Getting Medieval

[pawsplay]

Am I? I'm sorry but you're making a judgment call here without knowing me. Please refrain from doing it.

Sorry, I was not trying to be judgmental.

Before I started this little project I had a nice private talk with Morgenstern about weapon design in FC. And he confirmed that the Broadsword from FC isn't the Arming Sword (look at the stats 2 lbs. more than the longsword and massive). A normal one handed sword from the 11th century doesn't really fit the bill for the massive quality. I use a Korbschläger with a heavier blade, and it weighs only 200g less than a typical Type XI sword.  In fact my club weighs more than a Type XI and it's in fact a very "dexterous" weapon.

If you don't like what I created then change it for your game, after all FC isn't a straight jacket system.

I'm just wondering why wouldn't simply use the Broadsword stats instead of making longsword be more like Broadswords. It's the weapon that's evolving. An arming sword could be virtually anything bigger than a shortsword and smaller than a greatsword. If the Broadsword is massive and the Longsword isn't, I think that suggests the massive weapon should be a Broadsword. As far as I know, no weapon specific abilites are keyed to the name of a sepcic weapon anyway.

[Aragathor]

I'm just wondering why wouldn't simply use the Broadsword stats instead of making longsword be more like Broadswords. It's the weapon that's evolving. An arming sword could be virtually anything bigger than a shortsword and smaller than a greatsword. If the Broadsword is massive and the Longsword isn't, I think that suggests the massive weapon should be a Broadsword. As far as I know, no weapon specific abilites are keyed to the name of a sepcic weapon anyway.

Then where would the difference be between the Arming Sword and the Broadsword? In fact, the arming sword and the long sword are two completely different weapons. But let's clear something first, let's look at the weapons from a historical point of view:

Short sword - swords like the roman gladius, longer versions of seax, the Greek xiphos. Antique and early medieval.
Arming sword - besides being the sword of knights also the katzbalger and the viking sword, with the grip upgrade also the early renaissance Italian side swords. Early medieval to renaissance.
Longsword - also known as the bastard sword or hand-and-half. Late medieval to middle renaissance.
Greatsword - any blade longer than the longsword. Late medieval to late renaissance.

Do you see the difference between the various weapons?

If the Broadsword is massive and the Longsword isn't, I think that suggests the massive weapon should be a Broadsword.

I think I've lost you there. What do you mean?

[TheAuldGrump]

Here you are confused. The early longsword *is* the (FC) Broadsword. As I am sure you are aware, broadsword is not a period term for any particular weapon. A massive, one or two-handed early period weapon appears in FC, and is named Broadsword. The Longsword is the later era weapon. I do not believe the FC broadsword should be taken as the basket-hilted weapon.

Am I? I'm sorry but you're making a judgment call here without knowing me. Please refrain from doing it.
Before I started this little project I had a nice private talk with Morgenstern about weapon design in FC. And he confirmed that the Broadsword from FC isn't the Arming Sword (look at the stats 2 lbs. more than the longsword and massive). A normal one handed sword from the 11th century doesn't really fit the bill for the massive quality. I use a Korbschläger with a heavier blade, and it weighs only 200g less than a typical Type XI sword.  In fact my club weighs more than a Type XI and it's in fact a very "dexterous" weapon.

If you don't like what I created then change it for your game, after all FC isn't a straight jacket system.

PS: I said it before and I'll say it again. After I'm done with the medieval age I'll do a follow-up with the Renaissance. I intend to tackle the renaissance broadswords then and there. The FC broadsword is a fantasy weapon. And the FC Longsword is in fact a hand-and-half.

Any chance of Reformation/Counter-Reformation? I am a fan of pike & shot fantasy. (An age where military might was often measured by weight of mercenaries, where one of the power players bankrolled the titular enemies of his own religion - to weaken a rival political power, a pair of entire continents has been opened to exploitation, as has their aboriginal inhabitants, and wars might last for longer than a generation.) For my own setting, the collapse of the monolithic central monotheism into warring fragments spurred the reentry of magic into the axis mundi.

