A Kingdom of Silk

Hosted Games Works In Progress
21

Before going into this in depth because I haven’t really read it yet…

@Drazen Mate, I usually thnk you have good points, but these are absolutely not one of them. “Trebuchet fire” makes eminent amounts of sense (since not only can it fling flaming things on occasion, but it is also “laying fire out” like any ranged weapon. Fire not being in the mechanism is irrelevant) and my main concern is that it’s too modern for people in a setting at that level to actually be using (since that terminology’d obviously be linked closer to the gunpowder evolution with things like cannon and musket), and spears are an eminently sensible weapon to bring to a siege. Heck, they were they main weapon of the melee infantryman up until muskets came into style, and that included during sieges (case in point: Pavia, Nagashima, Tyre, Ostend, etc etc etc).

Sure, they can’t do jack when you’re just waiting outside the walls, but when you’re in actual combat with the enemy they are plenty useful. The main weakness is that they might be at a disadvantage in close quarters against someone without a pike, but eve then as long as you stay in formation you can help pin the enemy in and give others a chance to wheel around. If anything, I’d be more concerned that they’re identified as spears rather than as a more advanced polearm.

Yeah, a weapon strapped to your back is a pain in the arse and not something you can directly use (unless you…what? Get lucky and ram the point end into someone by moving in an incredibly unnatural way), but you know what’s an even bigger pain? Falling to your death from the fortification walls or from the ladder on said walls. You need both hands to make sure, and not being able to use a weapon is just a price you need to pay. If your strapping getup is *good* or sensible, you should b able to withdraw it from your back and get it into combat position relatively quickly. Assuming of course you have the chance and aren’t stabbed or shot to death in the few seconds between when you reach level ground and when you can pull it out and use it (or the considerably longer it would take for them to regroup into a formation after climbing, which is why I imagine they’d probably be using a sword or other sidearm unless they’re using something like a billhook until they can regroup)… but hey, that’s siegework for you.

It’s called “tradeoffs”, Drazen. You can’t function without them. Also why no, a siege absolutely did not “typically” include climbing over the enemy’s walls; if anything assaults were highly unusual precisely because of how costly they tended to be and how many things could go dramatically wrong (like how difficult it would be to simply carry your main weapon- a polearm- up and over the defenses). It usually consisted of Side A waiting outside and wearing down the enemy until they starved or ran out of supplies in between as constant a bombardment as the besiegers could hold up. It wasn’t as dramatic or as up close and personal, but that was the point.

And I already dealt with this issue once, but there is nothing inherently off with a female knight wearing full plate. It’s not even dramatic license physically, you can do it pretty much regardless of your build so long as you can move enough force to “wear” the huge arse coat of metal that’s meant to protect you (though obviously plenty of builds have advantages over others, and that’s why men as a general rule have an easier time with it).

So no, the scene I’m seeing described doesn’t appear nonsensical. That said, this is just me sniping in and observing the situation off to the side, and I will have to play later and give my full opinion when my other commitments are less pressing, so I could be misreading this entirely.

22

@poisonmushroom I’m really glad to see someone finally attempt multiple-perspectives, I’m really looking forward to seeing how you go about it - it’s looking great so far, keep at it! :slight_smile:

I’ve also replaced your link in the original post with the working one.

23

@CJW Thanks a lot; I’m sure we can all appreciate that. I agree regarding the multiple perspectives as well, it certainly is unconventional.

@poisonmushroom I’ve had the chance to play through it a bit, and while there isn’t that much yet what I do see looks downright fascinating. I’m particularly taken by the premise I’ve seen so far. Like I said regarding CJW’s comment, the multiperspective angle is quite engaging and it makes me wonder how it will play out. Right now it seems like there might be some Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy- esque dilemmas where you have to balance helping one character versus hurting the other given how at least initially they are on opposite sides of a war.

