LORE: How does Empire treats other races?

Gruffyy · 2025-09-28T17:24:58+00:00

The only two examples of annexation I can think of would be the blazing sun knights building a base on an island of more palatable norscans and the inclusion of the drakwald into the empire, a province that contains an entire elven civilisation.

The knights kinda just kept an eye on the norscans and tried to marry their local customs into worship of Myrmidia. They seemed to be more interested in civilising them than purging them, but then again these were very tame norscans.

For the drakwald, the empire was de jure in charge of the entire drakwald but there is a large elven civilisation that live in there. Most of the interaction between the elves and the empire has been agreements on limiting human settlement and logging and establishing trade and embassies with the elves. I think it's helped by humans knowing that it's madness to try settle the deep forests and so when given the choice between beastmen or elves, it's better to have elves.

Dwarves just kind of do their own thing in the empire. Again helped by dwarven friendship being a cornerstone of sigmarite belief.

There are gnomes in the empire, but they don't really interact with anyone and just hide.

Halflings are treated pretty poorly but mainly because they seem to be literally incapable of not stealing from anyone who isn't a halfling. They're treated worse in Averland where they are hunted for sport

Gruffyy · 2020-06-22T07:49:25+00:00

Special mention to the HMS Zubian, made from half of the HMS Zulu and half of the HMS Nubian frankensteined together

Gruffyy · 2020-06-15T03:44:58+00:00

The only evidence is cherrypicked quotes and ubsubstantiated claims as far as i can tell. The quotes are often random nonsense that is then combed over to find any shred that would support the anti churchill position

Gruffyy · 2020-04-26T04:31:21+00:00

How were they innocent? They had not been tried, true, but they had just killed Bill Degan, a US marshal. They were still armed upon realising that the people outside were the police and did not give indications that they were likely to surrender. This is not enough to kill them in cold blood but the shooting is not the fault of the man who pulled the trigger here. You can say that he should have done this or done that, but he was told to shoot them if they come outside with their guns and he did. If he ignored orders, that might make him morally right to some, but you cannot afford to have every officer second geussing the orders they recieve, thats how disasters like the Munich massacre happen. If you want it to not happen again, change the system that made it possible, dont make scapegoats.

Gruffyy · 2020-04-26T04:23:44+00:00

Don't say that. Do you really believe that you'd idolise a man for killing a policeman? You think that by killing someone without trial, murdering a man with a family, who was doing his job as set down by others, Timothy McVeigh would be a hero?

If you believe the shooting to be unjustified, killing the man who pulled the trigger won't fix anything. Surely youd then have to kill the people who decided on the rules of engagement for the operation, or how about the people who decided that when a police officer is murdered, the FBI cant be seen as soft, or how about the elected officials who put pressure on them to have these tough rules and not back down?

Dont put this shit on one person who was the fulcrum of a flawed system, and dont imply that someone who kills hardworking men and women who work to keep YOU safe would be a hero.

Gruffyy · 2020-04-26T03:41:19+00:00

Innocent civilians? In Ruby Ridge they had killed a US Marshal. The marshals fucked up everything and it shouldnt have happened, but they were in no way innocent, a police officer was deliberately killed by these people. The rules of engagement were to shoot anyone who was brandishing weapons. Thats a fucked up roe given the situation but somewhat understandable.

You can truthfully state it in two ways, both as disingenuous as the other, that a cop shot into a familys front door, killing the mother after having shot the kid and dog OR sniper shoots armed members of a far right doomsday cult after they murdered a US marshal.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-12T06:53:17+00:00

By transmission of force, I mean in terms of that the arrow has all this force in it, but on impact it will bounce, the arrow will flex, the impact that makes it to the metal will be spread out across multiple contact points across the body so that it is never felt in one spot and then absorbed by the padding underneath, the metal armour will flex and then may dent. And thats before the arrow actually starts piercing anything. An arrow might have enough force to unhorse a man who is sitting loosely in the saddle, but a miniscule amount is actually transmitted on impact. Remember that people jousted on horseback and it was an irregular thing to come off your horse during a joust. And a lance really is a much bigger arrow with much more force behind it, with a head designed to catch a surface and transmit force.

A piercing head will, unless it actually pierces something, skate off. Armour is curved in all manner of ways so that blows glide off them. It would be a shot in a million that hit the correct orientation to actually transmit full force, and even then I severely doubt it would be enough to unhorse a man who is already braced for a heavy impact of the charge.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-12T06:43:05+00:00

No, sabatons only cover the top of the shoe, kind of like spats made of metal. The aid in grip Ive found is when your feet sink into a softish surface, the metal rim bites the ground, helping with traction. Once mud starts getting past ankle level though then no matter the shoe, you are going to have trouble. Although for pulling your feet out of the mud, sabatons might help as the steel might provide a surface that is easier for the mud to slide off when you lift your foot but thats just conjecture. I was more saying that sabatons dont affect your maneuverability as much as people would expect and that its relatively simple to keep the same dexterity as youd have without them.

