I was thinking about realms, wars and the troops. One thing struck me as odd, that is that realms that go to war all the time seem to have equal troops as realms that sit around doing nothing. So I came with a proposal. It´s still rough, but might be wearth to discuss.
1. Realms that are at war might develop over time a bonus to the training score of recruitment centres. Veterans would come back from the war and pass on their skills at the recruitment centres (or be recruited aggain). Realms that have only peace and don't see battles that often would see a drop of training over time.
Some realms might start wars to keep their recruits trained and have a better army ready for when it really counts. Also, as the weapons and armour of the recruits don't change those scores stay the same.
2. The bonus or penalty should reflect the troops. I was thinking of 10-20% of the traing the troops don't have. Let me explain this.
RC, training 20%. These are very weakly trained militia. They would benefit a lot from constant war as they could learn a few basic skills for survival. The opposite is also true, as they most likely are farmers or other low peasents during peace time they will forget even more basic skills. Their range of training would be from 2-38%. (100%-20%=80 80*0.20=18%)
RC, training 90. These are highly trained troops. Profesionals that gain a long training before they are ready for recruitment. Or they are from a regions with a long military tradition. (something like that) These troops won't learn much from a war. Also, in peace time these man keep training and stay sharp. They won't return to their other jobs, as being a soldier is their job. Their range from training would be from 88%-92% (100%-90%=10 10*0.20=2%)
Part 1 is the basic idea of my suggestion and part 2 is how it could possible work out. I am very curius about the ideas of other people on this matter? (and please, focus on this matter and let's not end up with a discussion about to much peace, as I know there are people out there that love to whine about thats subject :P)
Quote from: Silverhawk on December 06, 2011, 02:28:05 PM
1. Realms that are at war might develop over time a bonus to the training score of recruitment centres. Veterans would come back from the war and pass on their skills at the recruitment centres (or be recruited aggain). Realms that have only peace and don't see battles that often would see a drop of training over time.
There's a problem with this theory.
That problem is that by and large, troops don't come back from wars and retire. They pretty much fight till they die.
Yeah, some get set up as militia, and then the militia units slowly lose members until they auto-disband, but mostly, people keep their units until they get slaughtered.
Quote from: Silverhawk on December 06, 2011, 02:28:05 PM
(and please, focus on this matter and let's not end up with a discussion about to much peace, as I know there are people out there that love to whine about thats subject :P)
Sorry, but I have to squint very hard to see the difference.
QuoteThey pretty much fight till they die.
I think that most of those "deaths" are actually man that desert in the heat of battle. These deserters return home and could be recruited again. Of course, this is just my vision of the matter. But I hardly see that a noble goes out and look at all corpses to see if all his man are reallyd ead on the battlefield. When they don't apear at the end of battle at the camp then they must de dead. Especially after a defeat.
Quote from: Silverhawk on December 06, 2011, 03:10:21 PM
I think that most of those "deaths" are actually man that desert in the heat of battle. These deserters return home and could be recruited again. Of course, this is just my vision of the matter. But I hardly see that a noble goes out and look at all corpses to see if all his man are reallyd ead on the battlefield. When they don't apear at the end of battle at the camp then they must de dead. Especially after a defeat.
Well, you certainly win points for originality. I can't see a single thing in the actual game that could remotely suggest such an interpretation.
QuoteWell, you certainly win points for originality. I can't see a single thing in the actual game that could remotely suggest such an interpretation.
Well, a unit fighting to their death might be close to what we see in game, but is it realistic? It goes nicely with the knight in shining armor that most people tend to see, but in reality? I thought most battles in medieval times where not won by the number of kills but by the number of soldiers routing.
Quote from: Silverhawk on December 06, 2011, 03:14:24 PM
Well, a unit fighting to their death might be close to what we see in game, but is it realistic? It goes nicely with the knight in shining armor that most people tend to see, but in reality? I thought most battles in medieval times where not won by the number of kills but by the number of soldiers routing.
Which were then slaughtered.
I'm not aware of any actual numbers for medieval battles, but for the famous ancient greek Battle of Marathon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon), we do have a precise number of losses for one side: 192 athenian soldiers lost their lives. The persians lost over 6000 men.
