Deadliest Warrior - Gim

Take a life?




Thank you for the history lesson. Yeah most casualties by arrows were caused by arrows sliding/hitting unprotected parts of the armor... Below the arms, on the arm pits... the neck... sometimes SOMETIMES through a hole in the helmet... Through the leg armor at the tighs...

Hahahha I see.. I am not so sure if you should consider such hostile actions against those hmm.. fantastic people... (please look up the root word of fantastic ull see I meant it in no compliment..)

Actually, thanks for that. Apparently I needed the History refresher. Though I could have sworn I saw somewhere that the Welsh long bow had some armor penetrating ability, but now that you've reminded me, they weren't normally used in such a manner with direct fire, but used to produce indirect fire. Must have been watching too many old movies lately.

Anyway, I'll second the vote that Sun Tzu vs Musashi would have been a better match up. Vlad Dracula fought mostly against Hungarian Boyars and Ottoman Turks, his use of psychological warfare was what gave him an advantage and his apparent bloodthirsty nature probably saved more lives from death in battle than it cost in executions. But that is just my opinion.

Seeing as how Musashi was virtually undefeated and I know little about Sun Tzu's actual swordsmanship, id have to say Musashi was the better fighter. But you never know. Now comparing strategy would be really interesting as they are both known to be masters. People still today use their books of war to apply to all sorts of things.
I wouldnt be surprised if Musashi's strategy was somewhat influenced by The Art of War, but it seems like The Book of Five rings is geared more toward duals and small battles (no more than 10 fighters), while The Art of War seems more geared toward full scale battles.

Yeah it is interesting you brought that up, because ive noticed the same thing. Ever since I became interested in east asian history/culture, it always seemed like the high ranking officers engaged in battle just like the soldiers they commanded. That took guts. Maybe not the smartest thing, but it does show you the differences in battle philosophy between east and west.
But you said when it came to killing those officers, it wasnt ok in other parts of the world. Do you mean if I were a foot soldier for an English army 700 years ago, and I managed to thwack the enemy general, that would be bad?

Rats, Sun Tzu lost! Why did they used that stupid Zhua?! It's fantasy weapons that messes up the actual military history of China! I for one was hoping that they used the dagger axe or the ji (the Terracotta Army is fameous for using it)! Noticed that the gim was from Cold Steel, thought it would have done better though! I guess it's best to take it as it is...

If we are talking about English medieval armies of the 14th Century (as antigrav01 suggested), then I think you are wrong in your suggestions. You made two suggestions 1) that the “kings/high ranking officers stayed behind until the battle was basically won then they would charge in” and 2) “A foot soldier targeting an English officer was forbidden.”

The king himself along with the leading nobility did indeed fight in the front lines, ill give you again a couple of examples. Henry V, at the age of 16 fought at the battle of Shrewsbury, and was struck in the face by an arrow.

Another example, again Henry V, during the battle of Agincourt was close enough to the front line to be struck on the head and have part of his crown broken off.

Another example: During the Battle of Crecy Edward III’s 16 year old son, the black prince, fought in the front lines, at one point it looked like he was being overwhelmed by the French and word was sent back to Edward asking for reinforcements to be sent. Edward refused to send reinforcements saying that he wanted him to win his spurs.

I could go on with other examples, however all one needs to do is to look at the casualty figures for Major medieval battles to realise that the aristocracy were taking a major part in the battle. Of course there where occasions where the king as commander would chose not to fight, and remain in a position where he could over see the battle, but this can be said of almost all commanders.

As to our second point, Medieval rules of war only really extended to the aristocracy, and were generally seen as part of the chivalric ideology of the knight. These Rules of war did not extend to the common soldier. A knight could surrender to a fellow knight, and would be expect to be taken prisoner and treated well, and eventual released on receipt of a ransom. A common soldier,(or in fact any commoner) was not part of the same chivalric ideology and was not subject to the same rules of war. A Commoner could not expect this kind of treatment if captured. They would either be executed, or mutilated(having a part of their body cut of, such as their ears, nose, hand or in the case of archers, their two fingers on their right hand). The common soldier was in turn not obliged to be merciful to a surrendering knight. They may choose to do so out of a hope of finical gain, but they were not required to.

I’ll give you two examples. During the Crecy campaign of 1346, when the English took Caen, the English archers stormed through the town killing everyone regardless of rank. A group of French knights took refuge in the in a fortified bridge tower, there they waited refusing to surrender to the archers, fearing that they would be killed, they only surrendered when they saw an English knight they recognised.

A second good example, toward the end of the battle of Agincourt, the English had captured huge number of French knights, however fearing that the French were about to lunch a further attach, and fearing that the captive knights may pose a danger in the rear of the army, Henry V ordered the captives to be executed, knowing that his knights would not want to do this job, he ordered the archers to do it. The archers had no compunction in carrying out such an order and started to kill the prisoners.

Basically common soldiers had no rules of war that either protected them or limited their actions, in many ways they where a law unto them selves.