Westeros warfare and armor glitches

[protar]

Why do people think gunpowder would ruin a fantasy series? Gunpowder was invented in IIRC the 13th century, with primitive guns not long after (even if they weren't widespread.). Cannons have been around for ages, and even after firearms become more widespread they still lived alongside swords and plate armour for some time. I think it was only really with the machine gun that firearms made such things completely obsolete. Not saying gunpowder needs to be in ASOIAF, but it has a place in medieval settings.

[The Blue Bard]

Why do people think gunpowder would ruin a fantasy series? Gunpowder was invented in IIRC the 13th century, with primitive guns not long after (even if they weren't widespread.). Cannons have been around for ages, and even after firearms become more widespread they still lived alongside swords and plate armour for some time. I think it was only really with the machine gun that firearms made such things completely obsolete. Not saying gunpowder needs to be in ASOIAF, but it has a place in medieval settings.

Cheap, reliable muskets on a large scale, and the switch from feudalism to state armies of professional soldiers made armour largely obsolete. Heavy cavalry still wore plate armour, but the practice died out in the 17th century Up until the First World War, French and German heavy cavalry still wore breast plates and elaborate helmets.

For fantasy settings, the reasons we tend not to see gunpowder are:

1. Makes 'ancient knowledge' and secret powers etc. redundant

2. Undermines any sense of magic

3. Heroes tend to be nobles who fight with swords and armour. Them being weaker than peasants with guns undermines them

4. Villains are not scary if anyone can kill them with a random shot

5. Not having it makes it more explicit "This is the past"

[Black Crow]

Have a look at the armies thread on the World of Ice and Fire forum

[The GreatRon]

Firearms in AsoIaF

Jamie would be pissssssed !!!!!!

[ChromeWeasel]

Why do people think gunpowder would ruin a fantasy series? Gunpowder was invented in IIRC the 13th century, with primitive guns not long after (even if they weren't widespread.). Cannons have been around for ages, and even after firearms become more widespread they still lived alongside swords and plate armour for some time. I think it was only really with the machine gun that firearms made such things completely obsolete. Not saying gunpowder needs to be in ASOIAF, but it has a place in medieval settings.

You can't have gunpowder if you want to have a long history of culture with few changes to warfare. Gunpowder changes everything. Westeros has a history of at least 8000 years where relatively little has changed. The society is still feudal and warfare is still in your enemy's face with melee tactics. The minute you introduce gunpowder you also mark the end of that 'romantic' style of combat. As gunpowder evolves, you lose arms and armor within 50 years. That's a blip on the calendar in Westeros.

The are two things that I'm glad we don't see in Westeros. The first is gunpowder. The second is clockwork (clocks running on finely tuned gears). Either signifies the end of the medieval-era of Westeros as technology evolves society. You couldnt have either technology around for 5000 years with no significant changes to warfare and culture.

[protar]

Cheap, reliable muskets on a large scale, and the switch from feudalism to state armies of professional soldiers made armour largely obsolete. Heavy cavalry still wore plate armour, but the practice died out in the 17th century Up until the First World War, French and German heavy cavalry still wore breast plates and elaborate helmets.

For fantasy settings, the reasons we tend not to see gunpowder are:

1. Makes 'ancient knowledge' and secret powers etc. redundant

2. Undermines any sense of magic

3. Heroes tend to be nobles who fight with swords and armour. Them being weaker than peasants with guns undermines them

4. Villains are not scary if anyone can kill them with a random shot

5. Not having it makes it more explicit "This is the past"

Well I don't pretened to be any expert but they definitely still had armour, swords and knights into the renaisannce which had guns. As for your five points:

1. I don't see that it makes secret powers redundant. Gunpowder blows stuff up. Magic can do much more, only limited to the authors imagination.

2. This is pretty much the same as point one, and actually having developed gunpowder and other technological advances would imply that magic is rarer and more special (as people have had to rely on science for the most part.) without completely throwing things into the modern age.