I have toned down this aspect in BM, because otherwise one decisive battle would decide a war. But the fact is that the losers very often had losses far higher than the winners, exactly because routing pretty much equalled slaughter.
Quote from: Silverhawk on December 06, 2011, 03:14:24 PMI thought most battles in medieval times where not won by the number of kills but by the number of soldiers routing.
Which is modeled in the game by units breaking and retreating. And even deserters are modeled, after a fashion, by men who just aren't there when you try and rally them.
As to the original idea, this would give a bonus to those realms that continually fight wars, and penalize those that don't. But I hardly see it as a motivator for realms to be at war. I just can't see someone sitting there and saying to themselves:
"Hey, the training levels in our RCs are dropping, we better go fight someone so that our RCs are top notch ... in case we ever need to ... fight someone?" A good invitation to game the system, I think.
I like the idea but now how it would be 'implemented' if that is the right word...
This idea is simply "turn half the TMP functionality back on".
After all, if my 20% training RC *can* be a 35% training RC, but isn't because my realm never fights, isn't that the same as a penalty? Soon enough people will complain about that.
if your realm is at peace.. why would you want to pay extra to recruit highly trained men? you pay ill-trained men then train them up yourself whilst upping cohesion!
... which costs money. Maybe more than it would have cost to just hire recruit with higher training to begin with.
But you do have a point about cohesion.
Quote from: Tom on December 06, 2011, 04:08:51 PM
Which were then slaughtered.
I'm not aware of any actual numbers for medieval battles, but for the famous ancient greek Battle of Marathon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon), we do have a precise number of losses for one side: 192 athenian soldiers lost their lives. The persians lost over 6000 men.
I have toned down this aspect in BM, because otherwise one decisive battle would decide a war. But the fact is that the losers very often had losses far higher than the winners, exactly because routing pretty much equalled slaughter.
O.o I was under the impression BM was set in medieval times....but then again, I could be wrong. Your right on the part that most where killed, but a few deserted and escaped. One veteran can train 100 new recruits.
QuoteAs to the original idea, this would give a bonus to those realms that continually fight wars, and penalize those that don't. But I hardly see it as a motivator for realms to be at war. I just can't see someone sitting there and saying to themselves: "Hey, the training levels in our RCs are dropping, we better go fight someone so that our RCs are top notch ... in case we ever need to ... fight someone?" A good invitation to game the system, I think.
QuoteWell, you certainly win points for originality. I can't see a single thing in the actual game that could remotely suggest such an interpretation.
It is a game after all :P, but on the other hand. There are a lot of mechanics now that can be played in a role or be played as a game. If you want to model everything perfectly you will end up with a majro crisis on most continents due to the fact of the pure annihilation of the male population, due to the fact they all go to war and end up dying.
QuoteThis idea is simply "turn half the TMP functionality back on".
And my question is, where in tmp was the part that it affected RC's? This suggestion is not tmp.
Quoteif your realm is at peace.. why would you want to pay extra to recruit highly trained men? you pay ill-trained men then train them up yourself whilst upping cohesion!
Yes, it might even be a bonus for realms at peace who have the time to train. Yet when you suddenly come to war your RC's are weaker and your first refit will notice it. It won't be drastic, but the effect would be present.
Quote from: Silverhawk on December 08, 2011, 11:45:11 AM
It is a game after all :P, but on the other hand. There are a lot of mechanics now that can be played in a role or be played as a game. If you want to model everything perfectly you will end up with a majro crisis on most continents due to the fact of the pure annihilation of the male population, due to the fact they all go to war and end up dying.
That's fine, because 95% of all newborns are male anyways.
Quote from: Silverhawk on December 08, 2011, 11:45:11 AM
It is a game after all :P, but on the other hand. There are a lot of mechanics now that can be played in a role or be played as a game. If you want to model everything perfectly you will end up with a majro crisis on most continents due to the fact of the pure annihilation of the male population, due to the fact they all go to war and end up dying.
But then the men that are left all have high training, so their kids are even more awesome. That's called evolution!
