Historical analysis: weapons & armor

[Dúnadan]

After doing some research for a class, I noticed some inaccuracies in the Baldur's Gate games. I realize that they aer only GAMES, and not intended to be historically correct, but nevertheless, I'd like to point out some things:

1) First of all, the most potent warrior on the battlefield was generally the man with the polearm. Halberds and spears were the most devastating weapons in hand to hand combat, not, as thought, the two-handed or longsword. Though not a glaring or noticable error, I probably only encountered two enemy fighters in the game that wielded a polearm, and the rest were the run-of-the-mill sword swinging dudes that pop up wherever you look.

2) Not that many warriors walked around in full plate with a large shield and longsword all the time. Most knights wore chainmail, and even then it was quite a burden. In PnP they represent this with slowere walking speeds and dexterity penalties, but in BG there is no drawback to wearing such cumbersome and heavy armor.

3) Crossbows were the medeival equivalent of the atom bomb, and were practically terror weapons, so great was there power. They typically had an immense pull, and could put a hole the size of a Ford in a man's chest. While in these games, it only does a crappy 1d10 damage.

Well, I'm sure there's more, but I gotta finish my paper...

[Craig]

good thing i designed an automatic crossbow

[Angelus]

1) You're partialy right here, on a battlefield a formation bristling with spears would be awesome.
But in BG you mostly have one on one or small group fights and I think in those a sword is more handy.
Think about it, if your first thrust is deflected to the side or gets stuck in a shield, the enemy would just walk "inside" your spear and stab you. I think for everyday's use a sword is just more versatile than a polearm.

2.) I once had a replica of a full plate armor on. It wasn't nearly as cumbersome as I thought it would be, I certainly wouldn't need a winch to get on a horse as you see in some movies. It's not much havier than military body armor of today. I admit though I wouldn't want to wear it all day.

3.) Well I think 1d10 is pretty powerfull, most longsword do only 1d8 damage.

[Dúnadan]

Well, halberds would be some defense against an opponent slipping within your reach, what with their axe head an all. And as for full plate being light, it is because it shunts weight to the entire body, instead of the shoulders, as does chain mail. Nevertheless, it is rather cumbersome.

[Locke Da'averan]

Originally posted by Dúnadan:
[QB]
3) Crossbows were the medeival equivalent of the atom bomb, and were practically terror weapons, so great was there power. They typically had an immense pull, and could put a hole the size of a Ford in a man's chest. While in these games, it only does a crappy 1d10 damage.

[QB]

A hole size of a ford? a crossbow bolt??? I'm no expert in medieval weapons/effects but do you seriously claim that a crossbow bolt would put even a larger hole to mans chest more than 2-4cm wide??

[Nick_Dude]

The only thing they did make historically accurate, was that not many people wear large shields. I think it requires great strength in order to wear a large shield, full plate mail aromour and weild a bastard sword all at the same time.

[TheHellion]

Well, I don't claim to be an expert in this kind of thing, but here's my take on it as it stands:

• Polearms were brought into wide-spread use to deal with the advent of cavalry, and most used specially designed heads that would punch through heavier armor than your typical spear or sword. I don't think polearms were ever meant to be used in one-on-one combat, and frankly, they'd be too heavy, long, and cumbersome to be effective against a sword-wielding opponent. So I'm gonna have to disagree on this one.
• True, most knights wore chainmail, but not because it was less cumbersome than full plate. Quite to the contrary, in fact. Only the wealthiest of knights could afford a suit of full plate, which typically had to be custom fitted to the wearer. While I've never had the pleasure of wearing a suit of full plate, I have been to several Renaissance shows with performers in full plate doing acrobatics. It's quite a sight, let me tell you.
• The invention of the crossbow was indeed a turning point in the history of medieval warfare. In terms of BG2, though, I think their treatment is fair. In reality, a single blow from nearly any medieval weapon could easily fell a man.

On a side note, I think it would be worth pointing out that there have been very few metal shields ever found. Throughout history, nearly all shields, regardless of size, were wooden, perhaps with iron rivets or scales. The reason for this is obvious; a full-size iron shield could easily weigh sixty-some odd pounds. Not the kind of thing you want to be hauling around with you on long marches.

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: TheHellion ]

[moriveth]

Crossbows were really powerful and could pierce through heavy armor, IIRC.

