The difference between duels and battles

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

two months in a year is not a "standing army." If that were the case every prince in Europe had one and the term is meaningless.

The Fyrd served in two month rotations, was paid a regular wage for this service, and was different from the call up of every able-bodied man, which was limited to the boundaries of it's shire and to one day of service(in general, though some areas allowed as much as 15 days), or it was to be paid. By contrast, the Fyrd was rotated, with half the fyrd remaining inactive while the other half was used by the king and paid by the king. Particularly, various mercenaries were used as well, and mercenaries are by default professional soldiers.

In particular, the remnants of the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd served for many years of distinction in the late Roman Empire, which definitely had a professional army. That the Varangoi were seen as a particularly prestigious and effective force would indicate that they were not just wild and crazy lunatics.

In particular, the Fyrd is credited with the sort of equipment and battle formations that we attribute to professional heavy infantry. If there is some overlap with Feudalism, it is because Feudalism was an important shift in the nature of the later roman empire, especially as when the collapse of the western provinces occured.

Carls were bodyguards, not an army. And Thanes were a feudal levy not a standing army. They formed an army only when gathered together and had no existence as such between major campaigns.

Thanes and eorls were empowered to do justice and collect taxes are part of their duties to the king, their military service was required on condition of their land ownership. Furthermore, calling Huscarls bodyguards, as if that makes them less militant and professional is a mistake: the entire Macedonian army was considered "bodyguards" or "companions", and it was a professional, standing army. Similarly, the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd, when under arms was a professional army, and when not under arms was still considered part of that body, and expected to enforce the peace: the separation of Military and Police was unknown in Anglo-Saxon england.

As for the versitility of hoplite gear, at least you will concede that it cannot be used by one man protecting his field from random mayhem seeing as the thief would be gone before the farmer put on his corselet.

The basics of hoplite panopoly are the helmet, shield and spear. The sword and cuirass are options, not requirements. But your counter-example here is another bad example, because any weapon system not carried by the farmer would be ineffective. Greek landowners did not walk around tilling the dirt with a sword at their side.

I'm not really sure what your example is trying to accomplish: what can be used by one man to protect his field from random mayhem? Unless one is accustomed to going armed everywhere, then any weapon will not be available at hand when this "random mayhem" occurs.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Duelists will usually have higher weapon skills. They generally fight on a predictable "playing field" against a single opponent that they can easily see coming, so they need fewer supporting skills. They may have a trademark technique that's trained up, like Targeted Attack or Feint.

Why? There's plenty to suggest that duelists(as in people who train to fight one on one duels with other people, not for battle) were not necessarily more skilled than trained warriors. If anything, some form of Savoir-Faire seems almsot a requirement for any vaguely organized bits of dueling. Some duelists may be very good, but many may be complete garbage, and get on through intimidation and luck.

Warriors will have lower weapon skills, but more supporting traits. Particularly Soldier and/or Tactics, but also Combat Reflexes, heightened Perception, perks like Shield Wall Training and Teamwork, Heraldry (Oh, crap. It's the Imperial Guard. Run!). If they had one technique that would be trained before all others, it's probably Retain Weapon.

I agree with this part though.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Why? There's plenty to suggest that duelists(as in people who train to fight one on one duels with other people, not for battle) were not necessarily more skilled than trained warriors. If anything, some form of Savoir-Faire seems almsot a requirement for any vaguely organized bits of dueling. Some duelists may be very good, but many may be complete garbage, and get on through intimidation and luck.

Well, I was focusing on combat skills, since both will need some non-combat skills to complete their skill sets.

I assumed, without basis and perhaps incorrectly, that the OP was asking about duelist and warrior PCs, and ones for which that is the main focus of the characters, which implies they have about the same number of points in related traits. Given a fixed number of points and an inclination to build borderline cinematic heroes, the duelist would normally be a weapon expert, and the soldier a battlefield survivor. You are right that such statements don't apply to historical duelists on a broad stroke, who ranged from "Aggripa his own self" to "rich guy who hired a sycophant that pretended he was a fencing tutor."

