| Author |
Message |
Robin Smith
|
 Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| George Hill wrote: | For that matter, neighter are the CIA or KGB, or the OSS.
The OSS would use any dirty trick they could as well. That's off the timeline we are talking about, but all these groups used pretty much the same mindset towards "fair play." |
A comparison to the CIA or OSS is perfect for a ninja or other assassin. Most CIA agents are more diplomats and spies then they are warriors. Far more likely to use a partisan or underling to do thier fighting for them. It was probably no different for the ninja. If a CIA or OSS agent finds himself in a gun or CQB with your average Marine, he is likely going to die. Why? Because he isn't trained to be a fighter. He may be a killer, but not a fighter. If he ends up in a toe-to-toe fight, he has already failed The only thing they would have going for them is the element of surprise. If that was lost, so likely was there life...
What most people forget was that "ninja" was an activity, not a occupation. Anyone could be labeled a ninja.
A samurai sent to carry a message undercover? Ninja.
A maid paid to spy? Ninja.
A cook who slips poison into food? Ninja.
A blackclad warrior who slips unseen through night, singlehandedly defeating hordes of Samurai? Fantasy...
A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
|
|
   |
 |
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robin Smith wrote: | | A blackclad warrior who slips unseen through night, singlehandedly defeating hordes of Samurai? Fantasy... |
You are right that most ninja stories are false.
But there actually were a few orders of proper "ninja" with advanced martial arts. One trick the ninja liked was to use a shorter sword. Technically this was not a "Ninja-to" but more properly a shinobi-katana. The idea was that because the Ninja would carry a shorter blade in a longer scabbard, he could get the sword out much faster then the adverage samurai would expect... from looking at the length of his scabbard.
He might also fill the extra space in the scabbard with blinding powder, which he could spray in a direction by swinging the scabbard.
The actual ninja were real.... and they tended to win as often as not because they would think outside the box. This was, at one time, more or less discouraged in the rigid society the Japanese created. As a result, someone not afraid to be imaginative could do interisting things. And the ninja loved (for lack of a better word) gadgets. Everyone loves gadgets.
By comparicent the KGB had an number of ingenious ways of delievering poisen, from a cyanide spray wrapped up in a newspaper to a umbrella loaded with Ricin. And just how good at martial arts is the adverage CIA/KGB operative? I don't think I have the information to speculate.
But there are James Bond types out there. In 1985, the French sent a man with their intelligence service (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure) to go in and put a bomb on the side of the Greenpeace vessel "The Rainbow warrior."
In the end good, solid, police work brought the truth out, but the mission reads like a Bond movie, excepting such things as a tank that looks like a lamborgini.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
 |
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Out of curiosity, why would you blow up a Green Peace ship? They're not THAT annoying, are they?
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
  |
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M. Eversberg II wrote: | Out of curiosity, why would you blow up a Green Peace ship? They're not THAT annoying, are they?
M. |
I dont think so either M. lol 
Some good ideas and interesting stuff so far, Jean, i dont think im going to become a writer lol but i preferr to give as much depth as possible in the scenario because at first it didnt really make sense, but i guess its a compliment 
Just more on the assassin: He "USED" to be a mercenary, in his teenage years before that he grew up stealing to survive which he got rather good at he joined a small gang/sect then went on his own after getting contacts who wanted targets taken out, he was born in Damascus and for the purpose of this scenario he is good at martial art styles of combat not like a video/film super ninja but fairly nimble and acrobatic.
He found contacts who had "work" for him in europe this is how he comes to stand face to face with the knight, who is alert to the assassins presence but not of his intentions or hostility.
Somebody said something about a warhammer, so, lets give him a smallish armour-piercing hammer.
Hopes not too much like a story now lol..... i dont want it to be btw 
Humans trail a path of light, all land and space that hasnt been trodden by man is dark, all dark must be trodden to bring illumination, so that all others can follow the light that we bring.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the more effective assassin is the paid livery-boy who clubs the crap out of the person in his bed.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
After a bit more thought about the french blowing up the 'Rainbow Warrior' ive come to the conclusion that it seems pretty sad that you cant think hard enough of a way to deterr peaceful protestors other than trying to blow up their fishing/cargo ship or whatever it once was with an idiot who thinks hes james bond.
TBH, i think they should cut Green Peace some slack, and concentrate on deterring/getting rid of the lovely groups that contribute to society in the world by blowing people up. Holding people hostage with guns, car bombing soldiers etc.
Thats my opinion sorry about wandering from the subject haha, lets get back to knights and assassins.. 