From what I have seen, the writing is absolutely superb on all levels. Not just the technique either; please ignore Drazen (I never thought I’d be saying those words, but thereIgo), because from what I’ve seen it seems like you have hit a lot of the relevant details spot on. If anything, I found it more questionable about whether they would really hear the horn out that far or see the ships, but even then I’m not going to make any judgements yet.

That being said, we do seem to be getting a lot more initial exposure to Emberite NPCs than to those from Borania (we’ve seen a few Boranian lords and Dad, but in the grand scale of things that probably isn’t going to be as relevant), so I am wondering where you’re going with that or whether it is the best choice. However, you’ve acquitted yourself well enough that I’m more than happy to give you the chance to see where things will go.

Finally, a random thought: the game title alludes to a “Kingdom of Silk”, but as far as I can tell no polity you’ve mentioned fits that description. Maybe I’m missing something completely, but if nothing else the mystery does raise my interest.

So keep chugging on, and if you need any help just give a holler!

24

@Turtler I’m truly flattered that you think me prone to making good points, and I must confess that I have been looking forward to the day when you turn your propensity for systematic, rigorous argument in my direction. (I’m told that I come across as being sarcastic frequently; please note that I am not trying to be so here.) Nevertheless, I feel I must defend my points, - and not simply because, as ever, I phrased them lazily and flippantly to begin with.

‘To fire’ a weapon is a terminological evolution from the gunpowder era, since you’d either need to manually ignite the powder in a cannon, or lower the matchlock/release the flintlock onto the gunpowder with a pistol/musket. The act of “firing” is, in that sense, quite literal. But in this era, you wouldn’t say that you fire a trebuchet any more than you would a bow, crossbow, or whatever, since fire has no place with such weapons. You’d use terms such as “loose” and “let fly”. So, yes, I would say fire not being in the mechanism - regardless of whether trebuchets can loose flaming objects - is very relevant to the phrasing. Of course, you could argue that I’m being overly picky with the phrasing, - and I am a self-identifying pedant, - but then we’d be arguing the toss over realism vs. artistic licence.

With regards to spears, my comment was made under the impression that a prolonged siege was under way, with the troops mobilised for an attack - spears being bloody useless in that case; If, as Poison said, they were merely passing by a pissant baronial den, then, as I conceded, their presence is understandable. But yes: Spears are a weapon for advancing in a line on the battlefield; it is questionable how valuable they would be when storming a breach (where formations aren’t valid, with individual combat taking over), but they are unarguably useless in scaling walls.

My comment that sieges “typically” included scaling the walls was erroneous. Sloppiness on my part. You are quite correct that they, in fact, typically relied on bombardment and attrition.

The mechanics of wall-storming, however, are uncertain: There are accounts, for example, of ladders being climbed not, as you claim, using both hands, but with people wielding both sword and shield! And even if we dismiss this as exaggeration, it is still possible for someone to climb with a weapon in one hand (although never a spear, certainly), which would prudently allow them to engage with whichever foeman is defending the wall as soon as possible - falling being a secondary concern to getting brained by whatever jackass takes a swing, I would have thought. But when we come to people sheathing their weapon, surely they’d have it strapped to their side, not their back? Since the former would allow for a nice, one second draw, whereas the latter would probably require them to unstrap the sheath from their back, remove the weapon, and then either discard the scabbard or re-attach it, all of which takes valuable time - which is in short supply in battle.

On the topic of female knights on a boat in plate armour, I was making two points there, only one of which was gender-specific. Firstly, the gender aspect: Armour is heavy. Women can, in some cases, be well-built enough to lug the stuff around, but the author seem’d to imply that such were numerous enough to constitute 50% of the army (if memory serves). This is, to me, highly suspect.

The second point there was that they were wearing full armour on a boat; and not only that, on a boat during a storm! Natural selection wouldn’t favour these people. There was a case in the 100 Years War (I think it might have been the Battle of Brest, though I could be mistaken) where armoured knights tried to take part in a naval engagement. The phrase “blub blub blub” springs to mind, as the perfect articulation of the logical consequence.

