It would be easier to believe, if the Knights used there horses for hit and run taktics.
As explained.
Well if it was inside of the inn it is plausible with the two of them taking stand inside with the attackers having only one way to go against them. Then they can just make a mountain of corpses in front of them Barbar Conan style.
As long as the 34 have the determination to keep coming at them.
Perhaps. But you may find even those.
Also many may die, but some survive with fighting skill above peasant or merchant - but still low compare to trained and well equipted soldier (not mention a knight).
As you wrote, they choose place and target - I can imagine all they needed was number advantage and to be aggressiveâŠ
Snejdarek⊠I hope you idea of banditry is not romanticized? that you are one of those who think every bandit was Robin Hood, Louis Dominique Cartouche etc, a trained in the arts of combat gentleman. One of the main reasons why bandits were⊠well, bandits is because they were desperate, and didnât have other choices. Why were they desperate? Because of social and political crisis, not to mention economical. You are right that war veterans might do it, but from what ive read of history, soldiers were often paid well enough.
You also have to remember that you donât need any skill to rob travellers back then. As alot of the travellers that were usual victims were mostly Pilgrims, merchants etc. So i mean take a couple hungry peasants who are desperate, give them some rusty daggers, and you got yourself some bandits.
I AGREE that for example BRIGANDS were most likely soldiers, and experienced. but not every theft going on was by an organized group of brigands. I never said there werenât organized theives.
There are many versions of bandits in history. But donât be blinded by your âknowledgeâ when I doubt you know much more than everyone else here. And donât say that calling a common bandits a peasant, and that they would easily die by a trained soldierâs hand is based purely off romanticism.
But if you can give me a link on the internet or advice me to a book that says bandits were never peasants because they would be killed, then sure i believe you⊠I mean its NOT like we have thefts going on in present day by normal folk!, NOO, they were all soldiers at one point" I hope your not too high on your horse to see sarcasmâŠ
1 Like
Anyway, i think this should be said :- )
âWith your overconfi-
dence be moderate, which is good for you.
He is a brave man who fights his own weaknesses.
It is no shame to flee when four or
six (foes) are at handâ
Hanko Döbringer
fechtbuch from 1389 (page 12)
bandits romanticizedâŠlol just lol.
i think heâs just saying bandits werenât all naked bums who didnât know how to fight.
I realize that, but saying that every bandit has the experience and skill is utterly absurd.
Nothing romantical about thinking that most bandits that had any chance of surviving to the point they could be meaningful for the game storyline would have been quite possibly pretty disturbed psychopatical ex-soldiers.
How well are soldiers paid once they leave the army? I never said that serving soldiers were actually playing bandits in their free time.
Most travalers were sticking together in caravans and quite possible with paid swordsmen taking care of their safety back then.
I never said that no peasants turned to life of crime in order to escape their poverty or for whatever other reason there may be. But there is a difference between picking pockets in the market and grand theft and murder on the merchant road trough the woods.
What I am saying is that the game is taking place in an area with a pretty high population density and so there are no areas that would be remote/unaccessible enough for unskilled bandits to retreat to once their presence becomes enough of a nuisance to the locals.
The villigers themselves would be likely to kill them, and if not them, then the local lord, VERY FAST. The only way for bandits to avoid being taken down and thus being actually present in the game area for you, the player, to engage them is to have enough experience and skill to be too dangerous for the villagers and quite possible also the lordâs guards to take down.
And thats fair point. I just wonder if that was really the majority as you dont have to be veteran of the Battle of Kosovo to beat a merchant.
Yes, but you need to be one in order not to be immediately dealt with either by local peasants who are hunting/gathering/pasturing in the same woods where you are stealing or by the lordâs guards who is by law bound to hunt you down.
Otherwise you may do one merchant successfully, but that will be the end of the line for you quite fast in area with such a high population density like Central Bohemia.
Snejdarek, I honestly think we are talking past each other. I agree with you, I just wanted to make the point that bandits were back then like today aswell, the common folk, the poor, and sometimes even the rich, it could be anyone, and therefore they were not always skilled fighters⊠But im done with this discussion. My point was âwill all enemies be at the same skill level? or is there a difference between fighting a peasant and a knight apart from the armor and weapon?â
And just remember Snejdarek⊠you might as well be in your neighborhood, but if a group of thugs come up to you, they donât have to fight you to get you to hand over your wallet⊠aka you donât need the skill to be a successful bandit.
That is also not truth.
