That's not how this works bucky. If you dump an unrelated quote on a thread, no one is going to do your context and research for you. They'll laugh at you and post an unrelated quote. You'll remember that from the time it happened. You tell me that you don't have any experience. You refuse to go out and meet people with experience. And your "research" involves fighting with someone who actually knows what he's talking about. If I'm "literally" the only person you've met who doesn't know some fact you made up about swords, you literally haven't talked to someone who knows anything. Please stop making up stuff about swords. If they were best against unarmored "targets" then armored knight would have stopped using them. Lets see if there are any historical depictions of men in full armor fighting with swords There appear to be. Again, stop making things up. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. In a community of less than 100 people (anywhere from 25 - 100) you would have had at least one blacksmith. Over 100 and it looks like 2 for every 100 people. This was a profession that was integral to the workings of any stable community, and that kept them in very high demand. I feel like I have to point out to you, that there were a lot of them. How do you think anyone learned to be a blacksmith? Or a bladesmith? I feel like your grasp of educational and economic roles pre-15th century is tenuous at best. Even it if wasn't, going from a large knife (a hugely necessary skill in any blacksmiths repertoire) to a sword is a matter of experimentation. Again, for a complete imbecile to get, it would take about a year. As an aside, I feel like you thought the link to modern bladesmiths meant people were learning how to smith from youtube videos. That was a stupid thing to think. Just like you can't learn to be a mechanic from watching car repair videos, you can't learn to smith that way. The apprentice system is very very much alive in this community. Most major cities still have a couple of smiths that you can learn from if you want. It's cute that you don't know how to use quotes, but kind of confusing. Also, I have no idea which article you are quoting, or why you think it would back up your case. Why would someone being confused with a Roman, make him an axe weilder? Are you trying to make the case that all of the axes disappeared to bolster your case? Because if so, I'd like to make the counter case that the Roman's were all equipped with M-16s, but the bears stole them all after the battle. Wait. Wait a fucking second! Holy fuck! You really have no idea what you are talking about! This puts everything into a new light. Sure. Only the were better known for their spears, not axes at all. Armies have been fielded equipped with only spears, because yes, armies have been fielded using only one weapon. When you can mass produce spears and nothing else, you put an army on the field with spears. And later when you can make a ton of swords, you put one on with only swords. Or am I supposed to take the word of a guy who thinks the Celts were Germanic? Well you can source, at least a little bit. Mind you an article specifically about battle axes, might not be the best place to find accurate information about the prevalence of axes as a fighting weapon. The articles purpose is to tell you about all the times the were used. Not the reasons (good reasons) they weren't. No, see, that's what you came here to ask. Your feedback has consisted of a bunch of people telling you not to call your race elves, and one guy who is pointing out that: no, it's not plausible. In the real world an army equipped with only axes would get their asses handed to them, and it's happened all over history. For someone who seems so emphatic about context you'd think you'd include some. What am I supposed to take away from this battle? I just pointed out that they've been used by every martial force put into the field in the last 4,000 years. Do you think maybe there's a reason for that? Yes, war certainly rewards ingenuity, so why do you think that the use of the sword didn't change until (and much after) the advent of the musket? Or why forces who didn't have swords would steal them from the fallen soldiers, who did? Or why the "flexibility" of the axe didn't make it the weapon of choice in every battle. Like for example, the sword? If you don't want feedback, don't ask for it. And if you want feedback from people who understand what they're talking about, don't fight them when they try to give it to you. When you tell someone you don't know what you're talking about, and then keep talking about it, you aren't actually having a debate. You might think it's a debate, but the other guy knows that he's just trying to teach you something. On the over hand, you think there were Germanic Celts, so taking the time to dispute with anyone is a losing proposition for you.
You really only proved my point with that last post. Again, you misunderstand and skew my words. I provide quotes that were both related to the discussion and pounding my point home. When I saw that you had replied in this thread, I groaned inwardly. I do want feedback, just not from someone who has his head so rammed up his rear that he's actively wasting my time, and then trying to call it a debate. And again, the axe has also been used throughout history. My frigging quotes prove that. I don't care if they're shoddy, you can read them, yes? You seem incapable from breaking from your sword-worship and realizing that chopping weapons were as prevalent as the sword. And no, The Celts were not Germanic. My mistake, should have made that clearer. The Germanic tribes were mainly off shoots of the Celts, who literally went all over Europe. Theres tales of them going even to Anatolia. And guess what? That quote? It's quite clear where it's from. Read it again. This is my last reply. I don't have anymore patience for you.
Sure, only not at all. But if you can say that with a straight face, I'd like to point out that the Japanese Aztecs were all about using swords over axes. None of your quotes were clear, you didn't prove any point, and no, this is not a debate. You asked for advice, someone gave you an answer you didn't like. You argued with him over stuff you knew nothing about. Please keep this interaction in mind for future forum use.
Ah, no, I was wrong about the Celts. They were of a different stock than the Germanians. Unlike you, I can admit when I was wrong. Did you know, Asher, that quotes are made up of words? That, in this instance, were related to the other words? If you are able to even grasp this, I would be shocked. Sure, they were shoddy, but it was still the king's english. Not a debate? A debate is defined as "...a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something." Courtesy of dictionary.com. Honestly, I don't even know how this load of horseshit got started. The thread was going fine until you showed up. I was getting good feedback. It's not that hard to imagine using an axe as a weapon. Especially when a nation has no great abundance of metal. And spears, like the Macedonian Sarissa at Pydna, can and will beat a sword like the Gladius. Unless a battlefield factor, say, like the phalanx hitting rough ground and losing its cohesion, comes into the play to fuck things up. The Macedonians lost at Pydna (listen closely now) because of an outside factor. Their phalanx lost cohesion and was beaten by the legionnaires once they got up close with the Gladius. Then the Sarissa, which had been kicking ass, was useless. That is context. Which is a point you have been sidestepping this entire time, as you usually do.