Anyways I thought BM was pretty equal-opportunity compared to most medieval-type settings. Who's to say all those troops are male?
Quote from: Marlboro Man on December 08, 2011, 09:48:50 PM
But then the men that are left all have high training, so their kids are even more awesome. That's called evolution!
Anyways I thought BM was pretty equal-opportunity compared to most medieval-type settings. Who's to say all those troops are male?
Because men dying en mass isn't anywhere near the problem for a society that women dying en mass is. Also, you need people to take care of the kids, and for various reasons it's easier to have women do that (men can't nurse and can't be pregnant among them).
Various other reasons (some of which are perfectly valid, some of which are tradition/remnants of reasons that used to be valid but aren't anymore, probably a few of which are just irrational) aside, there is one overwhelming reason that men have tended to have the hazardous jobs such as warrior and hunter: men are expendable, women aren't.
Woman are needed to breed the next generation. Men are also but nearly any male can do that whilst fertile woman have a range. Not to mention one man can impregnate all the women if needed. Whereas you need all your women.
Tis why woman still are not allowed to be front line soldiers expecting to see close action.
Though I usually call all troops men for simplicity's sake, I have always viewed it more or less like Dragon Age's universe. Men are the overwhelming majority of soldiers, but there's a splatter of women among their ranks. Basically, they exist, but they're not dreadfully common.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 08, 2011, 10:08:48 PM
Though I usually call all troops men for simplicity's sake, I have always viewed it more or less like Dragon Age's universe. Men are the overwhelming majority of soldiers, but there's a splatter of women among their ranks. Basically, they exist, but they're not dreadfully common.
I've never seen any reason to assume such a thing.
In the medieval times, women could be powerful nobles as our characters can be. There were various important queens and duchesses, after all. That doesn't mean you saw women soldiers running around with the men.
You also didn't see women nobles clad in armor fighting on the frontlines leading soldiers. When you did, they were called insane. Like Joan of Arc.
Quote from: Draco Tanos on December 08, 2011, 10:31:23 PM
You also didn't see women nobles clad in armor fighting on the frontlines leading soldiers. When you did, they were called insane. Like Joan of Arc.
Well, being clad in armor and fighting on the frontlines is not really required for leading an army.
In the middle ages? It pretty much was. Otherwise you would be seen as an honorless craven.
One of the key breaks from historical reality, which has been made pretty damn clear by the Mr. Tom is that there is gender equality in BM. Which means women do everything men do, and...I suppose vice versa logically...
Quote from: Artemesia on December 09, 2011, 12:53:25 AM
One of the key breaks from historical reality, which has been made pretty damn clear by the Mr. Tom is that there is gender equality in BM. Which means women do everything men do, and...I suppose vice versa logically...
So apparently women can get men pregnant... interesting....
That is a disturbing and painful notion.
Quote from: Artemesia on December 09, 2011, 12:53:25 AM
One of the key breaks from historical reality, which has been made pretty damn clear by the Mr. Tom is that there is gender equality in BM. Which means women do everything men do, and...I suppose vice versa logically...
For most of the middle ages, women had more rights than they later had in the renaissance.
And how many female heroes do we actually have in the game? I would say they indeed qualify as the oddball.
And female troop leaders doesn't mean female troops.
You are free to RP your unit as being female, though, but I'd be more inclined to say that every single troop that hasn't had it's sex defined is male.
Quote from: Ramiel on December 08, 2011, 10:06:55 PM
Woman are needed to breed the next generation. Men are also but nearly any male can do that whilst fertile woman have a range. Not to mention one man can impregnate all the women if needed. Whereas you need all your women.
Tis why woman still are not allowed to be front line soldiers expecting to see close action.
Many nations actually DO allow women to serve in all roles now, including front line infantry and fighter pilots. The man arguments in the modern age against women serving in the front line have been
1) The aren't strong enough for the Job. In the armies that allow women to serve in the front line they must pass the exact same fitness tests as men.
2) The enemy would mistreat/rape them if captured.
3) The men serving with them will feel "protective" and may jeopardize the safety of the unit in an effort to "protect" the poor girls.