I’d also put a word in favour of chainmail as the armour of choice over plate, but there we go.

And as to ignoring my remarks on the writing style, that does seem to be more of a subjective element. All I can say is that, personally, I found the writing style was a little too blunt. More flow and flowery phrasing, I think, would be an improvement - if you beg to differ, then to each his own.

25

@poisonmushroom Please do not change the presence of female warriors.

@Turtler @Drazen Don’t we already have a couple of topics on the discussion of women in armour and the appropriateness? Can you perhaps further the discussion on that subject over to one of those?

I’m also going to say I think the picking on the word fire is extremely pedantic. There’s plenty of words which we use nowadays that wouldn’t have been used in the past. Just as there are words they used which we wouldn’t nowadays. I know that I can just travel to another part of the country and we have a whole host of different slang.

What’s to say that Broken Lands of Borania didn’t independently develop the word fire to mean the propelling of an object through the air, as flung from a trebuchet? If the whole game was to be written in appropriate language for the times how many of us would even understand it? I know I wouldn’t find a game that was written that way very readable.

26

@FairyGodfeather I’m not one to consider general pedantry to be a problem. After all, how much attention was given, during the Spanish Inquisition, to the word “compel”, and how many people died because of a dispute over that one word? - Which is not to sound self-righteous, here; it’s just an interesting method of illustrating that God really is in the detail.

But nevertheless, I’m not advocating writing the entire story in Old English; merely pointing out that one phrase jumped out at me as being odd; The author has to right to say “Sod off you picky twit” if they think I’m being unduly pedantic, at any point. Still, mistakes, I find, are distracting, and I doubt any author wishes for such to be present.

And I should say, I grant absolutely zero credibility to the “What if some hand-waving and magic happened in the background” defence of unusual features. Unless an explanation is provided, or it is in-keeping with other features we have seen, then I’ll assume the author to be using the real world as a model, and hence I’ll highlight what I see to be a mistake. Thus, arbitrary changes to the English language will not be permitted to remain.

27

@Drazen Okay!

I can be pedantic too, it’s something I’m trying to teach myself not to be. It’s one of the reasons there’s certain genres and settings which I just avoid because I find inconsistencies destroy my enjoyment.

Now I went and actually checked the first two pages written, and you actually missed at least four other words which were inappropriate to the setting. I could point them out, but I don’t think it would improve the game to do so though. Besides you could consider it like a treasure hunt? Actually no! Do not accept that challenge. :slight_smile:

I think it’s just easier to shrug and let things go. Point them out once the game is finished. That sort of minutae just gets in the way of writing. It’ll make a writer stall and start second-guessing themselves, double-checking everything they write and where’s the fun in that?

28

@FairyGodfeather I did say, that one phrase jumped out at me as being odd; I would have mentioned others, had I clocked them. - But yes, I’d hope this perfectionism simply tune an author’s mind to noting the details of their story, rather than deter them.

Now pardon me, I’ll be working through the first two pages with a fine toothed comb to find errant wording. I’ll then be spending five or so minutes getting irritated, since alcohol and tiredness will impede my ability to spot them.

29

I played the game. I liked it. I like the idea of having two protagonists and I’m curious as to what will happen when they meet up and how you implement things. It was enjoyable and I’m looking forward to playing more.

30

I like the idea of playing two stories,I support you on making your game :slight_smile:

31

@FairyGodfeather The reason I brought this up here (rather than rhetorically slapping P_Tigras’s ears back like I should have) was because the topic lapsed again and I felt it inappropriate to Necro.

@Drazon I am likewise flattered you were so anxious to do this.

Again, regarding the “Firing” comment, I noted how “firing” and “blast” derived from Gunpowder weapon development, and in particular their development as artillery. That was why I noted my main concern was in whether or not someone in-universe would have been referring to (or describing/thinking of it as) “firing.” That being said, this is likely where I’m far less concerned about the specifics than you are, because it’s meant to be descriptive and “firing” is probably the most intuitive term for we modern people (living in an age of high explosive gunpowder artillery, if we can even call it gun"powder" persee anymore) can think of for the shooting of a long-range artillery piece. Which is why I gave it a pass. It’s not optimal, but for a draft and the sake of literary consistency I’m happy to let it stanfd until something better comes along.

