It feels like I’ve be asked to write Superman. How can you come up with a conflict when the main character is invulnerable? (well, that one’s easy you show the dichotomy between his physical invulnerability and his emotional vulnerability, but I digress...)
Pleas someone help!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited April 21, 2003).]
Chaim mail is good too, but it's made out of tons of links. If a few of them get broken by large blunt force (broadsword?) then it'll hurt like nobody's business.
Armour was designed to spread impact over some area, so regardless of where they're hit, it'll still hurt, just maybe not so much.
The way I'd see a sword fight ending would be someone getting a really good body connection and knocking the guy either over or back, and then following through with some sort of neck/head attack.
I would encourage you to read Book 5 of the Iliad by Homer. All the soldiers are wearing armor like the kind you have your characters wearing. I'm not going to tell you what I think Homer is going to teach you -- I don't want to (a) get your hopes up or (b) anticipate that Homer will do fo you what he did for me -- but I do think you can learn a lot about writing battle scenes from the Iliad.
If you can, read Fitzgerald's translation; it is the most idiomatic of the ones I know of. And don't worry, you don't need to read Books 1-4 to understand Book 5, but you do need to read the whole thing if you want to be a good writer -- especially if you want to be a good fantasy writer
Sorry about that last comment, but I love Homer.
Hope this helps.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited April 22, 2003).]
Shawn
How would a short sword work against a mail shirt. I do mention the mail being a bit old, so during the fight some links could be knocked loose, and would provide enough of an opening to be run through.
I did some limited research and found that the scale mail worn by the Romans was susceptible to an upward thrust. So, my protagonist didn’t have too much difficulty killing them with his broadsword.
Thanks for the adivce.
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited April 22, 2003).]
Example: Say he's in breastplate and leg armor. His head his exposed (no helmet). I'd work on "passing" his sword and then come back around and swing at his throat or head. Passing is where I don't block, but I hook his momentum and help swing it through. Puts him off balance AND gets his weapon out of my way. AND depending on how I passed it through, also builds up my momentum for swinging at his head/throat.
Hope that helped some!!
Ciao,
In order to kill, a blade really only needs to be at the most 4 inches long. Anything more than that is only going to a) waste effort, b) increase your reach.
Armour is full of weak points.
A Breast plate (assuming it is JUST a breast plate) is held in place with leather straps (which could feasably be cut by a competant enough swordsman). Also said breastplate only covers the torso from the front leaving the back exposed.
Even if the guy in the breastplate has plate on his back too he is vulnerable.
Again, the leather straps holding the armour in place are targets. The seams down the left and right sides are targets (barely).
However his biggest vulnerability is his armpit. A 4" blade stabbed upwards in a diagonal motion from under the unprotected armpit will most likely sever an artery (there is one there I just dont know what its called) Of course if your guys are fighting with longswords he could probably make that strike starting from a prone position (a desperation attack if ever there was one)
Now, the guy in chain has less vulnerabilty.
There aren't as many open points in the armour, BUT the armour itself is weaker and will degrade in combat.
The Stiletto was a weapon more or less designed to fight against chain. It's narrow blade is small enough to score a wound through the loops of the chain itself. Also in the process it weakens the links.
If your combatants are fighting with longswords or broadswords they will (for the majority of the fight) be causing blunt impacts on each other (unless the blades are magical or exceptionally sharp).
The fight would, in reality, be a slog-match with victory going to the guy who can take the most punishment and stay standing.
Environment, environment, environment.
Drop a rock on his head. Push him into water. Burn him. The great duelists used the area they were fighting in as effecively as they used their weapons.
You can create more suspense if you write it from the antagonist's POV. "Sir Kindly seems invulnerable in that breast plate, but I know a dirty trick that's killed thousands of men wearing breast plates. He's playing right into my hands! Bwaahahahah!"
quote:
How can you come up with a conflict when the main character is invulnerable?
There's absolutely nothing invulnerable about armour. The purpose of armour is simply to stop a strike from being a killing blow. It seeks to minimise damage, not eradicate it.
quote:
Are you going to try to hack away at his arms? Lob off his head?