...But didn't they take *far* longer to shoot than longbows? Greater rate of fire per round for normal bows isn't reflected in the game. It would be interesting to increase xbow damage at the cost of a 1/2 (or even 1) attack per round, or something like that.

[Dúnadan]

Yes, crossbows did take a (relatively) insane amount of time to lock n' load compared to longbows.

[Ashuermen]

A few things:
The greatness of crossbows was in their ease of use. Longbowmen were devestating in their time, but took years upon years of training to perfect. The crossbow was much more simplistic, so that many many more could be fielded. The 'atomic bomb' of these times was the ballista. (A really REALLY big crossbow). It was once said that this weapon was so powerful it would end all wars. (Funny, that was also said if the machine gun and the atomic bomb)

As per 2nd edition DnD rules, your standard grunt soldier is a level 0 charcter. With the slight extra reach of a polearm, and the fact that people WILL now fall in 1-2 hits, this makes a polearm very desired. A captain might be a 5th level character, a general 9th. Our 15-20'th level characters would be not unlike the greek gods descending on a battlefield and frying the army.

[Bruce Lee]

Wouldn't it be cool if you at some stage came across an army of soldiers lika that? Say a hundred soldiers a couple of captains and a general. Cool fight that would be!

[moriveth]

Originally posted by Bruce Lee:
<STRONG>Wouldn't it be cool if you at some stage came across an army of soldiers lika that? Say a hundred soldiers a couple of captains and a general. Cool fight that would be!</STRONG>

I think they've said they're working on having huge waves of enemies displayed by the infinity engine for ToB. Probably not hundreds, but hopefully dozens.

Not that a bunch of low level soldiers are very likely to hurt anyone. Since many protagonists are immune to +1 and below weapons by the end of SoA, it's sort of a pointless exercise unless they create an army with +2 arrows and swords, which is kinda ridiculous.

[TheDude]

we saw some little armies in baldurs gate 2
remember the great groups of kobolts and goblins with there captains, shamans.
It would be cool to have a enormous group of goblins in ToB.
Quatriple youre total kills with one deathspell

---------------------------------------------
Some Heroes satnd, some Heroes fall, other can't sit 'cause they got hit by my fireball

[Loredweller]

Originally posted by Dúnadan:
<STRONG>
1) First of all, the most potent warrior on the battlefield was generally the man with the polearm. Halberds and spears were the most devastating weapons in hand to hand combat, not, as thought, the two-handed or longsword. Though not a glaring or noticable error, I probably only encountered two enemy fighters in the game that wielded a polearm, and the rest were the run-of-the-mill sword swinging dudes that pop up wherever you look.
</STRONG>

Well, it's reflected, IMHO, in the speed rate of polearms. Though it might be a bit inaccurate, there is only 10 time units in a round, after all. There have never been polearms in my party save staves altogether.

Originally posted by Dúnadan:
<STRONG>
2) Not that many warriors walked around in full plate with a large shield and longsword all the time. Most knights wore chainmail, and even then it was quite a burden. In PnP they represent this with slowere walking speeds and dexterity penalties, but in BG there is no drawback to wearing such cumbersome and heavy armor.
</STRONG>

The full plate has been worn most often on horseback. Besides it almost any knight (anoint one as rule) has squire(s) and servants, in fact he got his shield, helm and pike only in real need. If you couldn't afford squire or at least servant, you much probably could afford full plate as well, they weren't cheap, one suit might be worth several villages. There also were (at last for some configurations) removable parts worn only in the battle as shoulder-straps and gauntlets. Most representative example might be armor of samurai (it wasn't full plate, never at end has similar enough construction). Initially it's weight lied on the shoulders, then it was distributed to other parts of the body. It was complicate enough and had several layers. IMHO, Europeans never had developed so complicate wearing, nonetheless the principles was the same. The Japan armor lightest complex had been worn in ceremonial order and might be quickly enough supplement to necessary degree of protection. I know no evidence, nonetheless i suspect it was similar with European armor as well.