The Auld Grump, let God speak from the muzzle of cannon!

[Aragathor]

Here you are confused. The early longsword *is* the (FC) Broadsword. As I am sure you are aware, broadsword is not a period term for any particular weapon. A massive, one or two-handed early period weapon appears in FC, and is named Broadsword. The Longsword is the later era weapon. I do not believe the FC broadsword should be taken as the basket-hilted weapon.

Am I? I'm sorry but you're making a judgment call here without knowing me. Please refrain from doing it.
Before I started this little project I had a nice private talk with Morgenstern about weapon design in FC. And he confirmed that the Broadsword from FC isn't the Arming Sword (look at the stats 2 lbs. more than the longsword and massive). A normal one handed sword from the 11th century doesn't really fit the bill for the massive quality. I use a Korbschläger with a heavier blade, and it weighs only 200g less than a typical Type XI sword.  In fact my club weighs more than a Type XI and it's in fact a very "dexterous" weapon.

If you don't like what I created then change it for your game, after all FC isn't a straight jacket system.

PS: I said it before and I'll say it again. After I'm done with the medieval age I'll do a follow-up with the Renaissance. I intend to tackle the renaissance broadswords then and there. The FC broadsword is a fantasy weapon. And the FC Longsword is in fact a hand-and-half.

Any chance of Reformation/Counter-Reformation? I am a fan of pike & shot fantasy. (An age where military might was often measured by weight of mercenaries, where one of the power players bankrolled the titular enemies of his own religion - to weaken a rival political power, a pair of entire continents has been opened to exploitation, as has their aboriginal inhabitants, and wars might last for longer than a generation.) For my own setting, the collapse of the monolithic central monotheism into warring fragments spurred the reentry of magic into the axis mundi.

The Auld Grump, let God speak from the muzzle of cannon!

Do you know that you are posting in the wrong thread?
Look at the "The Renaissance", I mentioned the reformation there.

[TheAuldGrump]

Ah, sorry. I had not even noticed that thread. I simply posted here because you caught my attention while I was here.

For my purposes Reformation is just after the Renaissance, though that very much depends on where you are.... The Renaissance did not hit everywhere at the same time , Russia, in particular, was considerably behind most of Europe. I tend to consider this period the birth of the Age of Reason. [Insert longish diatribe about advances in tactics, technology, De Re Metallica, and other esoterica. ]

The Auld Grump

[Aragathor]

Ah, sorry. I had not even noticed that thread. I simply posted here because you caught my attention while I was here.

For what? I meant it as a joke. "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son."

For my purposes Reformation is just after the Renaissance, though that very much depends on where you are.... The Renaissance did not hit everywhere at the same time , Russia, in particular, was considerably behind most of Europe. I tend to consider this period the birth of the Age of Reason. [Insert longish diatribe about advances in tactics, technology, De Re Metallica, and other esoterica.  ]

Here I would disagree, the early reformation (until late 16th century) and the renaissance ran parallel to each other. In fact the beginning of the reformation (96 theses of Luther) happened during the height of the renaissance in Italy.

[TheAuldGrump]

However, the Renaissance spread outwards from the Italianate States, while the Reformation spread outwards from the Germanies - there is no real causual connection between the two.

I would also say that the Age of Reason had already begun in Italy - the dawning and rebirth was over, a time of consolidation had begun.

That said - as far as the Germanies were concerned, it was the Renaissance - and this is, in part, what birthed the little missive, nailed to a church door. (Though Giovanni, St. Francis of Assisi, had already said much of what Marin Luther was observing.)

For my part, if I were to pick a single event that separates the Renaissance from the Age of Reason it would be Gutenberg's little attempt to recover from a failed venture in indulgences.... ) The Reformation/Counter-reformation occurred in the Age of Reason, and was spurred by the invention of the press, which triggered that age.

