- 32,359
- 20,298
I wanted to start a discussion about something that I find quite recurring in Medieval Fantasy / "Historical" fiction, namely the way battles are typically portrayed.
Now, real life Longswords, Katanas, Battle-Axes and so on are ranked at 9-C. They can easily cut through limbs, pierce someone's body, and depending on the quality of the blade and the wielder, cut someone in half. However, if you are in anyway knowledgeble about Real World historical fighting, you will know that these weapons were almost compleely innefective against armor. Which is why weapons such as the Warhammer, Mace, etc were invented, as they could actually do harm against a fully armored opponent.
If you have ever watched Youtube channels like Skallagrim, Metatron and Shadiversity you know what I'm talking about.
Even things like wooden Shields and Polearms are far more durable than people would believe, and no sword in the world would be able to fully pierce / slash through them in one swing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcfIZA4nmtc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQjJavcsNjA
However, in fiction the case is completely different.
Within Fantasy and quasi-Historical fiction, what we will often see is that the important character will effortlessly mow down through hordes of enemy mooks, and be capable of cutting / piercing through shields, armor and often other steel blades. This happens in Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire, King Arthur stories, Lord of the Rings, The Witcher, the videogame For Honor and generally any story in a Medieval-ish setting you can think of.
In For Honor, the game makes a clear distinction between the regular soldiers (Who are still trained warriors in full armor wielding well-made weapons), and the hero character. The former are easily demolished by the later, and in gameplay you can easily one-shot them, slice them in half, shatter their shields with one swing of your blade, etc. Meanwhile a Hero vs Hero match takes time and skill.
Sometimes this is justified, like in ASOIAF where some characters wield Valyrian Steel blades, which are far superior than any other sword in the Verse, or are simply slight Superhumans (Like Gregor Clegane and his brother Sandor). But in other Verses, there is no explanation for this.
My point is, how can this be quantified and ranked? It'd be dishonest to simply treat it as PIS and "Flashyness meant to look cool" if it happens numerous times in the story. And we can't claim that the foot soldiers are horrible warriors weren't awful armor either, cause this would also often contradict the story (Why would a nation's main army be made of incompetent amateurs?). Instead, we have to assume that the important characters are simply "better" than everyone else, and these feats should be considered and used.
What do you guys think? Do you think it'd be fair to rank these types of characters 9-B for being capable of slashing / piercing through full armor, or not?
Now, real life Longswords, Katanas, Battle-Axes and so on are ranked at 9-C. They can easily cut through limbs, pierce someone's body, and depending on the quality of the blade and the wielder, cut someone in half. However, if you are in anyway knowledgeble about Real World historical fighting, you will know that these weapons were almost compleely innefective against armor. Which is why weapons such as the Warhammer, Mace, etc were invented, as they could actually do harm against a fully armored opponent.
If you have ever watched Youtube channels like Skallagrim, Metatron and Shadiversity you know what I'm talking about.
Even things like wooden Shields and Polearms are far more durable than people would believe, and no sword in the world would be able to fully pierce / slash through them in one swing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcfIZA4nmtc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQjJavcsNjA
However, in fiction the case is completely different.
Within Fantasy and quasi-Historical fiction, what we will often see is that the important character will effortlessly mow down through hordes of enemy mooks, and be capable of cutting / piercing through shields, armor and often other steel blades. This happens in Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire, King Arthur stories, Lord of the Rings, The Witcher, the videogame For Honor and generally any story in a Medieval-ish setting you can think of.
In For Honor, the game makes a clear distinction between the regular soldiers (Who are still trained warriors in full armor wielding well-made weapons), and the hero character. The former are easily demolished by the later, and in gameplay you can easily one-shot them, slice them in half, shatter their shields with one swing of your blade, etc. Meanwhile a Hero vs Hero match takes time and skill.
Sometimes this is justified, like in ASOIAF where some characters wield Valyrian Steel blades, which are far superior than any other sword in the Verse, or are simply slight Superhumans (Like Gregor Clegane and his brother Sandor). But in other Verses, there is no explanation for this.
My point is, how can this be quantified and ranked? It'd be dishonest to simply treat it as PIS and "Flashyness meant to look cool" if it happens numerous times in the story. And we can't claim that the foot soldiers are horrible warriors weren't awful armor either, cause this would also often contradict the story (Why would a nation's main army be made of incompetent amateurs?). Instead, we have to assume that the important characters are simply "better" than everyone else, and these feats should be considered and used.
What do you guys think? Do you think it'd be fair to rank these types of characters 9-B for being capable of slashing / piercing through full armor, or not?
