LordAshur
Banned
Even long swords were not carried that way. They were carried like spears, unless I'm mistaken. Drawing it from the back would actually be impossible unless you have really, really long hands.
Mount & Blade General
- Thread starter ChildServices
- Start date
As far as I know, normal long swords were carried and drawn from the hip. Later Great Swords could be extremely long and were carried on your shoulder like this:
It's interesting how entertainment creates trends like that, for example trends in movie violence turning into "fact" in most peoples minds.
I never really thought about swords on backs untill previous page, where the thought itself made me doubtful of the historicity of it - so it's cool to stop and actually find out. LordAshur makes a good point, it wouldn't be possible to draw the sword, if the end of the holster is up at neck height, you'd need immensely long arms.
Over-sized melee weapons are a typical computer game staple though, and have little to do with reality, where they are only barely found, and then typically being ceremonial instruments more than actual weapons.
Best examples are war-hammers and battle-axes, which are usually gigantic in computer games, while much more humble looking in reality.
I never really thought about swords on backs untill previous page, where the thought itself made me doubtful of the historicity of it - so it's cool to stop and actually find out. LordAshur makes a good point, it wouldn't be possible to draw the sword, if the end of the holster is up at neck height, you'd need immensely long arms.
Over-sized melee weapons are a typical computer game staple though, and have little to do with reality, where they are only barely found, and then typically being ceremonial instruments more than actual weapons.
Best examples are war-hammers and battle-axes, which are usually gigantic in computer games, while much more humble looking in reality.
LordAshur
Banned
Realism is sadly not a part of many RPG games. I don't understand this connection between RPG and fantasy. Even if 90 % of the fantasy genre wasn't just Tolkien rip-offs, a realistic environment always requires less suspension of disbelief and would have far less nonsense a la "a great evil has descended upon the land, blah, blah, blah...." thus making the chance of an interesting plot more likely. It's not like actual history has a lack of content.
Mount & Blade 2 and Kingdom Come: Deliverance seem to be the only bright stars on the dark and cloudy night sky that is modern RPG gaming. Although the latter should really come up with a less generic name.
Mount & Blade 2 and Kingdom Come: Deliverance seem to be the only bright stars on the dark and cloudy night sky that is modern RPG gaming. Although the latter should really come up with a less generic name.
ChildServices
Banned
I've heard it's set before the original game, so I'm pretty excited to see what the new playable countries are like. Apparently the "Calradic Empire" is going to be a thing according to what I read on the website ages ago.
The main factions in Bannerlord will be as follows: Aserai, Battanians, Calradic Empire, Khuzaits, Sturgians and Vladians.
The thing with great swords on the back is that they were mostly transported by carts on long campaigns and on your shoulder right before battle. In Warband it's kinda necessary to let you wear them on your back as they are too long to wear them on your hip and forcing you to hold them in your hands at all time would make them somewhat less useful in MP. In this case it's a compromise.
But then you have ridiculous games where even one handed swords are carried on your back, like in Gothic 3. Hate that game, so much worse than the predecessor.
The thing with great swords on the back is that they were mostly transported by carts on long campaigns and on your shoulder right before battle. In Warband it's kinda necessary to let you wear them on your back as they are too long to wear them on your hip and forcing you to hold them in your hands at all time would make them somewhat less useful in MP. In this case it's a compromise.
But then you have ridiculous games where even one handed swords are carried on your back, like in Gothic 3. Hate that game, so much worse than the predecessor.
*shrugs* there is a mod for Skyrim where your character will carry the weapon like on the pictures above. It works perfectly fine. And it also looks good.
Eh sorry for this long rant ... but it is kinda pet peeve of mine. Nothing turns me more off than nonsensical design. Like weapons that make absolutely zero sense and totally unpractical animations/use of weapons.
As far as RPGs goes there is a very very deep misinformation and misunderstanding of melee weapons. Maybe because the developers either don't care or simply didn't do their research, or maybe because they are lazy? I have no clue.