No, you admit when you're embarrassed, caught by your own ignorance. If you could admit when you were wrong this thread would be a lot shorter. My what a charming straw man you have there. It's just inviting me to knock it over! The composition of your quote is unimportant. I'm not doing your googling to find out what the hell you are talking about. There is no difference of opinions. You have an opinion about my facts and experience. That is not the same thing. Please don't think we're on the same level here. That is not context at all. I have no idea what you are talking about, and how it relates to axes, and repeated requests for clarification have gone unanswered. I can only assume that you are very young and don't understand much about reasoned discourse, online or not.
No. A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones) doesn't need such a gimmick, and it still has dragons, giants and magic.
But the Children of the Forest are more or less elves in all but name, though they hew more closely to folklore conceptions of elves rather than the modern, Tolkien inspired versions.
Your best strategy is how to fight against sheer power. That answer would be speed. It also depends on the fighter(s) wittiness/craftiness.
This is my solution. My timber folks rely on speed and wit to outmatch the walking tanks that are the mountain-folk. And arrows, lots of arrows.
Oh I do like the idea of the simplistic blow darts. Not just that but other range weapons, like catapults, trebuchets. Here is a link for some more types of ranged weapons and strategies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranged_weapon http://www.medievalwarfare.info/ Poisoning is effective as well.
Thanks for the links! Poisoning crossed my mind, perhaps a sap or material the mountain guys are vulnerable to. More of a wood-rot than metal rot.
Well for the mountain folk, they can use things like methane gas etc. Real poisons you find in mountains/poisonous plants and for the forest you can use native poisons found there as well. Those could be your jumping point. Research how the poisons work. I actually based one my mc's on a poisonous plant so plenty of info out there for you to mull over.
Now methane's an idea. They could put those in a canister that breaks on impact. It would probably be made out of clay, or some other brittle material. In regards to the mountain folk, poisoning them isn't like poisoning those of a Mannish physiology like the Timbers. They don't function like we do at all. They're a bit like lichen, or moss growing upon the Earth, if that makes sense.
So then salting them? Some armies would salt the earth to prevent crops from growing there. So based on what you said, could salt be an effective deterrent?
That is a fantastic idea. I hadn't thought of salt at all. I take most of my reasoning from Chinese elementalism, and since Wood overcomes Earth... well, woodrot and poisonous sap.
@Seraph751 Salt only deters witches. Though as far as moss and fungi go, I am not to sure. This is a question for google. Well that was a waste of search. I suppose if concentrated enough salt might kill off those things, maybe. (Good for slugs though)
I should have clarified more. My mountain people don't function like lichen or moss. They are similar to lichen and moss. They are beings that are intimately connected to the earth, to the ground itself, but not biologically connected to it. (They don't have roots, or leaves, or any sort of plant like traits)
The Mountain folk could run through a wild fire naked and be just fine (that's actually one of their drinking games). These guys, please understand, are so completely alien. The first war in a long string of them was caused when the two races ran into each other, and attacked because there was such a lack of understanding (and because both thought the other was some sort of vile creature).
I was thinking about what you said and I remembered a Chinese Herbal Book I use to have. It went over what organs/body functions are represented by each element. As a point of weakness you use use Chinese Elementalism in this regard as well when it comes to creating strengths and weakness in your characters. By the way, have you looked at Taoism? Taoism goes in depth with the elements' strengths, weaknesses, and characteristics, seasons, climates, months etc. I hope this helped!
I had not thought of Taoism! I'll look that up ASAP. The most I've seen was a simple graph that drew lines between the elements, describing which one overcame the other, and which one generated the other. Well, I don't use them to create weaknesses and strengths in characters, I use them to alter the physiology of my assorted races. Sort've as a divining rod. I hold the race in my mind's eye and liken them to a certain affinity or niche (example, my timber workers-Wood, Mountain folk- Stone). Different affinities mean (at the very least) different ethnicities, not necessarily different races. So, my timber folks could have a subspecies that likens to stone rather than wood, or earth, or water, hell, maybe even fire. These little cultural distinctions would be based on terrain, location, isolation, or all of the above. Thanks for your feedback though, I greatly appreciate it, especially since I know how bad I am at explaining this sort of thing.
Ummm... I read most of this thread until I got to the pictured "proof" of armored knights fighting with swords. Anyone else notice how ridiculous it is? First off, knights tended to have multiple weapons. From lances to maces. Yes, they had swords. They also fought UNARMORED opponents too. A sword is rarely optimal against an armored opponent. Bit more knightly though. The romans excelled in organized strategy. They were also better equipped, usually. Not a good reference. Swords are at a disadvantage in reach. Without armor/shields might as well be arrow fodder. Swords are great... With full armor and a shield. So is a short spear. Disregarding Asher. If your mountain people are based off timber and hunting you should use slings as well. Hunting knives would be common. Javelins and entrenchments as well. For your "elves" (I personally would use another name) I might recommend a war scythe (used in many peasant uprisings) or the Kusarigama.