Originally posted by Dúnadan:
<STRONG>
3) Crossbows were the medeival equivalent of the atom bomb, and were practically terror weapons, so great was there power. They typically had an immense pull, and could put a hole the size of a Ford in a man's chest. While in these games, it only does a crappy 1d10 damage.
</STRONG>

IMHO, high-colored. Crossbows were more accurate in general, though there were still arrows and accordingly the same rules and problems of aiming. In late Middle Ages they got additional fixings what increased their power. Nevertheless longbows have 1.5-2 times higher fire rate. If we remember the Hundred-years war (hope, the English term at least resembles my one), they were English bowmen what brought victories over French heavy cavalry. They had very high fire rate together with accuracy high enough, though their tactics appear to be area fire rather than aimed one. Excellent quality of bows and arrows had some importance, though. Auxiliaries increasing hitpower of crossbows appeared rather late and didn't increase the fire rate altogether. And again, those improvements partially only compensated the difference with longbow, because the bow of the crossbow anyway was still shorter (it's elementary physics, chapter about lever). Accuracy and range rather depended on the missile then on launcher, arbalets might use much shorter and lighter ones (within reasonable limits) or even bullets, so there was less of impact of the wind. So, in general, crossbow was an equivalent to longbow with a bit more accuracy and notable less fire rate.
Just MHO,
L.

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: Loredweller ]

[dragon wench]

Regarding crossbow vs long bow. I seem to recall that the English use of the long bow during the battle of Agincourt was a significant determining factor. The French, I believe, were wasted. Although, I've studied more recent social history than I have military or medieval/rennaissance, so correct me if I'm wrong.
As an aside, in BG 2 I find that the cross bow of searing does substancial damage.
I'm not overly familiar with P&P AD&D, but I suspect that in the case of BG/BG2 a great deal of room has been allowed for artistic license (or sloppy researching???). Perhaps slightly unfortunate because I get the sense that many players tend to undervalue the efficiency of blunt and piercing weapons, favouring swords instead.

[koz-ivan]

re crossbows & long bows.

the english had very good archers, units which were very expensive to train. the long bow was often fired at an angle for greater range. the arrow would follow an arched trajectory. the long bow if used properly & with many yrs of experience & training was a devastating weapon.

the crossbow fires along on a level trajectory, it's point & shoot, very simple. i.e. little or no training required. it was also fairly inexpensive, and could pierce the plate armour of the time. it became a very powerful battlefield weapon, in the hand's of a commoners.

this is where the "atomic weapon" reputation came from, with it a simple peasant could strike down one of higher station. the cross bow had a great impact on the battlefield, and a greater one socially.

[Craig]

the "Automatic pump-action" crossbow rocks(i made waga expect? ) i mean load arrow with lever(at bottem) pull handle forth then back its loaded and fired already!!!!

[jimthegray]

1) First of all, the most potent warrior on the battlefield was generally the man with the polearm. Halberds and spears were the most devastating weapons in hand to hand combat, not, as thought, the two-handed or longsword. Though not a glaring or noticable error, <------ Ahhh remember though these were weapons for large armies.... in one on one or in skirmishes a sword is a more practical weapon

2) Not that many warriors walked around in full plate with a large shield and longsword all the time. Most knights wore chainmail, and even then it was quite a burden. In PnP they represent this with slowere walking speeds and dexterity penalties, but in BG there is no drawback to wearing such cumbersome and heavy armor. I have worn Chain and I have worn plate once.
the chain is acctually more uncomfortable weight wise "all of it is on your shoulder, but the plate is far more hot the danger is in heat injurys mainly.. and you are playing a hero.

3) Crossbows were the medeival equivalent of the atom bomb, and were practically terror weapons, so great was there power. They typically had an immense pull, and could put a hole the size of a Ford in a man's chest. While in these games, it only does a crappy 1d10 damage. <--- actually not really, while nice they were not as good as a longbow.
there main advantage was that they are simple to learn, the people who wished to ban them relised that they made the commen man far more dangerious, as for the d10 damage.. this is more than enough to kill the average man

[Angelus]

Actually I don't think the crossbow had that much effect on a battlefield (unlike the longbow and latter the firearms), sure it was deadly but you could shoot it perhaps twice a minute and that's not much compared to the 8-10 shots of a longbow.

The main reason for all the fuss about the crossbow was its role as an equalizer. Usually it took a noble warrior years to hone his fighting skills with sword, lance etc., now any lowborn untrained peasant was able to kill that knight from 100 meters away without ever endangering himself.

[The Outsider]

One thing I remember from some sort of historical reading I did a number of years ago is that the crossbow and the musket became "popular" (in a sort of beta-test fashion) at around the same time. The crossbow was quiet and fairly accurate; the musket loud and inaccurate. Nevertheless, the musket was the weapon that received much more funding, because of the psychological factors of the musket's report.