I think I'm coming to the conclusion that D&D's "time period" is probably best represented by whatever "time period' Eternia is in during peak Masters of the Universe. No one's armor or arms seems to have any real rhyme or reason then and there either. Castles and armor and swords and battle axes and magic and even glimmers of fantastic tech all lumped together. He Man says "I have the power." So do we all.
Eternia is much more reflective of a D&D setting than any RL effort exhibited here. So basically D&D exists in 1980s western animation, with maybe some tinges of heavy metal covers from the prior decade.
I'll let the serious discussion continue now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You mean besides the fact that you're carrying around an open flame with little to no protection, or is that the primary reason?
Well, it's one reason. You also can't project the light in a particular direction which means that you get as much light shining at you (which you don't want since that will blind you) as away from you. The obvious fire hazard is another reason, there was actually quite often laws against carrying torches or other open flames in cities. Torches are also quite susceptible to the enviroment, rain, wind and stuff like that.
For me, D&D will always be the middle ages, so between 1000 and 1200AD.
With the Artificer and guns, D&D is being pushed into the renaissance era, but that feels "wrong" to mix technology and magic. (IMO)
I remember a 1E/2E module were players discover a crashed spaceship. In order to properly operate any gun they find, required an intelligence check (which I recall being set at a very high bar)
Then I guess your games don’t include the rapier as that was not invented until the Renaissance (around 1,500).
And of course, it was only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms….
Well, not really. The rapier wasn incented as a more convenient to carry sidearm. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that armour was useless against firearms. Funnily enough, at this point rapiers had gone out of use.
But yes, if you consider D&D to be in between 1000 and 1200, there are a lot of things you must exclude, the rapier being one of them.
What's your source?
Reality. What's your source?
As far as I know, the rapier picked up prominence during the late 1500's and early 1600's due to hilt design.
Say what now? What does hilt design have to do with armour and bullets?
We agree that they were sidearms (the sabre was far better suited for war), but complex hilts pretty much come about as a response to the decline of armour (specifically gauntlets).
No, not at all. Complex hilts came about as a way to protect your hand for the occassions when you weren't wearing armour to begin with. Ie as when you were walking around in your civvies. Complex hilt design has nothing to do with "the decline of armour" and even less so to do with the rise of firearms.
And armour wasn't so much found as useless against firearms so much as too expensive for most to buy quality, but there was a high demand, so some groups started to use poorer quality iron, which then required it to be thicker to sustain proof against bullets, which is where the Victorians got the concept of armour being ungodly heavy as opposed to 30 to 40lbs.
First of all, poorer quality iron doesn't make things heavier. Also at this time you had munitions grade armour that were of decent enough quality that those who needed it had access to it. Usually through a feudal lord or employer who paid the expenses (we're talking 16th and 17th century here). Secondly, if armour wasn't useless against bullets, then why did you say that armour being useless against firearms was the reason why rapier became popular? Third, rapiers came about in the early 1500s (there were rapier manuals from the 1530s which means that the rapier had been around long enough for someone to develop techniques and write a manual on the subject), armour was being bullet proofed way into the 1600s and was being worn as at least nominal, long range protection against bullets at least until the Napoleonic war. At this time the rapier had gone out of use both as a military and civilian weapon.
I don’t know much about medieval history I prefer learning about 20th century and ancient history but because we have plate and hooded lanterns then I would say 1600s(I know hooded lanterns came around in the 1700s but gimme some leeway) but again I really have no idea and since it’s all fantasy you can’t really have an accurate time period, it also depends if you play with certain items or not(firearms, plate, hooded lanterns, printing press, etc.). If you where to run a historical campaign I’d do some research on the time period and “reskin” some items and take out others and maybe homebrew a few. Hope this helps!
For realsies? I didn't know that about hooded lanterns (I've never thought about it). I'll need to look into that, but if it's true, that's pretty cool... and to be fair, I've heard a lot about the value of torches during the 1500's, and not lanterns.
Torches are actually not very handy nor useful as a light source is most situations.
Reality. That would be a great source if it meant anything.
What else are you going to use? Your fantasy? Facts based in reality is the best source of information.
