Remove ads

Fate/Sunny Order (FGO)

Reader mode
Neruz said:
Mostly piercing attacks were from lances, polearms, arrows and daggers though, not swords.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lances weren't as wide spread as other means to combat heavy armor. As well, arrows were almost completely ineffective against plate armor. Pole-arms like Spears and Pikes were used in formations to counter other Pole-arm formations or to counter cavalry charges. Generally, blunt weapons like maces and warhammers were used by plate-armored infantry because they were used to counter other plate infantry. As well, the Crossbow was effective at piercing armor and generally required a lot less training to use than bows.

Illiterate peasant with a crossbow > Plate Armored Knight with a sword.
 
Last edited:
Noxlux013 said:
Thought Gil had a thing for dominant women? Or does Carnival Phantasm not count?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yamato Nadeshiko is almost directly translated by most as 'a flower of Japan'.

Specifically a wildflower, of Japan.

Underneath that beauty and utterly immaculate refined nature, is someone who would fight, kill, and/or die in defense of home and loved ones. To be a true yamato nadeshiko, one does not yield in the face of certain actions. Bend? Yes, for there is a time for everything. Especially patience, and planning, in knowing when and where to fight. Break? Never.

In short, they are the living feminine embodiment of the term 'silk hiding steel'. Another laconic phrase describing them would be 'the finest rose, has the sharpest thorns'. They only superficially look like doormats, when in reality, they are the ones who usually are running things.

Sakura, prior to finally snapping, could put people in their proper place with but a word. Artoria can do the same, but generally forgoes the niceties due to preferring a more blunt approach. On the other hand, go see how often she all but verbally crucified Shirou while being utterly proper.
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
Lances weren't as wide spread as other means to combat heavy armor. As well, arrows were almost completely ineffective against plate armor. Pole-arms like Spears and Pikes were used in formations to counter other Pole-arm formations or to counter cavalry charges. Generally, blunt weapons like maces and warhammers were used by plate-armored infantry because they were used to counter other plate infantry. As well, the Crossbow was effective at piercing armor and generally required a lot less training to use than bows.

Illiterate peasant with a crossbow > Plate Armored Knight with a sword.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I include crossbow bolts under 'arrows' seeing as they are fundamentally the same thing, there are also historical accounts of bodkin point arrows penetrating plate armor when fired at close range, and modern recreations and computer analysis has backed that up.

Pole-arms also includes the Halberd, a weapon specifically designed for unseating heavily armored knights and then wrecking their shit, while still being effective against spear and pike formations.


The primary advantage of the crossbow over the longbow is that training a man to use a crossbow effectively in battle is a task of a few months to half a year, much the same as with a gun, whereas training a man to use a longbow effectively in battle is a task of a literal lifetime that must begin when the man is a child and takes decades of work and expense. Crossbows are thus viable peasant militia weapons and can be deployed en masse, whereas longbows are not.

While there are other differences between the two forms of 'bow' weapon, the difference in skill means that orders of magnitude more crossbows can be used effectively compared to longbows and the sheer difference in numbers is by far the most overwhelming advantage; something the Chinese knew very well thanks to their ridiculously early invention of the repeating crossbow in the 4th century BC: The repeating crossbow might not have had the same power behind it as the much later European arbalest, but combined with a bit of poison on the bolts, the sheer number of projectiles a bunch of peasants on walls armed with repeating crossbows could throw out made them fucking impossible to assault.


Real-world battle is a complicated and chaotic affair, 'primary' sources of certain kinds of damage might be the best, so to speak, but 'secondary' sources (ex; an armor piercing dagger to the armpit) can fuck your shit up just as fatally, and were used. And ultimately, at the end of the day, if enough people with swords beat on an armored knight for long enough, they'll probably kill him eventually even if it isn't even remotely the most efficient way to do so.
There's also the reality that not everyone had the best of everything in the best condition all the time; wear and tear happened, low quality materials and equipment happened, shit happened, all of which can alter the outcome.

Tikigod784 said:
Or her mood when he decides to be a horse. Or his mood when she decides to be a horse. Or-

...On second thought, keep 'em away from Chaldea. This could end up being more complicated than keeping track of all the Seibas.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Making things more complicated is what Loki does, it is his hat.

