do you know that the swordsman in Stronghold Crusader are not historically accurate

[MelhemX]

in SH Crusader, the swordsman is much stronger than arabian swrodsman, but in was the oppisite case for there reallife counterparts, in really life the arabian swordsman where much stronger than the europian swordsman.
the Europian swordsman had a big disadvantage due to his heavy and bulky metal armor/swords.
the arabian swordsman used to use swords that were made of very sharp metal, unlike the europain swords that reallied on the users strength, the arabian swords where so sharp that it was able to cut a peice of cloth just on by touching it. also the metal that those were made of had posion in them.

[>//The_FALCON]

Did you really just critizise the historical accuracy of a videogame that is 14 years old?

[MelhemX]

Originally posted by >//The_FALCONTnY:

Did you really just critizise the historical accuracy of a videogame that is 14 years old?

well not really, i just wanted to point it out, just for fun

[Psiling]

I'm not so sure about all this

[Kugura Myoiei]

How?

[blackbird]

interesting

[quoth the crackhead]

Armour hardly restricts movement at all it just makes you tired faster and european swords were actually sharped and they had their own martial arts there you smelly willy

[MelhemX]

Originally posted by KING MONSTER GHOST:

Armour hardly restricts movement at all it just makes you tired faster and european swords were actually sharped and they had their own martial arts there you smelly willy

that is true, but the european swordsman's armor was very heavy, which made them at a disavantage against fast moving enemies, and the swords wear sharp, but relied on the user strength.

[Scraftyboy]

no the european knights had no clue how to fight in the sand so they lost alot of the time.
plate armor is not very heavy

[FancyMarine]

Originally posted by MelhemX:

in SH Crusader, the swordsman is much stronger than arabian swrodsman, but in was the oppisite case for there reallife counterparts, in really life the arabian swordsman where much stronger than the europian swordsman.
the Europian swordsman had a big disadvantage due to his heavy and bulky metal armor/swords.
the arabian swordsman used to use swords that were made of very sharp metal, unlike the europain swords that reallied on the users strength, the arabian swords where so sharp that it was able to cut a peice of cloth just on by touching it. also the metal that those were made of had posion in them.

does not matter how shard a sword is, it would never cut through plate. so the sharpness is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. its just that they were fighting in their native envoirement. also the armour doesnt restrict movement that much.

[tomasoltis]

lookslike some muslim propaganda to make them feel good about themselves. The reality was that western ruropean metalworking was in most cases superior by a large degree. Only after Venice and/or Genoa started selling armor/knowhow to arabs as usual backstab from Venetian oligarchy (they kept mongols as allies and their spies directed where the horde was to go) ... first, european men were bigger, second physical strength from constant hard work makes it possible for 1 to have strength of multiple. So when there were 1.7-1.8m vs 1.4-1.5m high on average, you might get the idea. European armor was made to protect from european threats and from the start most Turk or Arab bows were inadequate to penetrate it. Also from 1100 to 1290 the range and power of bows, crossbows increased, from about 100 m to about 250 m. Good armor wasnt present with armed peasantry, thought the armor that 'spearmen' have is way different.

Another thing : Curved sword shortens engagement range. It is fast, but short.
the sword that evolved into the Long sword/bastard sword/1 and a half I think they also called it was useable with one or both hands, had range andantage, made blocking possible not only with edge but also the the non-sharp thing. European swordsmanship was about balance of aggressive and defensive. It was also relatively flexible and useful for stabbing as well. Meaning if you couldnt cut, you could penetrate armor or weakspots.

Armor plates were added where there was need, and real 'full' plate armor appeared only in about 1350. What European heavy armor was was riveted heavy chainmail. I remember reading that there were cases of 10 + arrows sticking from crusaders and it did nothing besides that. So definitely at the start there was qualitative overmatch, strength overmatch. Still it was a miracle that they even got to Jerusalem, since lots died on the road even without actual fighting.

Only later when arab/turk swordsmanship got better did muslim armies become dangerous up close. Cavalry charge with infantry catching the cav was usually enough to break ranks, cause panic and slaughter or capture any not fast enough to run. But when incompetence and overconfidence started ruling in crusader armies with stupid aristocrats, with weakening (and corrupt, succession rivalries) byzantine empire, what happened seemed rather inevitable. People seem to forget that islamist arab expansion, wars of aggression started way sooner, Since muslims were repeatedly defeated in today France by Charles Martel in about year 730. And we are supposed to hear only of how muslims supposedly suffered.

Muslim armies usually were weak in melee based on those factors, physical strength, bigger guys, better weapons, heavy cavalry, heavy infantry. Much fewer in number. Some semi-proffessionals.