Now, before someone gets the idea that I want hardcore realism. No. That's not what I am talking about. What I mean is mainly the logic behind weapons and their use. I mean we are not talking about magic here where I would not even question it, I mean seriously hurling a firebal at your enemy or spreading lighting from your finger tips is something I understand in a world made of magic. But most melee weapons in games like Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mount and Blade etc. are based on concepts that everyone can google and understand, it's not rocket science.
And no weapon stands more for this misconception and misuse in games than the two hand swords. Or well two hand weapons in general. Of course the situation for melee usually never goes further than Skyrims/Oblivions hack-at-it-till-it-dies combat, even though it is cute what they tried in Skyrim with stagering your enemy and block, but in the end it still is about hacking your way trough. Anyway. But that is a different problem.
But, I think it is much easier to simply show it rather than to just talk about it.
Regarding the historical carrying of two-hand swords. There is also a video by Skallagrim where it talks in particular about swords on the back. But I can't find it right now. And Hassknecht provided the historical images already which speaks for it self! The so called Landsknechte or Doppelsoeldner would usually carry the long hand swords like spears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjURzgkCuAE
So to make it short, there is no reason to have swords or any kind of weapon on the back. It is unpractical. It doesn't make sense. And in many cases it looks outright shit - the cases where the developers simply use magic glue like in Dragon Age or similar ... It is also something you see very often in movies with swords on the back and did you notice how often the scene is changing either completely or with it's angle as soon as the character starts to draw his sword(s)? Jep. That is because there is no fucking way to draw a sword from your back without getting killed 5 or 6 times in a row! ... I also tried just for fun with a sword I have at home. And that is a rather short one. It's simply stupid and not effective.
The other misconception is usually the way how weapons are categorized As far as their damage and use goes. Like:
short weapons = low damage and high speed,
one hand weapons = medium damage and medium speed,
two hand weapons = slow speed and high damage,
It is nonsensical and if you know the one or other thing about melee weapons it is also not really how it works from the logic. As seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4blRbG7vLI
What is true is that melee weapons have momentum. A large weapon can strike as quickly like small weapon, unless we are talking about really finall fantasy like big-as-a-car stuff ... The main advantage of size, and that is one of the reasons why swords got bigger, you can reach the enemy before he can reach you! The other difference is that a short weapon like a long knife or one hand swords require less momentum to change the direction compared to a two hand sword.
I mean a weapon that is slow and thus easy to avoid in combat is usually not very effective. As far as close combat goes, swords can be used like knives if you hold them correctly. Particularly in combat a proficient sword user would use the tip, the handle and the pommel of his weapon to deliver strikes, which can be even more devastating against targets in armor because of blunt trauma since cutting isn't very effective against someone in full plate body armor. Historically this was a trained technique againnst enemies in armor. You are basically using the sword like a war hammer in this point. It also allows you to eventually aim at the weak spots, like the visor or gabs in the armor.
The other misconception is that two hand swords require different fighting techniques compared to one-hand swords, which is not really correct. There are a few differences obviously, like if you use a shield, but actually almost every sword could be used with two hands and two hand swords are typically not much heavier compared to one hand swords. So the training was very similar. And also trained and done in combat.
They are fighting pretty quick!
One of the games that actually allows you to quickly change between one handed and two handed combat and which is more on the realistic/logical side is Dark Souls. And I think it really does give the game a much higher quality. Obviously the game is NOT about to simulate super realistic combat between humans, but it does give the whole game more flexibility and I think it adds a bit of logic.
Dark Souls is the best example that improvements can be done without to sacrifice the gameplay.
Eh sorry for this long rant ... but it is kinda pet peeve of mine. Nothing turns me more off than nonsensical design. Like weapons that make absolutely zero sense and totally unpractical animations/use of weapons.
As far as RPGs goes there is a very very deep misinformation and misunderstanding of melee weapons. Maybe because the developers either don't care or simply didn't do their research, or maybe because they are lazy? I have no clue.