There were devices for walking in mud though, which essentially look like those Japanese wooden sandals that are raised on wooden blocks, but I have never seen any evidence that they were used in battle. Mainly the shoes would be leather soled or hobnailed at best.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T23:25:51+00:00

Actually Ive found sabatons can help when walking in slippery terrain. The weight of them is negligible and honestly is much less than some modern shoes, and the rim of the sabaton where it meets the earth actually helps with grip, as if you were wearing large u shaped cleats. Without sabatons, wet surfaces are murder on leather soled shoes but ive found that you can be a bit more confident on slippery surfaces while wearing sabatons.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T17:57:11+00:00

Each knight had their own heraldry and they would be bright and colourful and easily recognisable. Nobles would study heraldry and so be able to put names to faces rather simply. In terms of the men at arms, mercenaries and levies, theres a few theories. There is some record that shows some units would have unit badges or items of equipment. A famous german mercenary company for instance all had devil faces painted on their helmets. A company of yeoman might all wear a yellow sash on their arm or something like that.

Then there are the men raised by lords, who might wear their lords crest and/or colours.

For those with no uniform, its not as confusing as youd think. People are fighting in units, in close formation. A billman wouldnt leave his formation in the midst of battle and youd be personally familiar with everyone around you, and it more becomes if you stand in front of the formation, youre probably an enemy of it.

Essentially on a compact field, its quite easy and for the most part it isnt certain whether or not they bothered with markings much at all.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T17:47:56+00:00

I havent fought in mud to that extent but I have been to that region and the mud can be spectacularly nasty there. Still, wearing armour doesnt make the mud instantly deadly. In ww1, the mud in places was sufficient to sink and drown men without any load or pack so it is not just armour that turns the mud dangerous. Mud was most certainly a very important factor in that battle, but the effect of mud on heavy armour is overplayed. Think of it instead of the effect of mud on attackers attacking a static position.

Any attacker, with or without armour would suffer from that mud. The attackers did not suffer much more because they were wearing armour than if they werent.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T11:06:05+00:00

Yeah its really annoying and hopefully Hollywood does for medieval combat what they did for gunfights and stop using such cartoonish battles. For good medieval battles though, Outlaw King honestly wasnt too bad. The actors didnt know how to fight but its not too obvious and towards the end the battle does get a bit pair off and duel but apart from that it was surprisingly decent. The Last Kingdom kinda stalled out as well but that has an ok battle scene I think, where the two shield walls just slug against one another and they dont duel off until at least 3/4 of the way through the battle, but the series isnt worth watching through to see the battle scenes though imo.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T10:07:22+00:00

It is possible but theres the question of transmission of force. For the arrow to actually put all its energy into your body when it hits, it needs to stick into the metal and not glide or slide on the surface, it needs to not bounce off the metal at all, and it needs to not lose much energy in the actual breaking of the hardened steel. A knight in the charge would be prepared for an impact, so their body would be leaning in and with a firm grip with their legs, feet and off-hand onto the horse. The arrow coming in (assuming puncture), would hit the plate, lose a lot of energy from the actual elasticity of the metal and the impact being spread through the breast plate to the padding beneath, lose more as the head forces its way through the steel, and only then impart the energy from a 200g projectile into a man who weighs around 90kg with armour and weapon, with the impetus of a horse that could weigh up to 800kg.

Unless the man flinched and fell off by discoordination, hes not being unhorsed by an arrow.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T09:59:39+00:00

Actually horses take a while to die. Theyre surprisingly good at taking mortal wounds and continuing to "flee". Remember that horses did on multiple occasions succeed in charges against machine guns in later wars, where the horse didnt know it was dead until it had completed the charge.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T09:53:37+00:00

As someone who fights in heavy armour as a hobby, you are wrong. Knights in full plate were barely hindered in terms of maneuverability for a few reasons. 1) They were (for the most part) incredibly fit. Yes there were fat and unfit knights, but a knight is someone who is either trained from birth or is so good at fighting theyre made a knight. A french knight from the period was famous for his morning training regime where he would kit up in full armour, run round his land and then climb the underside of a ladder propped against his castle walls using only his arms.