The Italian fighting style of the Tudor period involved some very nasty targeting of the face and eyes. If someone is protected on the chest, then you don't strike there with a stabbing weapon. There's nothing wrong with incapaciting limbs. And chainmail will stop a slash but cannot stop the concussion damage inherent in a heavy blow, raising the danger of internal haemorrhaging.
quote:
The romans used short swords just for this purpose. They would plunge the short sword up and under the bottom of the breast plate.
No - the Romans did that move, but a breastplate would block it - you're thinking of armoured-boob-tubes, which I've not encountered before.
I've got resources on fighting in the writer's section of my site, but that's for folks to find. I've plugged the link to the limits of decency already.
The other factor is the type of swords being used. Broadswords are heavier and can chop right through armor that would deflect a foil. A stilleto can punch right through most types of reasonable personal armor (not just chainmail). You cannot reasonably hope to deflect a claymore with a rapier, a saber is better for fighting from horseback because it uses a slashing motion rather than a thrusting motion (though you still can thrust), Damascus steel is as strong as stainless while forged steel might be little better than iron...and so on and so forth.
Assuming that I were fighting with a single enemy, both of us armed with similar weapons, I wouldn't want to be wearing armor at all. Strengh and coverage always come at a significant cost in articulation, and in a single combat, articulation is life. If a breastplate covers the stomach, neck, and shoulder joint, it severely limits movement. If it does not, then it is nearly worthless, since only epee fighting depends on access to the heart and lungs (and an epee itself is useless against any weapon that is longer and heavier). Chainmail can deflect glancing blows, but it is useless against thrusting blows and not much against a direct slash.
Armor is more for protection in a battle, where danger can come randomly from all about. It is also more useful to heavy chivalry than to a swordsman. But some schools could easily disagree...so it isn't unrealistic to have both of your swordsmen in light armor of some sort. Just remember that armor is a trade-off. A breastplate with a significant amount of coverage is very restrictive and hampers movement, you get hit a lot more and don't get as many touches on your opponent. Chainmail is inherently weak, and making it strong means making it heavy. It also sort of flaps around if it covers your arms or legs (unless it is snug, in which case it restricts movement). A good sword can punch right through several millimeters of ordinary steel (before the advent of stainless, swordmetal was always significantly stronger than metal forged into armor). So any wearable armor is by no means invincible, even presuming it has near total coverage.
Remember, the reason that chivalry used to boast about all the things they could do in heavy armor is because it was hard to do anything more complicated than sit on a horse in the stuff (like sitting on a moving horse ). It was heavy, which is why heavy armor only really caught on for chivalry--let the horse carry it, eh?
Anyway, if you asked me, in a one on one fight I would rather have a two handed or hand and a half longsword and perhaps some leather armor. If I saw the other guy wearing a breastplate I would be frankly delighted. It doesn't make him Superman--it makes him Elmer Fudd.
Would a short sword like the Romans carried stand a chance against the a broadsword?
You all seem to be rather well versed in this sort of thing. Any websites were I could pick up some this information? (Chronicles, found your site, but I couldn’t find the writer’s section to see the info you had posted)
A lot of it had to do with the scene intimidating me, which happens every now and then. This is probably the ONLY fantasy story I have in me, so while I’ve done SOME research and have familiarized myself with the genre, I want to be sure I’m being realistic as possible. The man wearing the breastplate is a king, so it has more to do with a distinction of rank and authority. I read somewhere that in the Roman armies only the officers had breastplates and the regular soldiers wore the scale mail. I don’t know I just may have them remove their armor before they fight.
Anyway, thanks guys---as always you’ve bee an big help.
JOHN!
But an individual so armed and armored would be hopelessly outclassed by a lightly armored opponent with a long two-handed weapon. He would take blow after blow without ever being able to effectively strike back. In a very short time his shield would be splintered, and he would be mortally wounded without ever making a mark on his foe. The only tactic that might have any chance would be to rush directly in, using the shield to fend off the opponent's sword, and stab at the gut. This would almost certainly fail, since his opponent could easily sidestep the rush even while landing a heavy blow. But any alternative would be completely hopeless.
Don't rely on websites for information about fighting. Get some practice swords and try things out. If you do yardwork and have a woodpile... Maybe you don't have tolerant neighbors, though. With practice swords you can fence with a friend. Stay away from the SCA, they put artificial constraints on scoring hits which result in ridiculous tactics Okay, you don't have to stay away from them. Just recognize that they do some pretty silly things.