Without a time machine we can't go back and check,
We don't need to "go back and check". You do realize that stuff made hundreds of years ago are still around today? And that the metallurgic properties of elements don't change over time? A kilo of iron is a kilo of iron, the time period doesn't change that (well, the kilo hasn't been around for that long but you get my point).
so you need a real source. Like, maybe you're trolling in which case, okay. "Reality" without ever actually answering thr question is every troll's favourite source.
I did answer your questions. Did you forget to read the rest of my post? What was it that you didn't understand. If you tell us what you had difficulties with I'd be happy to explain it for you in a easier fashion.
And what does hilt design have to do with armour and bullets? Nothing, except you're using this statement to deflect focus from what was actually being asked of you. But again, if you're trolling, deflecting is a common tactic.
Why are you projecting? Just because I point out that your claims are wrong doesn't mean you have to be rude. You were the one talking about rapiers, bullets and armour so if anything you should ask yourself why you did that. I can't answer that for you.
As for poorer quality iron, it 100% does. You cannot make a wrought iron chestplate with proof against bullets without chonking it up. Steel was super expensive pretty much until Carnegie and was reserved for things like jewelry and tools. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish here besides hear yourself type.
Except that you didn't just "chonk up" armour until it was bullet proof using crappy iron. Why do you believe such strange things?
Next, we come to a misunderstanding.
Well, you've misunderstood quite a few things already. But let's see what you got wrong this time. ;)
Armour could have proof against bullets, but that is going to protect you from a few shots, not an army's worth.
Who said they would? Are you just building a strawman or are you confused about what the concept of "bullet proofing" is?
The bullet still deforms the steel (which is literally what formed the proof), which created additional weak spots. Besides that, most proofs were done between 10 and 30ft away, with a pistol or arquebus. When muskets were invented, they fired much heavier projectiles which typical steel armour couldn't compete with.
So now it's steel? Previously you claimed it was iron. What's it going to be? Or is this just another case of you talking about something your know very little about? And since you admitted that armour could be proofed against bullets, why do you claim that armour was "useless against firearms"? Are you using the word 'useless' in a way that is not common to the English language?
This is why courassiers became a thing.
Which is quite funny because when cuirassers first came about they still wore quite a lot of armour (mainly to proect against weapons that weren't firearms). Cuirassers wearing nothing but cuirasses (and often helmets) weren't around until much later.
They lost the weight of their armour to gain speed because the ground covered between vollies was far more valuable than the unlikely chance of getting shot somewhere besides center-mass. This meant you were less likely to wear armour in general, and greater hand protection from other blades became valuable, hence the rise in knuckle bows and basket hilts.
Again, you are are wrong about the cause of the rise of the complex hilt (funny how you keep bringing that up despite you accusing me of trying to change the subject when I questioned you about your previous claims on the topic). Not that this really changes the fact that your claim that the rapier "was only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms" is completely and objectively false.
For me, D&D will always be the middle ages, so between 1000 and 1200AD.
With the Artificer and guns, D&D is being pushed into the renaissance era, but that feels "wrong" to mix technology and magic. (IMO)
I remember a 1E/2E module were players discover a crashed spaceship. In order to properly operate any gun they find, required an intelligence check (which I recall being set at a very high bar)
Then I guess your games don’t include the rapier as that was not invented until the Renaissance (around 1,500).
And of course, it was only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms….
Well, not really. The rapier wasn incented as a more convenient to carry sidearm. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that armour was useless against firearms. Funnily enough, at this point rapiers had gone out of use.
But yes, if you consider D&D to be in between 1000 and 1200, there are a lot of things you must exclude, the rapier being one of them.
For me, D&D will always be the middle ages, so between 1000 and 1200AD.
With the Artificer and guns, D&D is being pushed into the renaissance era, but that feels "wrong" to mix technology and magic. (IMO)
I remember a 1E/2E module were players discover a crashed spaceship. In order to properly operate any gun they find, required an intelligence check (which I recall being set at a very high bar)
Then I guess your games don’t include the rapier as that was not invented until the Renaissance (around 1,500).
And of course, it was only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms….
Well, not really. The rapier wasn incented as a more convenient to carry sidearm. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that armour was useless against firearms. Funnily enough, at this point rapiers had gone out of use.
But yes, if you consider D&D to be in between 1000 and 1200, there are a lot of things you must exclude, the rapier being one of them.
Who do you think is incorrect? The person who claimed that the rapier was invented because people stopped wearing heavy armour or the person who claimed that if you set the game between the years 1000CE and 1200CE then you must exclude a weapon invented "circa 1,500"? Because "circa 1,500" is after1200CE.