Humans trail a path of light, all land and space that hasnt been trodden by man is dark, all dark must be trodden to bring illumination, so that all others can follow the light that we bring.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
We really don't need to get into discussions about Greenpeace or modern government actions.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^ "Lets get back to Knights and Assassins" ^^
Does everyone think that an assassin may be able to dodge sword attacks delt out by the knight and strike back in critical places like under the arm/armpit or "gateway to the hear and lungs"
Humans trail a path of light, all land and space that hasnt been trodden by man is dark, all dark must be trodden to bring illumination, so that all others can follow the light that we bring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
yes, it may be possible. But, not very plausible to happen in the long run, a sword can deal minor damage and fend off attacks in close quarters with pommel and guard, and a dagger against armour has to hit the exact spot whereas a sword against unarmoured targets is deadly. It can happen once, but someone with a sword (drawn) and armour has my money in a fight. To get to the heart and lungs, you will have to either slip through the mail in the armpit with a very slender blade, or punch though the hardest and best protected part of an armour, being the chest. I would go for the head, a visor will not be down for long periods of time, but to stab someone in the face will be very hard to do unnoticed, and hand-eye coordination to protect the head is the easiest and most natural thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Scott
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is an interesting topic and a fun read, but I'm curious as to why the assassin in the Knight vs. Assassin scenario, is automatically considered to be a coward or a thug. If the simple act of assassination is all that is needed to make one an assassin, then we really don't know if the killer in question is a professional or nothing more than a one time killer. Besides, the term assassin could also be applied to a guerilla fighter.
Fairness in a fight is also subjective. You put a knight, trained from youth, armed with the best equipment money can buy, against some yeoman or peasant in an army, and the deck is stacked against the lesser armed, lesser trained soldier. Why then, is the assassin considered to be a thug? He's simply using the tools he has, and making the best of them by observing his opponent and attacking that opponent during a favorable circumstance; isn't that what generals do, pick when and where they want to fight?
I apologize if my post is not in the spirit of the thread. I guess I might be over thinking it.
A war without fire is like a sausage without mustard - Henry V
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Douglas Huxtable wrote: | ^^ "Lets get back to Knights and Assassins" ^^
Does everyone think that an assassin may be able to dodge sword attacks delt out by the knight and strike back in critical places like under the arm/armpit or "gateway to the hear and lungs" |
I see a problem in the Assassin against Knight question in that being an assassin just means what the reason for killing is
i.e. a mission taken for money, a cause or by order of someone who wants someone dead. It has little to do directly with the skills involved in taking out a Knight. Assassin is the job, the skills needed are varied and being a skilful warrior is a different job, but in some cases a single individual could be good at both.
In other words: The skills of your assassin in this specific scenario are not " assassin " specific but much more martial arts skills that any warrior should have: An assassin is not by definition better than a full time professional warrior when it come to " dagger range " fighting.
A " master martial artist " can be a assassin, and assassin is not always a skilled martial artist, as many of the previous posts have mentioned.
Forgetting the obsession with the title " ASSASSIN " the question could be what are the odds of a lightly armed attacker successfully ambushing an alert and armoured knight using a dagger or other easily concealed weapon. Also the Knight as a trained fighter would have trained for such an attack !
Having a bar wench poison his food or just get the Knight drunk ! Now that is preparing the way for an assassination. The other scenario is just a fight save for the motivation of targeting and killing a specific person, and the results of a fight can vary for all sort of reasons and have multiple possible outcomes even if the initial conditions are identical.
( The best fighter doesn't always win ! The lousy fighter doesn't always lose.  )
Sorry, very lonwinded way of saying again: " It depends "
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Spitler
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Scott wrote: | This is an interesting topic and a fun read, but I'm curious as to why the assassin in the Knight vs. Assassin scenario, is automatically considered to be a coward or a thug. If the simple act of assassination is all that is needed to make one an assassin, then we really don't know if the killer in question is a professional or nothing more than a one time killer. Besides, the term assassin could also be applied to a guerilla fighter.
Fairness in a fight is also subjective. You put a knight, trained from youth, armed with the best equipment money can buy, against some yeoman or peasant in an army, and the deck is stacked against the lesser armed, lesser trained soldier. Why then, is the assassin considered to be a thug? He's simply using the tools he has, and making the best of them by observing his opponent and attacking that opponent during a favorable circumstance; isn't that what generals do, pick when and where they want to fight?
I apologize if my post is not in the spirit of the thread. I guess I might be over thinking it. |
Thank you thank you thank you! I've been reading this thread with all its inherent prejudicial assumptions wondering when someone with more guts to go against the tide than myself would say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darryl Aoki
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just my two cents on the "Knight vs Assassin" question.
If the assassin's got any sense, he (or she) won't launch an attack until and unless he's secured an overwhelming tactical advantage and has a pretty darn good chance of succeeding on the first go. Going toe-to-toe with your target seems like a terribly silly thing to do. Fighting fair misses half the point unless you're sparring or (possibly) duelling. A well-setup engagement, be it an assassin against a mark or two armies having at it, should be as unbalanced as possible in your favor.
Yes, this is rather unsporting, but assassination and war aren't sports. (Though settling international disputes via a game of, say, lacrosse or rugby, would be preferable to a whole bunch of people shooting each other.)
"Recommendation for the Harrow Governors. Heavy machine guns for fullbacks. Bright idea, Blackadder." - General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
|
|
|
|
|
Gene Green
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As was already pointed out , the term "assassin" is very vague. Most times, it refers to a role, not to an occupation. This role could be taken - and indeed was taken - by anyone from well trained knights (Thomas a Becket murder) to a monk (Henry the Third) and anybody in between.