Now, before someone gets the idea that I want hardcore realism. No. That's not what I am talking about. What I mean is mainly the logic behind weapons and their use. I mean we are not talking about magic here where I would not even question it, I mean seriously hurling a firebal at your enemy or spreading lighting from your finger tips is something I understand in a world made of magic. But most melee weapons in games like Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mount and Blade etc. are based on concepts that everyone can google and understand, it's not rocket science.
And no weapon stands more for this misconception and misuse in games than the two hand swords. Or well two hand weapons in general. Of course the situation for melee usually never goes further than Skyrims/Oblivions hack-at-it-till-it-dies combat, even though it is cute what they tried in Skyrim with stagering your enemy and block, but in the end it still is about hacking your way trough. Anyway. But that is a different problem.
But, I think it is much easier to simply show it rather than to just talk about it.
Regarding the historical carrying of two-hand swords. There is also a video by Skallagrim where it talks in particular about swords on the back. But I can't find it right now. And Hassknecht provided the historical images already which speaks for it self! The so called Landsknechte or Doppelsoeldner would usually carry the long hand swords like spears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjURzgkCuAE
So to make it short, there is no reason to have swords or any kind of weapon on the back. It is unpractical. It doesn't make sense. And in many cases it looks outright shit - the cases where the developers simply use magic glue like in Dragon Age or similar ... It is also something you see very often in movies with swords on the back and did you notice how often the scene is changing either completely or with it's angle as soon as the character starts to draw his sword(s)? Jep. That is because there is no fucking way to draw a sword from your back without getting killed 5 or 6 times in a row! ... I also tried just for fun with a sword I have at home. And that is a rather short one. It's simply stupid and not effective.
The other misconception is usually the way how weapons are categorized As far as their damage and use goes. Like:
short weapons = low damage and high speed,
one hand weapons = medium damage and medium speed,
two hand weapons = slow speed and high damage,
It is nonsensical and if you know the one or other thing about melee weapons it is also not really how it works from the logic. As seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4blRbG7vLI
What is true is that melee weapons have momentum. A large weapon can strike as quickly like small weapon, unless we are talking about really finall fantasy like big-as-a-car stuff ... The main advantage of size, and that is one of the reasons why swords got bigger, you can reach the enemy before he can reach you! The other difference is that a short weapon like a long knife or one hand swords require less momentum to change the direction compared to a two hand sword.
I mean a weapon that is slow and thus easy to avoid in combat is usually not very effective. As far as close combat goes, swords can be used like knives if you hold them correctly. Particularly in combat a proficient sword user would use the tip, the handle and the pommel of his weapon to deliver strikes, which can be even more devastating against targets in armor because of blunt trauma since cutting isn't very effective against someone in full plate body armor. Historically this was a trained technique againnst enemies in armor. You are basically using the sword like a war hammer in this point. It also allows you to eventually aim at the weak spots, like the visor or gabs in the armor.
The other misconception is that two hand swords require different fighting techniques compared to one-hand swords, which is not really correct. There are a few differences obviously, like if you use a shield, but actually almost every sword could be used with two hands and two hand swords are typically not much heavier compared to one hand swords. So the training was very similar. And also trained and done in combat.
They are fighting pretty quick!
One of the games that actually allows you to quickly change between one handed and two handed combat and which is more on the realistic/logical side is Dark Souls. And I think it really does give the game a much higher quality. Obviously the game is NOT about to simulate super realistic combat between humans, but it does give the whole game more flexibility and I think it adds a bit of logic.
Dark Souls is the best example that improvements can be done without to sacrifice the gameplay.