[Agramer]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Why? There's plenty to suggest that duelists(as in people who train to fight one on one duels with other people, not for battle) were not necessarily more skilled than trained warriors.

Duellist = Person fighting duels on regular basis,maybe as "stand in" or whatever. Though spirit of question clearly defines him as professional and not as random guy who is involved in duel.

Hence,such person would devote much time and effort to perfect weapon skills needed to win those duels :::> would be more skilled.

Modern Comparison: Biathlon shooter(or sport shooter,or Olympic shooter or whoever) to regular soldier.

How can you agree with one and not with second part of Ryans post?

Also,as Ryan I think this started to look as catfight and not discussion.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Well, I was focusing on combat skills, since both will need some non-combat skills to complete their skill sets.

I assumed, without basis and perhaps incorrectly, that the OP was asking about duelist and warrior PCs, and ones for which that is the main focus of the characters, which implies they have about the same number of points in related traits. Given a fixed number of points and an inclination to build borderline cinematic heroes, the duelist would normally be a weapon expert, and the soldier a battlefield survivor. You are right that such statements don't apply to historical duelists on a broad stroke, who ranged from "Aggripa his own self" to "rich guy who hired a sycophant that pretended he was a fencing tutor."

Oh, ok. I see what you did there, and in that case, yeah it makes perfect sense: I'd expect to see a 150pt duelist to be really good at his style of duelig, and a 150pt soldier/warrior to have more ancillary traits that make him a good soldier.

[Dangerious P. Cats]

Keeping in mind that having different weapons for duelling and war only really happened in a few places and even then only after a certain point. In Europe you don't really see the devision in duelling and warfare weapons until the renneisance, outside of judicial or gladitorial combat. In Japan by comparison katanas were used for both war and duels right up till modernisation.

[Oggsmash]

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

Keeping in mind that having different weapons for duelling and war only really happened in a few places and even then only after a certain point. In Europe you don't really see the devision in duelling and warfare weapons until the renneisance, outside of judicial or gladitorial combat. In Japan by comparison katanas were used for both war and duels right up till modernisation.

Actually, the Katana was about the or 4th most used weapon on a battlefield by the Samurai, who all carried one. The Bow, Spear, and Naginata were all used more and were placed at a higher value if I remember correctly, the Katana, was used alot in duels however, esp once the Shogunate was established and the wars cooled down.

[Dangerious P. Cats]

Originally Posted by Oggsmash

Actually, the Katana was about the or 4th most used weapon on a battlefield by the Samurai, who all carried one. The Bow, Spear, and Naginata were all used more and were placed at a higher value if I remember correctly, the Katana, was used alot in duels however, esp once the Shogunate was established and the wars cooled down.

This is true of most swords though. The katana was more used and useful on the battlefield than say a rapier, for which nearly all records of its battlefield use are people casting it asside in favor of a better weapon (lots of refferences to this during the English civil war). Much of the value of swords as weapons is that they can be easily carried/worn as a backup weapon if your main weapon gets stuck in the enemy, breaks, can't be fired, etc. As far as I know swords were rarely the primary weapon of troops that carried them. Prior to the rapier swords were commonly used in duels in Europe, mainly because they could be worn about town for personal protection and matters of honour.

[Verjigorm]

A sword is also a sign of a couple of other things: You're atleast a Free-man, because you've got property, and you're probably somewhat well off because swords are expensive. I've read that amongst the Flemish, the minor land holding nobility would toil alongside peasants in the field, and were only to be distinguished by their truculence and swords.

On the battlefield the sword is a useful secondary weapon, as it's got a great deal of versatility and is reasonably light and easy to carry. The sword can be used quite effectively against lightly armed opponents, and provided an effective and agile defense, especially when combined with a shield.

But it seems like Spears are really, really common for most warriors. The low entry cost for spears may contribute to this, but also the usefulness of the spear for non-military purposes. Spearmen may also be the easiest troops to train, as they fight best in dense formations, which can benefit from the comfort of closely packed comrades. Swordsmen(really, anyone using a swinging weapon) tend to need a looser formation, but still relying on mutual support and team tactics, but this also requires a bit more discipline and morale to maintain cohesion.