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.

 LordofHats wrote:
Now you're looking on the bright side

Interesting, I think I still need to pick out certain fantasy ideas.

Good example of an alternative to swordsmen is in the Wheel of Time series. The Aiel are pretty serious guys and girls and their own beliefs state they cannot touch a sword - they use bucklers and carry a cluster of short spears to great effect.

I'm not quite sure how practical this would be in real life though and would be interested to hear what someone with martial arts (I hate that phrase) experience thinks of the Aiel weapon choice....it's well outside of my area of not-quite-expertise!

I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.

 Inquisitor Gonzo wrote:
Good example of an alternative to swordsmen is in the Wheel of Time series. The Aiel are pretty serious guys and girls and their own beliefs state they cannot touch a sword - they use bucklers and carry a cluster of short spears to great effect.

I'm not quite sure how practical this would be in real life though and would be interested to hear what someone with martial arts (I hate that phrase) experience thinks of the Aiel weapon choice....it's well outside of my area of not-quite-expertise!

Reminds me of the hoplites,

having used spears it would be interesting to see it. But it would be only as effective as the warrior using it, so aerobic and aerial movements would help quite a bit, especially when facing someone with a sword or an axe.

But yeah there are quite a few badass soldiers.

Also QUESTION

When you think of revenants, what do you think of?

 purplefood wrote:
I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.

What?

Wait
No.
Thats a 300 thing. They lined up and moved towards their enemies in large formations, they don't charge into the line like morons. I.E. 300 got it wrong.

Revenants are ghosts.

I'm unsure as to how useful acrobatic and aerial movements are in real life. Few people, especially soldiers used to fighting hand to hand, are ever going to be able to jump or flip effectively enough to use them in a fight. More to the point as I understand it footwork is important in a melee fight so leaving the ground is somewhat foolish as you will be off-balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Inquisitor Gonzo wrote:
Good example of an alternative to swordsmen is in the Wheel of Time series. The Aiel are pretty serious guys and girls and their own beliefs state they cannot touch a sword - they use bucklers and carry a cluster of short spears to great effect.

I'm not quite sure how practical this would be in real life though and would be interested to hear what someone with martial arts (I hate that phrase) experience thinks of the Aiel weapon choice....it's well outside of my area of not-quite-expertise!

Reminds me of the hoplites,

having used spears it would be interesting to see it. But it would be only as effective as the warrior using it, so aerobic and aerial movements would help quite a bit, especially when facing someone with a sword or an axe.

But yeah there are quite a few badass soldiers.

Also QUESTION

When you think of revenants, what do you think of?

 purplefood wrote:
I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.

What?

Wait
No.
Thats a 300 thing. They lined up and moved towards their enemies in large formations, they don't charge into the line like morons. I.E. 300 got it wrong.

I believe the unit known as the peltast fought in the manner i described. They didn't even get close just threw javelins. They were light infantry as opposed to the heavy infantry hoplites.

 purplefood wrote:
Revenants are ghosts.

I'm unsure as to how useful acrobatic and aerial movements are in real life. Few people, especially soldiers used to fighting hand to hand, are ever going to be able to jump or flip effectively enough to use them in a fight. More to the point as I understand it footwork is important in a melee fight so leaving the ground is somewhat foolish as you will be off-balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Inquisitor Gonzo wrote:
Good example of an alternative to swordsmen is in the Wheel of Time series. The Aiel are pretty serious guys and girls and their own beliefs state they cannot touch a sword - they use bucklers and carry a cluster of short spears to great effect.

I'm not quite sure how practical this would be in real life though and would be interested to hear what someone with martial arts (I hate that phrase) experience thinks of the Aiel weapon choice....it's well outside of my area of not-quite-expertise!

Reminds me of the hoplites,

having used spears it would be interesting to see it. But it would be only as effective as the warrior using it, so aerobic and aerial movements would help quite a bit, especially when facing someone with a sword or an axe.

But yeah there are quite a few badass soldiers.

Also QUESTION

When you think of revenants, what do you think of?

 purplefood wrote:
I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.

What?

Wait
No.
Thats a 300 thing. They lined up and moved towards their enemies in large formations, they don't charge into the line like morons. I.E. 300 got it wrong.

I believe the unit known as the peltast fought in the manner i described. They didn't even get close just threw javelins. They were light infantry as opposed to the heavy infantry hoplites.