Quote from: Silverhawk on December 08, 2011, 11:45:11 AM
O.o I was under the impression BM was set in medieval times....but then again, I could be wrong. Your right on the part that most where killed, but a few deserted and escaped. One veteran can train 100 new recruits.
Pretending the Veteran is in any way a competent teachers, and that the troops had significant free time to train. But then the reality of most of the medieval age was the main part of the army was almost completely incompetent. The weren't professional soldiers, they didn't get significant training and once the current conflict was over they would return to the fields or craft that they came from.
Only Knights and their men-at-arms trained in a significant fashion, and they were extremely unlikely to teach the honored craft of combat to the mere peasants that formed the bulk of the army. This is why weapons like crossbows were so favored, you could expect new recruits to become competent with the weapon extremely quickly.
The English armies of the Hundred Year wars were a major exception to this. The bulk of those armies were Long Bow men, who while not trained soldiers in the real sense, did have years upon years of training with their weapon.
I've never seen an explanation of where BM troops fit into this mold. Are our units the private men-at-arms cadre that accompanied most knights? Are they semi professional militia's and it is assumed that when you travel home some of the men return to their lives to be replaced by others called into service?
Quote from: BardicNerd on December 08, 2011, 09:58:34 PM
Because men dying en mass isn't anywhere near the problem for a society that women dying en mass is. Also, you need people to take care of the kids, and for various reasons it's easier to have women do that (men can't nurse and can't be pregnant among them).
While men can't be pregnant, they can nurse, oddly enough. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-males-can-lactate&sc=rss
Quote from: Chénier on December 09, 2011, 03:17:59 AM
For most of the middle ages, women had more rights than they later had in the renaissance.
And how many female heroes do we actually have in the game? I would say they indeed qualify as the oddball.
And female troop leaders doesn't mean female troops.
You are free to RP your unit as being female, though, but I'd be more inclined to say that every single troop that hasn't had it's sex defined is male.
I've seen a number of female heroes, and plenty of female troop leaders getting wounded in battles. Not to mention that some realms (Abington comes to mind) have certain centers that were always RP'd as having female troops.
Talking about needing women for biological reasons seems kinda pointless to me given the speed at which people reproduce and grow in this game. If you really wanted to think about it, gestation in BM has to be very quick, and probably producing litters. I mean, before the immigration code which made regions recover oh-so-wonderfully faster (thank you thank you thank you) it took, what, a full RL year, roughly, to recover a depopulated city, right? But that's only (depending on your calendar, but I'm just using a four-seasons=one year) five years or so. Yeah, limited immigration was part of that, but we still have to be talking about multiple generations in that five years.
Quote from: Bedwyr on December 09, 2011, 05:07:05 AM
While men can't be pregnant, they can nurse, oddly enough. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-males-can-lactate&sc=rss
I've seen a number of female heroes, and plenty of female troop leaders getting wounded in battles. Not to mention that some realms (Abington comes to mind) have certain centers that were always RP'd as having female troops.
Talking about needing women for biological reasons seems kinda pointless to me given the speed at which people reproduce and grow in this game. If you really wanted to think about it, gestation in BM has to be very quick, and probably producing litters. I mean, before the immigration code which made regions recover oh-so-wonderfully faster (thank you thank you thank you) it took, what, a full RL year, roughly, to recover a depopulated city, right? But that's only (depending on your calendar, but I'm just using a four-seasons=one year) five years or so. Yeah, limited immigration was part of that, but we still have to be talking about multiple generations in that five years.
And how quickly the newborn age into useful productive members of society :)
Quote from: Bedwyr on December 09, 2011, 05:07:05 AM
I've seen a number of female heroes, and plenty of female troop leaders getting wounded in battles. Not to mention that some realms (Abington comes to mind) have certain centers that were always RP'd as having female troops.
Being wounded in battle doesn't mean you were in melee. !@#$ happens, after all, especially if you are close enough to the combat zone to be able to tell your troops what to do.
I would really love to see stats on character sex and class combinations, actually, would be interesting to know. I personally haven't seen any since the war islands are gone, at least as far as I know.
