<Sean_Connery> Tell me about The Penis Mightier, Alex</Sean_Connery>
::d&r::
Anyone think I should ask to have this thread moved to Great Debates?
:rolleyes: 
My point was only that archery did not “replace” footmen, as j66 suggested. This would have been like saying that the air force replaced the army or the navy. Literally and figuratively, archery is a question of adding a new dimension to ancient warfare.
I wasn’t arguing the importance of archery, I was objecting to the “replacing” aspect.
Archery grew in importance during the ear of castle warfare, obviously. But in open field battles, I’d much rather have an army with both footmen and archers than just archers and, say, catapults and other mechanical weapons.
As Sun Tzu said, you need to be flexible and adaptable. And that includes having different kinds of troops. You can learn that from any real-time strategy game.
But Dan, we’re not talking about **foot-soldiers v. **archers; we were discussing swords v. bows. I should have emphasized that in my earlier reply.
[As an aside, what is a ‘foot-soldier’?; I don’t think European archers were commonly mounted.]
And yes, my use of the word ‘replaced’ was sloppy; but I was replying to Kinthalis’s post, which, in addition to jumping nearly a millennium in the history of warfare, suggested that all skill in battle was lost with the common use of swords. Although IANAA, I believe archery, particularly under battle conditions, requires skill.
And I apologize for what seems a Eurocentric bias.
No, for what is a Eurocentric bias.
You are right about archers needing to be far more skilled than other troops. This is what made the crossbow such a revolution: you didn’t need nearly as much training and practice to be effective with a crossbow, thus making crossbowmen far cheaper troops than archers, since you can conscript or hire just about anyone to fill the position (even those without all their fingers).
My original point was that kInthalis was being glib when talking about the “end of the sword as a weapon of war,” and that he was ridiculously romanticizing this kind of warfare as either more personal or more noble.
So this harmless little post about an old poem some-one wanted to share turned into a raging debate (yeah, I exaggerate; so what?) between two people who agree with one another?
Sigh.
I need a job.
Were the cross-bows orange?
I’ve held actual artifacts of European swords. It’s amazing how they seem to “want” to leap into action (at least in my hand). It’s also amazing how much heavier they are as dead weight compared to my fencing equipment but how much more lively they feel in the hand.
What exactly do you mean with “other troops”? ALL other troops? If so, I’d have to disagree.
Yes, it took a lifetime to develop the necessary skill with a longbow to of any use on the battlfield, but the same applies to the sword. In fact I’d do ahead and say the sword was the more difficult weapon to master as when you are using it you are only a few feet from your opponent trying to keep him at bay. The same is not true of the longbow.
Never di dI claim it was more noble, whatever that means. More personal, as compared to MODERN warfare, you bet your marbles!
I agree whole heartecly, and would point out that the reason they feel so differently is because they are weapons meant ot be used to kill. The same is not true of a fencing foil or epee.
You also said it was more “spiritual,” whatever that means. I don’t really see the spirituality in gutting another human being with a three-foot long razor. Possibly, that’s why I’m an atheist.
No I did not. I said the Japanese believed so.
Besides, you cannot judge those times by the standards of today.
Likely cutting down a untrained peasant was not a thing of glory or a test of anything except poor morals, probably not unlike turning some guy who “might” be throwing a weapon (or maybe just junk) unto an open field in the middle of the night into pulp using a cannon on a helicopter half a mile away 
.
But the warrior elite who used these weapons, lived with these weapons, trained their entire lives with these weapons the test of skill and courage was more than just “a kill”.
To the japanese it was fate begging to be tested. To the knight it was a test of all he had learned, a crossroads.
Why throw in 20th century morality into it?
Hey, you’re the guy who wanted to start comparing medieval warriors to modern soldiers. Remeber this?
Which is, no offence, a bullshit romanticaztion of a bunch of thugs, tyrants, murderers, and rapists. Wether you believe that about the samurai or wether they believed that about themselves doesn’t make it any more valid or worthy a belief system. All that talk of honor, fate, divine right, or what have you was never anything more than a justification for the most abominable brutalities imaginable. It’s fun to buy into the romance for a little while: I’ve got a bookcase full of D&D rulebooks to prove I’m not immune myself, and I suspect I’m not the only one in this thread who does, too. I’m just saying we should keep in mind that there’s the reality of what a feudal warrior was like, and there’s the Walter Scott version, and never the twain shall meet.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Which is, no offence, a bullshit romanticaztion of a bunch of thugs, tyrants, murderers, and rapists.
