Sapheron
Making no sense.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 850
Although this began quite specific (I doubt you'll be able to tell what it was though; I'm not sure I can) it became a rambling mess with no real point or structure. Read at your own risk.
Traditionally in fantasy, the hero wields a sword. A sword stands for many things, often including such noble traits as honour and bravery. Perhaps some Medieval Japanese sentiment snuck into the western fantasy market somewhere in the past (also perhaps evidenced by the commonplace nature of katana and ninja in so many stories). Regardless of how it got there though, the sword is the hero's tool. He wields it against evil, and all is well.
Now I'm going to delve into lord of the rings for a moment. Specifically, the movies, as the books, in many ways, are far less specific on some of the details (though far more in detail on most other things). In the forefront, of course, we have the three musketeers of Aragorn, the sword waving lead, and his two henchmen, Legolas, the archer, and Gimli, the axeman. Aragorn, being the hero, never really had a choice but to use a sword. But in reality, perhaps other two never had a choice as well. Firstly, they have to be armed as reflects their nature and species; the light for the elf and heavy for the dwarf. Secondly, they have to remain distinct and recognisably different. Legolas I can't think of an alternative for. Gimli, perhaps, could have used a hammer or similar heavier, blunter instrument while keeping within character.
In the Eragon series, the titular character comes up to the very problem himself. His magical sword stolen, he must rearm himself. Given his supernatural strength which, while useful for squishing the poor mortal soldiers sent against him, would also lead to the average sword being quickly ruined as it is used to cleave through armour, the quartermaster offers Eragon a mace as a tool. After all, its hard to break a mace. Eragon immediately refuses, even while he understands the advantages the weapon would give. His reasoning? A mace is not a weapon he can be seen using. He's the hero both of the story and of the organisation of which he is one of the leaders. As such, he must be seen with a heroic weapon, which a mace is not. Indeed, the only named character to use a mace is in fact on the bad side, and with his own supernatural strength uses it very effectively.
From these examples, I lead on to my next point. The effectiveness of the weapons chosen. As has already been pointed out, Eragon could more effectively fight with a mace than a sword. In a similar way, against the Uruk-hai of Helms Deep fame, neither Legolas' bow nor Aragorn's sword would in reality be particularly effective weapons. Indeed, once again a mace, pick or hammer would be by far the most effective. When I think about it, I realise the same is true for many fantasy worlds where full plate armour is so prevalent. Yet blunt weapons, the natural foe of full plate, are used only by the enemy, and usually particularly powerful enemies at that. As with Eragon, off the top of my head I can think of a single characters in Lord of the Rings using a blunt weapon; the Witch King, once again a prominent villain.
Now let us wander into the gritty realism of A Song of Ice and Fire. In this, most characters are depicted as sword wielding. Notable exceptions exist, such as Theon Greyjoy, and his bow, and Oberyn Martell, using a spear. Still we see that all weapons are pointed or edged. Again, in a world where heavier armour is about and causing issues for people (Victarion catches a sword with an armoured gauntlet, Jorah Mormont takes a sword to the ribs while he puts his own into his opponents face, in the knowledge that he, being armoured, will survive, and Barristan Selmy deflects a sword using his armoured forearm) no one seems to think of the direct counter; not to use an edged weapon. In this case, not even the 'bad guys' as much as they can be identified in this particular series.
Am I pointing out a particular issue? Not really, I don't think. Perhaps that while armour in fantasy is often portrayed at late medieval levels, weaponry reflects more the early medieval period before heavy armour was quite so much of a thing. I'm not really sure, which is why I'm passing it on to you guys and gals.
Traditionally in fantasy, the hero wields a sword. A sword stands for many things, often including such noble traits as honour and bravery. Perhaps some Medieval Japanese sentiment snuck into the western fantasy market somewhere in the past (also perhaps evidenced by the commonplace nature of katana and ninja in so many stories). Regardless of how it got there though, the sword is the hero's tool. He wields it against evil, and all is well.
Now I'm going to delve into lord of the rings for a moment. Specifically, the movies, as the books, in many ways, are far less specific on some of the details (though far more in detail on most other things). In the forefront, of course, we have the three musketeers of Aragorn, the sword waving lead, and his two henchmen, Legolas, the archer, and Gimli, the axeman. Aragorn, being the hero, never really had a choice but to use a sword. But in reality, perhaps other two never had a choice as well. Firstly, they have to be armed as reflects their nature and species; the light for the elf and heavy for the dwarf. Secondly, they have to remain distinct and recognisably different. Legolas I can't think of an alternative for. Gimli, perhaps, could have used a hammer or similar heavier, blunter instrument while keeping within character.
In the Eragon series, the titular character comes up to the very problem himself. His magical sword stolen, he must rearm himself. Given his supernatural strength which, while useful for squishing the poor mortal soldiers sent against him, would also lead to the average sword being quickly ruined as it is used to cleave through armour, the quartermaster offers Eragon a mace as a tool. After all, its hard to break a mace. Eragon immediately refuses, even while he understands the advantages the weapon would give. His reasoning? A mace is not a weapon he can be seen using. He's the hero both of the story and of the organisation of which he is one of the leaders. As such, he must be seen with a heroic weapon, which a mace is not. Indeed, the only named character to use a mace is in fact on the bad side, and with his own supernatural strength uses it very effectively.
From these examples, I lead on to my next point. The effectiveness of the weapons chosen. As has already been pointed out, Eragon could more effectively fight with a mace than a sword. In a similar way, against the Uruk-hai of Helms Deep fame, neither Legolas' bow nor Aragorn's sword would in reality be particularly effective weapons. Indeed, once again a mace, pick or hammer would be by far the most effective. When I think about it, I realise the same is true for many fantasy worlds where full plate armour is so prevalent. Yet blunt weapons, the natural foe of full plate, are used only by the enemy, and usually particularly powerful enemies at that. As with Eragon, off the top of my head I can think of a single characters in Lord of the Rings using a blunt weapon; the Witch King, once again a prominent villain.
Now let us wander into the gritty realism of A Song of Ice and Fire. In this, most characters are depicted as sword wielding. Notable exceptions exist, such as Theon Greyjoy, and his bow, and Oberyn Martell, using a spear. Still we see that all weapons are pointed or edged. Again, in a world where heavier armour is about and causing issues for people (Victarion catches a sword with an armoured gauntlet, Jorah Mormont takes a sword to the ribs while he puts his own into his opponents face, in the knowledge that he, being armoured, will survive, and Barristan Selmy deflects a sword using his armoured forearm) no one seems to think of the direct counter; not to use an edged weapon. In this case, not even the 'bad guys' as much as they can be identified in this particular series.
Am I pointing out a particular issue? Not really, I don't think. Perhaps that while armour in fantasy is often portrayed at late medieval levels, weaponry reflects more the early medieval period before heavy armour was quite so much of a thing. I'm not really sure, which is why I'm passing it on to you guys and gals.