Suddenly I have an urge to watch Connections, and The Day the Universe Changed....

I suspect that we can at least agree that dating the beginning of the Renaissance from the death of Richard III of England is just plain silly. (When I was young, poor Deacon's death was still used sometimes to pin the date.... As if the fall of Humpty Dumpty had anything to do with the matter. )

The Auld Grump

[Aragathor]

Strange, I've always been taught that the spread of humanist theories allowed the reformation to exist.

If you put the end of the renaissance with the work of Gutenberg, then by your reckoning the renaissance lasted about 80 years in Italy. Assuming of course that we agree that the renaissance started at the end of the 14th century.
As my professor of regional history likes to say "maybe, but the majority of experts in this field disagrees with you".
In my, not humble at all, opinion the age of reason started much later.

And about Richard III, he's unimportant for European history. The guy did nothing important, compared to say Frederick the II of Germany and Sicily (the guy was called the wonder of the world).

[TheAuldGrump]

Posting my reply in the Renaissance thread - it is definitely a better fit there than in the Mediaeval thread....

The Auld Grump

[pawsplay]

I'm just wondering why wouldn't simply use the Broadsword stats instead of making longsword be more like Broadswords. It's the weapon that's evolving. An arming sword could be virtually anything bigger than a shortsword and smaller than a greatsword. If the Broadsword is massive and the Longsword isn't, I think that suggests the massive weapon should be a Broadsword. As far as I know, no weapon specific abilites are keyed to the name of a sepcic weapon anyway.

Then where would the difference be between the Arming Sword and the Broadsword?

I don't even understand this question. Any arming sword can be classified as a broadsword or a longsword or both. If you're talking about a side sword or cut-and-thrust sword or something of that sort, that's what 19th century writers called a broadsword and what D&D calls a longsword.

In fact, the arming sword and the long sword are two completely different weapons. But let's clear something first, let's look at the weapons from a historical point of view:

Arming sword - besides being the sword of knights also the katzbalger and the viking sword, with the grip upgrade also the early renaissance Italian side swords. Early medieval to renaissance.
Longsword - also known as the bastard sword or hand-and-half. Late medieval to middle renaissance.

Here's where you are getting in trouble. You are using longsword to describe a particular longsword of a particular era. Fantasy Craft, as nearly as I can tell, isn't using the word that way, as D&D does neither. Longswords, obviously, are usable one or two-handed. The classic longsword is a hand-and-a-half sword yay high. The classic broadsword is a cruciform sword, also hand-and-a-half, with interchangeable characteristics. Broadsword and longsword are not two mutually exclusive categories, nor are they very specific to a particular weapon of a particular time and place. They are two different ways to describe weapons. The distinction you are trying to make is like trying to argue whether a katana is a longsword - clearly it is, and yet it isn't. A katana is a hand-and-a-half cutting and thrusting compromise weapon, hence identical in general lines to a longsword. Indeed, translations of Five Rings describe the weapons therein as longswords.

To summarize: broadswords and longswords, in FC, are long-ish swords. One is massive, one isn't. For the massive one, you would use the stats for the broadsword. For the non-massive one, you would use the stats for the longsword. Trying to make the longsword into a massive weapon seems to ignore the fact that the table has no "arming sword" although clearly the authors were aware of such things, and hence it is probably represented by one of the swords already on the table.

Early, pre-fencing "longswords" are understood by fantasy game writers, and modern fencing writers, as "broadswords." Since the FC Broadsword is favored by knights as well as barbarians, as it says, clearly it's not the basket-hilted late-era weapon, but probably a hefty, early medieval limb-chopper. Though such weapons anticipate the classic longsword, they have different characteristics, as you observe.