Alternatively, with a heavy weapon, it is possible to cut through armor (but only if you're really strong, i.e. you've been training as a warrior for years). And armor doesn't stop momentum, it only distributes pressure, so you can strike a potent blow through armor without piercing it.
If your enemy is in total or near-total armor, just try to knock him down. It's very hard to get back up in that weight (which is part of why infantry prefered shield-walls to depending on armor). Once he's on the ground, you can diis-arm him and sit down on him before he manages to move. Then take your time prying off his helmet. (It'd probably be considered chivalrous to ask for a surrender at this point).
Or they mean compared to a fifteen year old woman's gymnastics champion. Really strong guys can drive an axe right through a centimeter of steel plate...and steel didn't used to be as strong as it is today (and what kind of freak of nature it would take to wear armor that heavy, I don't even want to imagine). A typical, fit male of about thirty could chop a hole in three millimeter plate if he really tried (three millimeters is about as heavy as a plate could reasonably be and still have any significant coverage).But you can't deliver blows like that against an actual opponent in combat (unless you've already immobilized him). The point of armor is not to attempt to be impervious, the point is to deflect chance blows that get through. No tank hull ever built or that will ever be built can stand up to a direct hit from an anti-tank weapon, the point is to deflect stuff that is intended to harrass infantry. Armor can never overcome weapons that are in the same "class", if that makes any sense. It deals with near misses and so forth.
Anyway, Narvi has a good point. A human in hand to hand combat doesn't have any non-vital organs.
The writer resources are in the Forum - but here's a couple of websites from it on the specific issue of sword-fighting:
International Hopology Society
Btw -
quote:
Would a short sword like the Romans carried stand a chance against the a broadsword?
Absolutely, but as Survivor pointed out, only so long as the Romans maintained discipline. Historically speaking the Celtic and Germanic tribes used large swiging blades, so the face-off already has a number of historical precedents. Generally the Roman discipline won out, but ambush was a common tactic used to attempt to thwart them.
1 to 1 though it really is going to depend on a person's training - for example, have they experience of fighting with the same weapon? As a general rule small blades are faster - but that's before any modifiers for armour.
I really recommend folks go to historical re-enactments as part of their research.
[This message has been edited by Chronicles_of_Empire (edited April 28, 2003).]
quote:
If your enemy is in total or near-total armor, just try to knock him down. It's very hard to get back up in that weight (which is part of why infantry prefered shield-walls to depending on armor).
Actually, at every re-enactment I went to where they wore armour, they said this was a complete fallacy. They explained that although plate-mail was heavily by itself, when worn it's entire weight is distributed all around the body, so that there's no debilitating sense of weight. Getting up would not at all be a problem. I've seen re-enacters doing controlled rolls - to the ground and then up - in plate-mail.
Also note that the reason the infantry didn't generally wear great armour is because they could not afford it. Knights were the landed gentry, and they paid for their arms out of their incomes. And though they did supply their infantry, generally there was little focus on armouring them heavily. Military service was a duty of the feudal peasantry, and the feudal peasantry were rarely able warriors (excepting when we come to the English Longbow - but that's another issue). So, in effect, there was never any reason for the peasantry to be well-armoured when they were basic fodder anyway.
[This message has been edited by Chronicles_of_Empire (edited April 28, 2003).]
Normally it's easy to build tension in a fight. But if you are counting on the hero's POV to build the tension then the nreastplate gives you a problem. The only way you can build tension is by having the hero think about how vulnerable he is. No matter what technical details you work in about plate armor, that sort of worrying will just make the hero seem wimpy.
Your best bet is to leave the hero's POV. Use POV of the villain, or the hero's best friend, or a fair maiden . . . anyone but the hero can make the reader believe that the hero is in real danger.
Of course, if the hero is destined to lose the fight then ignore this advice. In that case you'll be releasing the tension in a different way, with a plot twist that has the hero losing a fight he expected to win.
quote:
Your best bet is to leave the hero's POV.