Okay, plate armor was used fairly consistently by European armies up through the end of the 17th century. And by that, I mean field or munitions plate (i.e. half plate) still saw considerable use. Leg protection was the first to go, with the armor being replaced by heavy, knee or thigh-high boots. And even after heavier armor became obsolete in the face of firearms, field marshals and nobility still wore it on the battlefield as a sign of status during the Baroque period. And that didn't end until the 1740s.
Similarly, the rapier wasn't out of fashion until about 1715. So, if we date its beginnings to the Middle French espee rapiere (1474), that's a period of almost 250 years where armor and weapon coexisted, even if they weren't worn at the same time.
For me, D&D will always be the middle ages, so between 1000 and 1200AD.
With the Artificer and guns, D&D is being pushed into the renaissance era, but that feels "wrong" to mix technology and magic. (IMO)
I remember a 1E/2E module were players discover a crashed spaceship. In order to properly operate any gun they find, required an intelligence check (which I recall being set at a very high bar)
Then I guess your games don’t include the rapier as that was not invented until the Renaissance (around 1,500).
And of course, it was only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms….
Well, not really. The rapier wasn incented as a more convenient to carry sidearm. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that armour was useless against firearms. Funnily enough, at this point rapiers had gone out of use.
But yes, if you consider D&D to be in between 1000 and 1200, there are a lot of things you must exclude, the rapier being one of them.
Who do you think is incorrect? The person who claimed that the rapier was invented because people stopped wearing heavy armour or the person who claimed that if you set the game between the years 1000CE and 1200CE then you must exclude a weapon invented "circa 1,500"? Because "circa 1,500" is after1200CE.
A weapon called a rapier was first named in circa 1500, but even according to that Wikipedia article it was a derisive name given to weapons worn mostly for show. Which means that the actual origin was earlier, even if not exactly that final form and with different names. How much earlier? That would be a tougher question but Wikipedia does not even try to answer that, or even pose it as a question.
They were also assumed worn for show and later for duelling, situations where armour does not come into play.
It was a rhetorical question. There were no such weapons as the D&D rapier in 1200CE.
For me, D&D will always be the middle ages, so between 1000 and 1200AD.
With the Artificer and guns, D&D is being pushed into the renaissance era, but that feels "wrong" to mix technology and magic. (IMO)
I remember a 1E/2E module were players discover a crashed spaceship. In order to properly operate any gun they find, required an intelligence check (which I recall being set at a very high bar)
Then I guess your games don’t include the rapier as that was not invented until the Renaissance (around 1,500).
And of course, it was only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms….
Well, not really. The rapier wasn incented as a more convenient to carry sidearm. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that armour was useless against firearms. Funnily enough, at this point rapiers had gone out of use.
But yes, if you consider D&D to be in between 1000 and 1200, there are a lot of things you must exclude, the rapier being one of them.
Who do you think is incorrect? The person who claimed that the rapier was invented because people stopped wearing heavy armour or the person who claimed that if you set the game between the years 1000CE and 1200CE then you must exclude a weapon invented "circa 1,500"? Because "circa 1,500" is after1200CE.
I said the rapier was invented around 1500ad because of the decline in heavy armor, you said that wasn’t really true.
Black powder weapons were in use in Europe since the 1300s.^1&2
Plate armor peaked in the late 1400s/early 1500s and then fell of sharply as black powder weapons got some tech upgrades. (By as early as 1650, it was reduced to little more than the the breastplate.) By the time the Rapier became popular, less than 50 years after its invention, heavy armor was already sharply on the decline on battlefields of Europe, and even the Mail or Brigandine that was commonly seen off battlefields previously was already rare.^3&4 So, while yes, the exceedingly wealthy still used plate in battle, and yes, the firearm did spur the tech advancements in plate armor until it became what it eventually became, all other (less expensive) “heavy armor” (Mail, Scale, Brigandine, etc) was already obsolete by then.
It was that combination in conjunction with the rise of the Crossbow^5 and Pike Square^6 formations to protect musketeers that lead to warfare changing and the complete abandonment of heavy armor until the invention of Kevlar.
The invention of the Rapier, decline of heavy armor, and increase in the use of black powder weaponry all happened right around the same time.