I don't see what calling the early weapons longswords, which the wielders of those era did not refer to as such, brings to the table, other than creating a strange situation where the default war sword is a 1d12 massive weapon, instead of either a 1d12 weapon or a 1d10 massive weapon. The linguistic result is about as helpul as referring to the Roman milites as "knights" or the late-era samurai as "cavaliers," which has been done in all seriousness by various writers.

I'm not claiming you don't know about swords, it just appears to me you are abusing the game system because of your loyalty to a particular taxonomy of swords.

[Aragathor]

I'm not claiming you don't know about swords, it just appears to me you are abusing the game system because of your loyalty to a particular taxonomy of swords.

I'm not abusing anything here, I'm merely using the system (in this case Fantasycraft which is a descendant of Spycraft, which introduced the License to Improvise).
I'm doing it to present my subjective take on the medieval period, as seen by me, a student of history at a German University.
Yes, I'm using a specific taxonomy of swords, even better I use two:
-Ewart Oakeshott's Typology of the Sword, which judges the type of the sword by it's blade.
-Central European typology, which defines a weapon by it's hilt.
I also use most of Osprey Publishing's medieval line (Elite, Warrior, Man-at-arms) and some polish/czech secondary literature.
Among the books I used to come to my definition of an Arming Sword in FC are:
Gravett, Christopher: German Medieval Armies 1000-1300 (Osprey Publishing, 1997 London)
Gravett, Christopher: German Medieval Armies 1300-1500 (Osprey Publishing, 1997 London)
Murphy, David: Condottiere 1300-1500 (Osprey Publishing, 2007 London)
Nicolle, David: Knight of the Outremer 1187-1300 (Osprey Publishing, 1996 London)
Sarnecki, Witold; David Nicolle: Medieval Polish Armies 966-1500 (Osprey Publishing, 2008 London)
And a slew of others.
Again I would like to state that this is my personal subjective take on medieval weaponry in FC. And it's not official in any way. You can change it for your game, really you can.

I don't even understand this question. Any arming sword can be classified as a broadsword or a longsword or both. If you're talking about a side sword or cut-and-thrust sword or something of that sort, that's what 19th century writers called a broadsword and what D&D calls a longsword.

Let me explain by cutting up what I quoted:

I'm just wondering why wouldn't simply use the Broadsword stats instead of making longsword be more like Broadswords.

Because the Broadsword stats are fictional (just like the broadsword), as stated before.

An arming sword could be virtually anything bigger than a shortsword and smaller than a greatsword.

Nope, because an arming sword, known also as THE sword or knight's sword is a one-handed blade. While the hand-and-half/longsword is a transitory weapon between an arming sword and a greatsword.

If the Broadsword is massive and the Longsword isn't, I think that suggests the massive weapon should be a Broadsword.

Let me paraphrase Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness":
The Logic! The Logic!

On to the second part of your post:

You are using longsword to describe a particular longsword of a particular era.

Yes, that's the idea you know. I'm describing the medieval longsword in the medieval era.
I'm not describing the cormyrean goblin-thrashers or baneswords!

Fantasy Craft, as nearly as I can tell, isn't using the word that way, as D&D does neither.

Because both use weapons that have been adapted to fantasy settings. I spoke about it before, plus it isn't fantasy that I try to describe.

The classic broadsword is a cruciform sword, also hand-and-a-half, with interchangeable characteristics.

Please give me an academically relevant source for this definition. And if you can, a source that is not english in nature.

To summarize: broadswords and longswords, in FC, are long-ish swords. One is massive, one isn't. For the massive one, you would use the stats for the broadsword. For the non-massive one, you would use the stats for the longsword. Trying to make the longsword into a massive weapon seems to ignore the fact that the table has no "arming sword" although clearly the authors were aware of such things, and hence it is probably represented by one of the swords already on the table.

The authors were trying to create a fantasy inventory of weapons, they did not try to create a set of medieval weapons. Look at the table, there is no standard spear there (only the boar spear which has a crosspiece) and the authors are aware of it. This why I created both the standard spear and the arming sword. And the arming sword is not represented on the table.