That could well be a most terrible piece of advice. The tension of the scene will rest on the main POV character for the book. In the case of third omniscient you're going to have to relate to your protagonist unless you haven't done so throughout the books - and for third limited, if you've referred to your protogonist via this means previously then you need to do so in the climactic scene. Otherwise there's nothing at all climactic about it - the reader would just be a poor spectator.
And people still haven't got it into their heads that armour does not make for invulnerable?? Nor is anyone going to get exhausted too quickly - as I said, the weight is well distributed even for plate-mail, and chainmail is hardly a drag (worn it).
John -
If you still feel your character is going to look too invulnerable in the final scene, then ensure you have a preceding scene somewhere in the book - at the beginning would be one tactic, for a cyclic reference; or simply the first time wearing a breastplate, if applicable - and then have the protagonist have the living poop smashed out from him. Show how vulnerable he is - show for future reference that only wit, courage, and skill will ultimately keep him alive. (Depends on what sort of author you are as to how badly you hurt the protag for the earlier scene - and note that without this earlier scene your protag will indeed look invulnerable.)
[This message has been edited by Chronicles_of_Empire (edited April 29, 2003).]
Of course plate armor makes you invulnerable in battle! It makes you utterly immortal! This is a very strong prejudice that I have, and it comes from absolutley no reliable source. Nevertheless, the prejudice is very strong. You might be able to convince me to abondon this prejudice, but if you are wearing armor when you tell me how vulnerable you are, I'll just think you're a wimp.
However, I do agree with your solution. If JOHN wants to have tension in the fight and write the scene in the hero's POV, maybe he should try to establish the vulnerability of an armored person before the fight begins.
Consider the climax of the movie Silence of the Lambs. Normally, you think of a Ferderal Agent with gun drawn as someone who can take care of herself. But earlier in the movie, we saw how "Buffalo Bill" Gumb used those infrared goggles. When the lights go out in the climax scene we know that Clarice is in grave danger. It helps that the scene flashes to Gumb's POV, but the scene could build tension without it.
If you take away the darkness and the IR goggles, all that fear would make Clarice look like a sissy. Because you don't want a sissy heroine, she has to stay cool and calm. Now you're left with Dirty Harry: cool cop has a gun, crazy killer has a gun. Let the showdown begin. The climax of Dirty Harry had some tension, but thanks to the darkness and previously demonstrated IR goggles, Silence of the Lambs had much, much more.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited April 30, 2003).]
With Chain, one thing that was pointed out is that although piercing was often protected against... so arrows didn't affect the person much, axes and swords were another matter entirely. With those, I think that the Axe tore the chain, and swords didn't... but bones could be broken with a good enough amount of strength.. and certainly bones could be broken with a strong hit.
For your guy with full plate. He is going to have slower reflexes for the most part. And knocking them down doesn't necessarily do anything, though it takes a few minutes to get up... been there, seen that... it is possible, and depending on how much practice they have had, it might do no more than give the person a few seconds to run away. However, there are weaknesses, and striking at those is an option.
I’ve finished the scene and I’m fairly happy with it. The POV thing is kinda hard to change as the ENTIRE story is told from the protagonist’s POV, though sometimes the narrator is just telling what is going on. The tension comes from that both men know the fight isn’t going to end until one of them kills the other. The protagonist hasn’t fought another knight in over two years and is a bit out of practice, relaying on instinct.
Here’s my take on it. A short sword would make up for what it likes in strength with speed and maneuverability. The man with the broadsword could use overhand strokes against his opponent, while the man with the short sword would go for his opponents’ chest or midsection. Neither man in my story or carrying shields and would be forced to block with their swords. To do so they would at least momentarily have to abandon their advantage to protect their vulnerabilities. (a think a short sword would have a difficult time blocking a overhead attack from a broadsword so this is were I used the protagonist’s “magic” to help it along)
The armor didn’t present the problem I thought. The protagonist wearing chain mail can be hit with the edge of the short sword and suffer fairly minor abrasions as his mail protects him. The antagonist isn’t wearing a helmet, so the protagonist is going for his head, hoping to overpower him with his broadsword and maneuver around the breastplate of the antagonist.
Thanks again.
JOHN!
A rapier or even a saber wouldn't be that much heavier than a gladius, and they are much longer.
