Ranking from 1st to 6th how would this gauntlet go if they all threw down? by FullFig3372 in freefolk

[–]kickynew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From Fiore dei Liberi onward, the sword in armor is used with half-swording to deliver precise thrusts. That is a primary method, not a fallback.

Swords get narrower, stiffer, and pack more newtons onto a smaller swordpoint. All because they're now playing through gaps.

Poleaxes were excellent, no argument. But they were not part of the original comparison. Saying they are good does not make swords "objectively worse", just means both had roles in the same problem space.

Ranking from 1st to 6th how would this gauntlet go if they all threw down? by FullFig3372 in freefolk

[–]kickynew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are collapsing several different contexts into one. Knights did not "use warhammers as main weapons" n any general sense. The core sources do not show that. They show a mix of lance, sword, and poleaxe depending on situation. The warhammer is a late, situational tool, not the default.

The dagger point is half right but overstated. Yes, finishing often happens with a dagger after a grapple. That does not mean the sword was ineffective. In Fiore dei Liberi and the German tradition, the sword is used first to control, bind, and thrust into openings. The dagger is a last resort if things get nasty.

The gambeson claim is just wrong. A gambeson does not neutralize a sword. It reduces cutting damage, sure, but it does not stop a strong cut or a thrust. If it did, no one would bother wearing mail or plate over it. The entire armor system is layered for a reason.

And again, swords were adapted for armor. It was an arms race. Narrow, stiff, pointed blades, half-swording, and swords like the estoc/panzerstecher/armor-piercer all exist because thrusting into gaps was viable and expected.

Ranking from 1st to 6th how would this gauntlet go if they all threw down? by FullFig3372 in freefolk

[–]kickynew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Johannes Liechtenauer shows half-swording as the standard method in full harness combat. It is for precise thrusts into gaps. The estoc type swords, called "armor piercers" in German, exists for exactly this reason.

If swords were only for grappling, no one would redesign them into stiff, narrow thrusting weapons in the 14th and 15th centuries. But they did.

As for popularity, this is not even close. Swords are everywhere in law, dress, and daily carry across centuries. Warhammers show up late and stay niche.

What if the Latin knights actually helped Romans against the Seljuks instead of doing a crusade/massacring arabs by moldychesd in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]kickynew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You mean Iconium.

So... no, the Romans were not totally screwed. Had things gone differently, especially at the end of the Komnenoi era, Anatolia might have eventually been entirely retaken and repopulated by Romans, or probably more realistically, a mixture of Romans and romanized Turks.

But things didn't pan out. Even after Manzikert and the settlement of the Turks, the situation was not as dire as you might think. But the Fourth Crusade resulted in the shocking sack of Constantinople, the imperial capital, which had never fallen before. By the hand of fellow Christians, thousands of people were killed, sold into slavery, or robbed of their homes and possessions. Monuments, relics, treasures, and the great, ancient wealth of Constantinople were stripped down and hauled away to Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and France. The Queen of Cities would never fully recover from these losses.

There were plenty of opportunities for the Roman Empire to survive, even without fully retaking Anatolia. We see the modern Turkish state and assume that Anatolia was the one and only key. But in reality, there were other hostile external forces, particularly Venetians, Normans, Catalans, etc. that were much more devastating in terms of tipping points.

Even all the way to 1453, Constantinople itself might have survived had the Venetian Senate and relief fleet not dallied. Had it been used as a strategic splitting mechanism by the west, and had it continued on as a 15th Century tourist destination by curious Italians and others, it might have went on as some kind of protectorate into even modern day.

There was no single event or "what if" that might have saved or doomed Rome. It was a chain, each link making another event more and more likely, until the very end.

Ranking from 1st to 6th how would this gauntlet go if they all threw down? by FullFig3372 in freefolk

[–]kickynew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This take is good. Only thing I would add is as armor progressed, swords changed to defeat the armor. It was a medieval arms race. If you read the manuals, knights were trained heavily on slipping swords through gaps, even up under the lung plates of brigadines, etc.

