Guns were introduced to Europe around 1300 and took on gun shapes 1400s

Guns were introduced to Europe around 1300 and took on gun shapes 1400s.
Full Plate Armor was introduced to Europe in the 1400s.

You can either have a world with Plate Armor and Guns or a world without Guns.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HI0ZJl8Mtko
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream
youtu.be/duuYe_CDUUI?t=5m20s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Tom Petty died

>Implying plate armor didn't exist before guns.

You could also have a world that doesn't closely resemble historical Europe, no?

...

>Bronze
Just cover yourselves in feces

>You can either have a world with Plate Armor and Guns or a world without Guns.

uhh....... depends on the setting

>anyone would have a world without guns
Why???

...

>world without Guns

What time was orcs?

one of these with a facemask would be cool

What if there are dragons in the Gobi desert preventing the spread of gunpowder from China to Europe?

...

Can anyone explain why this design was ever used?

How common was it?

>shoot
>gun recoils
>flies off your shoulder and onto the ground behind you
Stocks generally seat IN the shoulder, not on it, for a very good reason.

Autistic screeching about how gunpowder "ruins" fantasy

>small charge of medieval powder in a gun so heavy it has to be shoulder fired

I doubt the recoil would be THAT bad

Or you can have a world with plate armor and without guns!

My thoughts exactly.

Pretty common, actually
Early Fire arms were more like pic related, until technology got better.

I guarantee you that thing's recoil is negligible. Look at where you'd actually put the powder. It's a relatively tiny area in front of a big, solid wooden stock. That thing isn't going anywhere.

Some of these depictions were made centuries after the battle. It was typical for artist to paint historical figures and ancient armies with contemporary equipment.

youtube.com/watch?v=HI0ZJl8Mtko

Yeah, and? What's your point?

I'm not playing historical fiction, I'm playing fantasy.

I would say that magic would impact the development of weapons and armor. But then again, this is rarely if ever done for this reason and it's just a excuse to introduce idiotic designs and overdesigned crap. It also doesn't help that armor is often treated as a costume instead of, you know, armor.

Because Tolkien's experience in WWI meant that the forces of darkness used industry and probably the closest thing in LotR to gunpowder to kill all the typical fantasy races and try to rule the world. The message was that unchecked industrialization leads to slaughter on a massive scale, which is not very fantastic (literally as well as by genre). Therefore, having picked up what Tolkien put down, the trope is no gunpowder in fantasy.

Isn't it implied in the descriptions that the NĂºmenĂ³reans were straight steampunk?

i want you to look at the history of ice cream before you complain about technologies co-existing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream

look at how fucking old this is. and yet its almost -NEVER- in fictional settings.

>It also doesn't help that armor is often treated as a costume instead of, you know, armor.
I hate it when this happens
>shoot a guy with kevlar
>dies instantly
>shoot a guy in a t-shirt
>flesh wound
>stab a guy in full plate
>instant penetration
>stab a guy with a wooden shield
>completely invincible

Yea but you posted a recoilless rifle which was really perfected around ww2
He posted an archaic design before people really understood firearms and they were just winging it

"Okay, you can have your gun. You can have two of them, even. One in each hand. However, if you try doing multiple attacks with them you'll get told that, despite being able to reload as a free action, your hands are full and you can't reload. "

>Meanwhile, asshole doing the exact same thing with hand crossbows can fire both and reload both with no free hand.

>mfw I was in a game with a GM that pulled that exact bullshit.

Yes because a roleplay game by definition takes place in Europe

Have you considered that it might have been punitive towards you?

To be fair as well, orcs were supposed to be far more industrialized than they ended up. They were supposed to have literal battle tanks.

Little Recoil = recoilless, when the weight exceeds the recoil that will always be a position used.

(and I love that no one ever spots that he's he's also wearing high heels)

>he's also wearing high heels)

Them's just boots, son.

>he doesn't want his campaign to be in the Fantasy 30 Years War between civilization and nature
It's like you don't want to have your players be part of a major battle where High Elvish Tercios burn down an entire forest full of Wood Elves

Am I doing it right?