As for female RCs, it would indeed make much more sense to RP all units coming from that RC as being female, and not random units from any RC.
Knights would typically be mounted even if they led footmen, which along with their top-of-the-line arms and armor made it less likely for them to get hurt, but knights fought. Maybe the Lords and Counts and whatnot sit at the camp drinking wine and laughing as their proles die but I have a really hard time thinking of Knights as standing back patiently instructing their peeps and occasionally catching a stray arrow. I mean you could RP your Warrior PC like that but they'd probably get called out on it.
You also increase your swordfighting and jousting skills in battles, which indicates to me that you actually do fight.
Quote from: Marlboro Man on December 09, 2011, 06:53:20 AM
Knights would typically be mounted even if they led footmen, which along with their top-of-the-line arms and armor made it less likely for them to get hurt, but knights fought. Maybe the Lords and Counts and whatnot sit at the camp drinking wine and laughing as their proles die but I have a really hard time thinking of Knights as standing back patiently instructing their peeps and occasionally catching a stray arrow. I mean you could RP your Warrior PC like that but they'd probably get called out on it.
I thought it was established that in BM, the only nobles that regularly get in a melee are heroes.
Quote from: Chénier on December 09, 2011, 07:03:20 AM
I thought it was established that in BM, the only nobles that regularly get in a melee are heroes.
Then how are you increasing your sword fighting, and how are you being injured when an infantry unit attacks your own unit? I've always thought the difference was that normal nobles are with their units, but probably somewhere in the back of the formation, while hero's are out in front, leading the charge etc.
You know...one can in fact learn from observation. So you don't actually have to fight with a sword to learn how to use it. Of course, you'd suck at it, which is reflected even in the game: You gain swordfighting skill fairly slowly while leading I/MI/SF. As for getting wounded, well, sometimes an arrow does fly far and hit you, or the infantry line is broken and some dude manages to nick you. Or a piece of crumbling wall smashes you and you're not like that orc in LoTR: RotK who sidesteps at the last second. But don't worry, as long as you're not a hero you have contractual immortality in battle. The....uh...invisible deity of the battlefield is protecting you or something. Heroes throw away that protection by seeking immortality through death, the ancient Greek tradition. Either that, or their hubris in declaring themselves as heroes angers the Battle God and he/she/it revokes the contractual immortality.
Quote from: Artemesia on December 09, 2011, 11:56:38 AM
You know...one can in fact learn from observation. So you don't actually have to fight with a sword to learn how to use it. Of course, you'd suck at it, which is reflected even in the game: You gain swordfighting skill fairly slowly while leading I/MI/SF.
Oh yeah, like all those martial art experts from watching movies.
Quote from: De-Legro on December 09, 2011, 12:04:47 PM
Oh yeah, like all those martial art experts from watching movies.
Hello? Did you not read the part where I said "You'd suck at it"? lol it's even in the part you quoted.
Obviously you won't be a swordmaster from watching. That also doesn't mean you would know jack !@#$ about it as opposed to some kid who's never even seen a sword.
Plus, movies use Hollywood fighting, which is by definition more for showmanship than practicality. That is very different from watching a real fight, which is the case in BM. You are actually witnessing people seriously trying to kill each other. That is real experience, and you definitely can learn even from observing that.
Quote from: Artemesia on December 09, 2011, 01:28:26 PM
Hello? Did you not read the part where I said "You'd suck at it"? lol it's even in the part you quoted.
Obviously you won't be a swordmaster from watching. That also doesn't mean you would know jack !@#$ about it as opposed to some kid who's never even seen a sword.
Plus, movies use Hollywood fighting, which is by definition more for showmanship than practicality. That is very different from watching a real fight, which is the case in BM. You are actually witnessing people seriously trying to kill each other. That is real experience, and you definitely can learn even from observing that.
Having been in the military, and actually engaged in battles, my firm belief is that
1) battles are far to hectic for you to learn !@#$ by watching, you can't just calmly watch two combatants fight, you have people moving everywhere attacks on a single person coming from multiple directions etc.