That’s before getting into the hypothetical of fantastical materials leading to flaming war machines spitting death being more common in this 'verse than in our own at the time, in which case all bets are off.

As for the use of polearms in a siege, I am sorry but this is the one area where I must say you are categorically wrong and wrong in no uncertain terms. In no way are they “bloody useless” and in no way is their utility in a siege in doubt. We know this precisely because we have something along the lines of ~two+ millennium documenting their uses in siege warfare, and how they absolutely fail and how they can be absolutely invaluable. In fact, prior to the down of the Long and Cross bows and *especially Habsburg Pike and Shot, they were probably one of the most common weapons that any soldier would be carrying into a siege attack anywhere in the Eurasian/African world continent (competing against only the mighty sword or club).

In fact, they were *the* weapon used to do street clearing (and thus in many ways the weapon that would secure urban dominance) precisely because they were a weapon for advancing rank by rank in a battle line. By advancing in a disciplined fashion they could form a wall of metal and wood that would literally *push* the enemy out of the streets and either into the buildings or into a grave, thus giving the attackers effective control of the main areas of communication and movement and cutting the enemy off into units that could and would be destroyed in pockets. Now, it’s true that they were horribly inconvenient for actually clearing a city building by building, but that was what the average sword, dagger, or club was for after the polearms had done their job and it was time to either have said polearm troops swap out or have another type of troops go in to deal the killing blow.

We see evidence of these weapons being employed in these fashions by- amongst others- Alexander the Great (in one of history’s first “special operations” offensives; the seizure of the Sogdian Rock- or rather the high ground next to it- by his Hostilities climbing in that fashion) Charles V/I in the Italian Wars (especially in his downright nightmarish sieges that blew away entire Italian states), his predecessor Charles VIII of France, the “three Unifiers” of Japan (both in the form of peasant levies like the Ashigaru and Samurai themselves given the especially prized role of the polearm in Japanese society), almost every major pre-modern leader in Chinese history who had anything to do with siegecraft but perhaps most notably Hongwu, Qin Shi Huangdhi, Cao Cao, and- perhaps as a cautionary tale- Yang of Sui), and Cromwell’s New Model Army and their French and Dutch allies during the Siege of the Pale of Calais that culminated in the Battle of the Dunes. Clearly, this was not an isolated incident or one limited to one specific area (though it’s probably safe to say Europe and Japan were especially disproportionate in their usage); the use of polearms to dominate urban spaces was seen as a very key advantage for assaulting besiegers. Likewise, the value of the polearm in the defense of the streets was also crucial, as shown (again) by the Habsburg Pike and Shot against the Ottoman Turkish armies at Vienna, the absolutely miserable track record the Greek States pre-Macedon had for sieges- *especially* on the assault- and Sweden’s ultimately doomed but still surprisingly effective use of polearms as late as the Great Northern War (and as a major component of their infantry alongside muskets no less). So the deployment of polearms for an assault is both accurate and correct. I just would not take them out until after a foothold is cleared and/or ranks can be reformed.

It is indeed correct that one does not need to grasp a ladder with both hands (this was a major advantage one handed weapons had over two handed ones, especially in the confined area a siege would be taking place in) and one can indeed keep weapons close at hand as any who have seen the stereotypical “dagger in mouth” picture of a climbing attacker can know. However, for various reasons this was another tradeoff- especially if you were hauling a sizable weapon and a shield in one hand while doing it- and one that would be awkward to do. Especailly when you factor in that this scenario implies (if only to me, and anyone can correct me) that most of the attacking nobleman’s army is not exactly a professional war machine but a probably-nonwarrior levy, and it’s easy to see how the number of people just losing their balance and dropping to their deaths would be sizable, and how a number of others would not be utilizing the supporting weight of the ladder to its’ full effect (IE: actually hauling those things up and climbing with one hand). This is not to say that it won’t be done (I would expect it absolutely would be) and especially not that it is physically impossible to climb a ladder without both hands (and I apologize if my wording made it appear so).

