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.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

and plate armour is heavy. It vastly restricts you movement, and all the people have to do is push you down and you stay down.

That's actually pretty false, custom fitted plate armor (which is what people had, back before plate could be massed produced) restricted you only a little and wasn't all that heavy, you could stand up in plate armor and only do it a bit slower than normal.

Well I'm not talking about custom fitted plate armour. Plate armour is still heavy. I'm not saying that it made you immobile because people did practice wearing it and got pretty strong, just that normal people would not have it. Your average foot solider, who does most of the fighting, might have some chain link armour and leather, or scale if he was lucky, but if you didn't have a buckler or other shield, a knife or dagger was a good thing to have in your other hand. I'm going to shut up now before this thread is derailed any further.

Right, right, lets clear something up here.

Dual wielding was used by duellists and showboating footpads.

Soldiers did not dual wield (as you're thinking of it). Right up until muskets became the weapon of choice, soldiers wielded pikes, spears, or the local equivalent to "hand weapon and shield". Well, those or some variant of bow.

The only people who could afford to wear full plate armour were landed knights and nobles. Maybe rich enough merchants, but the kind of merchant who is rich enough to afford full plate mail is highly unlikely to take to the field of battle.

Wow. Okay then, some great opinions here, just to clarify, by faster I did mean in the fashion spoken of. Okay, with that done, let's move on, what's everyone's opinions of
Justicar anval thawn, the man who refuses to die.
Fore reference:
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Anval_Thawn
I personally find it quite interesting. The general "gimmick" of this character is that when he dies he Comes back to life, seemingly though will power alone.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
At least in Europe, I've always wondered why would anyone dual wield, ever.

Before plate armor, you needed a shield or projectile weapon would generally kill you dead.

After plate armor was invented, well... you needed both hands to defeat plate armor and projectiles were a lot less dangerous, till the invention of proper gunpowder weapons anyways.

Well most people didn't have plate armour, and plate armour is heavy. It vastly restricts you movement, and all the people have to do is push you down and you stay down. duel wielding a sword an knife is fine because (assuming 1 handed sword) you are not using that hand in any case and then if someone blocks your sword, you get them with the knife.

Plate armor actually restricts your range of motion less than chain mail.

In addition, very few wore full plate on foot. The armored knight functioned best on horseback with a lance, a sidearm sword and a shield. Dual wielding is woefully inefficient at the best of times, only functioning in hand-to-hand battles between lightly armored warriors.

The mongols did often have a second, short blade however, and the mongols were the supreme fighting force of the middle ages. Though it was mostly for decoration I believe.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
Wow. Okay then, some great opinions here, just to clarify, by faster I did mean in the fashion spoken of. Okay, with that done, let's move on, what's everyone's opinions of
Justicar anval thawn, the man who refuses to die.
Fore reference:
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Anval_Thawn
I personally find it quite interesting. The general "gimmick" of this character is that when he dies he Comes back to life, seemingly though will power alone.

Yarrick did it first, Celestine did it better. >>

 the shrouded lord wrote:
Wow. Okay then, some great opinions here, just to clarify, by faster I did mean in the fashion spoken of. Okay, with that done, let's move on, what's everyone's opinions of
Justicar anval thawn, the man who refuses to die.
Fore reference:
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Anval_Thawn
I personally find it quite interesting. The general "gimmick" of this character is that when he dies he Comes back to life, seemingly though will power alone.

Actually, Vulcan did it first.

I tend to pull off crazy fun stunts with him...had my squad get run down by a whole lot of slaanesh badness...Thawn managed to stand up and solocharge and kill a bloodthirster...don't mess with Thawn...was the lesson.

Thawn means that you don't need to buy a character for the unit...a character that comes back to life and grants them all fearless is enough.