3. There's no reason why heroes couldn't use guns, or why random peasants have to have guns. Introduced part way through a fantasy story firearms could provide a cool, unexpected obstacle for a hero.

4. Can't the same be said of arrows? Guns didn't have very large ranges to start with and a villain with magic powers could protect against guns.

5. Well that's simply because of the misconceptions people have on when guns came about. I don't think authors should be forced into certain decisions because of public ignorance.

It's all subjective of course but personally I think we need more fantasy with firearms. Remember that'd we'd be looking at it through the eyes of the characters to which it would be new and magical so to us it would seem magical as well.

[protar]

You can't have gunpowder if you want to have a long history of culture with few changes to warfare. Gunpowder changes everything. Westeros has a history of at least 8000 years where relatively little has changed. The society is still feudal and warfare is still in your enemy's face with melee tactics. The minute you introduce gunpowder you also mark the end of that 'romantic' style of combat. As gunpowder evolves, you lose arms and armor within 50 years. That's a blip on the calendar in Westeros.

The are two things that I'm glad we don't see in Westeros. The first is gunpowder. The second is clockwork (clocks running on finely tuned gears). Either signifies the end of the medieval-era of Westeros as technology evolves society. You couldnt have either technology around for 5000 years with no significant changes to warfare and culture.

I don't think I suggested having gunpowder around for 8000 years but having it a recent invention, introduced mid-series. In actual fact I didn't even neccessarily say in ASOIAF, just in fantasy in general. I just hate it when a fantasy series has a 10,000 year history, and yet tech stays the same throughout. It's just unrealistic. I know Martin has said he's got an explanation for why this has happened in ASOIAF, but in general it's just shoddy writing if no justification is given.

[The Blue Bard]

Well I don't pretened to be any expert but they definitely still had armour, swords and knights into the renaisannce which had guns.

And when guns became effective mass weapons, knights disappeared from the battlefield. Heavy cavalry remained, but the knight was finished, disappearing during the 16th century.

1. I don't see that it makes secret powers redundant. Gunpowder blows stuff up. Magic can do much more, only limited to the authors imagination.

2. This is pretty much the same as point one, and actually having developed gunpowder and other technological advances would imply that magic is rarer and more special (as people have had to rely on science for the most part.) without completely throwing things into the modern age.

But in the limits of what can be shown within a fantasy novel, access to gunpowder makes some all powerful wizard much less powerful. What would be the point in spending years honing magic skills when a half-hour training course with gunpowder makes you as powerful. It makes magic unnecessary, because you don't need magic.

3. There's no reason why heroes couldn't use guns, or why random peasants have to have guns. Introduced part way through a fantasy story firearms could provide a cool, unexpected obstacle for a hero.

Because it changes the story and setting. If Jaime Lannister suddenly rocks out a gun, then the fact that he's been established as a great knight is pointless. It makes your hero less heroic if in a medieval setting full of skilled warriors, he can just shoot people. If the hero is facing guns, that can only end one way, a la 'The Last Samurai' with a heroic last stand against an irresistible new technology, and that's a complete cliche

4. Can't the same be said of arrows? Guns didn't have very large ranges to start with and a villain with magic powers could protect against guns.

But again you have to change the setting. You have to add someone who can magically stop bullets, which in ASOIAF would stick out like a dead nun in a snowbank. Arrows, despite what people think, were pretty ineffective against armour, and were a part of warfare for as long as swords were. Also, archers have to train from childhood, so massive numbers are difficult to field, whereas a musketeer is very easily trained.

5. Well that's simply because of the misconceptions people have on when guns came about. I don't think authors should be forced into certain decisions because of public ignorance.

Its more about maintaining a feel that this is an ancient, alien culture, and creeping modernity undermines that

It's all subjective of course but personally I think we need more fantasy with firearms. Remember that'd we'd be looking at it through the eyes of the characters to which it would be new and magical so to us it would seem magical as well.