[QUOTE]
So according to you, All knights and samurai where thugs, tyrants, murderers and rapists? So you have a cite to back that up?
I’m not trying to say the age wasn’t a brutal one. When did I say that?
What I did say is that warfare then was DIFFERENT. Can you argue with that?
Perhaps it wasn’t any more ‘noble’ to kill back then, but it WAS a test of skill.
Modern warfare is no test of skill. Or does blowing up 1,000 + troops from a command center 200 miles away a similar combat scenario?
Where do I say one is ‘better’ than the other? I’m simply stating that to these people it WAS different on a technological, a spiritual, a social level.
Jeez you’d think I’d shot your dog or somehting the way you’re responding.
Yes, all of them. Or close enough to all that it makes no difference. There are were a few exceptions, of course. But the ruling classes of both Europe and Japan became ruling classes because they were better at killing than anyone else, and they remained in power so long as they remained better at killing. They were no different than the Mafia: people who are related to you are protected at any cost, and people who aren’t related are to be exploited and brutalized at leisure. And anyone who threatens your power is exterminated as ruthlessly and painfully as possible, family or not. This is why these periods in history are called “feudal.”
You want a cite? How about Henry V? National hero of England for centuries, generally considered to be the flower of European knighthood in his day, and arguable the greatest king to ever sit the British throne. How did he get this reputation? He started a war with France on the flimsiest of pretexts, killed his way through half the French court, and after his great victory at Agincourt, ordered all his French prisoners put to the sword in a fit of pique. Or there’s always the sack of Constantinople, the seat of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, at the hands of Christian knights, who decided it would be easier to plunder that city than march all the way to the Holy Land to plunder Jerusalem out from under the Muslims. And, of course, there is the well-documented history of samurai testing the quality of a new sword on the nearest passing peasant. This is without Googling or consulting anything off my bookshelves. I’m sure I could find more, if you want.
Well, sure, it’s different, in both scope and execution. But it seems to me that you’re placing a value judgement on that difference when one is not warranted.
Generally, no, it wasn’t. If you examine the lists of casualties from most medieval combats, it was usually pretty rare for nobles to die. Mostly, it was a matter of butchering untrained, poorly equipped peasants. Two knights meeting on the field of battle had more in common with modern fencing than any sort of actual mortal combat: Europe, at least, had elaborate systems of ransom that discouraged the killing of trained knights. If you were losing to another knight, you dropped your sword and surrendered, and hoped your family back home would cough up the dough to send you home.
This is manifestly untrue. You really think it’s harder to ride a horse and swing a sword than it is to, say, pilot an Apache helicopter? Modern warfare relies on a military that is intelligent, educated, literate, disciplined, physically fit, and technically apt to a degree literally inconceivable to a medieval soldier. Moreover, the concepts of honor and duty invented in the ancient codes of chivalry and bushido are far more applicable to modern soldiers than it ever was to medieval knights. The modern soldier no longer joins the army in hopes of plunder, but out of a desire to protect his country and the citizens thereof. For all the often justifiable complaints about the handling of the Iraqi war, the efforts made to minimize civilian casualties and local history is almost entirely unprecedented in the history of warfare.
And I’m just pointing out that, in the areas where it was different, modern warfare is an improvement over how it was done in the past, on a social, spiritual, and technological level. On a technological level: warfare is vastly more complex and difficult than it has been at any point in human history, and soldiers today are smarter, better educated, and more talented than any other military in history. On a social level: modern soldiers are more disciplined, ethical, and restrained than at any other point in human history. On a spiritual level: we have made significant strides towards removing the spiritual component from warfare entirely. Generally speaking, we no longer believe that martial prowess is indicative of supernatural support. We do not start wars on religious grounds, we do not believe in trial by combat, and we do not believe that military success equals divine endorsement. Well, mostly, at least. George the Crusader has set us back about a hundred and fifty years on that count, but hopefully that will be remedied sometime later this year.
Nope, this is just me in “vigorous debate” mode. If I were pissed, my posts would be shorter and more obscene. I apologize if I’ve given an impression to the contrary. I get carried away sometimes.
Wow.
Three points:
Kinthalis:
I’ve hefted replicas of battle swords; they are NOT like graceful epees or foils, not matter how well balanced. While I am certain that skill came in handy, wielding those things in battle would take brute strength, which implies a very good diet, which leads into my second point.