Armor is to protect you from incidentals, it doesn't protect you against "same class" direct attacks. This is the rule of armor throughout human history. In a single combat situation, heavy armor is simply a mistake, whether you're talking about tanks or assault weapons or swords or clubs. For a modern day example, if you have two guys in a gun fight, one using a revolver combined with a kevlar vest and the other putting that extra $1000.00 into an upgrade to an Uzi, then the guy with the Uzi is going to win. If the other guy goes for a full coverage suit for another $2000.00, then his opponent comes at him with a light .50 caliber heavy sniper that will go right through kevlar like it was tissue paper.
When all you have to work with is steel, the same sorts of calculations apply. Yes, you can train to get back to your feet in full plate armor, but that isn't jousting or torny plate (you can't do more than sit on a horse in that stuff, which is why it is designed to be shucked if you fall). That thickness of plate just doesn't provide the kind of protection it looks like it provides...mostly it protects you from stray (as opposed to directed) missile weapons-but a cross bow or long bow (or composite bow) will still punch right through it.
Armor is for eliminating the "small stuff" so you don't have to worry about it. It cannot protect you from the big stuff.
quote:
Yes, I realize that leaving the hero's POV for the climax might mean rewriting hundreds of pages to establish a different POV. But it could be worth it.
But a story really needs to show the protagonist POV - certainly when writing third person. This is the one most important thing I've learned from Hatrack - through my mistakes, of course.
quote:
if you are wearing armor when you tell me how vulnerable you are, I'll just think you're a wimp.
Absolutely, which is why such a character needs vulnerabilities showing in an earlier scene. It's a normal element of writing.
It may be superficially off-topic, but I think one of the great protagonist-antagonist face-offs is actually "Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan". At every instance in that film they show Kirk's vulnerabilities - his aging, his inability to face death. And Khan is genetically modified to have a "superior intellect". Even when Kirk uses all of his wits it's not enough, and his best friend needs to make the ultimate sacrifice to complete the issue. I will always recommend to anyone to watch that film and take note of how the protagnoist is made to look weak/weakened in the face of "superior" opposition.
Brian
PS - Chainmail will not stop a shot from a longbow or decent crossbow. Neither will platemail. That's why Agincourt was so horrific - 7,000 dysentry-ridden English peasants destroying 20,000 French noblemen.
[This message has been edited by Chronicles_of_Empire (edited May 03, 2003).]
quote:
But a story really needs to show the protagonist POV - certainly when writing third person. This is the one most important thing I've learned from Hatrack - through my mistakes, of course.
Yes, this is a normal formula and I certainly do not advocate omitting the protagonist's POV. And I absolutely advise staying in one POV in each scene. Nevertheless, I believe it's good advice to write about 60%-80% of the scenes in a third person novel from the protagonist's POV. The rest of the scenes should go to the main antagonist, with a small amount spread between minor good guys and bad guys as needed to build tension.
quote:
I think one of the great protagonist-antagonist face-offs is actually "Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan".
This also works to prove my point. While most of its scenes are from the protagonists's POV, this movie has a few scenes from the antagonists's POV (and a smattering from various supporing characters, like Carol Markus and Commander Checkov). Khan's POV scenes build tension by showing that Khan is actively making moves to defeat Kirk.
This reaches it's highest point when short scenes are flashing back and forth between Kirk's POV and Khan's POV. It's a great way to show danger closing in on the protagonist. As the climax of these short scenes approaches, Khan says: "Kirk, do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold?" That short scene is written in Khan's POV. Kirk doesn't even hear Khan speak the line!
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited May 05, 2003).]
quote:
Your best bet is to leave the hero's POV. Use POV of the villain, or the hero's best friend, or a fair maiden . . .
I took your meaning to imply that for the climactic scene the main POV character should be dropped in lieu of another POV. This would in itself detach the reader from the protagonist at the final critical moment, and take away any sense of climax.
With reference to the analogy, we would see Khan cursing Kirk, but never see what is going on with Kirk. Thus we would fail to see his own tension and the cumilation of his vulnerabilities throughout the film into that single moment - when Kirk cannot by himself save the Enterprise, and thus faces his ultimate no-win situation.
[This message has been edited by Chronicles_of_Empire (edited May 06, 2003).]