Last edited by a moderator:
Reminds me of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Armouries_Ms._I.33
I would very much like to see more expertise with ancient weaponry. A friend of mine told me about someone showcasing combat methods for bows. What we usually see is either hunting, or the typical long-bow aim high shot (part of the rain of arrows, I suppose) or target shooting. Apparently, methods existed for rapid and dynamic bow-fighting, where one would fire arrows while running and jumping. Sounds weird, but it very likely depends highly on the exact weapon, rather than just the category of weaponry. Like determining wether you can or can not use a firearm while running - you can, and you can't - depending!
[for some reason, I'm unable to edit in an image into this post. It keeps telling me my message is "too short" and to add 1 character]
I would very much like to see more expertise with ancient weaponry. A friend of mine told me about someone showcasing combat methods for bows. What we usually see is either hunting, or the typical long-bow aim high shot (part of the rain of arrows, I suppose) or target shooting. Apparently, methods existed for rapid and dynamic bow-fighting, where one would fire arrows while running and jumping. Sounds weird, but it very likely depends highly on the exact weapon, rather than just the category of weaponry. Like determining wether you can or can not use a firearm while running - you can, and you can't - depending!
[for some reason, I'm unable to edit in an image into this post. It keeps telling me my message is "too short" and to add 1 character]
Last edited:
ChildServices
Banned
Any guess as to who is the ancestor of who? Vladians sounds like they might turn be the Vaegir. None of those names sound particularly Germanic/Gothic though, so I can barely guess who the Nords are.
iirc Firentis says that Suno or Praven was the old capital of the empire, so I can guess where empire's starting territories will be on the game map.
I wonder about who's going to be the Rhodok here. The Rhodoks might be descended from one of the three Calradian factions, as with the Swadians. The original announcement post on the website said that the remnants of the Calradic Empire would be broken into three states that're in a civil war over the crown.
One theory I've heard, based on the info TaleWorlds provided, says:
-the Vlandians, a tribe whose chieftains have become feudal lords and are renowned for their skills as heavy cavalry - Swadia
-the Sturgians, who colonized the forests of the north and specialize in axe- and sword-armed footmen - Nords
-The Aserai live in the scrubland and desert oases of the south and fight on both horseback and foot - Sarranids
-The Khuzaits, a steppe tribe that conquered the trading cities of the east, make heavy use of horse archers - Khergits
-The Battanians meanwhile are skilled in exploiting their native woodlands, and are deadly in ambushes, be it a shower of arrows or a screaming charge out of the trees - Vaegirs
-The Empire has spent generations honing the arts of combined-arms warfare, with cataphracts, spear formations, and archers all doing their part on the battlefield - Rhodoks
Rhodoks don't really fit, since they don't use cavalry or archers at all, plus they were a vassal/part of Swadia, from which they separated in a successful uprising at some point in the past.
Good luck using a viking sword in two hands.
Most arming swords had a hilt too short to use in two hands too. Some one handed sword could perhaps be used with two hands, but they were not made to be and would be largely ineffective if used this way. And fighting techniques are different between two handed and one handed swords, I don't know where you see the similarities. They are different from legwork, through stance and guards to the way you attack and parry.
Of course there are limitations, you can't really use a knife as a two hand weapon. But you can almost use any Sword as two hand weapon if needed, at least the medival swords - and there are historical training manuals showing the change from one hand to two hand in combat. Classifications like one handed, long swords, bastard sword, hand-and-half swords are very imprecisse and sometimes outright missleading. Classifications like short sword, one hand/long swords where never really used to descrbie those weapons. We are looking at an evolution here where the size of the weapon has increased over time from the typical broad swords, the viking swords and the roman Gladius to the long swords and two hand weapons. The Romans or Vikings though didn't called their weapons short swords - Gladius simply means sword, though if you follow the classification it would be a short sword. And the knights didnt used the term long sword for their weapons really. Many of those classifications are very modern. For example where does a long sword end and where does a two hand sword start? Or what is really the difference between a long sword used with one hand and a bastard sword?
This arms race in length was born out of the idea to gain more reach than your enemy. Many of the classifications came later.