It was a rhetorical question. There were no such weapons as the D&D rapier in 1200CE.
Well is there any school of swordsmanship of any era that teaches alternative methods relying primarily on strength or dexterity respectively, but not both? Technically one could argue that the D&D rapier has not existed at all IRL, in any era.
A weapon known as a rapier has, but there is ongoing handwringing over whether 5e longswords are correctly named too.
As I understand it, the rapier became popular due in great part to the teachings of Italian swordsmanship schools, with the first known formal manual published in 1409. But unless said manual was written first to encourage sword makers to invent the rapier, it would follow that the rapier, or at least something very rapier like must have been out at least in the late 1300's. Even if not popular enough to be publicly available, it is quite possible that some swordsmith somewhere had come up with the idea much earlier and there merely is no record of it, since it hadn't caught on yet.
That seems like a chicken and egg problem. Were Italian techniques invented for the rapier, or was the rapier invented for Italian techniques. Either is plausible. Italian techniques could have been invented for the longsword. As they became popular, it became clear that different dimensions of longsword than had previously been used were better suited to those techniques, and the longsword gradually evolved into the rapier.
Well is there any school of swordsmanship of any era that teaches alternative methods relying primarily on strength or dexterity respectively, but not both? Technically one could argue that the D&D rapier has not existed at all IRL, in any era.
Interestingly, a fun observation and not an attempt to win points in this grand tournee, per the Wikipedia article the Spanish fencing systems that evolved from Sanchez de Carranza's manual was known as Destreza ("dexterity").
Back to the larger thread, tossing all the weapons aside, what historic period had a bunch of surface dwellers going on extensive tours, even military campaigns, within the Underdark? There's just too many fantastic ahistoric elements to the game to properly ground it in a real life historical moment. Anyone who does make such a grounding effort, generally finds themselves excising or expanding on game elements to make it work "authentically." I mean, it's like trying to figure out a point in history most approximate to Star Wars far away galaxy of a long time ago.
Adding my vote to the "surprised this argument is still going on" camp.
To be fair, Star Wars is thematically linked with the American Wild West of popular imagination (though there's also elements from samurai and WWII stories). It's a loose connection, and owes more to other movies than real history, but it's key to understanding the tone of Star Wars.
Similarly, I don't think it's too big a stretch to say most D&D settings are based on the popular imagination of Late Medieval Europe.
I think that depends on which Star Wars you're pulling from. The Republic of the prequels was inspired by Rome. The podraces were blatantly chariots, and the coliseum on Geonosis was, well, a coliseum.
It was a rhetorical question. There were no such weapons as the D&D rapier in 1200CE.
Well is there any school of swordsmanship of any era that teaches alternative methods relying primarily on strength or dexterity respectively, but not both? Technically one could argue that the D&D rapier has not existed at all IRL, in any era.
Sure. But this thread is specifically about what historical time period D&D would take place in. My comments are also specifically about the false claims made about the historical rapier and the fact that if you have a game set in the period of 1000CE to 1200CE you can't have things invented "circa 1,500".
A weapon known as a rapier has, but there is ongoing handwringing over whether 5e longswords are correctly named too.
Mhm. But again, that's not what we're talking about. Also, if we look at the artwork of rapiers in D&D they most often depict the late 15-18th style complex hilt style often associated with for example musketeers. Which wasn't a thing in 1000CE or even 1200CE.
As I understand it, the rapier became popular due in great part to the teachings of Italian swordsmanship schools, with the first known formal manual published in 1409. But unless said manual was written first to encourage sword makers to invent the rapier, it would follow that the rapier, or at least something very rapier like must have been out at least in the late 1300's.
Well, no. all of this is false. Fiori dei Liberi doesn't deal with rapiers (since, as has been pointed out, they weren't invented then) in his 1409 treatise or in any of his other treatises. He deals mostly with what we call the longsword. You do know that you can just google these things to find out that "Italian swordsmanship" covers more than just rapiers, right? It will save a lot of time so that peopl ewon't have to correct you all the time.
Even if not popular enough to be publicly available, it is quite possible that some swordsmith somewhere had come up with the idea much earlier and there merely is no record of it, since it hadn't caught on yet.
Again, false. There are no historical records of rapiers from the 1300s (quite understandable since they weren't around) and there are no 14th century rapiers in museums which would be the case if they had actually existed.