A recoilless rifle isn't a descriptor of the recoil, it's a descriptor of the method of operation. A recoilless rifle is achieved by having the main round be a rocket fired from a tube which extends beyond the back of the firer, meaning the rocket pushes off air, and not the tube it's fired from. That's why in movies they're always screaming about blackblast- there's a massive blast which come from the back of the launcher that could literally kill anyone standing behind it. It's also why RRs can't be used indoors for the most part (With exceptions like the M2CG)

That's retarded.

Gunpowder, in its primitive state, it was counterable, but things quickly grew out of hand in the span of a few centuries, which is about the lifespan of a single elf. Guns mark the twilight of the typical fantasy setting's golden age, the one where everyone wants to play. You can tell stories about swords and shields for millennia, because medieval combat had reached a plateau, a stagnation where people were comfortable with. The musket is quickly improved upon. Soon you have the cartridge, the lever action, the semi-auto, the full-auto, and then you reach the point where you shoot at bushes in the distance and call for artillery because guns are too powerful to fight directly even with guns of your own, all within the span of two centuries. An elf would have to deal with all of that advancing weaponry in the timespan of their youth.

>elves have to live for a long time

That's just a failure to understand history. The problem is that people see the middle ages as a place where there was no tech innovation while they overestimate the advances of gunpowder.

I too wish that fantasy could get out of the medieval realm and advance to something resembling the 1600-1700s.

>and I love that no one ever spots that he's he's also wearing high heels
user pls

I do actually really like gunpowder in my late medieval fantasy.

However it is possible to have late medieval plate without guns. Blackpowder was invented once in human history, maybe 1.5 times if Middle-Eastern and European were working off descriptions rather than complete recipes, by some Chinese alchemists hunting for an elixir of immortality several hundred before significant plate armour. To be discovered in the first place you need to have interest and means for chemical experiments, something only a few cultures pursued seriously and even then Euro and Arab alchemists missed it for a few hundred years. Meanwhile the development of plate armour relied on metallurgy advances independant of alchemical tomfoolery. So it's entirely possible that due to lack of significant scholarly interest or plain chance blackpowder remains undiscovered or at least has not been introduced to an area that uses full plate. Guns will one day happen but that's in the future as far the settings dateline is concerned.

This is assuming a normal degree of technological devlopment. The lack of guns does become nonsensical in worlds that have existed at a late medieval level for centuries if not millenia, enjoying that full harness but during which time not one person thought to mix things up and see what happened. This is particularly infuriating since these settings almost always do have alchemists and sages to figure it out. It's true that tech stagnation in fantasy doesn't make much sense in the first place but since bombards and gonnes are medieval tech their inclusion hardly advances the setting into the Renaissance or modernity.

Forgetting OP's crude attempt at shitstorming, are there settings where magic has the range of cannons?

16th century already reached effective ranges of 4km with culverins, D&D's suposed "magic artillery" is nowhere near that.

Not to say they would become useless. Mages could win over cannons by sabotaging the latter before a battle for example.

I choose plate armor and no guns. Fite me.

As someone which allows for repeater muskets as equipment, I say: I hope you're having fun that way.

It's only starting in the 16th century that handweapons started to get widespread. You can perfectly play in medium to late 15th century Europe and have no firearms like arquebus (though a couple of bombards might exist for sieges).

Or I can have guns and no plate like in China at the time. Plus rocket batteries shot out of spiked iron-armoured ships.

So I'm thinking of running a game based on the Byzantine Empire and want to introduce the Greek fire-thrower, but unsure how such a weapon would work in game.

>Guns were introduced to Europe in between 1275 and 1290 and took on gun shapes 1420 thru the 1470s.
> they were almost never used outside of guard duties and defensive siege weapons till the Hussite war of the 1420s
>Full Plate Armor was invented in the late 1370s in Milan Italy, became common 20 years, and in a another 20 years took the styles that we mostly think of now day.
> Early suits of transitional plate armor became a thing in the 1270s and became common around 1330s in most of western and central Europe.

>OP pic looks to be from about the 1460-1480 range.

> My pic is what plate looked like 100 years before OPs gun.