2) Watching other people sparring teaches you next nothing, since the basics building blocks of melee combat are based upon very subtle factors like how you balance your weight, the way you brace your arms when you block a blow. Now watching people spar when you understand these basics can indeed be very enlightening.
Besides even though you learn skill slowly in combat, you can learn to a reasonably high degree.
Quote from: Chénier on December 09, 2011, 05:41:11 AMI would really love to see stats on character sex and class combinations, actually, would be interesting to know. I personally haven't seen any since the war islands are gone, at least as far as I know.
A quick count of a few of the realms I am in:
Total heroes: 29
Male: 22
Female: 7
FWIW I've had two hero characters killed, one male and one female. My only living hero character is male. He is included in the above numbers.
As far as fighting styles, I consider the hero subclass to be an OOC mechanic, having no IC ramifications on the actions or behaviors of my characters. There is no possible IC/IG justification for only heroes being able to die.
More likely to die maybe. But that's not the way the game mechanic works. Therefore, I ignore it so far as IC character behavior.
Quote from: De-Legro on December 09, 2011, 07:09:56 AM
Then how are you increasing your sword fighting, and how are you being injured when an infantry unit attacks your own unit? I've always thought the difference was that normal nobles are with their units, but probably somewhere in the back of the formation, while hero's are out in front, leading the charge etc.
Increasing your swordfighting? You don't. Every now and then, your unit gets chased off and I guess you might have to use your sword a bit, but that's about it and would explain why you really don't improve your swordfighting from battles much at all.
Quote from: Chénier on December 09, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
Increasing your swordfighting? You don't. Every now and then, your unit gets chased off and I guess you might have to use your sword a bit, but that's about it and would explain why you really don't improve your swordfighting from battles much at all.
I've got a character that has never done anything else to train sword fighting, and the skill has reached 40%, so its really not that bad.
Quote from: De-Legro on December 09, 2011, 08:06:59 PM
I've got a character that has never done anything else to train sword fighting, and the skill has reached 40%, so its really not that bad.
Hold old is he?
Most of my chacters never were that heavy on infantry, but even those who were never got above 25% without at least training every now and then.
Quote from: Chénier on December 09, 2011, 08:12:02 PM
Hold old is he?
Most of my chacters never were that heavy on infantry, but even those who were never got above 25% without at least training every now and then.
He was created in September 2008. He has never been a pure warrior mind you, has spent considerable time as a courtier, diplomat and priest.
Quote from: De-Legro on December 09, 2011, 08:31:08 PM
He was created in September 2008. He has never been a pure warrior mind you, has spent considerable time as a courtier, diplomat and priest.
Random-based events sometimes generate extreme cases, I suppose. ;)
Seems to me you have about the same chance to up your Swordfighting skill from actual combat (not just whetting your blade on militia) as you do from six hours with the Expert trainer. Combat usually lasts one hour. I don't know how you'd learn more in one hour watching a chaotic fight while trying to issue orders and keep your low-paid men from wandering off to play whatever they had in place of Nintendo back then (Knifey Spoony, I'd wager).
As far as RP goes, my main Warrior guy surrounds himself with infantry like ablative armor and fights whoever gets through. When he isn't such a reeking newbie and becomes a Hero, he will be at the front of every charge. The various codes of conduct forbid killing a nobleman in war in favor of capture and ransom (even in history, right up to the Revolutionary War where the Americans got the brilliant idea to shoot the colorful men on horses), but such protections would be tough to apply to a guy at the very front of an infantry wedge, the very first to meet enemy combatants.
Quote from: Marlboro Man on December 10, 2011, 01:14:24 AM
Seems to me you have about the same chance to up your Swordfighting skill from actual combat (not just whetting your blade on militia) as you do from six hours with the Expert trainer. Combat usually lasts one hour. I don't know how you'd learn more in one hour watching a chaotic fight while trying to issue orders and keep your low-paid men from wandering off to play whatever they had in place of Nintendo back then (Knifey Spoony, I'd wager).