There's certainly room out there for a renaissance era low-fantasy setting. I've never played it, but I'm given to understand that's what Warhammer is. I just don't think it would make sense in Westeros, because in that world its not necessary. in a world with dragons, you don't need cannon

[protar]

And when guns became effective mass weapons, knights disappeared from the battlefield. Heavy cavalry remained, but the knight was finished, disappearing during the 16th century.

But in the limits of what can be shown within a fantasy novel, access to gunpowder makes some all powerful wizard much less powerful. What would be the point in spending years honing magic skills when a half-hour training course with gunpowder makes you as powerful. It makes magic unnecessary, because you don't need magic.

Because it changes the story and setting. If Jaime Lannister suddenly rocks out a gun, then the fact that he's been established as a great knight is pointless. It makes your hero less heroic if in a medieval setting full of skilled warriors, he can just shoot people. If the hero is facing guns, that can only end one way, a la 'The Last Samurai' with a heroic last stand against an irresistible new technology, and that's a complete cliche

But again you have to change the setting. You have to add someone who can magically stop bullets, which in ASOIAF would stick out like a dead nun in a snowbank. Arrows, despite what people think, were pretty ineffective against armour, and were a part of warfare for as long as swords were. Also, archers have to train from childhood, so massive numbers are difficult to field, whereas a musketeer is very easily trained.

Its more about maintaining a feel that this is an ancient, alien culture, and creeping modernity undermines that

There's certainly room out there for a renaissance era low-fantasy setting. I've never played it, but I'm given to understand that's what Warhammer is. I just don't think it would make sense in Westeros, because in that world its not necessary. in a world with dragons, you don't need cannon

Well I was talking about in general, not just ASOIAF. And also if say gunpowder was invented in TWOW, those problems wouldn't be there as much. Knight's wouldn't be made obsolete (And I'm still disputing you there because renaissance armour could stop musket fire.) straight away, it wouldn't be widespread etc. and magic would still have a purpose. To my recollection magic in ASOIAF has never been used to blow stuff up. The closest we get to that is Mel setting Orell's eagle on fire. Magic in ASOIAF is used to heal, to see things far off and bond with animals. Gunpowder achieves none of this so magic would still be useful. Not saying it'll happen, just that I think you're overstating the negative effects of adding gunpowder to a fantasy setting.

[Lummel]

Wildfire is semi-magical at least - that is spells are used to make it and it is easier to make when dragons are alive.

If gunpowder was introduced in TWOW you might get gunpowder mines or primitive canon. The impact of those historically was to negate the castle. Dragons already negate the power of a castle plus in plot terms they are tied into Dany, whereas gunpowder would be available to whoever could acquire it.

[Light a wight tonight]

Without going on a tangent and derailing the thread, I will simply say this. No, I am not a fan of it. It turns weapons, warfare, and fighting into a video game system, where one can number crunch things and falsely say _____ is superior to _____, which paints these things with a broad brush and is a gross generalization. It defeats the purpose of studying these sorts of things.

I've seen a couple of episodes and agree 100%. Especially the video game line.

[ChromeWeasel]

I don't think I suggested having gunpowder around for 8000 years but having it a recent invention, introduced mid-series. In actual fact I didn't even neccessarily say in ASOIAF, just in fantasy in general. I just hate it when a fantasy series has a 10,000 year history, and yet tech stays the same throughout. It's just unrealistic. I know Martin has said he's got an explanation for why this has happened in ASOIAF, but in general it's just shoddy writing if no justification is given.

It's not shoddy writing at all. It's actually intelligent writing, because Martin left gunpowder out of his world. Without gunpowder to change warfare it is not unreasonable to expect things to stay relatively consistent for such a long time. Once gunpowder shows up it's the end of warfare as you know it within a century. To your point, yeah we wouldnt have to READ about warfare changing. But any reader with a brain would know that we just witnessed a massive civilization change. One that takes us from the fantasy world with over 10000 years of relatively similar warfare technology that all just became irrelevant, or at least is about to become irrelevant.