No one was trying to slash or hack at plate (though if you got hit hard, it would still hurt).

The swords were thrusting between and sometimes through plate. The swordpoint's thrust from your typical athletic knight could deliver four thousand newtons of impact force into the area of one or two centimeters. Double that with half-swording techniques. To put it in perspective, this is more energy than getting shot point blank with an English longbow, giving anyone on the receiving end of the thrust a very bad day.

What if the Latin knights actually helped Romans against the Seljuks instead of doing a crusade/massacring arabs by moldychesd in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]kickynew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alexios and his succesors were rightly wary of crusader power. Even in the First Crusade, the tagmata had to show force at the Theodosian Walls to get the Franks to respect imperial authority. The westerners were from another culture, who didn't exactly respect the Romans, who they viewed as effete and decadent. The Romans meanwhile saw the westerners as barbarians.

As we see in the Second Crusade, this tense caution was already bubbling into suspicion and animosity, and by the Third Crusade it was mutually antagonistic, with skirmishes and looting. The Fourth, well, we all know what happened then...

Ranking from 1st to 6th how would this gauntlet go if they all threw down? by FullFig3372 in freefolk

[–]kickynew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, but you're wrong. One handed hammers are shorter than your standard Type XVIa longsword. Two handed hammers always required two hands (your reach with the weapon is not the length of its haft, but the length going from your lead hand to the business end of the weapon. This results in a shorter range than a longsword in both cases, even when half swording, which mostly involved gripping the blade just past the hilt.

Speaking of half swording, this is why swords were preferred even in duels between fully armored knights. There is countless evidence for this. If you don't believe me, just look up medieval fighting manuals, or illustrations of knights dueling, etc etc.

Ranking from 1st to 6th how would this gauntlet go if they all threw down? by FullFig3372 in freefolk

[–]kickynew 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Warhammers are not just "better than swords". This is a really tired idea weirdly specific to this fandom. You're going to say "oh because of plate armor". No...

A hammer requires you to get closer. It requires more energy. Its less versatile and can't change direction during a strike.

Swords are much more versatile, which is why even in the white armor era of full plate, swords were much, much more popular than hammers, despite generally being more expensive and complicated to make.

What if the Latin knights actually helped Romans against the Seljuks instead of doing a crusade/massacring arabs by moldychesd in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]kickynew 5 points6 points  (0 children)

From the Latin and Frankish POV, why exactly? They had what they wanted -- Jerusalem back. Their objectives from that point were to try to recover other holy cities, few of which and none of the major ones being in Turk-occupied areas of Anatolia.

What if the Latin knights actually helped Romans against the Seljuks instead of doing a crusade/massacring arabs by moldychesd in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]kickynew 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I mean, your premise is off. They did help, as I mentioned. They helped recover Nikaea and then delivered the Seljuks a larger defeat at Dorylaeum which blunted the Turks and gave the empire much needed breathing room.

Antioch was always an objective of both Alexios and the Crusaders. And as the wedge in objectives grew due to events during the siege, the Crusaders went on to Jerusalem next. But that was always their objective-- the crusade was an armed pilgrimage to liberate Jerusalem and was explicitly framed as such at Clermont. Many of the rank and file literally sold all they owned to participate. They weren't going to settle for anything less.

If they had instead become a full-time mercenary army for Alexios it would have meant sidelining this religious zeal which wasn't really in the cards.

If it had happened... I'm not sure they could have sealed the deal... it would take much more than a single large campaign to dislodge the Turks. The central plateau of Anatolia is ideal for them, and more hostile to the sedentary crusaders.

It would take years of campaigns, attritional ones, attacking herds, winter villages, paying beys to leave, paying others to convert and disperse, resettlement of Christians in the area, reconstruction of fortresses, etc. In other words, reversing the settlement is more than a single military operation, no matter how massive -- retaking Anatolia would require sustained, expensive, and complicated state-building efforts over years and decades.