You are of course correct that anybody climbing in an assault would optimally have a weapon at the ready. Preferably at hand as they haul themselves up, but if not just a quick draw away. You are correct that that the prime position for this would be at the side, since it allows a smoother and more immediate action and that is what counts when you’re running up against a mass of defenders standing at the top. However, this does not preclude the attackers from carrying polearms in an assault (even on their backs and perhaps especially on their backs), and the sort of situation they would vindicate their carrying of a “sidearm” like a dagger or sword (hence the name we have adopted for side-mounted pistols). Especially since in such a chaotic melee a polearm (unless it’s a really versatile one like a Billhook) is just going to screw you up since you’re not in a coherent formation and the enemy is probably inside of the pike’s space to start with.

Regarding the female knight issue, I largely agree with you here and a fair bit of it stems from a misreading of it. Regarding the “half” quote", the way it was phrased in-game indicated that discrimination against females would require cutting the army and navy down by half, which I took to indicate not necessarily that 50% of the rankers are female (which would be incredibly high) but less that the economic contraction caused by steeper divisions would make it infeasible to support a war machine greater than half the current one. That being said, I can of course be wrong about that and it certainly is eyebrow raising.

32

@Drazen Continued

As for wearing full plate on a boat (even during a storm) I must say that I did not see much wrong with it persee (especially since other cases in the Hundred Years’ War like the initial cross-channel invasion from England saw armored knights in full plate or close to it fighting a naval engagement that hinged on boarding). Risky? Absofrikkinglutely. If you go overboard, you’re probably screwed to sink right down and drown.

However, the dialogue indicates they are prepared to go into battle right from an imminent landfall and so the battle readiness is understandable. So long as you’re not actively peering over the side of the ship (and are mainly sticking to the center or better yet indoors where you’d be shielded from the storm) you’re probably paying due diligence to Darwin and God to avoid getting killed. Or at least you can argue convincingly that you are, which is good enough in this case. It’s certainly not something I’d want to be doing, but I can see why people would do it.

I’d probably agree regarding Chainmail in anything requiring more maneuverability than a siege tower or where you have less strength than Heracles, and that ties into another major problem with polearms during sieges that I forgot to mention (namely that they are at the mercy of enfilade fire and outflanking as long as they’re in formation with those things; Pyrrhus of Epirus capped off a sadly distinguished but underachieving career by getting stunned and killed while storming Argos because- by popular account- somebody dropped a tile on him from a roof, allowing a defender to chop his neck in half). So I’m definitely not saying Polearms are an unimaginably great weapon to be using in a siege (and the defenders could raise holy hell if given the chance), but they were still probably one of the most dominant weapons in siege warfare.

The flowery phrasing an description are something I agree with- and while came to me only after I had replayed it for all the routes-, but usually I can understand the want to have a working draft first before adding them in (even if I usually prefer going full bore). Certainly something that it would be best to work on. @poisonmushroom please take note!

But ya… sorry for the rambling?

33

For the female pathway with when talking to “Sir Alistair” and “the female knight” on the boat, and advising them about sailing in response to the 50 boats. When you make the selection to try to convince them via your sailing expertise, I got:

line 526: Bad label landing

So far, though, it’s a good read, and fun to play through. Keep it up! Eager for more updates to come!

