Hydaelyn Role-Players
Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Printable Version

+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Off-Topic (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions (/showthread.php?tid=11041)

Pages: 1 2


Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-10-2015

Hello all, I'm a fan of History. Possibly History's #1 fan. I would marry history if it would take me.

Anyway, because of that I've amassed a trove of facts and figures, and the resources to dig deeper when needed. Since much of FFXIV's world is based off a loose, medieval/renaissance level of European technology, knowing something about the weapons, armors, tactics and societies of that time period can be useful.

So please, ask away any questions you have. I will likely be posting little interesting (in mine eyes) tidbits of information in here as well, hopefully getting other people interested in history as well.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - SicketySix - 04-10-2015

Not so much a question on weapons or tactics, but a question I've always loved to ask in these type of topics.

Genghis Khan vs Alexander III?

Obviously if we were to consider the 1,000 year or so span between them, the odds are without a doubt in Khan's favor.

But if these two met on the battlefield on equal terms, with equal technology on both sides, who would the better tactician be, and who would win the battle?

I know that this can be a loaded question that gets dragged into a million debates so I promise I will not turn it into that.

Just curious to see your opinion!Smile


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Hammersmith - 04-10-2015

(04-10-2015, 03:02 PM)Manasas Reed Wrote: Not so much a question on weapons or tactics, but a question I've always loved to ask in these type of topics.

Genghis Khan vs Alexander III?

Obviously if we were to consider the 1,000 year or so span between them, the odds are without a doubt in Khan's favor.

But if these two met on the battlefield on equal terms, with equal technology on both sides, who would the better tactician be, and who would win the battle?

I know that this can be a loaded question that gets dragged into a million debates so I promise I will not turn it into that.

Just curious to see your opinion!Smile

I'm going to weigh in here because Khan is my thing and my jam.


Show Content



RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Aaron - 04-10-2015

Do you think Russia or America won WW2? 

Russia did have the bigger and more dangerous front but apparently America got down Japan.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - ChewableMorphine - 04-10-2015

(04-10-2015, 04:40 PM)Aaron Wrote: Do you think Russia or America won WW2? 

Russia did have the bigger and more dangerous front but apparently America got down Japan.

Stalingrad, nuff said.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - SicketySix - 04-10-2015

(04-10-2015, 04:40 PM)Aaron Wrote: Do you think Russia or America won WW2? 

Russia did have the bigger and more dangerous front but apparently America got down Japan.
Being an American I'm sure I may be partial, but I also love history so hopefully people can accept that.

Considering they were Allies, I don't think the war could of been won without the other.

Saying that however....

Russia pretty much defended their homeland, succeed and pushed towards Germany. The U.S. actually fought on 2 separate fronts, simultaneously and in-fact beat the Russians to Berlin. Which we know upon approaching, Berlin was given to the Russian Army, despite the wished of several American/British Generals

So I will not say that the U.S. won the war, implying it could have been done by the US single-handedly, but I will say they probably did the most damage combined between the 2 fronts.


All my opinion.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-10-2015

((For the record some of this is oversimplification and conjecture, but hopefully it is at least interesting!))

Spears, Lances, Pikes, and why Final Fantasy's names make no sense.

One of the stranger naming mismatches in the Final Fantasy universe, is the fact that most European/West Asian pole weapons, regardless of their actual design and use are simply called 'lances'. I suspect that this is a deliberate cultural choice, as Japanese already has a word for spear, Yari. However the word Yari also means a specific and particular Japanese weapon, and doesn't really work when describing European ones.

They could have used a romanization of Spear or Pike, but I suspect due to the popularity of Knight/Medieval themes in Anime/Manga/Games, the more knightly sounding Lance, became more popular.

So what is a Lance? How does it differ from other piercing pole weapons, and if they aren't lances, what /are/ Lancers using?.

The Spear: A spear is a short stabbing pole-arm, one that gives its user greater reach than a man armed with a sword, knife, or other shorter weapon. Probably the most common weapon in human history. The thing that differentiates the spear from other pole-arms of the period is that it is generally a one handed weapon. A spearman was almost equipped with a shield as well, to protect him from other spearmen, as well as missile weapons.

[Image: OL4QRLR.jpg]
Anglo Saxon Spearmen.

The Lance: A lance is the attempt to lengthen and strengthen a spear, while still making it a one handed weapon. To do this Lances are typically gripped closer to the center, a large counterweight behind the hand keeps the weapon steady. This gives a weapon that is longer and more powerful than any one handed spear, but is so heavy, that it would be very difficult to use on foot. As such, the lance is almost always used on horseback. The rider only needs to point the weapon and hold on, using the momentum of the horse to drive the weapon. They were a shock and standoff weapon, any spearman defending against a mounted rider knew that their lance would probably kill him before he ever got a chance to strike back.

[Image: TSpqu4Kl.png]
Render of a medieval lance.