Early, pre-fencing "longswords" are understood by fantasy game writers, and modern fencing writers, as "broadswords."

This is why modern historians do not take them seriously.

Since the FC Broadsword is favored by knights as well as barbarians, as it says, clearly it's not the basket-hilted late-era weapon, but probably a hefty, early medieval limb-chopper.

It's only a description, and it has been confirmed before that the FC broadsword is fictional. It's closer to the sword Howard's Conan uses, than to the sword Bailian of Ibelin from Kingdom of Heaven carries (a lot can be said about mistakes in this film, but the weapons were properly researched).
Hefty? Early medieval? Limb-chopper? Jesus H. Christ...
A typical early medieval sword weighs around 1 kilo and it's not hefty, unless you are built like a mouse.
And don't call it limb-chopper because that's a temporary name used for a weapon from the maciejowski bible, which isn't a sword.

I don't see what calling the early weapons longswords, which the wielders of those era did not refer to as such, brings to the table, other than creating a strange situation where the default war sword is a 1d12 massive weapon, instead of either a 1d12 weapon or a 1d10 massive weapon. The linguistic result is about as helpul as referring to the Roman milites as "knights" or the late-era samurai as "cavaliers," which has been done in all seriousness by various writers.

We don't know how they referred to them since we have no direct sources about the naming of swords during the medieval era (and I know it from a professor of medieval history). Unless of course you have a, say, 13th/14th century folio in which a knight names the types of swords in use.

And you wanted to reference not milites but equites, knights were horsemen.


I refuse to discuss this topic with you anymore. You grasped the small, source-backed, change I made to the fictional list of weapons in FC like a bloodhound. If you don't like it then don't use it.
Not once have you quoted a source that would prove me wrong, nor have you grasped the fact that I confirmed certain facts with the designers of the game before writing this article, so unless you will do that I'll politely cease to acknowledge your posts in this topic.

This is an FC Broadsword, Ladies and Gentlemen.

[pawsplay]

I'm doing it to present my subjective take on the medieval period, as seen by me, a student of history at a German University.
Yes, I'm using a specific taxonomy of swords, even better I use two:
-Ewart Oakeshott's Typology of the Sword, which judges the type of the sword by it's blade.
-Central European typology, which defines a weapon by it's hilt.

Unfortunately, Fantasy Craft categorizes swords by neither characteristic.

I also use most of Osprey Publishing's medieval line (Elite, Warrior, Man-at-arms) and some polish/czech secondary literature.
Among the books I used to come to my definition of an Arming Sword in FC are:
Gravett, Christopher: German Medieval Armies 1000-1300 (Osprey Publishing, 1997 London)
Gravett, Christopher: German Medieval Armies 1300-1500 (Osprey Publishing, 1997 London)
Murphy, David: Condottiere 1300-1500 (Osprey Publishing, 2007 London)
Nicolle, David: Knight of the Outremer 1187-1300 (Osprey Publishing, 1996 London)
Sarnecki, Witold; David Nicolle: Medieval Polish Armies 966-1500 (Osprey Publishing, 2008 London)
And a slew of others.
Again I would like to state that this is my personal subjective take on medieval weaponry in FC. And it's not official in any way. You can change it for your game, really you can.

Let's get at the root of my objection.

Main Entry: broad·sword
Pronunciation: \ˈbrȯd-ˌsȯrd\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
: a large heavy sword with a broad blade for cutting rather than thrusting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword_(disambiguation)

Clearly, the dictionary definition I cite above is insufficient, probably in many cases inaccurate. On the other hand, the phrase Longsword (disambiguation) should give you a pause about what you are doing here.

Nope, because an arming sword, known also as THE sword or knight's sword is a one-handed blade.

This is simply inaccurate. Many arming swords were not "the" knight's sword, in fact, arming sword means little more than a military blade. Many were hand-and-a-half handed, some were essentially early greatswords.