With low quality iron your sharpness goes down fast, weapons bend, break faster. Overwhelming physical strength, force can break people very easily. For example professional woodcutters stregth ... compare that to someone else that never built real strength anywhere, that other guy has longer reach and sometime might have a two-handed weapon, is clad in armor that provides a good level of protection, should one get hit. It means disaster. Such a guy might fell lighter smaller ones with them doing all they could to defend themselves. Diet seems to have played some role.

Plate armor and immobility is an empty myth. You can look up youtube and see how those even heavier recreations affect ability to run. It was expensive. Plate made of steel could stop bullets. As strength of handguns increased, traditional armor was deemed useless, it went to even thicker afaik but more limited areas that were protected (cuirass)

Medieval european swordfighting was an art actually and it was difficultto learn and master, there were schools of swordfighting, against unarmored and armored opponents.

[Zaphkiel]

Originally posted by tomasoltis:

lookslike some muslim propaganda to make them feel good about themselves. The reality was that western ruropean metalworking was in most cases superior by a large degree. Only after Venice and/or Genoa started selling armor/knowhow to arabs as usual backstab from Venetian oligarchy (they kept mongols as allies and their spies directed where the horde was to go) ... first, european men were bigger, second physical strength from constant hard work makes it possible for 1 to have strength of multiple. So when there were 1.7-1.8m vs 1.4-1.5m high on average, you might get the idea. European armor was made to protect from european threats and from the start most Turk or Arab bows were inadequate to penetrate it. Also from 1100 to 1290 the range and power of bows, crossbows increased, from about 100 m to about 250 m. Good armor wasnt present with armed peasantry, thought the armor that 'spearmen' have is way different.

Another thing : Curved sword shortens engagement range. It is fast, but short.
the sword that evolved into the Long sword/bastard sword/1 and a half I think they also called it was useable with one or both hands, had range andantage, made blocking possible not only with edge but also the the non-sharp thing. European swordsmanship was about balance of aggressive and defensive. It was also relatively flexible and useful for stabbing as well. Meaning if you couldnt cut, you could penetrate armor or weakspots.

Armor plates were added where there was need, and real 'full' plate armor appeared only in about 1350. What European heavy armor was was riveted heavy chainmail. I remember reading that there were cases of 10 + arrows sticking from crusaders and it did nothing besides that. So definitely at the start there was qualitative overmatch, strength overmatch. Still it was a miracle that they even got to Jerusalem, since lots died on the road even without actual fighting.

Only later when arab/turk swordsmanship got better did muslim armies become dangerous up close. Cavalry charge with infantry catching the cav was usually enough to break ranks, cause panic and slaughter or capture any not fast enough to run. But when incompetence and overconfidence started ruling in crusader armies with stupid aristocrats, with weakening (and corrupt, succession rivalries) byzantine empire, what happened seemed rather inevitable. People seem to forget that islamist arab expansion, wars of aggression started way sooner, Since muslims were repeatedly defeated in today France by Charles Martel in about year 730. And we are supposed to hear only of how muslims supposedly suffered.

Muslim armies usually were weak in melee based on those factors, physical strength, bigger guys, better weapons, heavy cavalry, heavy infantry. Much fewer in number. Some semi-proffessionals.

With low quality iron your sharpness goes down fast, weapons bend, break faster. Overwhelming physical strength, force can break people very easily. For example professional woodcutters stregth ... compare that to someone else that never built real strength anywhere, that other guy has longer reach and sometime might have a two-handed weapon, is clad in armor that provides a good level of protection, should one get hit. It means disaster. Such a guy might fell lighter smaller ones with them doing all they could to defend themselves. Diet seems to have played some role.

Plate armor and immobility is an empty myth. You can look up youtube and see how those even heavier recreations affect ability to run. It was expensive. Plate made of steel could stop bullets. As strength of handguns increased, traditional armor was deemed useless, it went to even thicker afaik but more limited areas that were protected (cuirass)

Medieval european swordfighting was an art actually and it was difficultto learn and master, there were schools of swordfighting, against unarmored and armored opponents.

Finally, *clapping* Finally

[Lord of Gnarnia]

Originally posted by tomasoltis:

lookslike some muslim propaganda to make them feel good about themselves. The reality was that western ruropean metalworking was in most cases superior by a large degree. Only after Venice and/or Genoa started selling armor/knowhow to arabs as usual backstab from Venetian oligarchy (they kept mongols as allies and their spies directed where the horde was to go) ... first, european men were bigger, second physical strength from constant hard work makes it possible for 1 to have strength of multiple. So when there were 1.7-1.8m vs 1.4-1.5m high on average, you might get the idea. European armor was made to protect from european threats and from the start most Turk or Arab bows were inadequate to penetrate it. Also from 1100 to 1290 the range and power of bows, crossbows increased, from about 100 m to about 250 m. Good armor wasnt present with armed peasantry, thought the armor that 'spearmen' have is way different.