In short, there weren't any rapiers of the style seen in D&D in the time period of 1000CE-1200CE.
It was a rhetorical question. There were no such weapons as the D&D rapier in 1200CE.
Well is there any school of swordsmanship of any era that teaches alternative methods relying primarily on strength or dexterity respectively, but not both? Technically one could argue that the D&D rapier has not existed at all IRL, in any era.
A weapon known as a rapier has, but there is ongoing handwringing over whether 5e longswords are correctly named too.
As I understand it, the rapier became popular due in great part to the teachings of Italian swordsmanship schools, with the first known formal manual published in 1409. But unless said manual was written first to encourage sword makers to invent the rapier, it would follow that the rapier, or at least something very rapier like must have been out at least in the late 1300's. Even if not popular enough to be publicly available, it is quite possible that some swordsmith somewhere had come up with the idea much earlier and there merely is no record of it, since it hadn't caught on yet.
That seems like a chicken and egg problem. Were Italian techniques invented for the rapier, or was the rapier invented for Italian techniques. Either is plausible. Italian techniques could have been invented for the longsword. As they became popular, it became clear that different dimensions of longsword than had previously been used were better suited to those techniques, and the longsword gradually evolved into the rapier.
Completely wrong. The longsword didn't evolve into the rapier (if anything, what we call sideswords did). The two co-existed for centuries.
For me, D&D will always be the middle ages, so between 1000 and 1200AD.
With the Artificer and guns, D&D is being pushed into the renaissance era, but that feels "wrong" to mix technology and magic. (IMO)
I remember a 1E/2E module were players discover a crashed spaceship. In order to properly operate any gun they find, required an intelligence check (which I recall being set at a very high bar)
Then I guess your games don’t include the rapier as that was not invented until the Renaissance (around 1,500).
And of course, it was only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms….
Well, not really. The rapier wasn incented as a more convenient to carry sidearm. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that armour was useless against firearms. Funnily enough, at this point rapiers had gone out of use.
But yes, if you consider D&D to be in between 1000 and 1200, there are a lot of things you must exclude, the rapier being one of them.
Who do you think is incorrect? The person who claimed that the rapier was invented because people stopped wearing heavy armour or the person who claimed that if you set the game between the years 1000CE and 1200CE then you must exclude a weapon invented "circa 1,500"? Because "circa 1,500" is after1200CE.
I said the rapier was invented around 1500ad because of the decline in heavy armor, you said that wasn’t really true.
Because it's not true. We've covered this already.
Black powder weapons were in use in Europe since the 1300s.^1&2
I know. I think I even mentioned it. Yet we have no rapiers in the 14th century. But good on you for providing sources that show that you are wrong.
Plate armor peaked in the late 1400s/early 1500s and then fell of sharply as black powder weapons got some tech upgrades. (By as early as 1650, it was reduced to little more than the the breastplate.)
One hundred and fifty years isn't "sharply". On the contrary, we have firearms and plate armour side by side for literally hundreds of years before rapiers were all that common.
By the time the Rapier became popular, less than 50 years after its invention, heavy armor was already sharply on the decline on battlefields of Europe, and even the Mail or Brigandine that was commonly seen off battlefields previously was already rare.^3&4 So, while yes, the exceedingly wealthy still used plate in battle, and yes, the firearm did spur the tech advancements in plate armor until it became what it eventually became, all other (less expensive) “heavy armor” (Mail, Scale, Brigandine, etc) was already obsolete by then.
Neither mail nor brigandines were "commonly seen off battlefields". People didn't were armour in their every day lives back then just as people don't run around in class 3 level body armour today. In any case, the evolution of the rapier wasn't because of " people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms". I think it's hilarious that you use wikipedia as a sourvce but you (for quite obvious reasons) ignore the article about the rapier which pretty much destroy any arguments you have. Just a few snippets.