Actually, thinking about it, with all the other gods and mythic Norse beings that have shown up in F/GO so far, it's kind of surprising that Loki hasn't yet.

Unless, of course, he has, and is just pretending to be someone else...
 
Last edited:
EVA-Saiyajin said:
Man, all kinds of crazy stuff was happening in England, wasn't it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Listen, in the space of...what, 6 months? Waver dealt with multiple murder mysteries, Servants being summoned outside of the Holy Grail War, a giant Vampiric forest, a train that steals eyes then auctions them, then a whole mess of other stuff I won't spoil.

Shit is always crazy, and it never stops being crazy.
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
Lances weren't as wide spread as other means to combat heavy armor. As well, arrows were almost completely ineffective against plate armor. Pole-arms like Spears and Pikes were used in formations to counter other Pole-arm formations or to counter cavalry charges. Generally, blunt weapons like maces and warhammers were used by plate-armored infantry because they were used to counter other plate infantry. As well, the Crossbow was effective at piercing armor and generally required a lot less training to use than bows.

Illiterate peasant with a crossbow > Plate Armored Knight with a sword.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Neruz said:
I include crossbow bolts under 'arrows' seeing as they are fundamentally the same thing, there are also historical accounts of bodkin point arrows penetrating plate armor when fired at close range, and modern recreations and computer analysis has backed that up.

Pole-arms also includes the Halberd, a weapon specifically designed for unseating heavily armored knights and then wrecking their shit, while still being effective against spear and pike formations.


The primary advantage of the crossbow over the longbow is that training a man to use a crossbow effectively in battle is a task of a few months to half a year, much the same as with a gun, whereas training a man to use a longbow effectively in battle is a task of a literal lifetime that must begin when the man is a child and takes decades of work and expense. Crossbows are thus viable peasant militia weapons and can be deployed en masse, whereas longbows are not.

While there are other differences between the two forms of 'bow' weapon, the difference in skill means that orders of magnitude more crossbows can be used effectively compared to longbows and the sheer difference in numbers is by far the most overwhelming advantage; something the Chinese knew very well thanks to their ridiculously early invention of the repeating crossbow in the 4th century BC: The repeating crossbow might not have had the same power behind it as the much later European arbalest, but combined with a bit of poison on the bolts, the sheer number of projectiles a bunch of peasants on walls armed with repeating crossbows could throw out made them fucking impossible to assault.


Real-world battle is a complicated and chaotic affair, 'primary' sources of certain kinds of damage might be the best, so to speak, but 'secondary' sources (ex; an armor piercing dagger to the armpit) can fuck your shit up just as fatally, and were used. And ultimately, at the end of the day, if enough people with swords beat on an armored knight for long enough, they'll probably kill him eventually even if it isn't even remotely the most efficient way to do so.
There's also the reality that not everyone had the best of everything in the best condition all the time; wear and tear happened, low quality materials and equipment happened, shit happened, all of which can alter the outcome.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I just

Okay, the both of you should do some research on this beyond video games and pop history, like talk to some HEMA folks who actually practice this kind of thing. All of this started with somebody mentioning Shadiversity, right? Bluntly, Shadiversity is crap. He's fun and has some good insights when he's on speculative ground like how fantastical races would fight, but his actual historical knowledge is poor, and he insists on bloviating on the subject regardless. Although he's alright when he's talking about castles.

If you want some youtubers who know their stuff for actual historical combat, try the London Longsword Academy, scholagladiatora, Knyght Errant, maybe Skallagrim. They all practice HEMA, they do their research, and when they're overstepping the areas where their knowledge is rock-solid, they'll tell you about it up front.

As far as addressing some actual claims made here - lances absolutely were widespread, and are perfectly capable of slaying an armoured knight. It's just, you don't do that with a thrust from a standing start - you kill a knight with a spear either at a galloping charge, or by getting in close and using the spear as a lever in a grapple until you can pin your opponent and thrust it into a joint. Likewise, while a knight's sword was generally more of a sidearm, you could still absolutely kill a plate-armoured opponent with it. You just wouldn't do it by hewing the edge against their plate. You'd half-sword and use it like a short spear, or wield it mordschlag to use the crossguard like the spike of a pickaxe or simply to pummel the opponent into submission until they're too bruised and exhausted to stop you from slipping a misericorde through their visor. This, by the way, is why yes boobplate is a terrible design that introduces crippling weaknesses in the structure of the armour, because fine, the edge of a sword still isn't going to pierce it, but the point of the crossguard might, and even if it doesn't it's still going to guide all the kinetic force of a blow inwards to the sternum beneath that dip, rather than outwards, away from the body.

