemy to redeploy his troops - even IF he is able to mobilize all his forces against the invader. This is how the Space Marines operate, too.

Or were you referring to a single SoB Major Order when you say "a few thousand"? Because any single Space Marine Chapter will face the same fate.

BaronIveagh wrote:SW: Vikings
Blood Angels: Vampires
Eldar: WH Elves (who in turn are based off the Melnibonéians of the Elric books, since GW recycled the design when they lost that license)
Squats: Do I need to?
IG: Alien
..and the list goes on...

Blood Angels and Space Wolves are sub-factions of the Space Marines. That you are mentioning two different inspirations here already proves my point.
And the Imperial Guard - really? Cadians maybe, but what about the Valhallans? Aren't they more like WW2 Soviets? Isn't the Steel Legion more like WW2 Germans? The DKoK like WW1 Germans?
... and the list goes on.

I'm also fairly sure that even the Eldar and Squats incorporate aspects from other inspirations, though this is something an Eldar/Squat expert is probably able to answer better.

BaronIveagh wrote:I might point out that there is apparently something you don't know. Nuns, monks, and monastic knightly orders use the same terminology. They also, largely, follow the same prayer and mass service, though usually instead of self mortification it's weapons practice and study. Typically one to three hours are set aside as 'me' time for contemplation, etc. However, this is only when 'at home' so to speak.

I do know about these things, but you just changed the subject. Now it's monastic knightly orders? Are Warhammer Fantasy Britons monastic?

Also, I have yet to see a monastic knightly order that was headed by a Canoness - as far as I'm aware the common title was "Grand Master".

BaronIveagh wrote:I assume you mean this image. (I love her 'Sister Sin' motto) Somehow I don't see the habit here. It looks more to me like she's wearing an Italian style chaperone, as you can see where the artist has it folding over, that has had some studs and metal bits added to it.
Here's Lorenzo De Medici wearing one without the 40k bits:

So you're saying it only goes down on one side? Well, that's another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on - I thought it was more like a studded leather version of this:

or this


I guess we all see what we'd like to see. For me, a nun's habit would fit better to an organization the text next to the picture clearly describes as a female-only religious order of warrior nuns than the hat of a politician. I have also yet to see a medieval knight wearing either a nun's habit or a chaperone.

Hmm, the model I'm thinking of might have been a conversion, because it was of a typical Celestial, with the jump-pack, left arm raised with a bolt pistol, wearing power armor with the typical nun hood. No gas-mask like the Hospitaler up there.

Actually, now that I think on it, it almost had to have been a conversion, because I thought all the jump-pack SOB models had the typical page-boy haircuts? Maybe not though, and it's been a span of time.

Psienesis wrote:Actually, now that I think on it, it almost had to have been a conversion, because I thought all the jump-pack SOB models had the typical page-boy haircuts? Maybe not though, and it's been a span of time.

Yeah, any and all GW SoB minis (with the exception of the Repentia, obviously) have the same haircut - part of the uniform it seems, although I've seen non-GW artworks of some good alternatives.

The very first Sisters miniatures back from the Rogue Trader era had different hair, though the "page boy" was already present on one. I've only ever seen two miniatures, though, and have no idea if there could've been more! Even pictures from all those ancient minis are rare.
Of course, back then something like "Seraphim" didn't exist, they've pretty much been basic Space Marines, just girls.

Lynata wrote:I too have heard that FFG faces a stricter approval process than various BL novels, probably because their stuff goes directly to a studio editor, whereas novels "just" go to an editor within Black Library. Yet there either still seems to exist a considerable room for artistic license, or whatever editor is approving FFG's concepts is just more sticky than the guy at BL - individual people will have differing opinions about both the setting as well as how tight they'd like to control it. Again, I recommend reading Gav Thorpe's blog, as he does explain a few things on GW's approval process.

Why not just ask HBMC? It is, after all, what he does.