"The term rapier appears both in English and German, near-simultaneously, in the mid-16th century, for a light, long, pointed two-edged sword. It is a loan from Middle French espee rapiere, first recorded in 1474. The origin of the rapier is more than likely Spanish. Its name is a "derisive" description of the Spanish term "ropera". The Spanish term refers to a sword used with clothes ("espada ropera", dress sword), due to it being used as an accessory for clothing, usually for fashion and as a self-defense weapon. The 16th-century German rappier described what was considered a "foreign" weapon, imported from Italy, Spain or France." And: "The espada ropera of the 16th century was a cut-and-thrust civilian weapon for self-defense and the duel,while earlier weapons were equally at home on the battlefield. Throughout the 16th century, a variety of new, single-handed civilian weaponswere being developed. In 1570 the Italian master Rocco Bonetti first settled in England advocating the use of the rapier for thrusting as opposed to cutting or slashing when engaged in a duel. Nevertheless, the English word "rapier" generally refers to a primarily thrusting weapon, developed by the year 1600"
So even your own sources tell us you're wrong. The rapier was a civilian sword designed to be used in situations were armour wouldn't be an issue so the development and state of the armour of the time is irrelevant.
It was that combination in conjunction with the rise of the Crossbow^5 and Pike Square^6 formations to protect musketeers that lead to warfare changing and the complete abandonment of heavy armor until the invention of Kevlar.
Again, completely wrong. Breastplates and helmets (and other armour) was used why up until after both the crossbow and the pike formations were gone.
The invention of the Rapier, decline of heavy armor, and increase in the use of black powder weaponry all happened right around the same time.
With a very lose definition of "around the same time", yes. But the statement that the rapier "only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms" is still completely false. And you still can't have something invented "circa 1,500" if you have a setting that covers the time period of 1000CE to 1200CE.
It was a rhetorical question. There were no such weapons as the D&D rapier in 1200CE.
Well is there any school of swordsmanship of any era that teaches alternative methods relying primarily on strength or dexterity respectively, but not both? Technically one could argue that the D&D rapier has not existed at all IRL, in any era.
A weapon known as a rapier has, but there is ongoing handwringing over whether 5e longswords are correctly named too.
As I understand it, the rapier became popular due in great part to the teachings of Italian swordsmanship schools, with the first known formal manual published in 1409. But unless said manual was written first to encourage sword makers to invent the rapier, it would follow that the rapier, or at least something very rapier like must have been out at least in the late 1300's. Even if not popular enough to be publicly available, it is quite possible that some swordsmith somewhere had come up with the idea much earlier and there merely is no record of it, since it hadn't caught on yet.
That seems like a chicken and egg problem. Were Italian techniques invented for the rapier, or was the rapier invented for Italian techniques. Either is plausible. Italian techniques could have been invented for the longsword. As they became popular, it became clear that different dimensions of longsword than had previously been used were better suited to those techniques, and the longsword gradually evolved into the rapier.
The Estoc was around in the 14th century, a French thrusting sword. It was designed to exploit gaps in armour, since it was getting too difficult to simply cut through armour or even too difficult to simply bash in. So the concept was developed against armour, then refined against unarmoured people. So in a sense it was still developed originally as an anti-armour weapon. Evolution of the pointy stick.
The estoc or tuck isn't really the same as a rapier but it does show that pointy sticks were being used not because of the decline of heavy armour due to firearms but rather to serve a different purpose than cutting blades.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think I'm coming to the conclusion that D&D's "time period" is probably best represented by whatever "time period' Eternia is in during peak Masters of the Universe. No one's armor or arms seems to have any real rhyme or reason then and there either. Castles and armor and swords and battle axes and magic and even glimmers of fantastic tech all lumped together. He Man says "I have the power." So do we all.
Eternia is much more reflective of a D&D setting than any RL effort exhibited here. So basically D&D exists in 1980s western animation, with maybe some tinges of heavy metal covers from the prior decade.
I'll let the serious discussion continue now.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Well, it's one reason. You also can't project the light in a particular direction which means that you get as much light shining at you (which you don't want since that will blind you) as away from you. The obvious fire hazard is another reason, there was actually quite often laws against carrying torches or other open flames in cities. Torches are also quite susceptible to the enviroment, rain, wind and stuff like that.
What else are you going to use? Your fantasy? Facts based in reality is the best source of information.
We don't need to "go back and check". You do realize that stuff made hundreds of years ago are still around today? And that the metallurgic properties of elements don't change over time? A kilo of iron is a kilo of iron, the time period doesn't change that (well, the kilo hasn't been around for that long but you get my point).
I did answer your questions. Did you forget to read the rest of my post? What was it that you didn't understand. If you tell us what you had difficulties with I'd be happy to explain it for you in a easier fashion.