Arrows versus plate armour depends largely on specific dates, and the development and quality of armour an archer is shooting at. There are contemporary accounts of a Welsh longbowman shooting an arrow through the iron chausse of a Norman knight, through the leather tunic underneath, through the flesh of the leg, the leather and plate on the other side and even the heavy saddle, to pierce the horse past all that, such that the knight was pinned to his mount. There are equally accounts of French knights weathering great clouds of arrows with almost no casualties, suffering only the occasional fluke injury from an arrow perfectly striking a chink in the armour, as well as a storm of bruising and nerve-wracking impacts. Plate armour is not a single design, it was developed and iterated upon for generations. It all depends.

Crossbows, by the by, were absolutely not advantageous because they were easy to train people with. There was a brief period where they started like that, but they didn't stay that way. A crossbow is an expensive piece of kit, and the kind of powerful tempered steel arbalests that they rapidly developed into, even moreso. A lot of historical crossbowmen were highly elite, highly expensive, mercenaries, who often operated in teams of multiple people for the crossbow itself and the pavise that developed to work with it, much like a modern crew-served weapon.
 
Last edited:
DON'T LOOK AT THE EGGPLANT SERVANT

SHE'S NOT WORTH YOUR 5* CE

LOOK INTO MY INEXTANT EYES MASTER

EGGPLANT SERVANTS ARE TEMPORARY
HEMA IS ETERNAL
 
Imrix said:
Okay, the both of you should do some research on this beyond video games and pop history, like talk to some HEMA folks who actually practice this kind of thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I honestly would not take HEMA to be experts on exactly how things were used because, and here is the thing, their stuff is all recreations done from manuals and the like. They're about as much experts, really, as Shad might be.

As an aside, I watch Shad's videos on the more lesser known weapons such as the Billhook and the like because you don't find stuff like that in other places and it at least gives me an idea where to start looking myself.
Tiny_Dic said:
DON'T LOOK AT THE EGGPLANT SERVANT

SHE'S NOT WORTH YOUR 5* CE

LOOK INTO MY INEXTANT EYES MASTER

EGGPLANT SERVANTS ARE TEMPORARY
HEMA IS ETERNAL
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fucking heretics.
 
Harry Leferts said:
I honestly would not take HEMA to be experts on exactly how things were used because, and here is the thing, their stuff is all recreations done from manuals and the like. They're about as much experts, really, as Shad might be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Reading historical manuals is historical research. And that's not all modern HEMA does; practicioners also check their research and sources for contradictions, discuss the biases and contexts that the authors of their sources had and worked in, research contemporary accounts of duels and battles, and much more.

And when it comes to the use of martial arts and weaponry, practical application and trying out what you think might have been techniques of historical martial arts is also part of the research.

Sure, they might get things wrong, but it's a lot better and likely to be more accurate than the definite claims "This is definitely how things were" that a lot of "history" YouTubers engage in. At least published pop-history books, as a rule, have the decency to cite their sources.
 
Last edited:
Fernandel said:
Reading hisotrical manuals is historical research. And that's not all modern HEMA does; practicioners also check their research and sources for contradictions, discuss the biases and contexts that the authors of their sources had and worked in, research contemporary accounts of duels and battles, and much more.

And when it comes to the use of martial arts and weaponry, practical application and trying out what you think might have been techniques of historical martial arts is also part of the research.

Sure, they might get things wrong, but it's a lot better and likely to be more accurate than the definite claims "This is definitely how things were" that a lot of "history" YouTubers engage in. At least published pop-history books, as a rule, have the decency to cite their sources.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Um, you're missing my point in that claiming that just because they practice HEMA, they're automatically better, somehow, than someone else who might just get their information from just books is wrong.