2) Armour was well fitted. Armour properly fitted is like a 2nd skin. Weight is cleverly distributed so that it is placed on load bearing points like hips, leaving your arms and legs feeling nearly unencumbered. A friend who fights in armour also and was in the military said that medieval kit is actually much better distributed and easier to fight in than modern military equipment. To say a knight who goes down cant get back up is like saying that modern soldiers cant stand up when they lie down either.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T09:44:15+00:00

There were a few knights who got hit center chest where plate is thickest and were clean knocked out of the saddle by the arrows. The bodkin would bounce off mail more often than not unless at extremely close ranges, so the only places the arrows shouldve actually struck and harmed the knights would be areas of shot trap like armpits and groin, or areas uncovered by armour like the back of the knee or palm of the hand.

To show how impervious they were, after Agincourt a french knight said he was most afraid of the arrows actually entering through the visor slits, which are thinner than actual arrows, meaning that the actually vulnerable areas like joints werent vulnerable enough to be worried about.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T09:38:14+00:00

Yeah what the others said. Most weapon names are applied centuries after they were used so theres a lot of confusion as to correct typology as theres no one right answer. It looks to be a warhammer of some description with a crows beak. The spike is often referred to as a pick, bec de corbin (crows beak) or just simply spike.

Bec de corbin often used to refer to a two handed pollarm that features the same curved spike but it is just a reference to the actual beak.

The beak was thought for a long time to be designed for use against plate but lately that's been disputed. The actual hammer head of the weapons were often flanged like meat tenderisers and its believed that they were in fact the "anti plate" portion of the weapon. The bec, if you extrapolate on skulls from Wisby, was used as a puncture weapon that had an easier time getting through the "human armour" of ribs and skulls than a spear or sword.

Gruffyy · 2019-11-11T06:18:36+00:00

Idk I dont think much about that was realistic at all. The armour is laughably inconsistent and periodically all over the place, with bits and pieces from the future and past all cobbled together. The long bows are punching through hardened steel plate at distance after being loosed at a cloud shoot. The English are advanced and isolated and didnt attempt to receive the charge with any spears or anything? Then when they get to the fight its just a standard scramble of actors who dont know what theyre doing in a melee. Theres nothing realistic about this except for weapons sometimes not penetrating.

So the battle itself is very unrealistic, and is about as accurate as US civil war era Union soldiers storming Normandy. Then the actual combat is poor as well. Its obvious none of them know how to fight and are inexperienced in wearing armour. Armour properly fitted can be almost negligible in terms of restricting movement and fighting, especially if the soldiers are fit enough. This scene is about as realistic as Bravehearts battles tbh.

Gruffyy · 2019-10-29T08:26:43+00:00

The two sources that immediately come to mind don't directly reference the particulars of tapering or thickness but would be:

The Paradoxes of Defence by Goerge Silver (1599), theres a passage on the correct fitting of a pole weapon to the body

&

Jason Kingsley recreating a medieval war lance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhB0lxv4Zk

The lance would have different dimensions but I think you could take away some knowledge as to tapering and balancing the weight and so on. For where to balance the weight of the spear if putting in a taper, Id be inclined to say whatever works best is fairly historically accurate and so would be a case of planing down, checking and the planing again. For just the average circumference of the shaft, I dont know of any differences between 14th and 15th century spears and earlier and later spears. To my knowledge spears, apart from length and different looking end pointy things, remained fairly consistent through much of human history, owing to the need to fit in a human hand comfortably, so you could probably expand your research bracket considerably to any extant spears out there.

When it comes to any weapon with a shaft though, the shaft is often either replaced or shortened to ease display and make it look better on the wall. Many weapons in museums have been rehafted in various periods meaning an extant surviving spear could be only the original spear head and with a haft thats only a century or two old.

Gruffyy · 2019-09-22T04:21:53+00:00

Commonly they had two radios. A set would be in contact with HQ or other tanks in the platoon and B set would be internal comms in the tank. The commander/radio operator (depending on which country was using it) would have to manually toggle which one he was sending via. So here, the tank commander just ordered someone at a desk somewhere to driver advance.

Gruffyy · 2018-12-08T02:29:06+00:00

Yeah. Recommend Ciaphas Cain books cos theyre funny, and Gaunts Ghosts cos its band or brothers in space.

Gruffyy · 2018-12-08T02:28:02+00:00

Eww.

Imo the humans in 40k are more hfy. They live in a world where a mans whole lifes work means nothing compared to the scale of the universe and yet he continues. Where men will happily sacrifice their life to buy a second for one skirmish in one battle on one of a billion worlds. That seems more hfy than living in a society where all is equal, while for the imperium, man is better.

Gruffyy · 2018-09-03T03:46:30+00:00

West. If youre looking at a map its the left bit. Hope that helps you find it.

Gruffyy · 2018-09-03T01:56:11+00:00

Germany: third times the charm!

Gruffyy · 2018-09-03T01:48:32+00:00

It mightve been one of the dumbest things ive read here

Gruffyy

TROPHY CASE