While the hand-and-half/longsword is a transitory weapon between an arming sword and a greatsword.

Yes and no. It was transitional between some arming swords and some greatswords. But the claymore has a completely different pedigree, the classic Spanish greatsword is a direct descendent of the arming sword, and the daikatana and tachi are a continent away.

If the Broadsword is massive and the Longsword isn't, I think that suggests the massive weapon should be a Broadsword.

Let me paraphrase Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness":
The Logic! The Logic!

Yes, I'm a big fan of it.

On to the second part of your post:

You are using longsword to describe a particular longsword of a particular era.

Yes, that's the idea you know. I'm describing the medieval longsword in the medieval era.
I'm not describing the cormyrean goblin-thrashers or baneswords!

And what in era is a longsword is in another a broadsword. FC is not an English or German high medieval fencing manual, and hence must contend with certain compromises in terminology.

The classic broadsword is a cruciform sword, also hand-and-a-half, with interchangeable characteristics.

Please give me an academically relevant source for this definition. And if you can, a source that is not english in nature.

How do I generate a non-English source for an English word? Show me the Japanese terminology for wurst.

Early, pre-fencing "longswords" are understood by fantasy game writers, and modern fencing writers, as "broadswords."

This is why modern historians do not take them seriously.

It does not mean, however, that they were using the terms incorrectly. Hence the existence of several technical classifications.

Hefty? Early medieval? Limb-chopper? Jesus H. Christ...
A typical early medieval sword weighs around 1 kilo and it's not hefty, unless you are built like a mouse.
And don't call it limb-chopper because that's a temporary name used for a weapon from the maciejowski bible, which isn't a sword.

I didn't say a typical sword, I said a typical limb-chopper. I am not familiar in the slighest with the Maciejowski bible, but I am familiar with the existence of early weapons with broad blades.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotx.html

We don't know how they referred to them since we have no direct sources about the naming of swords during the medieval era (and I know it from a professor of medieval history). Unless of course you have a, say, 13th/14th century folio in which a knight names the types of swords in use.

You are correct. They might have referred to them as feather-dusters, but in the absence of positive evidence, I am content to assume they did not coincidentally come up with the same name invented in the 19th century by collectors and fencing teachers.

And you wanted to reference not milites but equites, knights were horsemen.

Quite true.

Not once have you quoted a source that would prove me wrong, nor have you grasped the fact that I confirmed certain facts with the designers of the game before writing this article, so unless you will do that I'll politely cease to acknowledge your posts in this topic.

This is an FC Broadsword, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I have yet to dispute any significant FACTS. What I have challenged is:

- Your interpretations of weapon history, which seem to reify a few very general terms used in sword history. Longsword should be interpreted either as a general functional term or as lineage of arming swords.
- Your misuse of the term "arming sword." It does not specifically refer to the knight's sword, but to all weapons descended from the Viking/spatha type of sword, including hand-and-a-half variants found in the Oakeshott types. Arming sword is a term of convenience to describe the typical military sword, but it does not follow that all standard knight blades are therefore one-handed. For practical purposes, "sword," "rapier," "spatha," "arming sword," and "war sword" all refer to the same thing: the typical military blade of that period.
- The utility of redefining weapons on the FC weapon table. Each weapon is designed, more or less, as a series of trade-offs between different benefits. Simply adding massive to longswords signifies, "This weapon is, on the balance, better." The FC broadsword, however ahistorical in terminology, does describe perfectly what you are looking for: a large cut-and-thrust weapon of significant weight suitable for one or two-handed use. When an author describes a knight as wielding "his broadsword," this is reasonably the weapon being described.

[pawsplay]

Incidentally, broadsword:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/broadsword.htm

While it's a terribly imprecise term, "arming sword" is little better. You might as well say "sword sword" as "arming sword," since it encomapsses the same group of weapons: all swords that do not merit distinct names of their own.