Miller:
You are being naive when you say that “ruling classes of both Europe and Japan became ruling classes because they were better at killing than anyone else”; there were significant economic and religious factors supporting the rise of the ruling class in at least medieval Europe.
Furthermore, no one I know who joined the military [ALL of whom I ADMIRE and RESPECT, so please do not flame me on this personal observation] did so out of “a desire to protect his [or, for that matter, HER] country and the citizens thereof”; to a person, each had a very personal (and very respectable) reason.
[Touch my dog, and I’ll make Henry V look like a wuss.]
[QUOTE=Miller]
Yes, all of them. Or close enough to all that it makes no difference. There are were a few exceptions, of course. But the ruling classes of both Europe and Japan became ruling classes because they were better at killing than anyone else, and they remained in power so long as they remained better at killing.
[QUOTE]
There was more to it than that. It was the feudal system that helped these people grow and become powerful and to prosper. I wouldn’t like to live under such a system, but it worked for them for a very long time.
This was not always true, but yes it happenned then, as it happens now, as it will happen always. Did it happen then more than now? Probably.
A handful of people form the river of time. I’m not impressed. I can point out saddam hussein, Bush (by your account is not exactly the paragon of virtue), Hitler. Does that mean that EVERYONE in world war II and today is similarly lacking?
Look, bottom line is: The reason you now have the privilege to feel all ‘superior’ to the medieval peoples and their way of life is that there WAS a medieval period.
They are part of our history. Our growing pains so to speak. In those times war for territory, for power, for country and for the preserving of a people was a necessity. Thanx to those times we now live in more peaceful and civilized manner… And even as I type that I’m tepted to use the rolling eyes smiley.
Many did die however. They very seldomly made up the larger part of a fielded army, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t there fighting the enemy.
Yes. I do. How long does it take someone to become a pilot? You clock a few hundred hours of flight and that’s it.
I’m certain it takes a certain set of skills, and intelligence, but if George (“Nucular”) Bush can do it…
Think about it, how long does it take to prepare a modern day soldier for the battlefield? A few months at boot camp? Teach them to load bullets into their rifles point and shoot?
It took a LIFETIME of constant practice and life-threatening conflict to end up with a decent swordsmen.
I’m short changing today’s military troops a bit though. Certainly their training is different, involved, and requires incredible stamina and will power, but I’m sorry, like I said, a guy in a booth somewhere pushing a red button to blow up troops thousands of miles away requires no martial skil what so ever to carry out his job. It does require knowledge of computer science and perhaps engineering, and involves relying on the skill of the weapon designers and other current technology, but that is a completely different set of skills from what we’re discussing.
Then you have NOT wielded period weapon replicas.
I’m a historical fencer, and if you really think that it takes ‘brute strength’ to wield a medieval longsword weighing in at 2.5 lbs beutifully balanced, then you don’t know what you’re talking about.
‘graceful’ epees and foils are used in the modern SPORT of fencing, and have nothign to do with historical weapons used for a martial purpose.
BTW: A swordsman properly wielding a longsword or rapier or cut and thrust sword will appear just as graceful (in fact much more so IMHO) as a modern fencer involved in his sport.
I agree with the rest fo what you say 
You asked about my saying that archers need more training and practice than “other troops.” Very simple: I don’t think I could shoot a person that’s ten feet away in my first fifty tries with a bow. On the other hand, I could make a reasonable attempt with a sword, or a pike, or a club, or a lance. I would probably die quickly, like so many of the cannon fodder peasants of the middle ages. (D&D people probably have a tech-accurate version of the phrase “cannon fodder”).
Of course swordfighting can be a test of skill. Just like modern warfare is a test of technological know-how, intelligence gathering, and logistics (And, at a larger level, the manipulation of public opinion). We’re still talking about spilt blood (and viscera… and brains… etc).
I halfway agree with your objection to applying our modern ethical standards and aesthetics to this issue, but I can’t really get past the similarities between the periods that created the noble samurai and knights: feudalism. And feudalism means warfare over land, while protecting nobles and keeping them busy with odd rationalizations like chivalry or bushido. And letting the grunts do the dying.
Neither could I, and medieval bowmen could do a heck of a lot better
Could you? I think this is where fencing proves to be the more difficult skill. It is easy to think that you could give a worthwhile effort, but believe me, you’d fare no better that with the bow, and likely worse. If you miss with the bow, you’re far away enough that you can run. With a sword, a bad attemp will likely mean your death.
hmm, I agree. Different skillsets I suppose.