I don't know martial arts usually use aerobic movements to avoid attacks, sometimes a simple dodge is not enough.

But Revenants aren't just ghosts if I remember correctly

In a massed battle, martial arts would indeed be useless. Its all about the press of men, no room to do all your fancy trickery.

Its more important to keep a square and solid battle stance, focusing on the enemy in front of you.

Martial arts would be the sole arena of an infiltrator or a skirmish unit. Where you'd have space to use such moves. But you'd flee in the face of large numbers.

 purplefood wrote:
I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.

Nah, that was a Roman tactic. Legionaries would carry 2 Pila(Javelins with a soft iron haft which would bend upon impact, making it difficult to remove from whatever it stuck in and impossible to throw back) to throw before melee was closed.

The Pila would be thrown either just before a charge or as a defensive maneuver before the enemy charged the Century.

A Revenant is pretty much another word for a ghost or something otherwise returned from the dead. They don't actually exist in real life, though, and so they can be whatever you want them to be really.

 Grey Templar wrote:
In a massed battle, martial arts would indeed be useless. Its all about the press of men, no room to do all your fancy trickery.

Its more important to keep a square and solid battle stance, focusing on the enemy in front of you.

Martial arts would be the sole arena of an infiltrator or a skirmish unit. Where you'd have space to use such moves. But you'd flee in the face of large numbers.

Well duh.

Its a massed battle.

But in a duel the martial arts might help. It might. But yet again the warriors in this world are quite brutal

And also, this story is quite dark at times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
A Revenant is pretty much another word for a ghost or something otherwise returned from the dead. They don't actually exist in real life, though, and so they can be whatever you want them to be really.

Yep. Basically. I have written up my own version of a Revenant but its not a ghost. Or really human.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.

Nah, that was a Roman tactic. Legionaries would carry 2 Pila(Javelins with a soft iron haft which would bend upon impact, making it difficult to remove from whatever it stuck in and impossible to throw back) to throw before melee was closed.

The Pila would be thrown either just before a charge or as a defensive maneuver before the enemy charged the Century.

The Greeks - and Persians, to an extent - also employed javelins, and purple is actually quite right. Peltasts usually carried and several javelins on their person along with a pelte - the wicker shield for which they were named - and usually a sword. Against more heavily armed and armoured enemies they would essentially kite by throwing javelins, and then retreating back, easily capable of outpacing troops like Hoplites simply because they carried so little. Against other skirmishers, they often charged after releasing their javelins, as they had ample enough protection as well as a sword.

 Grey Templar wrote:
In a massed battle, martial arts would indeed be useless. Its all about the press of men, no room to do all your fancy trickery.

Its more important to keep a square and solid battle stance, focusing on the enemy in front of you.

Martial arts would be the sole arena of an infiltrator or a skirmish unit. Where you'd have space to use such moves. But you'd flee in the face of large numbers.

 purplefood wrote:
I think Greek infantry (A long time ago) used to do a similar thing. Throw the spear and then engage at a closer range with a short sword. Obviously these guys don't use swords so I suppose they keep their distance.

Nah, that was a Roman tactic. Legionaries would carry 2 Pila(Javelins with a soft iron haft which would bend upon impact, making it difficult to remove from whatever it stuck in and impossible to throw back) to throw before melee was closed.

The Pila would be thrown either just before a charge or as a defensive maneuver before the enemy charged the Century.

Can i just point out i just looked it up. The Peltast was a light infantry skirmishing force which would use javelins, slings, and bows along with a wicker buckler to harass the enemy from a distance. Occasionally they used spears or short swords if they had them.
Also as I understand it revenant is just another word for a ghost. Wiki has it as "A visible ghost or animated corpse." I mean you can put whatever spin on it that you want. It's not like no one has ever reinterpreted things like this before.

 purplefood wrote:

Also as I understand it revenant is just another word for a ghost. Wiki has it as "A visible ghost or animated corpse." I mean you can put whatever spin on it that you want. It's not like no one has ever reinterpreted things like this before.

True, but the main reasoning is that Revenants describe it perfectly, a visible ghost that is vengeful and is quite scary.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

Also as I understand it revenant is just another word for a ghost. Wiki has it as "A visible ghost or animated corpse." I mean you can put whatever spin on it that you want. It's not like no one has ever reinterpreted things like this before.

True, but the main reasoning is that Revenants describe it perfectly, a visible ghost that is vengeful and is quite scary.

