Other readers who are familiar with Schlock Mercenary, I see…People of discerning taste.
However, I’ve seen one part of the Mercenary’s Handbook could use a little improvement. Such as "There’s no such thing as overkill precisely because there IS a thing as underkill."
*bursts out with laughter* ohhhh i needed that! Their expressions are 100% perfect, Rich!!!! Especially the tallest one bent over in the after-relief lololol
Am I the only one hoping upon hope that these ‘Kingswords’ are derived directly from the ‘Kingsman’ series ? 🙂
Sadly, Sulaaf seems to be carrying a rapier rather than a shamshir, but we haven’t seen the blade yet…
Well, weaponry in elite military dress units is strictly defined. And a rapier is quite literally a dress sword. At the time of the Three Musketeers, a king’s musketeer would have a rapier, because a musketeer’s real main weapon was the musket and bayonet. And as a king’s elite guard, dress kit was expected to be as standard as the uniform.
In too many shows based on toys, they give each action figu- I mean cast member individual aaccessori- I mean, equipment. The idea is to make it easier to differentiate. Much like when Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles went from indie comic to television show, the masks became different colours.
It certainly was effective. Instead of an easily sewn up slash, it pierced through more than a few layers of skin at a time. And you’d have to slice the patient up in order to reach internal injuries.
Not sure if you can call the old flintlocks anyone’s ‘main’ weapon when you consider the fact that you get one shot with it in combat before it becomes a rather unhelpful club. When we were doing fencing with pistols, we used the guns as the opening round and then charged in with our rapiers, using the pistols as a parrying tool. I still considered myself a swordsman, even with a gun in my belt.
You are thinking of handgonnes. Flintlock muskets were the product of more than a century of evolution of firearms, and had a good enough rate of fire that they could get rid of pikes and halberds.
About military blades, soldiers usually didn’t use rapiers; cavalry used long, heavy swords similar to broadswords, while infantry was encouraged to use short, sturdy swords as sidearms.
Oh, well, pistols were mostly self-defense weapons used by officers when the enemy got too close, not main weapons. The exceptions were the retier cavalry, that used pistols as the main weapon… and were derided as a very inefficient unit…
The musketeers used muskets as their main weapon.
As for blades, soldiers were strongly discouraged from taking their rapiers to battle. Too slow to draw. Too long to use comfortably in a dense formation. Too fragile. In Spain, weapons longer than 90 cm were banned to infantrymen (some didn’t respect the regulations and still used them, though…).
Here there are some XVI and XVII century’s spanish infantry military swords: https://bellumartishistoriamilitar.blogspot.com/2018/06/las-espadas-de-infanteria-en-el-siglo.html (sorry, the site is in spanish…)
This is an Épée du soldat used by french musketeers during the XVII and XVIII centuries: https://www.theroyalsword.com/index.php/french-sword.html
The spadroon was the british version: http://myarmoury.com/review_lut_custspadroon.html
A complication is that by the time of the 3 Musketeers, nearly ALL swords were made with the style of guard we associate with rapiers, including those used by soldiers, so it’s not easy to identify what is or isn’t being used. I’d refer everyone back to the 2-part "3 and 4 Musketeers" movies made in the ’70’s for a close look at the swords being used, & even more so HOW they were being used in highly realistic fight scenes.
Well, the matchlock (muskets at the time used a burning fuse) was used in salvos. Musketeers had replaced archers as a means of providing blanket fire, short swords were used for hand to hand. Since they were ranged units and not front line pikemen, that’s why the kings of France had musketeers as bodyguards. In battle, they would contribute volleys of fire, and cover any retreat should the battle go bad.
One reason why the Musketeers in Dumas’ novels had servants was because the servants were charged with reloading, a good musketeer had two or three muskets in his equipment to rotate out.
Just some ideas for future stories, should you decide to do a battlefield setting like La Rochelle or the French wars against the Netherlands.
The reason why they were called Musketeers is because the musket 7 bayonet was the primary training they got…Rapier & dueling dagger was considered secondary weapons in case they didn’t have time to reload after they took their one shot. However, they were trained to make that one shot COUNT for the best effect.
> At the time of the Three Musketeers, a king’s musketeer would have a rapier
What’s your source on that?
The way I heard it (which *may* have been from scholagladiatoria) was that in the early 1600s the military would still be wearing short swords. That the rapier, being designed for the duel-happy nobility, had an extra inch or two which made it ideal for one-on-one, but cumbersome in a skirmish.
That being said, I would *never* call it a "short sword" in a swashbuckler; don’t want readers to picture a gladius. "Rapier" as a term is much more *fun*.