Another thing : Curved sword shortens engagement range. It is fast, but short.
the sword that evolved into the Long sword/bastard sword/1 and a half I think they also called it was useable with one or both hands, had range andantage, made blocking possible not only with edge but also the the non-sharp thing. European swordsmanship was about balance of aggressive and defensive. It was also relatively flexible and useful for stabbing as well. Meaning if you couldnt cut, you could penetrate armor or weakspots.

Armor plates were added where there was need, and real 'full' plate armor appeared only in about 1350. What European heavy armor was was riveted heavy chainmail. I remember reading that there were cases of 10 + arrows sticking from crusaders and it did nothing besides that. So definitely at the start there was qualitative overmatch, strength overmatch. Still it was a miracle that they even got to Jerusalem, since lots died on the road even without actual fighting.

Only later when arab/turk swordsmanship got better did muslim armies become dangerous up close. Cavalry charge with infantry catching the cav was usually enough to break ranks, cause panic and slaughter or capture any not fast enough to run. But when incompetence and overconfidence started ruling in crusader armies with stupid aristocrats, with weakening (and corrupt, succession rivalries) byzantine empire, what happened seemed rather inevitable. People seem to forget that islamist arab expansion, wars of aggression started way sooner, Since muslims were repeatedly defeated in today France by Charles Martel in about year 730. And we are supposed to hear only of how muslims supposedly suffered.

Muslim armies usually were weak in melee based on those factors, physical strength, bigger guys, better weapons, heavy cavalry, heavy infantry. Much fewer in number. Some semi-proffessionals.

With low quality iron your sharpness goes down fast, weapons bend, break faster. Overwhelming physical strength, force can break people very easily. For example professional woodcutters stregth ... compare that to someone else that never built real strength anywhere, that other guy has longer reach and sometime might have a two-handed weapon, is clad in armor that provides a good level of protection, should one get hit. It means disaster. Such a guy might fell lighter smaller ones with them doing all they could to defend themselves. Diet seems to have played some role.

Plate armor and immobility is an empty myth. You can look up youtube and see how those even heavier recreations affect ability to run. It was expensive. Plate made of steel could stop bullets. As strength of handguns increased, traditional armor was deemed useless, it went to even thicker afaik but more limited areas that were protected (cuirass)

Medieval european swordfighting was an art actually and it was difficultto learn and master, there were schools of swordfighting, against unarmored and armored opponents.

DEUS VULT, crusaders won this disscusion.

[Grunt]

Originally posted by MelhemX:

in SH Crusader, the swordsman is much stronger than arabian swrodsman, but in was the oppisite case for there reallife counterparts, in really life the arabian swordsman where much stronger than the europian swordsman.
the Europian swordsman had a big disadvantage due to his heavy and bulky metal armor/swords.
the arabian swordsman used to use swords that were made of very sharp metal, unlike the europain swords that reallied on the users strength, the arabian swords where so sharp that it was able to cut a peice of cloth just on by touching it. also the metal that those were made of had posion in them.

Do you have any CREDIBLE source for that? It's extremely unlikely that anything out of europe even came close to their knights.

[-Eclipse-]

Originally posted by Wojciech:

Originally posted by MelhemX:

in SH Crusader, the swordsman is much stronger than arabian swrodsman, but in was the oppisite case for there reallife counterparts, in really life the arabian swordsman where much stronger than the europian swordsman.
the Europian swordsman had a big disadvantage due to his heavy and bulky metal armor/swords.
the arabian swordsman used to use swords that were made of very sharp metal, unlike the europain swords that reallied on the users strength, the arabian swords where so sharp that it was able to cut a peice of cloth just on by touching it. also the metal that those were made of had posion in them.

Do you have any CREDIBLE source for that? It's extremely unlikely that anything out of europe even came close to their knights.

penis :)

[Romka94]

Originally posted by Wojciech:

Originally posted by MelhemX:

in SH Crusader, the swordsman is much stronger than arabian swrodsman, but in was the oppisite case for there reallife counterparts, in really life the arabian swordsman where much stronger than the europian swordsman.
the Europian swordsman had a big disadvantage due to his heavy and bulky metal armor/swords.
the arabian swordsman used to use swords that were made of very sharp metal, unlike the europain swords that reallied on the users strength, the arabian swords where so sharp that it was able to cut a peice of cloth just on by touching it. also the metal that those were made of had posion in them.

Do you have any CREDIBLE source for that? It's extremely unlikely that anything out of europe even came close to their knights.

If i am not mistaken persian and byzantine cataphracts were close to european knights.