So it is a ghost...
I'm glad we cleared that up

 purplefood wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

Also as I understand it revenant is just another word for a ghost. Wiki has it as "A visible ghost or animated corpse." I mean you can put whatever spin on it that you want. It's not like no one has ever reinterpreted things like this before.

True, but the main reasoning is that Revenants describe it perfectly, a visible ghost that is vengeful and is quite scary.

So it is a ghost...
I'm glad we cleared that up

Basically, but not in my story. They are energy beings in my world.

Would elemental not be a more appropriate moniker?
For most people, I hope, revenant is a term for the undead.

 purplefood wrote:
Would elemental not be a more appropriate moniker?
For most people, I hope, revenant is a term for the undead.

Not really, in this case they were made from humans, and I will leave it ambiguous. They call themselves Revenants and what other people call them that too.

I am going to leave it up to debate as there is another creature similar to the Revenant. Ghosts don't really exist in the world, and there is no known way to bring someone back from the dead.

 Asherian Command wrote:


One of the few areas of history I know nothing about is the Mayan's and Toltecs. I never found that history at all interesting.

So you never read it, but dismiss it immediately? The popol vuh, is a very interesting read, old myths and history are the bread and butter of good fantasy writer.
Also the Mahabharata is very interesting weaponry and the suikouden (The water margin) has a lot of characters that use different weapons, it is a western thing i think to focus on swords.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


One of the few areas of history I know nothing about is the Mayan's and Toltecs. I never found that history at all interesting.

So you never read it, but dismiss it immediately? The popol vuh, is a very interesting read, old myths and history are the bread and butter of good fantasy writer.
Also the Mahabharata is very interesting weaponry and the suikouden (The water margin) has a lot of characters that use different weapons, it is a western thing i think to focus on swords.

I am just not attracted to the culture or the mythologies.

I might read it, but currently I have too much on my plate.

If you aren't at least slightly interested at the idea of people having their heart cut out of their chest then frankly I don't what you are interested in...

 purplefood wrote:
If you aren't at least slightly interested at the idea of people having their heart cut out of their chest then frankly I don't what you are interested in...

Decapatations and using them for head puppets.

But I don't find that interesting, because that happens in lots of other cultures. I think its not as interesting as putting people into wooden effigy and burning them alive.

Just don't have any giant warhammers or giant double bitted fantasy battleaxes. Those bug me soooo much.



Oh, and the main character in the Stormlight Archive uses a spear.

Depending on how much armor most people in your world use, maybe a nice mace or pick? Those were far more effective against plate armored foes than swords.

Indeed.

In the late period, armor had advanced to the point where swords were basically useless against it.

So thus the prevalence for Knights and peasants alike to carry weapons that could penetrate armor. Or alternatively immobilize the knight long enough to slide a knife into the gaps.

Maces could break bones just by impact. Halberds and hammers could actually penetrate armor. Same with Crossbows.

Swords were status symbols and weapons for cutting down unarmored opponents. Not for killing a heavily armored opponent. Only very large two handed swords could defeat armor, and because of the weight and force not because the armor would be penetrated.

This might answer some of your questions. It's from a presentation I gave at Life the Universe and Everything, a sci-fi/fantasy writers convention. It was on how to use history to enhance fantasy.
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2013/12/19/history-for-the-fantasy-and-sci-fi-writer/

I always liked the idea of a fantasy world where magic existed, but worked in a way where it gave logistical benefits but had few to zero actual combat applications - IE you could transport food and supplies across vast distances or in huge quantities using magic - and maybe communicate. But all the fighting still had to be done using muscle power.

Another thing to consider is that in combat (today as well as way back when) far more people are maimed, injured, or incapacitated than killed. Defeating an enemy isn't strictly about killing him.

 LordofHats wrote:
Another thing to consider is that in combat (today as well as way back when) far more people are maimed, injured, or incapacitated than killed. Defeating an enemy isn't strictly about killing him.

Yeah, stuff like disease and starvation aside - most battles were a matter of maneuver. Armies would poke and prod at each other until one side broke, and that was when the majority of deaths were caused, by riding down the broken enemy.

Geography is another commonly ignored aspect of fantasy warfare, so you might want to consider that too. And I don't mean jungles and deserts. I mean is there a swamp in the area, thick rough woods, a hill to hide behind? Is an army marching in a specific direction just cause or does the terrain favor them? Are they attempting to force a conflict in a place where they know they can win?