The thing is that I actually watched Shad's video on boob armor before this actually. And he pointed out that pretty much all armours actually would have room for a woman's breasts, unless they were very large ones, by design anyways. Also, that boob armor is not hugely more dangerous to wear than normal armor. He did mention the bit about how various medieval armors have massive cod pieces though to make people think that they had giant dicks, so the opposite in some culture where women fight more often is not exactly impossible or something that could be unheard of considering muscle cuirasses.
 
Considering that Chaldea has backed up the internet, I wonder how these historical figures would react to our modern assumptions of their manual-of-arms, doctrine, ect.

How much of that would we get correct? How much of that would we get wrong? Where are we overthinking things? What has been lost to time, forgotten by Man?

Would make for a very interesting omake, I think.
 
And how much of what they did was in fact driven by a whole bunch of magical bullshit? The internet has to try and provide mundane explanations. Gilgamesh spits on your mundane explanations, zasshu!
 
Tikigod784 said:
Or her mood when he decides to be a horse. Or his mood when she decides to be a horse. Or-

...On second thought, keep 'em away from Chaldea. This could end up being more complicated than keeping track of all the Seibas.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And then it turns out that Loki was a Nobuface all along, and everything Loki did suddenly makes sense.
 
it is definitely worth keeping in mind that the Nasuverse has magic going on and thus is not entirely bound to physical constraints, which doesn't necessarily make things like boobplates any more practical in usage, but does make them substantially more practical to create and if 99% of your defense is coming from Bounded Fields then it probably doesn't really matter whether your armor is an optimal shape or a boobplate, because anything that gets through the magic shields is going to wreck your shit regardless.

Imrix said:
Crossbows, by the by, were absolutely not advantageous because they were easy to train people with. There was a brief period where they started like that, but they didn't stay that way. A crossbow is an expensive piece of kit, and the kind of powerful tempered steel arbalests that they rapidly developed into, even moreso. A lot of historical crossbowmen were highly elite, highly expensive, mercenaries, who often operated in teams of multiple people for the crossbow itself and the pavise that developed to work with it, much like a modern crew-served weapon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is true if you assume that 'crossbows' refers exclusively to the late-medieval arballista style crossbows that became dominant in Europe around the 15th century and later, typical of the Frech compagnie d'ordonnance system. It is not true if you include all the other kinds of crossbows that existed in other times and places, such as the repeating crossbow I mentioned in the post you quoted over a thousand years earlier in Asia.

Ancient Greek\Roman crossbows included fucking automatic field-artillery for chrissakes.

What is it with people and assuming that 'history' means 'the history of medieval Europe, and absolutely nowhere else, ever.'

e: Futhermore, 'the major advantage of crossbows over longbows is ease of training to use' does not mean 'all crossbowmen are therefore always peasant militia', rifles are easy to train to use, that doesn't mean all riflemen are always peasant militia, does it?
 
Last edited:
When you're just that good, you can wear whatever you want and it will never be impractical. And Servants by definition are just that good.
 
Tiny_Dic said:
Considering that Chaldea has backed up the internet, I wonder how these historical figures would react to our modern assumptions of their manual-of-arms, doctrine, ect.

How much of that would we get correct? How much of that would we get wrong? Where are we overthinking things? What has been lost to time, forgotten by Man?

Would make for a very interesting omake, I think.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It doesn't really matter, man. The knights of the round table are summoned in Plate in the style that would only become noteworthy something like eight frigging hundred years after they died because that was the style the artists at the time saw and they drew what they knew. Even if we ignore the obvious places where history got it wrong (because Arturia hunted with Excalibur, what do you THINK that went like?!?) you still will end up with a whole shitload of times where anachronisms are just commonplace because people first started talking about them long afterwards (remember all those Romans Arturia fought in 500 AD? Good times).

There is like one goddamn Servant I can think of who was straight up based on a painting of them from the time using things that would have made sense at the time, and he can also be summoned later in life as a crazy looking bugeyed madman using the fucking Necronomicon.
 
Mattman324 said:
It doesn't really matter, man. The knights of the round table are summoned in Plate in the style that would only become noteworthy something like eight frigging hundred years after they died because that was the style the artists at the time saw and they drew what they knew. Even if we ignore the obvious places where history got it wrong (because Arturia hunted with Excalibur, what do you THINK that went like?!?) you still will end up with a whole shitload of times where anachronisms are just commonplace because people first started talking about them long afterwards (remember all those Romans Arturia fought in 500 AD? Good times).