34

@Turtler It is distinctly possible that I am the only reader who’d be annoyed by the anachronistic use of “trebuchet fire”, since, perhaps, most would read the word only in terms of its modern function, rather than its etymology, - which would make it an acceptable term to use. Yet, I would contend that, again, God is in the detail, and if a reader is presented with chronologically-relevant snippets, they will come away more contented than otherwise. As an illustration, if we were to be presented with a line of archers, ready to unleash a volley, the author could give the command in one of, for simplicities sake, two ways: “Fire!” or “Loose!” - Is the second not an improvement? I cannot be the only one who’d pick up on that word usage, and note how antithetical it is to the Hollywood account of history. It may seem trite, - and I accept that it is a small point, - but it’s details like that which complete the picture.

I am, further, still sceptical of the relevance of spears to sieges, precisely because of the advantage you noted: Street clearing. “[T]he use of polearms to dominate urban spaces was seen as a very key advantage for assaulting besiegers.” - Well, yes, any open space which allows for a good, clear forward march is perfect for spear formations, since not even a rival wall of spears would be willing to deliberately skewer themselves senselessly. However, we are not dealing with a city-breach, here. This sort of castle-siege is the environment least suitable for spear-work, - regardless of how [undeniably] good a weapon it is, generally speaking, - as the advantages you noted are largely negated. I could broadly classify three stages of combat in taking a castle: Taking a breach, taking the walls, and taking the keep. Each one, I think, fails the test of “Is it time for a polearm offensive?”

Firstly, after the sappers have collapsed the walls, or the trebuchets have crumbled them (damn shoddy workmanship by the sound of it), you have yourselves a breach: Now, for example, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent sends his Janissaries forwards, but would they use spears? I’d be inclined to say “No.” - The Landsknecht’s defensive advantage in forming a spear wall would be too great. A spear formation would have trouble holding, climbing over the rubble, and would then find itself facing levelled spears; they’d have to be suicidal to charge against that with a spear-wall themselves - making this sort of formation undesirable. I’d say two-handed swords would work better here, as they can both hold themselves better as individual fighters in moving through a breach, and utilise a swinging attack which may break through a line of spears.

Secondly, in taking the walls, they’d either be climbing a ladder, or moving up the steps from within the walls. If its the former, then spears would be, again, bloody useless: In such close-quarters combat, somebody fighting as an individual, - and especially one with as great a disadvantage as scaling a wall (Sogdian Rock was only managed since the climb was covert, and even then it was a dangerous manoeuvre), - would have to be insane to use a spear. They wouldn’t have the footing, they wouldn’t have the length, and they would be vulnerable to an easy parry. Likewise, a swipe from the flank of anyone scaling some steps to a wall, spear levelled, would parry the polearm aside, leaving them vulnerable and open to attack from their exposed side.

Thirdly, the keep. This falls under the domain of ‘Building fighting’, and would be, as you said, “horribly inconvenient” for spears.

So, I’m sorry, but I really cannot see spears as being of any use during a siege. Or, more accurately, during a storming of a castle, - since, you are correct, they are very useful in taking a city. I also find it odd that anyone would wilfully strap a polearm to their back before trying to take a castle - the disadvantage to one’s mobility would surely outweigh the “I never know when I might need to form a spear-wall” mentality.

35

Wow, this is a lot to reply to. Thanks for the feedback. Also thanks CJW for updating the link.

It seems there are a few main issues here to hit on.

  1. The Trebuchet fire. This seems to me like a worthwhile change to me. It makes more sense to use a more age appropriate word, than leave readers with the task of trying to justify it in their own head. It makes more sense to just change it. This is the sort of thing I would have completely overlooked without any feedback, so thanks.

  2. Women in full plate. There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here. The actual line is “Aye and a lot of good that’ll do us in plate mail”. It was my understanding that plate mail was a combination of chainmail and plated armour, rather than being full plate. I had envisioned something closer to this http://static.skyrim.nexusmods.com/images/1677777-1352943001.jpg. I just punched the term into google though and plate mail seems to be more of a russian/middle eastern design, and so not what I’m looking for anyway.