Most fiction ignores these finer details of strategy and operations.

 LordofHats wrote:
Geography is another commonly ignored aspect of fantasy warfare, so you might want to consider that too. And I don't mean jungles and deserts. I mean is there a swamp in the area, thick rough woods, a hill to hide behind? Is an army marching in a specific direction just cause or does the terrain favor them? Are they attempting to force a conflict in a place where they know they can win?

Most fiction ignores these finer details of strategy and operations.

Or perhaps even more frustratingly has the protagonist use terrain as a simple trap, that the enemy just blunders in to. It's meant to make the protagonist look like a great general, but mostly it just makes it looks like he won because everyone else was really stupid.


I agree that supply is another thing that I think is underwritten. Sometimes you get a raid on an enemy wagon train, but the actual importance of the train is abstracted, its just used as the justification to have a small battle as you build up to the big fight. But having supply actually play a major role in the campaign doesn't seem to happen very often at all. I guess to some extent we're mostly talking about a fantasy tech base where most supplies where taken from locals while on the march, but the armies in these stories are often vast, and couldn't be fed just from what is taken from the locals. A story in which time pressure is added as supplies are dwindling rapidly, or in which a hero heads for the hills and avoids open battle until the enemy's supply train runs dry could work quite well, I think.

 LordofHats wrote:
Another thing to consider is that in combat (today as well as way back when) far more people are maimed, injured, or incapacitated than killed. Defeating an enemy isn't strictly about killing him.

Unless you know the main enemy is a skeleton or a being of energy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Geography is another commonly ignored aspect of fantasy warfare, so you might want to consider that too. And I don't mean jungles and deserts. I mean is there a swamp in the area, thick rough woods, a hill to hide behind? Is an army marching in a specific direction just cause or does the terrain favor them? Are they attempting to force a conflict in a place where they know they can win?

Most fiction ignores these finer details of strategy and operations.

Or perhaps even more frustratingly has the protagonist use terrain as a simple trap, that the enemy just blunders in to. It's meant to make the protagonist look like a great general, but mostly it just makes it looks like he won because everyone else was really stupid.


I agree that supply is another thing that I think is underwritten. Sometimes you get a raid on an enemy wagon train, but the actual importance of the train is abstracted, its just used as the justification to have a small battle as you build up to the big fight. But having supply actually play a major role in the campaign doesn't seem to happen very often at all. I guess to some extent we're mostly talking about a fantasy tech base where most supplies where taken from locals while on the march, but the armies in these stories are often vast, and couldn't be fed just from what is taken from the locals. A story in which time pressure is added as supplies are dwindling rapidly, or in which a hero heads for the hills and avoids open battle until the enemy's supply train runs dry could work quite well, I think.

Currently thinking about that as well. As one thing that I think most writers forget about is that you need a steady amount of supplies to move, without it you are kind of screwed. But that only happens if your army is not the undead or beings unique to that idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed.

In the late period, armor had advanced to the point where swords were basically useless against it.

So thus the prevalence for Knights and peasants alike to carry weapons that could penetrate armor. Or alternatively immobilize the knight long enough to slide a knife into the gaps.

Maces could break bones just by impact. Halberds and hammers could actually penetrate armor. Same with Crossbows.

Swords were status symbols and weapons for cutting down unarmored opponents. Not for killing a heavily armored opponent. Only very large two handed swords could defeat armor, and because of the weight and force not because the armor would be penetrated.

I think that was right at the beginning of the gunpowder period.

I have it at the early renaissance.

Those are practically the same thing.

And the heyday of armor was right before gunpowder became an immensely practical weapon. Once guns became practical and standing armies became a thing armored knights quickly went away as a force on the battlefield.

Then guns began to be more common(slowly replacing the Crossbow) while the bulk of soldiers used Pikes, and once Bayonets were invented the Pikes became obsolete. This is when an army was mostly pike formations which protected your gunners/crossbowmen while being backed up by artillery. Cavalry were used as a flanking force to tie up enemy cavalry and prevent them from flanking you.


So if you are going for early renaissance, you'll have massed battles of Pikemen protecting ranks of gunners/crossbowmen.

You'll have units of Swordsmen who are tasked with breaking pike lines with massive twohanded swords(Forlorn Hope)

Not sure if that is what you were going for. Its not typical fantasy fodder, but I think it could definitely work.