I did research when looking to join a reenactment group that portrayed mercenaries during the Thirty Years War. Same time period, but in the German provinces of the Holy Roman Empire. France was involved on the side, supporting the Protestant rebels against the Catholic Hapsburg emperor. Richelieu calculated it was a perfect moment of "let’s you and him fight". But instead I went with a different club, and played a Gallowglass (Irish mercenaries who worked on the continent in the 14th to 17th centuries).
The Kings Musketeers had two roles: they were the bodyguards, but they were also a musket regiment, and those that took the role seriously had a nice rapier (the name does come from "dress sword" that they would not take to the battlefield, instead carrying a more utilitarian sword not unlike a machete in size, but with a guard hilt.
I was playing off her name…
‘shamshir’ being a sharply curved Middle Eastern sword
Not a scimitar as portrayed on stage and screen but very nasty
One account of a Brtish patrol encountering one man with a shamshir in a marketplace (and using it properly, not flailing it about) ended with a dozen men seriously wounded before anyone could get a shot off
The fun part is that a ‘rapier’ style hilt would work perfectly well with that blade if used as intended
and she is wearing a hijab…
Their motto
(every trio of sword wielding King’s guards has a catchy motto)
could be…
"If violence isn’t the solution, then you aren’t using enough of it"
Somone else find the Latin/French version 😉
Eep. That appears to be from Google translate. I don’t know enough Latin to be sure how this *should* be translated, but I *do* know enough to see that Google gets it horribly wrong. Let me try to do a bit better with the help of Wiktionary (It’s probably still wrong somehow. I’m particularly nervous about "ea" because Latin uses pronouns differently (and a lot less) than English):
Si violentia non solutio est, non satis ea uteris.
Also hi everyone, I think this is my first comment since I caught up a while ago.
Using Duolingo, "Si violentia non solutio est, non satis ea uteris" translates as "If the solution is not violence, it is not enough to make use of it".
Using Yandex on the same phrase: "If violence is not a solution is not enough of it you are using".
But running "If violence isn’t the solution, then you aren’t using enough of it" through Yandex comes out as: "Si violentia non est solutio, tunc non sunt usura satis est"
So maybe we’re both wrong and some ancient Latin spirit is now disgusted at what we actually said.
You may be right about the ancient Latin spirit but I’m still pretty sure it would be even more disgusted about the automatic translations, which get *very* basic grammar (the little I actually know) wrong all over the place, almost as if they were translating small fragments without considering context. (OK, Yandex actually does pretty well in the first half.)
"No, you both misunderstand me. I’m saying that JUST ONCE, we should solve a problem without resorting to violence. And we DID solve a problem without violence once; remember that time outside Wyldwood?"
If they ever bring back magic maybe in another arc 10 years later, where magic is a bit stronger, a ametur mage and the greatest current mage in the land, which is like a average normal mage for reg dnd, ie:basic spells, like lightning, and a bit of other magic. Then they gotta find items and try to open a portal to the beyond to draw in more magic. Maybe ranna can return and old characters brought back. Also there can be monsters leaking through the portal.
I do quite like the Kingswords (certainly a lot more than Carruthers), but I feel like Lucas has been acting like too much of a doormat after everything he’s been through and everything he’s accomplished. It feels a little unfair for him and Cadugan to become the comic relief for the newcomers so easily, they played a major role in saving the kingdom more than once, not to mention the entire world.
Man, Lucas has grown a lot these few thousand strips.
Remember when the only way you could truthfully begin a sentence with "Lucas is too smart to…" was if you planned to end it with "…forget to breathe altogether. Probably."
Pick up your copies of YAFGC Volumes 1 - 5 at our online store. Multi-book bundles and sketch editions available.
Dead pan humour at it’s finest
Yeah, she shouldn’t be scaring her co-workers like that…
Any complications caused by solving your problems with violence can be addressed by applying still more violence.
Maxim 6… If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Other readers who are familiar with Schlock Mercenary, I see…People of discerning taste.
However, I’ve seen one part of the Mercenary’s Handbook could use a little improvement. Such as "There’s no such thing as overkill precisely because there IS a thing as underkill."
That maxim already exists.
Maxim 34: If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun.
Don’t forget maxim 37 There is no "overkill." There is only "open fire" and "reload.
"as the size of the explosion increases" and so on, right?
Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding!
Correct!
Please, as everyone knows, violence is NEVER the answer.