The other thing is that whilst a large portion of the Islanders’ army are women, it certainly doesn’t mean that they are all wearing the same armour as Helena, who is a knight (It actually says it is very rare to see a female knight, as well, even amongst the Islanders). Regardless of gender, most of the army (and all the armies in this world) are levied. In this case, the army is mostly fisherman and other seafaring folk who probably won’t be wearing anything more sturdy than the MC’s leather jack.

As for wearing their armour during a landing/storm, Turtler is right in that they are preparing for the worst case scenario of landing and having to fight right away.

  1. The spears thing. Although I might be wrong, I’ve noticed that in a few of your comments Drazen, you seem to assume medieval armies are made up of professional soldiers that can afford to pick and choose their equipment at will (see above point about your assumptions that all the women would be in full plate). In longer campaigns the lord might pay for mercenaries (which will come up later in the story), there would certainly be knights and nobles who would be well equipped but most of the time the army was made up of unprofessional peasants using whatever their lord could give them. It was extremely variable. (although there were a number of cases where the king encouraged rich and poor to own and practice with longbows, but this is generally an exception)

Swords were pretty expensive. Personally I think it’s less believable that a small county managed to amass an ideal army of swordsmen for this minor siege, than a small county making do with spears.

In regards to the narrative itself. There’s a number of solid justifications for the spears. The problem is that this being the opening chapter, most of these justifications won’t be apparent yet which may just be a weakness of the writing, rather than the logic.
a) Whilst I wrote that there were spearman in the Count’s army, I didn’t mean to imply that the entire army was made up of spearman. In fact, reading it back I don’t think it does imply this.
b) Lytton is arrogant, and has general animosity against his neighbour Bardolf. He suspects that the man will give in right away, while the army resupplies in Bramble and eats all of the King’s game. Pop a hole in the walls and it’s over.
c) He probably doesn’t need to scale the walls anyway. He can tear the walls apart if he needs to. The rest can be done from the ground.
d) This is nothing more than Lytton partially getting sidetracked, and partially being opportunistic on the way to the real battlefield. The important battle will most probably be on open plains, or rolling hills.
e) This is also a more of a fort than a castle. It’s called Hare Keep, because that’s essentially all it is. An outpost and a sort of nothingy position of power that the king could bestow on his loyal but oafish friend, Baron Bardolf.

Personally I don’t the spears thing needs changing.

d) The writing style. I think you might be right about this. I was quite focused on ticking boxes with each scene but it’s early days yet. This will all get redrafted eventually.

Anything thanks for the feedback. I’ll fix the bugs. Glad people are interested in multiple perspectives!

36

@poisonmushroom I don’t think I did indicate that I assumed at any point the army would be particularly well equipped, but for this situation a hand-axe, or similar such tool, would be far better than a spear, if swords are not available. That hardly requires a large armoury, or sizeable wealth. Any wieldable one-handed stabby, smashy, slicey thing would be both more useful here, and, for serfs, easier to get, than a long, useless pointy thing. Y’see?

Also, have you considered the problem with levying women, even if your armoured lass is an exceptionally well-built rarity? Namely: Who’ll tend to the homesteads? Who’ll look after the children? How will they be able to compete against male adversaries? Would they be archers, or high-casualty shock troops? Or would they be assigned to non-combat functions? What hygiene precautions will be taken on campaign? And how do you account for high passions in situations of war?

37

@idonotlikeusernames I think, in the real world, levy ages went to a fair bit older. But still, that seems like a good way to kill off future generations, by attacking the most fertile age-group.

38

@Drazen, I suppose if you levy your armies based primarily on the age group of the prospective draftees, say 15 to 25, then the population left tending to the homesteads would be those not within those age brackets. In a sort of fantasy middle ages where health and life expectancy are somehow approximately the same as in the developed nations of our twentieth century, such a thing would theoretically be feasible.

Like the multiple character perspective, wonder if and when they will cross paths.

39

Aren’t those problems something that should be considered regardless of gender?

40

Yes. There are, however, answers in place for an all-male army, based on reality. These would have to be changed in a deviant one.