The Pole-arm: As mounted, armored cavalry became more prevalent, spear and shield armed infantry became less and less useful in open battle. Their small spears weren't enough to pierce the modern plate armor of knights, and a new breed of infantry made them equally useless against other foot soldiers. These new infantry were often armored in plate and mail, much like their mounted brethren. They usually carried a different type of weapon, the pole-arm. Pole arms are the mounting of traditionally one handed weapons to a pole. Weapons such as axes, picks, and maces found new life, and when swung on the end of a lengthy pole, had the force to punch through most armor of the period. These weapons often included protrusions such as hooks or spikes, used to pull mounted men of their horses. There are an incredible variety of different pole-arms, all slightly different, but pole-arms as a class reigned supreme during the late middle ages.

[Image: Rv6dD4E.jpg]
14th Century painting by Jean Froissant, portraying the battle of Agincourt in the 100 years war.

The Pike: An evolution of the spear, the pike was forced into being by two coinciding forces in history. The refinement of gunpowder weapons, and the rise of modern drill and formations. While unwieldy and expensive, arbequeses could punch though all but the most expensive plate. Within a short period of time, new armies, often mercenary appeared on the scene. They ditched the expensive armor and training of earlier foot-soldiers, instead focusing on moving large groups of people around in precise ways. They combined this with a new weapon, the pike. Wielded with two hands, and 20 or more feet long, the pike was an unwieldy weapon, almost useless in single combat. However a formation of thousands of men could form a block. A forest of steel tips that could literally march through an enemy formation. Longer than even the lances of knights, a properly formed square was almost impregnable in melee. It's only weakness was to be slowly be worn down by missile weapons, or for a second pike square to march into it. This was a horrific display, referred to as 'the push of pike'.

[Image: lnefDAN.jpg]
16th Century Engraving showing a 'Push of Pike'

So what do lancers use? You may notice that none of those descriptions seem close to how lancers fight. While the weapons are the same, the tactics are not. So aside from the Weapons, what is the Lancer based off of? The answer is more obvious than you might think.

[Image: X50Bpakl.jpg]

The Yari. A Japanese two handed spear that was used in a one on one fighting style. Longer versions were used like pikes in European armies. However the shorter versions were often used by samurai as their primary weapon, both on foot and on horseback. Many of the spinning and slashing moves used by Lancers in FFXIV seem closest to Yari Techniques. Here is one tromping through Coerthas!

[Image: IvqoLykl.jpg]

So there you have it, the exoticism of western names and weapons, but a fighting style that is close to home, The Lancer.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-10-2015

(04-10-2015, 04:32 PM)Hammersmith Wrote:
(04-10-2015, 03:02 PM)Manasas Reed Wrote: Not so much a question on weapons or tactics, but a question I've always loved to ask in these type of topics.

Genghis Khan vs Alexander III?

Obviously if we were to consider the 1,000 year or so span between them, the odds are without a doubt in Khan's favor.

But if these two met on the battlefield on equal terms, with equal technology on both sides, who would the better tactician be, and who would win the battle?

I know that this can be a loaded question that gets dragged into a million debates so I promise I will not turn it into that.

Just curious to see your opinion!Smile

I'm going to weigh in here because Khan is my thing and my jam.


Show Content

And yes the Mongolians would destroy Alexander, as Hammersmith most eloquently explains. Until the advent of firearms, Horse archers were basically an invincible force on the battlefield. The only way to beat them was more horse archers, walls, or living someplace that didn't have good grazing.

Europe's foresty and mountainy terrain and fortified keeps kept the Mongolians out. Mostly it was the land though. What's the point of land you can't graze horses on?!


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Aldotsk - 04-10-2015

In this discussion, I can see that some spear skills done by Lancers in FF14 are quite similar to Asian spear skills more than Medieval skills. Like the thrust techniques and quick swaying techniques are more similar to Japanese "spears" aka Yari yet also Chinese spear skills. 

Because I've been reading Romance of Three Kingdoms a lot, there had been some references used in most Final Fantasy franchise especially for Dragoons/Lancers (I don't mean jump).

Before Yari, Han and Qin Dynasty had the teaching of how to use spears like Yari. So that's something interesting to look at.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Marisa - 04-11-2015

(04-10-2015, 06:08 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: And yes the Mongolians would destroy Alexander, as Hammersmith most eloquently explains. Until the advent of firearms, Horse archers were basically an invincible force on the battlefield. The only way to beat them was more horse archers, walls, or living someplace that didn't have good grazing.

Europe's foresty and mountainy terrain and fortified keeps kept the Mongolians out. Mostly it was the land though. What's the point of land you can't graze horses on?!
I'd say the terrain was a much bigger deal than the strategic value of the land. A mounted archer (or cavalry in general) tends to be useless on anything but on open field. 

I'm kinda butting in on an area where I lack authority (Asian history isn't really my strong point), but I feel like the Mongols tend to get a bit more hyped up than they deserve. They conquered a massive area full of... basically nothing. Lots of little farming villages with no military ambition whatsoever. Largest empire by land area? Sure, but it was just a never-ending stretch of nothing. Kind of like if Oklahoma was an empire. 