Violence is the question! And the answer is YES! 😉
*bursts out with laughter* ohhhh i needed that! Their expressions are 100% perfect, Rich!!!! Especially the tallest one bent over in the after-relief lololol
Am I the only one hoping upon hope that these ‘Kingswords’ are derived directly from the ‘Kingsman’ series ? 🙂
Sadly, Sulaaf seems to be carrying a rapier rather than a shamshir, but we haven’t seen the blade yet…
Well, weaponry in elite military dress units is strictly defined. And a rapier is quite literally a dress sword. At the time of the Three Musketeers, a king’s musketeer would have a rapier, because a musketeer’s real main weapon was the musket and bayonet. And as a king’s elite guard, dress kit was expected to be as standard as the uniform.
In too many shows based on toys, they give each action figu- I mean cast member individual aaccessori- I mean, equipment. The idea is to make it easier to differentiate. Much like when Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles went from indie comic to television show, the masks became different colours.
… note that TMNT have different weapon each as well.
I believe you’re thinking of the 18th cent. Small Sword. A Rapier, though not designed to hew through armor, was still a "real’ fighting weapon.
It certainly was effective. Instead of an easily sewn up slash, it pierced through more than a few layers of skin at a time. And you’d have to slice the patient up in order to reach internal injuries.
Not sure if you can call the old flintlocks anyone’s ‘main’ weapon when you consider the fact that you get one shot with it in combat before it becomes a rather unhelpful club. When we were doing fencing with pistols, we used the guns as the opening round and then charged in with our rapiers, using the pistols as a parrying tool. I still considered myself a swordsman, even with a gun in my belt.
You are thinking of handgonnes. Flintlock muskets were the product of more than a century of evolution of firearms, and had a good enough rate of fire that they could get rid of pikes and halberds.
About military blades, soldiers usually didn’t use rapiers; cavalry used long, heavy swords similar to broadswords, while infantry was encouraged to use short, sturdy swords as sidearms.
Nooo, I am not thinking of handgonnes, I meant flintlock pistols and rapiers, used in the military in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Oh, well, pistols were mostly self-defense weapons used by officers when the enemy got too close, not main weapons. The exceptions were the retier cavalry, that used pistols as the main weapon… and were derided as a very inefficient unit…
The musketeers used muskets as their main weapon.
As for blades, soldiers were strongly discouraged from taking their rapiers to battle. Too slow to draw. Too long to use comfortably in a dense formation. Too fragile. In Spain, weapons longer than 90 cm were banned to infantrymen (some didn’t respect the regulations and still used them, though…).
Here there are some XVI and XVII century’s spanish infantry military swords: https://bellumartishistoriamilitar.blogspot.com/2018/06/las-espadas-de-infanteria-en-el-siglo.html (sorry, the site is in spanish…)
This is an Épée du soldat used by french musketeers during the XVII and XVIII centuries: https://www.theroyalsword.com/index.php/french-sword.html
The spadroon was the british version: http://myarmoury.com/review_lut_custspadroon.html
A complication is that by the time of the 3 Musketeers, nearly ALL swords were made with the style of guard we associate with rapiers, including those used by soldiers, so it’s not easy to identify what is or isn’t being used. I’d refer everyone back to the 2-part "3 and 4 Musketeers" movies made in the ’70’s for a close look at the swords being used, & even more so HOW they were being used in highly realistic fight scenes.
Well, the matchlock (muskets at the time used a burning fuse) was used in salvos. Musketeers had replaced archers as a means of providing blanket fire, short swords were used for hand to hand. Since they were ranged units and not front line pikemen, that’s why the kings of France had musketeers as bodyguards. In battle, they would contribute volleys of fire, and cover any retreat should the battle go bad.
One reason why the Musketeers in Dumas’ novels had servants was because the servants were charged with reloading, a good musketeer had two or three muskets in his equipment to rotate out.
Just some ideas for future stories, should you decide to do a battlefield setting like La Rochelle or the French wars against the Netherlands.
The reason why they were called Musketeers is because the musket 7 bayonet was the primary training they got…Rapier & dueling dagger was considered secondary weapons in case they didn’t have time to reload after they took their one shot. However, they were trained to make that one shot COUNT for the best effect.
> At the time of the Three Musketeers, a king’s musketeer would have a rapier
What’s your source on that?
The way I heard it (which *may* have been from scholagladiatoria) was that in the early 1600s the military would still be wearing short swords. That the rapier, being designed for the duel-happy nobility, had an extra inch or two which made it ideal for one-on-one, but cumbersome in a skirmish.
That being said, I would *never* call it a "short sword" in a swashbuckler; don’t want readers to picture a gladius. "Rapier" as a term is much more *fun*.
t!
Might have been "small" not "short."
You can see how motivated I was to remember it.
t!