Why are you projecting? Just because I point out that your claims are wrong doesn't mean you have to be rude. You were the one talking about rapiers, bullets and armour so if anything you should ask yourself why you did that. I can't answer that for you.
Except that you didn't just "chonk up" armour until it was bullet proof using crappy iron. Why do you believe such strange things?
Well, you've misunderstood quite a few things already. But let's see what you got wrong this time. ;)
Who said they would? Are you just building a strawman or are you confused about what the concept of "bullet proofing" is?
So now it's steel? Previously you claimed it was iron. What's it going to be? Or is this just another case of you talking about something your know very little about? And since you admitted that armour could be proofed against bullets, why do you claim that armour was "useless against firearms"? Are you using the word 'useless' in a way that is not common to the English language?
Which is quite funny because when cuirassers first came about they still wore quite a lot of armour (mainly to proect against weapons that weren't firearms). Cuirassers wearing nothing but cuirasses (and often helmets) weren't around until much later.
Again, you are are wrong about the cause of the rise of the complex hilt (funny how you keep bringing that up despite you accusing me of trying to change the subject when I questioned you about your previous claims on the topic). Not that this really changes the fact that your claim that the rapier "was only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms" is completely and objectively false.
Incorrect, the Rapier was created circa 1,500.^
^https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I can't believe that this is still going on...
I've gotta say though, I'm not surprised that a troll is unwilling to open a book, or site a book. That takes too much work.
IAmSposta: Thank you for using a source, like an informed and descent human being.
As usual, happy to help. And please, just call me Sposta.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Who do you think is incorrect? The person who claimed that the rapier was invented because people stopped wearing heavy armour or the person who claimed that if you set the game between the years 1000CE and 1200CE then you must exclude a weapon invented "circa 1,500"? Because "circa 1,500" is after 1200CE.
Okay, plate armor was used fairly consistently by European armies up through the end of the 17th century. And by that, I mean field or munitions plate (i.e. half plate) still saw considerable use. Leg protection was the first to go, with the armor being replaced by heavy, knee or thigh-high boots. And even after heavier armor became obsolete in the face of firearms, field marshals and nobility still wore it on the battlefield as a sign of status during the Baroque period. And that didn't end until the 1740s.
Similarly, the rapier wasn't out of fashion until about 1715. So, if we date its beginnings to the Middle French espee rapiere (1474), that's a period of almost 250 years where armor and weapon coexisted, even if they weren't worn at the same time.
It was a rhetorical question. There were no such weapons as the D&D rapier in 1200CE.
I said the rapier was invented around 1500ad because of the decline in heavy armor, you said that wasn’t really true.
Black powder weapons were in use in Europe since the 1300s.^1&2
Plate armor peaked in the late 1400s/early 1500s and then fell of sharply as black powder weapons got some tech upgrades. (By as early as 1650, it was reduced to little more than the the breastplate.) By the time the Rapier became popular, less than 50 years after its invention, heavy armor was already sharply on the decline on battlefields of Europe, and even the Mail or Brigandine that was commonly seen off battlefields previously was already rare.^3&4 So, while yes, the exceedingly wealthy still used plate in battle, and yes, the firearm did spur the tech advancements in plate armor until it became what it eventually became, all other (less expensive) “heavy armor” (Mail, Scale, Brigandine, etc) was already obsolete by then.
It was that combination in conjunction with the rise of the Crossbow^5 and Pike Square^6 formations to protect musketeers that lead to warfare changing and the complete abandonment of heavy armor until the invention of Kevlar.
The invention of the Rapier, decline of heavy armor, and increase in the use of black powder weaponry all happened right around the same time.
^1(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_artillery_in_the_Middle_Ages)
^2(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus)
^3(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour)
^4(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_armor#Middle_Ages)
^5(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow)
^6(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sposta my man! Solid sitation and great conclusion.
I’m just doin’ what I can with what I got.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That seems like a chicken and egg problem. Were Italian techniques invented for the rapier, or was the rapier invented for Italian techniques. Either is plausible. Italian techniques could have been invented for the longsword. As they became popular, it became clear that different dimensions of longsword than had previously been used were better suited to those techniques, and the longsword gradually evolved into the rapier.
Interestingly, a fun observation and not an attempt to win points in this grand tournee, per the Wikipedia article the Spanish fencing systems that evolved from Sanchez de Carranza's manual was known as Destreza ("dexterity").