Particularly when it comes to long swords, one hand swords and bastard/great swords. For example, most one hand swords have a pommel, a fighter can use the promel as aditional grip to gain more momentum and thus use it not unlike a two hand weapon. The terminology is not as tight like with fire arms for example where you can clearly make a difference between submachine guns, assault rifles and sniping weapons for example. If you have a sword that is as large like a man than it is clearly a two hand weapon and a sword maybe as long like your arm is a one hand weapon. But there are tons of weapons that can be seen as between them.
You can get more details here. He is even adressing the Viking Sword and why they had no long swords.
This arms race in length was born out of the idea to gain more reach than your enemy. Many of the classifications came later.
Particularly when it comes to long swords, one hand swords and bastard/great swords. For example, most one hand swords have a pommel, a fighter can use the promel as aditional grip to gain more momentum and thus use it not unlike a two hand weapon. The terminology is not as tight like with fire arms for example where you can clearly make a difference between submachine guns, assault rifles and sniping weapons for example. If you have a sword that is as large like a man than it is clearly a two hand weapon and a sword maybe as long like your arm is a one hand weapon. But there are tons of weapons that can be seen as between them.
You can get more details here. He is even adressing the Viking Sword and why they had no long swords.
Depends, the really large ones had a special role on the battlefield, breaking enemy formations and causing disarray, and they havn't been really much of a weapon for duels. That is very true. But the line between many two hand swords, great swords and long swords is very blurry. And many fighting techniques overlap here. Look at the video above. Or look for half-swording, which was the trained fighting style against armored targets. The fighting here is pretty much identical. And can be done with pretty much any sword, except maybe with weapons like the lang-messer.
Last edited:
ChildServices
Banned
The reason the two-handed swords in mountainblade are carried on your character's back is so that you can see what a character is equipped with when he's not using it, and because if it was carried on the hip it'd be pretty jarring to see 2/3 of the weapon embedded into the ground while the character walks. Just like how every character telegraphs his attacks to you (and vice versa), it's a break from reality that's intentionally done for gameplay reasons.
What speaks against this with large weapons?
As far as I know, normal long swords were carried and drawn from the hip. Later Great Swords could be extremely long and were carried on your shoulder like this:
Those sleeves are magnificent
We should bring that fashion back. Starting right here! On this forum! Not me though, cus I'm too broke, and I lack sewing equipment, so I'm trusting this duty to the rest of you.
We should bring that fashion back. Starting right here! On this forum! Not me though, cus I'm too broke, and I lack sewing equipment, so I'm trusting this duty to the rest of you.
ChildServices
Banned
My character pulling out his javelins is the thing that speaks against it. Your character has four equipment slots for armament, which means you could theoretically carry four greatswords around if you really wanted to.
Once again; video game.
They kiiindov allready do that. During battle, you got your inventory chest at the starting point - which is essentially what you're loading onto the horse (I can't imagine your character is supposed to hand-drag battle-loot around, for example, I'm assuming it's loaded onto the horse)
I've never used my inventory chest during battle though, I'm usually way too distracted to think of it - but I've often thought of keeping an extra set of arrows, for example, for when I run out, but still never made reality of it.
Is that meant to be a serious argument why your character can't simply hold and carry a two-hand sword in a logical and believable way?
ChildServices
Banned
It is a logical argument. Do you want to try carrying a greatsword in your hands whilst fighting with a pike?
Better yet; do you want to be the person who designs all of the character animations for this? It's a video game, bro.
Better yet; do you want to be the person who designs all of the character animations for this? It's a video game, bro.
Last edited:
making an idle animation where your character is holding his two-hand sword like shown here
is not more work than glueing it on the back of the characters, bro!
The fact that your character has other weapons with him is a whole different story though and one where I agree, would be a problem. But maybe even here, you can find solutions. No clue.
is not more work than glueing it on the back of the characters, bro!
The fact that your character has other weapons with him is a whole different story though and one where I agree, would be a problem. But maybe even here, you can find solutions. No clue.