There is like one goddamn Servant I can think of who was straight up based on a painting of them from the time using things that would have made sense at the time, and he can also be summoned later in life as a crazy looking bugeyed madman using the fucking Necronomicon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I believe that you are referring to Gilles De Rais? Probably butchered the name, but the Caster from Fate/Zero?
 
Harry Leferts said:
Um, you're missing my point in that claiming that just because they practice HEMA, they're automatically better, somehow, than someone else who might just get their information from just books is wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If they practice HEMA, that means they take the information from historical manuals and see how it works out in practice. That is automatically better than Shadiversity, who at best only works off books and, frankly, most of the time, either doesn't do so very deeply, or runs purely off speculation.
Harry Leferts said:
The thing is that I actually watched Shad's video on boob armor before this actually. And he pointed out that pretty much all armours actually would have room for a woman's breasts, unless they were very large ones, by design anyways. Also, that boob armor is not hugely more dangerous to wear than normal armor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I saw that video as well. I am telling you he's wrong, for reasons I already alluded to.
Neruz said:
This is true if you assume that 'crossbows' refers exclusively to the late-medieval arballista style crossbows that became dominant in Europe around the 15th century and later, typical of the Frech compagnie d'ordonnance system. It is not true if you include all the other kinds of crossbows that existed in other times and places, such as the repeating crossbow I mentioned in the post you quoted over a thousand years earlier in Asia.

Ancient Greek\Roman crossbows included fucking automatic field-artillery for chrissakes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah. And both of those were significantly more expensive to produce than regular bows, which rrrrather cuts against the grain of being easy to equip people with en masse. This idea people have of crossbows as a weapon used en masse by minimally trained militia just doesn't match up to history. Like you're talking about China, but when crossbows turn up in Chinese history it's things like Eastern Zhou Dynasty elites who trained for seven years and could march 160km without rest, or the Han Dynasty's well-trained crossbowmen, or those two-person crossbow and shield teams that turn up in the Sung Dynasty along with specialised snipers. Where crossbows were a mass weapon, it was due to a large nation with a strong administration being able to field a massed army, period; by its nature, a crossbow is a technical weapon that encourages more training, not less.
 
Last edited:
Mizu said:
I see Mash lacks the boobplate this time round. Probably for the best when you compare how Arturia's armour looks, as far as Knights of the Round Table cladding themselves go. Same for Mordred, come to think of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"Boobplate"? Did Mash ever have a boobplate? It looks like the same as her leggings. Possibly, it might be molded rubber. Compared to the quality and detail work on her actual armor pieces, I do not believe that to be the same material at all.
 
TimeDiver said:
Decide for yourself:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know, I looked plenty before posting, and I'm still leaning towards "doesn't look like metal". I never thought of it as armor in the first place. That looks like a leotard with a metal skirt, and the only thing making me thing other wise is that it's thicker than the rest around the chest.

Imrix said:
If they practice HEMA, that means they take the information from historical manuals and see how it works out in practice. That is automatically better than Shadiversity, who at best only works off books and, frankly, most of the time, either doesn't do so very deeply, or runs purely off speculation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He has sparred with HEMA people before, and it didn't turn out badly. He has nothing against HEMA, he's just limited to easily accessible resources. Not sure whether they're the same resources, but if they are, it's only an issue of limited training. Which he has admitted to.
 
Last edited:
As far as Nasuverse is concerned, Shadiversity, HEMA, and whatever else is all wrong and dumb and really, why did any of them even bother trying? Mongrels, all of them.

Yay, everyone gets to simmer in their anger at being inferior to ancient fantasy Babylon. Including Kana, who is also probably a HEMA nerd on some level.
 
Tikigod784 said:
As far as Nasuverse is concerned, Shadiversity, HEMA, and whatever else is all wrong and dumb and really, why did any of them even bother trying? Mongrels, all of them.

Yay, everyone gets to simmer in their anger at being inferior to ancient fantasy Babylon. Including Kana, who is also probably a HEMA nerd on some level.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Kana: "I learned the real thing! I picked it up from bloody King Arthur!"

Arturia: "Kana, for that lapse in language, I shall see you in the dojo at six. Do not be late."

Kana: "Aw man."
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top