Back to the larger thread, tossing all the weapons aside, what historic period had a bunch of surface dwellers going on extensive tours, even military campaigns, within the Underdark? There's just too many fantastic ahistoric elements to the game to properly ground it in a real life historical moment. Anyone who does make such a grounding effort, generally finds themselves excising or expanding on game elements to make it work "authentically." I mean, it's like trying to figure out a point in history most approximate to Star Wars far away galaxy of a long time ago.
Adding my vote to the "surprised this argument is still going on" camp.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I think that depends on which Star Wars you're pulling from. The Republic of the prequels was inspired by Rome. The podraces were blatantly chariots, and the coliseum on Geonosis was, well, a coliseum.
Sure. But this thread is specifically about what historical time period D&D would take place in. My comments are also specifically about the false claims made about the historical rapier and the fact that if you have a game set in the period of 1000CE to 1200CE you can't have things invented "circa 1,500".
Mhm. But again, that's not what we're talking about. Also, if we look at the artwork of rapiers in D&D they most often depict the late 15-18th style complex hilt style often associated with for example musketeers. Which wasn't a thing in 1000CE or even 1200CE.
Well, no. all of this is false. Fiori dei Liberi doesn't deal with rapiers (since, as has been pointed out, they weren't invented then) in his 1409 treatise or in any of his other treatises. He deals mostly with what we call the longsword. You do know that you can just google these things to find out that "Italian swordsmanship" covers more than just rapiers, right? It will save a lot of time so that peopl ewon't have to correct you all the time.
Again, false. There are no historical records of rapiers from the 1300s (quite understandable since they weren't around) and there are no 14th century rapiers in museums which would be the case if they had actually existed.
In short, there weren't any rapiers of the style seen in D&D in the time period of 1000CE-1200CE.
Completely wrong. The longsword didn't evolve into the rapier (if anything, what we call sideswords did). The two co-existed for centuries.
Because it's not true. We've covered this already.
I know. I think I even mentioned it. Yet we have no rapiers in the 14th century. But good on you for providing sources that show that you are wrong.
One hundred and fifty years isn't "sharply". On the contrary, we have firearms and plate armour side by side for literally hundreds of years before rapiers were all that common.
Neither mail nor brigandines were "commonly seen off battlefields". People didn't were armour in their every day lives back then just as people don't run around in class 3 level body armour today. In any case, the evolution of the rapier wasn't because of " people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms". I think it's hilarious that you use wikipedia as a sourvce but you (for quite obvious reasons) ignore the article about the rapier which pretty much destroy any arguments you have. Just a few snippets.
"The term rapier appears both in English and German, near-simultaneously, in the mid-16th century, for a light, long, pointed two-edged sword. It is a loan from Middle French espee rapiere, first recorded in 1474. The origin of the rapier is more than likely Spanish. Its name is a "derisive" description of the Spanish term "ropera". The Spanish term refers to a sword used with clothes ("espada ropera", dress sword), due to it being used as an accessory for clothing, usually for fashion and as a self-defense weapon. The 16th-century German rappier described what was considered a "foreign" weapon, imported from Italy, Spain or France."
And:
"The espada ropera of the 16th century was a cut-and-thrust civilian weapon for self-defense and the duel, while earlier weapons were equally at home on the battlefield. Throughout the 16th century, a variety of new, single-handed civilian weapons were being developed. In 1570 the Italian master Rocco Bonetti first settled in England advocating the use of the rapier for thrusting as opposed to cutting or slashing when engaged in a duel. Nevertheless, the English word "rapier" generally refers to a primarily thrusting weapon, developed by the year 1600"
So even your own sources tell us you're wrong. The rapier was a civilian sword designed to be used in situations were armour wouldn't be an issue so the development and state of the armour of the time is irrelevant.
Again, completely wrong. Breastplates and helmets (and other armour) was used why up until after both the crossbow and the pike formations were gone.
With a very lose definition of "around the same time", yes. But the statement that the rapier "only invented because people stopped using heavy armor because it was useless against firearms" is still completely false. And you still can't have something invented "circa 1,500" if you have a setting that covers the time period of 1000CE to 1200CE.
The estoc or tuck isn't really the same as a rapier but it does show that pointy sticks were being used not because of the decline of heavy armour due to firearms but rather to serve a different purpose than cutting blades.