Currently 60% of people in Czech prisons are recidivists, i.e. people who are coming in and out of jail for perpetually living the life of crime. Letâs say that 20% are there for negligent crimes such as DUIs or white collar crime. That leaves you with 80% of people who are actually criminal professionals - and ofthen 3rd or 4th generation and even proud of that - who get caught, tried and sentenced for only very small portion of what they actually commit. But as luck or unlucky they may be when they are caught, they are professionals never the less.
oh cmon! dude are you blind??
the reason they have a criminal record is because they did something out of desperations⊠they were not born with that criminal record. I mean where do you get this idea that every criminal is a pro?
TONS of studies prove that criminals are more likely to do the deed if theyâve just lost their job, are drunk or for example just lost their girlfriend⊠Im not saying there doesnt exist criminal gangs in the world that are pro. But to say that 80% is people who have been criminals for generations is just absurd. Had you said 20% i wouldâve believed you. I promise you that you will not find one article or study that support your wild ideaâŠ
Dude you are just way too stubborn and a âknow-it-allâ⊠so this time im actually leaving this discussion:P but have fun with the game!
Exactly that. At the time their beliefs were absolutely everything to them, there was no doubt in their minds about duty or faith and took their vows very seriously.
However, you must remember to be an unbiased party when looking into history and be able to see it from every point of view available, to this your own opinions can be formed around. Yes I am a European from England, yes my ancestors supported the Crusades so I see the glamour in the Crusades but also the atrocities committed on both sides. But no, I am not a Christian, Muslim, Islamic, or of any religion and I do respect each one equally.
Now that is out of the way, please remember that the Knights Hospitaller was originally from Jerusalem under the control of Caliphâs; making it Asia Minor origin, and adopted both Islamic and Christian practices, in culture and medicine. They helped bridge the gap between the worlds, and even treated and cared for both sides of the Crusading conflicts, especially the common-folk who had no proper way to defend themselves. So under this, yes I do also believe they are the most upstanding order of the Crusades, and their brothers and sisters reflect that in their everyday life.
Regards,
Warrior Rose.
I think there must be something wrong with your ability to understand a written text. Iâve written that 80% of criminals are recidivists, which makes them professional criminals (or âhabitual criminalsâ in the words of US criminology).
Then I said they are often also 3rd or 4th generation living the life of crime.
Clearly, often out of 80% does not mean 80%.
And there is nothing stubborn in citing the statistic.
1 Like
@Warrior_Rose, on one hand, I know what you mean and I know you mean it well. However, people are people, in 1200 or 2000, we are basically the same breed of monkeys. I am highly skeptical of this image of Mother Theresa type Hospitalers minding their own business while 34 people basically decide to commit suicide by impaling themselves on their swords.
I am not saying that it is not possible, just that to me it sounds a bit unlikely.
And I just have to ask - were local allways so eager to hunt bunch of brutes in the forest? What if they (bandits) change their place often? What was the chance they will actually find them and suprise them while standing high ground? How sucessful were soldiers of the local lord?
Didnt they just expel the bandits away rather than catch and kill?
Anyway, to return to OP, there is main question: How many of those bandit-veterans will be too many for a trained (its RPG so I guess you will be evetualy, even though it should takes several years) Henry in full plate armour?
My answer is that unless the brutes were brutal enough to present really fearsome foe, then yes - the locals would be eager to hunt the bandit down. It is peopleâs nature that they donât want the share their habitat with predators that may be detrimental to their own lives.
I grew up in countryside and I can tell you that A) it was not a place for any criminal to live at - simply because people know each other and rely on each other and B) the woods in the wide proximity are no shelter for anyone unless the people decide to allow that person to be there (like with partisans in WW2). 600 years ago people relied on each other even more than today, so unless you are skilled and experienced enough to make it clearly too dangerous to village folk to take you down, you have no chance of surviving. And being killed on spot may be the better way to go down given the way medieval justice worked.
We are not talking remote mountain woods like Ć umava, Beskydy or Tatra Mountains. That is entirely different story. But here in the gaming area there is no place that would be far enough from settlements for the people not to take presence of a criminal as their own personal problem (and danger to themselves).
2 Likes
I think that @Warrior_Rose, @Ambaryerno, @Arrik, @Earl_Thorn and @golani79 all had valid input on that.
But letâs say they are experienced, they are armed and have also some basic armor and you are alone in the woods in your full plate armor.
Letâs say they know what Bocan said about it being more of a stamina fight then actual brute beat down. And letâs say that WH manages to program them well enough that they actually do use their lighter armor and larger numbers to wear your stamina down instead of going on full-fledged fight against you.
1 Like