Lynata wrote:
Also, there are some simple facts and glaring contradictions you will notice when comparing the various books with each other. Example:
3E SoB Codex: All Battle Sisters are Schola orphans. They are described as a capable force fighting and winning against the most terrible foes, including Marines and Daemons.
4E Codex WH: Most Sisters of Battle are Schola orphens. They are described as a fighting force charged with patrolling and guarding all the pilgrim routes and shrine worlds in the Imperium, and having a grand old time setting heretic bonfires and heroically turning the tide in Crusades at the behest of the Inquisition. Orders minoris are independent of the main orders.
FFG: Battle Sisters can be Schola orphans, ordinary Feudal and Imperial world citizens or Noble scions. They are described as being barely able to "turn back armies of Orks and renegade Guardsmen". (whee!)
5E SoB Codex: All Battle Sisters are Schola orphans. They are described as a capable force fighting and winning against the most terrible foes, including Marines and Daemons.
Conclusion = The writers at GW don't care a rat's ass about anything SoB and didn't want to be bothered writing a full codex in 5th so they copy pasted some stuff that sounded good to Matt Ward.

Fixed. Remember, at the time BI and FFG wrote the SoB material, 4th's fluff was still in, so their material actually meshed quite well.

Lynata wrote:Are we talking 40k bolters and power armour versus modern nation armies? If so, I could totally believe that ~100k SoB could wreck most modern nations' armies, because the vast majority of infantry weapons will prove to be 99% useless and morale would break down quickly.

This laughable notion comes up over and over in 40k discussions. While the average pistol will, with the possible exception of the IMI Desert Eagle, not pen power armor, the AK 47 and HK MP5 will, most likely pen, as the power armor still have joints that are not as heavily armored (look at the minis if you doubt this), and 40k characters have the most alarming tendency to have their helmets off, which rather defeats the point of wearing power armor. Also: gyrojet weapons, such as bolters are actually an obsolete British design that was produced in 50 cal, slightly smaller then the 75 cal bolter. (there is a hilarious hole in GW and FFGs explanation of human bolters being lighter then SM bolters because mere men can't take the recoil. The joke is, gyrojets are nearly recoilless at 50 cal. 75 is not going to be much heavier.)

I'll hold up the biggest argument against 40k power armor: It can be penetrated with a combat knife.

Lynata wrote:And the Imperial Guard - really? Cadians maybe, but what about the Valhallans? Aren't they more like WW2 Soviets? Isn't the Steel Legion more like WW2 Germans? The DKoK like WW1 Germans?
... and the list goes on.

Yes, and all those came after IG was originally conceived of (read GW wanted to sell new minis).

Lynata wrote:I do know about these things, but you just changed the subject. Now it's monastic knightly orders? Are Warhammer Fantasy Britons monastic?

I said 'monastic order' until I was blue in the face earlier and you kept ignoring it. And, yes, bluntly, Grail Knights would qualify as a monastic knightly order, though they set up smaller chapels rather than full sized monasteries and a significant portion of them do not do so. Interestingly, they follow a similar practice to real world canons and canonesses.

Lynata wrote:Also, I have yet to see a monastic knightly order that was headed by a Canoness - as far as I'm aware the common title was "Grand Master".

Order of the Holy Sepulcher immediately springs to mind, but any order founded following the Canons of Saint Augustine, which is actually a milder Rule than the harsher Benedictine Rule. The order of Santiago was operated by a council of 13 who were both canons and commanders, recognized the feminine form of both in their offices and were the electing body of the Master of the order. The holder, in the case of a woman (which never did happen, but was surprisingly prepared for if it did), would have been both 'canoness' and 'Master'.

One thing that 40k seems to have largely ditched about the middle ages was everyone having fifteen titles.

Lynata wrote:I guess we all see what we'd like to see. For me, a nun's habit would fit better to an organization the text next to the picture clearly describes as a female-only religious order of warrior nuns than the hat of a politician. I have also yet to see a medieval knight wearing either a nun's habit or a chaperone.

Well, one, it was hardly the hat of just politicians. It was common throughout the middle ages, though Lorenzo's is a simple, elegant, cut (like any modern executives suit) compared to some of the more ornate abominations that were also chaperones.


Sir William Cecil 1st Baron Burghley in his official robes as a Knight of the Garter.



For knights in combat wearing them turban style, I recommend Uffizi's triptych 'The Battle of San Romano' (1432).