And once that happens you have to ask yourself, why did gunpowder just get discovered now? We had 10000 years of warfare before the books. Why did this all of a sudden just happen? You have to think that it's pretty lame to have so much time before gunpowder in the first place. You mean that someone couldnt discover this in over 10000 years of warfare? That seems pretty ridiculous. That takes the history from something epic and mystical and makes it a silly contrivance.

But on the other hand, if you do what Martin has done and leave all gunpowder completely out of the story, the long history seems a lot more plausible. It's more likely to have such a long timeframe where warfare stays relatively static, because the materials for gunpowder don't even exist. That's far more compelling for the reader and makes for a much more consistent world.

[ChromeWeasel]

I've seen a couple of episodes and agree 100%. Especially the video game line.

It's worth noting that Deadliest Warrior has become more sophisticated as the series went on. It was less theatrical at the end of the last season than when it started. More data and less smack talk. And DW gives you more historical facts than it did when the series began. It should still be looked at as a fun way to see the kind of impressive damage that weapons do to a human body. There have been some pretty impressive displays on that show.

[Nukelavee]

Lepus - I'm sorry, but nothing you say about wootz matches anything I've read about it. Nothing.

It wasn't a large scale process - it was actually a very limited production. Producing true wootz took a long, complicated process, that required constant overwatch, as each crucible required individual attention to ensure spending a precise duration at various heats - all judged by eye, requiring a huge amount of experience by the maker.

The ores were carefully selected, from beds that aren't available, the crucibles were made from clays that aren't available, (in fact, nobody knows teh exact composition of those clays, because there isn't any raw clay to compare to modern clay beds). The manner in which teh materials were arranged and packed in teh crucible was precise.

Worse - all of this was kept secret, confined to teh smiths creating the wootz steel, meaning the knowledge never spread out of that region.

Attempts to recreate teh process have resulted in high quality steels, that lack the same internal structure of documented genuine wootz steel blades. The exact details go beyond me, but - it's something to do with the crystalline patterns in the steel - modern blades don't match the exact patterns in teh older blades.

It's not the same material. It's close, but it's not the same.

The Islamic smiths attempted to repeat the process, but didn't. The result, like modern steels, may be better, but...it isn't wootz.

Don't get so obsessed with trying to prove superior knowledge of the topic, that you lose track of what I'm saying- Quality is one thing, the actual characteristics is another. Modern wootz isn't the same thing as what was created, modern Damascus and Toledo blades may very well be as good or better, but...they aren't made of identical steel to the "classic" weapons.

btw - http://www.hamillgallery.com/SITE/Knives.html This shows some blades that clearly show inspiration for the arakh.

The style used with the shotel seems to mirror the way arakhs are used, particularly if you remember how Jorah took the wound to his hip.

[protar]

It's not shoddy writing at all. It's actually intelligent writing, because Martin left gunpowder out of his world. Without gunpowder to change warfare it is not unreasonable to expect things to stay relatively consistent for such a long time. Once gunpowder shows up it's the end of warfare as you know it within a century. To your point, yeah we wouldnt have to READ about warfare changing. But any reader with a brain would know that we just witnessed a massive civilization change. One that takes us from the fantasy world with over 10000 years of relatively similar warfare technology that all just became irrelevant, or at least is about to become irrelevant.

And once that happens you have to ask yourself, why did gunpowder just get discovered now? We had 10000 years of warfare before the books. Why did this all of a sudden just happen? You have to think that it's pretty lame to have so much time before gunpowder in the first place. You mean that someone couldnt discover this in over 10000 years of warfare? That seems pretty ridiculous. That takes the history from something epic and mystical and makes it a silly contrivance.