They did a number on the Arabs and Eastern Europe, but I personally attribute that to the fact that the Byzantines and the Caliphates had been beating the shit out of each other on and off for centuries. The Crusades had ravaged the Gulf over and over and the Arabs had focused all of their defenses on stopping attacks from the West. Any Arab general at the time would have looked East and said "There is NOTHING over there. There is literally no point to fortifying this." How I see it, the Mongols basically made the biggest surprise attack in human history, because nobody knew they even existed until they were banging down your door.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Hammersmith - 04-11-2015

(04-11-2015, 04:35 AM)Ryoko Wrote: I'd say the terrain was a much bigger deal than the strategic value of the land. A mounted archer (or cavalry in general) tends to be useless on anything but on open field.   

I'm kinda butting in on an area where I lack authority (Asian history isn't really my strong point), but I feel like the Mongols tend to get a bit more hyped up than they deserve. They conquered a massive area full of... basically nothing. Lots of little farming villages with no military ambition whatsoever. Largest empire by land area? Sure, but it was just a never-ending stretch of nothing. Kind of like if Oklahoma was an empire. 

They did a number on the Arabs and Eastern Europe, but I personally attribute that to the fact that the Byzantines and the Caliphates had been beating the shit out of each other on and off for centuries. The Crusades had ravaged the Gulf over and over and the Arabs had focused all of their defenses on stopping attacks from the West. Any Arab general at the time would have looked East and said "There is NOTHING over there. There is literally no point to fortifying this." How I see it, the Mongols basically made the biggest surprise attack in human history, because nobody knew they even existed until they were banging down your door.

This is (mostly) wrong.  
Show Content



RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-11-2015

(04-11-2015, 09:28 AM)Hammersmith Wrote: Stuff!
(04-11-2015, 04:35 AM)Ryoko Wrote: More Stuff!

As Hammersmith said, the mongols were incredibly good at siege as well. They would recruit/steal the most skilled engineers from the lands they conquered, and could take cities very quickly.

The standard system of war in that time period was:

1) Enemy forms and army and attacks one of your cities, oh no!

2) You sound the alarm, that city prepares to be singed, and the rest of your nation/state/empire/country mobilizes an army to relieve it.

3) March over and fight the other army, or otherwise scare them off before they can take your city.

The thing was, the mongols were so dang good at it, that they would take cities before anyone had a chance to mobilize an army to stop them. By the time any sort of relieving army arrived, it would be too late.

Anyway, there is a very good podcast called 'Hardcore History' which did a long series on the mongols. The first one is here!

http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-43-wrath-of-the-khans-i/


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Marisa - 04-11-2015

(04-11-2015, 09:28 AM)Hammersmith Wrote: This is (mostly) wrong.  
Show Content
Well, seems you've put me in my place. Good stuff! 

I honestly can't figure out why they decided to be such assholes to everyone they conquered. Sure, the fear-factor probably helped a good bit with their aggressive land-grabbing, but "Don't be a jackass to the people you're trying to rule" is kind of Maintaining Your Empire 101. Given what you've described, it sounds like they practiced everything Machiavelli specifically said *not* to do.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-12-2015

(04-11-2015, 10:55 PM)Ryoko Wrote:
(04-11-2015, 09:28 AM)Hammersmith Wrote: Stuff
Well, seems you've put me in my place. Good stuff! 

I honestly can't figure out why they decided to be such assholes to everyone they conquered. Sure, the fear-factor probably helped a good bit with their aggressive land-grabbing, but "Don't be a jackass to the people you're trying to rule" is kind of Maintaining Your Empire 101. Given what you've described, it sounds like they practiced everything Machiavelli specifically said *not* to do.

Well the Mongols were very lenient compared to many empires, so long as you followed the rules. There was no great taxes or oppression, people were free to follow whatever religion they pleased, for example. Also local governments were often allowed lots of autonomy.

However if you fucked with them, or disobeyed, they would destroy your city and people like the fist of an angry god.

Very much a carrot/stick approach. Where the stick is being raped to death while your family is on fire.

So most people chose the carrot.


RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Hammersmith - 04-12-2015

(04-12-2015, 12:26 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(04-11-2015, 10:55 PM)Ryoko Wrote:
(04-11-2015, 09:28 AM)Hammersmith Wrote: Stuff
more stuff

Well the Mongols were very lenient compared to many empires, so long as you followed the rules. There was no great taxes or oppression, people were free to follow whatever religion they pleased, for example. Also local governments were often allowed lots of autonomy.

However if you fucked with them, or disobeyed, they would destroy your city and people like the fist of an angry god.

Very much a carrot/stick approach. Where the stick is being raped to death while your family is on fire.

So most people chose the carrot.

^ Pretty much this entirely. It's also worth mentioning that the mongols managed their empires pretty well. If it profited, the Khan of the area they were are in charge of ALSO profited. A shitty empire section meant you weren't gilding your fingers in as many rings as your brothers, or their kids, or their grand kids. It meant you were getting the short end of the loot stick and really, who wants that. It's one of the main reasons the empire went down. The mongols got tamed, somewhat, by governance. Or made vicious in another manner (The intra-family fighting between Ghengis's children was epicly violent and unceasingly indiscriminate towards other blood-relatives where they could afford to be, and eventually until they COULDN'T afford to be)