Look, I get it.

Anons are trying to get guns accepted into fantasy. However do you even just how shit early firearms were? Gun locks, as matchlocks, did not reach Europe till ~1460. The first reload aids were invented around ~1424 by the Hussite's and it took seven years for it to reach outside of what is now days the Czech republic. It looks very much like those things were invented to give usefulness to fire arms in a skirmish type environment. The Ottomans only started investing in small arm after they got their hand on those reloading aids.

I would also like to point out that Europe was not the brith place of fire arms but it was the place in most of the early developments of fire arms happen. In the 1420s Europe over took China in that field by about a 60 year gap. Almost all of that was due to efforts of the Gunsmith guild of Prague over a five year period.

I don't really understand why people love pike and shot so much. Is it just because it's distinct from medieval and ancient warfare, and from more recognizably modern combat?

That's assuming that the advancement of gunpowder technology is guaranteed. Sometimes like in China it's developed a fair amount, but then abandoned more and more for the sake of archery. Or maybe it gets to somewhere around the musket, and no one makes the advances necessary for the cartridge - or some change in the style of warfare reduces gunpowder weapons to little more than derringers to use when stuck in melee.

I cannot emphasize this enough - nothing about the development of gunpowder was understood from the get-go, there was never a guaranteed outcome. That would be like saying since a culture figured out how to work raw copper, smelting and forging titanium was inevitable.

That would be Berserk or Artesia aesthetics. Troops wearing either gambeson, half-armor, or 3/4-armor, while heavy cavalry wears full-plate. Troops make heavy use of polearms and pikes.

That's not a recoilless rifle, that's a rocket launcher. There's no reason to send a rocket down a rifled barrel.

/autism

Also one important thing to consider is that a single arquebus is pretty much useless, especially on open. It takes so long to reload that your enemy has time to cover the distance to attack you in hand to hand combat. To be used effectively, they must be used as you mentioned from defensive positions (pike formations, fortifications) and in rather large quantity, so your enemy cannot reach you, and you can keep a continuity of fire (multiple firing lines) - an arquebus takes between 30 to 60 seconds to reload.

who does this? no one does this, you're making things up

Have you never watched a movie or played a videogame

I would but it doesn't stick right, my arms aren't hairy enough. I tried glue but now I've got sticky poo that falls off my arms.

Indian armour

A single anything is pretty much useless against a group of enemies, unless that thing is a machine gun or other automatic firearm.

If it's one on one, you can use the arquebus to aim and shoot the motherfucker before he reach you. Black powder firearms are more accurate than many give them credit for. Even if you miss, you can still club him with the gun.

Or put a metal spike on it
>how come nobody makes bayonets for bows?

>when the weight exceeds the recoil
That's completely nonsensical. A greater weight will recoil with less speed, given the same force. It will never not recoil.
Also, that's got nothing to do with a recoilless weapon Here's another handgonne.

What if you just thicken up the steel plate armor around the chest/back area like some modern day ballistics vests that still use steel and leave the rest of it roughly the same thickness to still protect against melee weaponry?

>Implying that Medieval Combat didn't evolve

Still fucking heavy and if you do it in the desert, it's basically the brazen bull effecr

Effect fuckk

The bow would bend out of the way and its form is awkward in the first place.

>Fantasy with guns

Perfect time to ask, how come fantasy from like 1500-1815 doesn't exist? You never see English Civil War fantasy, or Napoleonic fantasy, or French and Indian War fantasy.

Full Plate Armor isn't the only plate armor imaginable.

It's possible to have access to breastplates, but not firearms. That is not historically inaccurate in and of itself.

>Full-plate is in fashion in a fantasy world because wizards
>and that more metal means magic is less effective
Seems like an effective compromise to me.

I'm pretty sure I've seen at least a couple book series set in that period. Couldn't tell you names, I never actually read them.

Because a lot of fantasy relies on mysticism and magical thinking for the whole 'otherworldly' feel.

Renaissance sensibilities are a death sentence for that sort of thing.