But on the other hand, if you do what Martin has done and leave all gunpowder completely out of the story, the long history seems a lot more plausible. It's more likely to have such a long timeframe where warfare stays relatively static, because the materials for gunpowder don't even exist. That's far more compelling for the reader and makes for a much more consistent world.

Well clearly we're of differing opinions. But what I was saying was that it is the specific lack of technological advancement that is poor writing, not just pertaining to gunpowder but to technology in general, and also i'm sort of generalising to all fantasy just using ASOIAF as a conveniant example. In ASOIAF, we had the COTF, then the first men and then the andals. Since then technology has not evolved at all in several thousand years. If Martin offers an explanation (which I think he will.) than cool, but if not it's poor writing because it's not realistic and it breaks my immersion. A fantasy world should be dynamic and realistic but still exotic and magical. Technological advancement is part of this. A skilled writer shouldn't just sweep such important issues under the carpet because it's too difficult to deal with (especially with no explanation as I see in so much fantasy.), they should be showing that the world has changed, even if it's not changing during the actual story. I'm going to have to disagree with you, but imo, having technology in a fantasy world be static for 10,000 years is anything but good writing.

[The GreatRon]

Honesty the historical timeline that your saying, where the technology hasnt advanced at all in say 8-10,000 years isnt exactly as far fetched as you think.

Our history says we started agricultural societies around 10,000 BC, cities and more advanced agriculture and society structure came along around 8000 BC, with the first major civilizations starting to spring up around 5000-3000BC

Gunpowder was discovered in the 9th century and wasn't widely used in warefare until the 1400's.

Your talking about very roughly 6000 years in our history where while obviously warefare and armor evolved from better materials, its typically armies with melee weapons and arrows and bolts as their ranged. With Siege weapons that actually appeared to be more advanced before the dark ages, depending on who or what your reading.

Just saying, Martins gap in technology doesn't bother me at all.

If you wanna say the CoTF were the first agricultural societies than its more like 11,400 year gap from where we started with gunpowder widely used in war.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Well clearly we're of differing opinions. But what I was saying was that it is the specific lack of technological advancement that is poor writing, not just pertaining to gunpowder but to technology in general, and also i'm sort of generalising to all fantasy just using ASOIAF as a conveniant example. In ASOIAF, we had the COTF, then the first men and then the andals. Since then technology has not evolved at all in several thousand years. If Martin offers an explanation (which I think he will.) than cool, but if not it's poor writing because it's not realistic and it breaks my immersion. A fantasy world should be dynamic and realistic but still exotic and magical. Technological advancement is part of this. A skilled writer shouldn't just sweep such important issues under the carpet because it's too difficult to deal with (especially with no explanation as I see in so much fantasy.), they should be showing that the world has changed, even if it's not changing during the actual story. I'm going to have to disagree with you, but imo, having technology in a fantasy world be static for 10,000 years is anything but good writing.

Sorry, but the statement about stagnant technology is simply untrue. GRRM uses the unreliable narrator and a bunch of uneducated storytellers to let us assume something like that, but sometimes an educated guy (Maester Aemon, Maester Luwin, Samwell, Tyrion, The Reader of Harlaw) to give us hints to the truth.

1. The 8,000 years are most likely far less (legendary kings ruling for centuries, the debate whether the Andal invasion was 4,000 or just 2,000 years ago)

2. There was a definite advance in technology (from bronze age to 16th and 17th century plate armor in maybe 2,000 years, the Winterfell glass gardens, myrish lenses, square to round towers, change in naval technology,...)

3. The current people of Westeros project their surroundings on the old times (tales of knights before the Long Night when knights are something very Andal and started at least 4,000 years later). That was very common in reality, too. See King David depicted in plate armor or the legionnaires stabbing Jesus clad as 17th century landsknechts in contemporary paintings.

It's just that these guys are not as educated as we modern readers and they show us their own (wrong) picture of unchanging technology.