As far as RP goes, my main Warrior guy surrounds himself with infantry like ablative armor and fights whoever gets through. When he isn't such a reeking newbie and becomes a Hero, he will be at the front of every charge. The various codes of conduct forbid killing a nobleman in war in favor of capture and ransom (even in history, right up to the Revolutionary War where the Americans got the brilliant idea to shoot the colorful men on horses), but such protections would be tough to apply to a guy at the very front of an infantry wedge, the very first to meet enemy combatants.
And !@#$ DOES happen. Who was that king who, victorious, strolled through the conquered city only to have a barely alive dude nick him with the point of an arrow and give him tetanus or something, of which he died?
Sometimes, it didn't take much. :P
Quote from: Chénier on December 10, 2011, 01:56:52 AM
And !@#$ DOES happen. Who was that king who, victorious, strolled through the conquered city only to have a barely alive dude nick him with the point of an arrow and give him tetanus or something, of which he died?
Sometimes, it didn't take much. :P
You're thinking of Nobunaga Oda, I believe, but that story's apocryphal at best.
Quote from: Marlboro Man on December 10, 2011, 02:33:02 AM
You're thinking of Nobunaga Oda, I believe, but that story's apocryphal at best.
According to wikipedia, that guy committed sepuku?
I was pretty sure I was thinking of some european leader, too. Perhaps not a king, though, but someone of great importance.
Quote from: Chénier on December 10, 2011, 03:00:11 AM
According to wikipedia, that guy committed sepuku?
I was pretty sure I was thinking of some european leader, too. Perhaps not a king, though, but someone of great importance.
Found mention of a soldier named Tychon described in a medical text, "Of the Epidemics", written by Hippocrates. Could be the guy? He got shot in the back with an arrow, but it was at an angle where it was easily removed so they yanked it out and didn't even think about it until the lockjaw set in.
Quote from: Marlboro Man on December 10, 2011, 03:11:33 AM
Found mention of a soldier named Tychon described in a medical text, "Of the Epidemics", written by Hippocrates. Could be the guy? He got shot in the back with an arrow, but it was at an angle where it was easily removed so they yanked it out and didn't even think about it until the lockjaw set in.
Doesn't sound like it.
Keep it mind I heard this from my college history teacher, who was known for stating as undeniable fact some of the most debated and dubious historical claims... A great guy, but lacking the ability to nuance. :P
Quote from: Chénier on December 10, 2011, 04:14:31 AM
Doesn't sound like it.
Keep it mind I heard this from my college history teacher, who was known for stating as undeniable fact some of the most debated and dubious historical claims... A great guy, but lacking the ability to nuance. :P
As do most historians, it seems. Or they keep coming with the 'but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle'-conclusion. :P
Quote from: Chénier on December 10, 2011, 01:56:52 AM
And !@#$ DOES happen. Who was that king who, victorious, strolled through the conquered city only to have a barely alive dude nick him with the point of an arrow and give him tetanus or something, of which he died?
Sometimes, it didn't take much. :P
King Richard of England had something similar. Some little siege of a random castle, got nicked by a crossbow bolt fired by some kid inside, which gave him something or other which killed him.
At least he didn't die from his horse stumbling over a mole hill.
Quote from: Bedwyr on December 10, 2011, 06:07:31 PM
King Richard of England had something similar. Some little siege of a random castle, got nicked by a crossbow bolt fired by some kid inside, which gave him something or other which killed him.
Must totally be what my teacher was talking about.
It has all the key elements: a king, a siege, an arrow/bolt, a superficial wound that leads to a disease, and an anticlimactic death. Sometimes, I think that history teacher just remembered the key elements, and gradually added random filler in between as he gave the lessons. :P
Quote from: Chénier on December 10, 2011, 03:00:11 AM
According to wikipedia, that guy committed sepuku?
I was pretty sure I was thinking of some european leader, too. Perhaps not a king, though, but someone of great importance.
Nobunaga Oda was the guy who at his prime (he essentially controlled kyoto - capital, imperial courts, etc, and most of central japan.. no doubt on his way to become shogun) ticked his vassal off so badly that the vassal rebelled and whacked him (and his retinue) where he was resting.
whether he chopped himself or not is not too relevant.. higher up people tend to chop themselves before someone else chop them back then too.