>A recoilless rifle is achieved by having the main round be a rocket fired from a tube which extends beyond the back of the firer

But that's wrong. Recoilless rifles fire shells, not rockets. They burn their propellant in one go, not continuously over the whole stretch of their flight path.

The idea was to create a light, low pressure, high energy gun and the way they achieved that was by increasing the amount of propellant and having most of it be burnt away out of the back.

>look it's a retard

Nothing about muskets and plumes and pirate ships is inherently antithetical to fantasy.

IT exist, Gunpowder mages or Knights and dinosaurs for some modern ones, but it is simply not as popular.

They basically were super soakers shooting napalm.

Because people like the time period, including the way war was fought. Why does anyone like anything?

>but it is simply not as popular.

Yeah, what I'm wondering is WHY

Dashing lancers in pimped uniforms, high seas adventure, swashes to be buckled galore, brutal battles, etc. Should have fantasy out the ass, but it has virtually nothing. Why? To me it doesn't make sense at all.

Maybe have a greek fire rifle grenade launcher thing. People did it with molotov cocktails so it probably works for greek fire too. Doesn't have to be a gun it could be like a crossbow or smth

No, they're not.

Secularisation, rationalism and empiricism are.

youtu.be/duuYe_CDUUI?t=5m20s
don't worry about tipping, just watch 15 seconds of handy ww2 training vid starting at 5:20

Exactly the way that many mages are portrait as in fantasy.

>hurr durr the renaissance is defined by stylistic and visual elements

Fuck off.

Fantasy is firmly rooted in a romanticism, a view of 'the medieval' as more pure, emotive, natural and glorious than the cold, scientific, rationalizing enlightenment that the renaissance brought about.

1600's to ww1 were the pinnacle of grand tactics. Imagine the bravery it took to stand in front of 1000 muskets pointed at you firing every 20 seconds.

It's also hilariously wrong. It's basically Victorian values set in the middle ages.

Because all of those things get used in kitchen sink fantasy games all the time, only without the gunpowder in general (tough it exist in some cases).
About why isn't more popular, people doesn't differentiate between the High and middle age that much, and those are nearly a thousand years. The average hick barely cares about that shit, but probably has seen dozens of movies, comics or cartoons/anime with knights in them.

The renaissance was hardly cold and rational. If anything it was even more vicious and violent with the protestant vs catholic fights than any religious war in the middle ages.

Would this be the same Renaissance that produced John Dee, Agrippa, Paracelsus, Nicholas Flamel and Isaac Newton to name just the highlights? Or maybe the great witchhunting craze with the Malleus Maleficarum and Hopkins.

The 16th and 17thC saw an explosion of texts on astrology, alchemy, angel/demon summoning grimoires and other texts on occult subjects. Pretty much all the major Renaissance scientists and mathematicians were involved in some form of magical study so I have no clue what particular sensibilities of the age preclude mysticism and sorcery.

Newtoon tried really hard to become a mage.

Well, sure. I'm not going to sit here and pretend romanticism didn't present an incredibly romanticised view of the medieval period. There's a clue right there in the name.

I'm just saying that fantasy fiction has always taken a lot of cues from romanticism. It shouldn't come as a surprise that most of it avoids the Renaissance, a movement romanticists generally viewed as a cold, corrupting influence on the natural state of man.

I miss bazookas we need to go back

Isn't the renaissance pretty much all about "Rome was fucking awesome"? I think people mixt it with the Enlightenment movement that followed it.

>I have no clue what particular sensibilities of the age preclude mysticism and sorcery.
You have no idea how Enlightenment, with its emphasis on the scientific method, empiricism and reductionism, is antithetical to a mystical, magical view of the world?

Not every single prominent thinker that lived during the three centuries roughly counted as 'the Renaissance' is going to hold views that fully match the ideals and worldviews we use to characterise the major intellectual development of that period.

When the world was without guns it wasn't exactly like that though.

But Enlightenment took place long after the Renaissance. It's a 18th century thing.

I seriously fucked up when I mashed the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment into one singular thing.

My point about the link between romanticism and fantasy still stands, it's just that romanticism was a reaction to enlightenment ideas, not renaissance ideas.