[Ser Lepus]

Quality is one thing, the actual characteristics is another. Modern wootz isn't the same thing as what was created, modern Damascus and Toledo blades may very well be as good or better, but...they aren't made of identical steel to the "classic" weapons.

I´m sorry if I sound pretentious, I know it´s a flaw of mine, but let me remind you that I was speaking about the techniques used by the ancient swordsmiths of Toledo, and how they haven´t been lost to time, and I´m quite sure about that piece of knowledge, since I know it firsthand.

About the indian steel...well, I have not the book where I read about it, but I remember that the wootz technique consisted basically in the use of special furnaces fed with bamboo coal; the end results were small "scones" or "buttons" of steel that were shaped into ingots and sold. Another book I got mentions that "by the late 1600 shipments running into tens of thousands of wootz ingots were traded to Persia".

Steel was known in other parts of the world, but, as far as I know, it was created only as part of the process of forging the weapons themselves, carefully controlling the temperature and exposition to burning coals and such. The big leap the indians made was that they were able to smelt hight quality steel out of a furnace.

I know the best indian steel had a particular composition (I remember something about small amounts of tungsten) and a particular internal structure due to the special mix of minerals that was put into the furnace, and if you are telling me that it´s impossible to recreate a sword with the exact properties of a Damascus sword made with wootz steel, I will concede that you possibly are right (your knowledge about metalurgy is probably better than mine...my proffesional field is not chemistry or metalurgy, and I´m too lazy to research the properties of the different kinds of steel), BUT I was speaking of Toledo swords, not indian or syrian swords, and I know for sure that Toledo smiths didn´t import wootz steel, but made their own locally, and that modern artisans keep the ancient techniques, which they keep secret; some small things leak, like the fact that they use a special mix of oils instead of water to temper their blades, and that they use a bull´s horn to test the temperature of the forge (don´t ask me how they do it; the artisan who said that during and interview was teasing the public,challenging them to guess how it is done).

Of course, you can buy a sword made in the city of Toledo and it can be of any quality (some are made of aluminium instead of iron or steel), but it doesn´t change the fact that there are a few men who know how to do sabers and rapiers like the old ones (and many of them don´t even live in Toledo anymore, even if they keep using the name of the city for their swords).

[protar]

Sorry, but the statement about stagnant technology is simply untrue. GRRM uses the unreliable narrator and a bunch of uneducated storytellers to let us assume something like that, but sometimes an educated guy (Maester Aemon, Maester Luwin, Samwell, Tyrion, The Reader of Harlaw) to give us hints to the truth.

1. The 8,000 years are most likely far less (legendary kings ruling for centuries, the debate whether the Andal invasion was 4,000 or just 2,000 years ago)

2. There was a definite advance in technology (from bronze age to 16th and 17th century plate armor in maybe 2,000 years, the Winterfell glass gardens, myrish lenses, square to round towers, change in naval technology,...)

3. The current people of Westeros project their surroundings on the old times (tales of knights before the Long Night when knights are something very Andal and started at least 4,000 years later). That was very common in reality, too. See King David depicted in plate armor or the legionnaires stabbing Jesus clad as 17th century landsknechts in contemporary paintings.

It's just that these guys are not as educated as we modern readers and they show us their own (wrong) picture of unchanging technology.

I think you misunderstood my post which was mostly my fault as it was kind of convoluted. About the stagnant technology I was talking about fantasy in general and used ASOIAF as (an admittedly poor, for the reasons you've said.) example. But I did acknowledge that Martin has dropped hints that all is not as it seems.

[The GRRumbler]

To point out an inconsistency I've noticed: Renly's army is described as having masses of pikemen. Any army so equipped would make mince-meat of knights on horseback, yet nowhere in Westeros have we seen pikes defeat cavalry charges

I remember Tyrion's battle scene where Gregor Clegane apparently is able to crush a line of pikemen by throwing himself, and his horse, against them and opening a breach, it sounded ridiculous to me.