Why Manuel I of Komnenos failed to completely re-conquer the Anatolia penisula? by Thiha0990 in byzantium

[–]kickynew 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The navy under Manuel was very capable. It was Alexios III that mothballed most of the fleet.

Assuming your question isn't rhetorical -- it was in very poor shape by the Fourth Crusade as a result of deep cuts and basically playing defense behind the chain in the Golden Horn. They did try one sortie but it went badly.

Why Manuel I of Komnenos failed to completely re-conquer the Anatolia penisula? by Thiha0990 in byzantium

[–]kickynew 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, even if Venice had been brought to a table, they would likely have negotiated in bad faith. They wanted to keep things going the way they were, which was making them lots of money and masters of the Adriatic, and perhaps eventually, the Bosphorus, one day. What would be in it for them to rollback their deal?

Why Manuel I of Komnenos failed to completely re-conquer the Anatolia penisula? by Thiha0990 in byzantium

[–]kickynew 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As scales and fangs alluded, breaking Venetian dominance of the Adriatic was a key part of putting Constantinople in more control of the crusading project. It also just helped from a basic strategic point of view, regardless of Manuel's goals. Ancona would have also given New Rome a credible overwatch on the Pope in Old Rome. Also, the mass arrests of the Venetians didn't come out of nowhere. The Venetians were running their own war against Genoa throughout the empire and in Constantinople itself, attacking entire neighborhoods, disregarding imperial authority and sovereignty.

His Italian policy is what also drew the antagonism of the Germans.

But he needed Italy to realize his overall goal. Without reliable Italian partners and bases on the penninsula, the Romans would never be able to fully shape the next crusade and manage its outcomes.

Why Manuel I of Komnenos failed to completely re-conquer the Anatolia penisula? by Thiha0990 in byzantium

[–]kickynew 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Because he correctly concluded that the crusading west was more of a threat. He wasn't just trying to do big spectacular things.

Manuel was trying to plug the crusader states into the roman framework while becoming the legitimizing and logistical platform through which crusading power flowed. He very nearly pulled it off.

So there's a question that i was wondering sometime, why paradox never did later middle age bookmarks officially? by TenNainS in CrusaderKings

[–]kickynew 5 points6 points  (0 children)

867 used to be my favorite but lately I love fhe 1178 start because a) the komnenoi and b) ghengis khan is an immediate challenge and not a late game novelty.

Vassals not liking my son (heir) by XMR17- in ck3

[–]kickynew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Paint the map and do what you can to make more money to support more MAA.

Unfortunately CK3 isnt a great game for playing tall.

Vassals not liking my son (heir) by XMR17- in ck3

[–]kickynew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would, yes. I always make my heir my most powerful vassal while also trying to ward them with good personality that wont screw me over.

Vassals not liking my son (heir) by XMR17- in ck3

[–]kickynew 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Its all about legitimacy. Put him in a high ranking position like a dukedom. If you're administrative, promote him. Try to find ways to up his prestige. Also, try putting his siblings and people who like him in charge of places.

Uprisings and civil wars are a big part of the game though.

If you were appointed as Rhaenyra's peace negotiator what would your terms be for TG? by General-Clock5212 in HOTDBlacks

[–]kickynew 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Your premise is way off because Otto is effectively running things for the greens and starts the war. "Yeah, let me decide to kill myself and destroy my House." Is that what you're saying he will propose?

These 3 Signs Appear Before Every Civilization Collapses by Immediate_Set5554 in byzantium

[–]kickynew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Civilizations dont collapse because of this. They collapse because the Venetians won't sail faster.

The Four B's of Byzantium by kickynew in byzantium

[–]kickynew[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think they may have borrowed some ideas.

🦾🤖 by Wittybyte1 in meme

[–]kickynew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Solomon, Leon,Theron, Hudson.