I did research when looking to join a reenactment group that portrayed mercenaries during the Thirty Years War. Same time period, but in the German provinces of the Holy Roman Empire. France was involved on the side, supporting the Protestant rebels against the Catholic Hapsburg emperor. Richelieu calculated it was a perfect moment of "let’s you and him fight". But instead I went with a different club, and played a Gallowglass (Irish mercenaries who worked on the continent in the 14th to 17th centuries).
The Kings Musketeers had two roles: they were the bodyguards, but they were also a musket regiment, and those that took the role seriously had a nice rapier (the name does come from "dress sword" that they would not take to the battlefield, instead carrying a more utilitarian sword not unlike a machete in size, but with a guard hilt.
Thanks!
t!
I was playing off her name…
‘shamshir’ being a sharply curved Middle Eastern sword
Not a scimitar as portrayed on stage and screen but very nasty
One account of a Brtish patrol encountering one man with a shamshir in a marketplace (and using it properly, not flailing it about) ended with a dozen men seriously wounded before anyone could get a shot off
The fun part is that a ‘rapier’ style hilt would work perfectly well with that blade if used as intended
and she is wearing a hijab…
Ah, I see. Nice!
Their motto
(every trio of sword wielding King’s guards has a catchy motto)
could be…
"If violence isn’t the solution, then you aren’t using enough of it"
Somone else find the Latin/French version 😉
What does it reminds me … oh, right: If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
"One for all and all….hit someone !"
Quod si non est solutio violentiam, tunc vos es usura satis non est ex eo
Eep. That appears to be from Google translate. I don’t know enough Latin to be sure how this *should* be translated, but I *do* know enough to see that Google gets it horribly wrong. Let me try to do a bit better with the help of Wiktionary (It’s probably still wrong somehow. I’m particularly nervous about "ea" because Latin uses pronouns differently (and a lot less) than English):
Si violentia non solutio est, non satis ea uteris.
Also hi everyone, I think this is my first comment since I caught up a while ago.
Using Duolingo, "Si violentia non solutio est, non satis ea uteris" translates as "If the solution is not violence, it is not enough to make use of it".
Using Yandex on the same phrase: "If violence is not a solution is not enough of it you are using".
But running "If violence isn’t the solution, then you aren’t using enough of it" through Yandex comes out as: "Si violentia non est solutio, tunc non sunt usura satis est"
So maybe we’re both wrong and some ancient Latin spirit is now disgusted at what we actually said.
You may be right about the ancient Latin spirit but I’m still pretty sure it would be even more disgusted about the automatic translations, which get *very* basic grammar (the little I actually know) wrong all over the place, almost as if they were translating small fragments without considering context. (OK, Yandex actually does pretty well in the first half.)
"No, you both misunderstand me. I’m saying that JUST ONCE, we should solve a problem without resorting to violence. And we DID solve a problem without violence once; remember that time outside Wyldwood?"
"Oh, so you’re saying…"
"Right. Never again."
This –
is hilarious.
t!
"Remember that time we did solve something peacefully?"
"Yeah… it was really boring!"
Those round eyes!
If they ever bring back magic maybe in another arc 10 years later, where magic is a bit stronger, a ametur mage and the greatest current mage in the land, which is like a average normal mage for reg dnd, ie:basic spells, like lightning, and a bit of other magic. Then they gotta find items and try to open a portal to the beyond to draw in more magic. Maybe ranna can return and old characters brought back. Also there can be monsters leaking through the portal.
I do quite like the Kingswords (certainly a lot more than Carruthers), but I feel like Lucas has been acting like too much of a doormat after everything he’s been through and everything he’s accomplished. It feels a little unfair for him and Cadugan to become the comic relief for the newcomers so easily, they played a major role in saving the kingdom more than once, not to mention the entire world.
I think they’re playing nice because it tends to make people more at ease and that’s when you can get some REAL juicy info outta them.
It’s a courtly intrigue thing and I think Lucas knows more than he lets on.
Exactly!
Lucas is new here; he’s too smart to tromp in, swinging his elbows (and other things around). He’s listening, and learning. It’s already paid off.
t!
Man, Lucas has grown a lot these few thousand strips.
Remember when the only way you could truthfully begin a sentence with "Lucas is too smart to…" was if you planned to end it with "…forget to breathe altogether. Probably."
Yeah!
I don’t usually reread, but I went back ealier this year. Lucas was the very definition of useless nobility.
And Glon… had lots of room for self-improvement.
t!
Great expressions all around.
GFDI!!
After I don't know how many rereads, I finally got the pun in the title. It is Sulaaf===it is to laugh.