Originally posted by Psychotron
Yes, but they're specifically trained to fight with armor on. Taking it away gimps them hard.
No, knights are trained to fight both in and out of armor. It would be completely stupid to train fighting men that couldn't fight without armor. And in fact, knightly duels were mostly done without armor, and this fight is basically a duel.
A modern-day soldier doesn't automatically forget how to shoot a gun if he's not wearing fatigues.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Based on what? My brief search yields nothing.
Blossfetchen. Look it up. Which is quite different from harnischfechten.
Armored fighting (harnischfechten) was done either in a battlefield or in a tournament. But in a duel meant to settle matters, these were mostly done in blossfechten (unarmored fighting).
Here's a bit of source material for you:
[Quote]Background: the European fighting arts before AD 1300.
In particular, the judicial duel offered a special unleashing of the polarizing element of the fencing art; it still required a shadow of the Saxon hero in that the combatants would engage in the duel without the protection of armour.Â_
-- Gustav Hergsell - Talhoffer's Fechtbuch, 1887 --
[\quote]
The German term_blossfechten_refers to the unarmoured fighting arts. This was rooted mainly in the ancient Germanic tradition of the single combat or duel. The duel was often used to resolve legal disputes through the trial by arms, an option many found preferable to the trial by ordeal. Some of these duels were fought to first blood, others were to the death. The majority were fought unarmoured with only a shield for protection, if anything.
Originally posted by FrothByte
No, knights are trained to fight both in and out of armor. It would be completely stupid to train fighting men that couldn't fight without armor. And in fact, knightly duels were mostly done without armor, and this fight is basically a duel.A modern-day soldier doesn't automatically forget how to shoot a gun if he's not wearing fatigues.
They can fight without armor, just not as good as they can fight with armor. I don't see why you have to gimp one side.
Originally posted by Psychotron
They can fight without armor, just not as good as they can fight with armor. I don't see why you have to gimp one side.
I beg to differ. They can fight even better without armor since they are less restricted. The only downside is they get killed faster. But as far as technique goes, they're definitely able to showcase more skill without armor.
I am not gimping one side. I am also removing Achilles's armor. And maybe to a Westerosi knight that won't mean much but to someone like Khal Drogo or Oberyn, Achilles's armor is still considered an advantage.
So all I'm really doing is making a fight fair. After all, if someone challenges you to an honorable duel, would you consider it honorable if he's wearing armor and you're wearing nothing but your boxers?
Originally posted by Psychotron
Don't be silly. Knights were trained to fight in armor so they could be used to the weight and restricted movement. Stripping them of their armor would make them slightly faster, but also far more vulnerable.Anyway, under these stips nobody beats Achilles 1v1.
Yes they were trained to fight in armor. They were also equally trained to fight without armor. Removing their armor is not "gimping" them when their opponent is equally without armor. That's called fighting fair.
And not that it matters here, but the fighting techniques for fighting with armor is actually very different from the fighting techniques used with armor. All that usual sword fighting that we see people doing in movies? That actually only applies to unarmored fighting. Armored fighting is done with polearms and maces. If you need to use a sword for armored fighting you reverse your grip on a sword and use it like a club, or you half sword it and just grapple the other knight. My point being: a knight's sword is mostly used for unarmored combat. So it's silly to think that they aren't equally trained outside of armor.
Originally posted by FrothByte
And not that it matters here, but the fighting techniques for fighting with armor is actually very different from the fighting techniques used with armor.
That's exactly my point. Knights are specialized into fighting with armor. If you wanna make this fair give them their armor and give Achilles his.
Originally posted by Psychotron
That's exactly my point. Knights are specialized into fighting with armor. If you wanna make this fair give them their armor and give Achilles his.
No they're not. Knights are specialized in fighting melee. Period. They specialize in fighting in armor just as much as they specialize in fighting without armor.
Just admit that what you are looking for here is some kind of technology advantage to give to the GOT team. That's not what this thread is about. This is to simulate an honorable duel where equipment is evened out.
Originally posted by FrothByte
No they're not. Knights are specialized in fighting melee. Period. They specialize in fighting in armor just as much as they specialize in fighting without armor.Just admit that what you are looking for here is some kind of technology advantage to give to the GOT team. That's not what this thread is about. This is to simulate an honorable duel where equipment is evened out.
Mate, they're specialized in warfare, and they didn't go out into battle in their knickers.
I already said Achilles takes it under these stips.
Originally posted by FrothByte
And knights were trained and fought in duels almost always without armor.
Read this. It's an account of the last officially recorded duel in France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Carrouges
Pay attention to this part here. You too, King.
"The combatants took the field in the early afternoon, mounted and dressed in plate armour. Both carried a lance, longsword, a heavy battle axe known as the 'Holy Trinity' and a long dagger called the 'misericordia'."
So yes, you are gimping the knights of Westeros.
Originally posted by Psychotron
Read this. It's an account of the last officially recorded duel in France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_CarrougesPay attention to this part here. You too, King.
"The combatants took the field in the early afternoon, mounted and dressed in plate armour. Both carried a lance, longsword, a heavy battle axe known as the 'Holy Trinity' and a long dagger called the 'misericordia'."
So yes, you are gimping the knights of Westeros.
Like I said before, knightly duels were MOSTLY done unarmored. There were still armored duels, just that they were rare. So you finding one specific example of an armored duel doesn't really prove anything. Especially when it was a duel done at a time when judicial duels were no longer commonplace. Especially when the duel imvolved jousting whereas this match is specifically a melee match on the ground.
Here's some reading material to enlighten you:
http://jwma.ejmas.com/articles/2003/jwmaart_rasmusson_0603.htm
So no one is getting gimped in this match. You just need to admit you were wrong.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Like I said before, knightly duels were MOSTLY done unarmored. There were still armored duels, just that they were rare. So you finding one specific example of an armored duel doesn't really prove anything. Especially when it was a duel done at a time when judicial duels were no longer commonplace. Especially when the duel imvolved jousting whereas this match is specifically a melee match on the ground.Here's some reading material to enlighten you:
http://jwma.ejmas.com/articles/2003/jwmaart_rasmusson_0603.htmSo no one is getting gimped in this match. You just need to admit you were wrong.
That's fencing, not duels to the death.
Originally posted by Psychotron
That's fencing, not duels to the death.
Did you even read the article. Those were duels to either first blood or to death, and everything in between. Also, "fencing" in the medieval ages could be done with longswords, sword and shield, polearms and whatever other weapons they had.