As for the eastern Hassassin sect, I am not well versed in the subject at all, but from what I remember reading they were mostly notorious for being a sect of organized killers, not for any exceptional skill.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darryl Aoki wrote: | Yes, this is rather unsporting, but assassination and war aren't sports. (Though settling international disputes via a game of, say, lacrosse or rugby, would be preferable to a whole bunch of people shooting each other.)
|
The so called " fair fight " were opponents are balanced in skill and chosen or self chosen to be balanced in skill and then fight it out honourably using only mutually agreed too rules is what is called a duel and very rare that some natural advantage wouldn't be used if available.
A good general tries to get every advantage possible to win and any honour shown will be when accepting the total surrender of an enemy force. ( Ideal situation as a massacre of the defeated was also historically done).
I think General Patton said ( or at least said in the film I saw years ago ): As I remember it, " A soldier's duty is not to die for his country but to make the poor bastard on the other side die for his "
First WIN then maybe one can be a generous victor as the losers never make the rules or write the histories.
ASSASSIN: Most of the time evil, sometimes morally ambiguous, rarely justified or on the side of the angels/good/moral/honourable.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Dec, 2007 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought the Hashashin were ferocious to get back to their "heaven", when at their home base, they were drugged with hash and served by women and luxury to create a faux heaven, so that when they were ordered to do something, they would do so with utmost loyalty to get back to their hash and high life.
This might be just legend, I have no sources present, though it can be found on wikipedia, this was not where I read it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Dec, 2007 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Scott wrote: | This is an interesting topic and a fun read, but I'm curious as to why the assassin in the Knight vs. Assassin scenario, is automatically considered to be a coward or a thug. If the simple act of assassination is all that is needed to make one an assassin, then we really don't know if the killer in question is a professional or nothing more than a one time killer. Besides, the term assassin could also be applied to a guerilla fighter.
Fairness in a fight is also subjective. You put a knight, trained from youth, armed with the best equipment money can buy, against some yeoman or peasant in an army, and the deck is stacked against the lesser armed, lesser trained soldier. Why then, is the assassin considered to be a thug? He's simply using the tools he has, and making the best of them by observing his opponent and attacking that opponent during a favorable circumstance; isn't that what generals do, pick when and where they want to fight?
I apologize if my post is not in the spirit of the thread. I guess I might be over thinking it. |
It is definately in the spirit of the thread, its everything to do with asassins, and should include both sides of the story, interesting point and thanks for posting, keep the ideas coming everyone
Humans trail a path of light, all land and space that hasnt been trodden by man is dark, all dark must be trodden to bring illumination, so that all others can follow the light that we bring.
|
|
|
|
|
R D Moore
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Dec, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Darryl Aoki wrote: | Yes, this is rather unsporting, but assassination and war aren't sports. (Though settling international disputes via a game of, say, lacrosse or rugby, would be preferable to a whole bunch of people shooting each other.)
|
A good general tries to get every advantage possible to win and any honour shown will be when accepting the total surrender of an enemy force. ( Ideal situation as a massacre of the defeated was also historically done).
I think General Patton said ( or at least said in the film I saw years ago ): As I remember it, " A soldier's duty is not to die for his country but to make the poor bastard on the other side die for his "
First WIN then maybe one can be a generous victor as the losers never make the rules or write the histories.
ASSASSIN: Most of the time evil, sometimes morally ambiguous, rarely justified or on the side of the angels/good/moral/honourable. |
Thank you, Jean. I totally agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Dec, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Douglas, much of what you postulate has a very strong comic book feel. If I'm wrong, say so, but I get the distinct tone from your posts, like the idea of an 'acrobat with a warhammer" which are.... less grounded in history... then most of our discussions.
For the record, the assassin would not be able to 'dodge' sword attacks, because swords are not big and heavy. He might be able to 'void the blow' by careful control of space. But so could the Knight. That however is not the same thing as "dodging" to get out of the way.
If you are asking "Does agility beat brute strength" the answer is yes, but you would be wrong to assume a Knight was a brute strength user. The best preserved Knightly style of swordsmanship, the Liechtenauer system, calls anyone who relies on brute strength a Buffalo, and tells that they are the easist fencers to defeat. Instead, the system teaches you to use you enemy's level of force to define your actions, meeting weakness with strength, and strength with weakness.
The "Brute" Knight, and the "Agile" Assassin are staples of comic books and Dungeons and Dragons.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Dec, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Douglas, much of what you postulate has a very strong comic book feel. If I'm wrong, say so, but I get the distinct tone from your posts, like the idea of an 'acrobat with a warhammer" which are.... less grounded in history... then most of our discussions.
For the record, the assassin would not be able to 'dodge' sword attacks, because swords are not big and heavy. He might be able to 'void the blow' by careful control of space. But so could the Knight. That however is not the same thing as "dodging" to get out of the way.
If you are asking "Does agility beat brute strength" the answer is yes, but you would be wrong to assume a Knight was a brute strength user. The best preserved Knightly style of swordsmanship, the Liechtenauer system, calls anyone who relies on brute strength a Buffalo, and tells that they are the easist fencers to defeat. Instead, the system teaches you to use you enemy's level of force to define your actions, meeting weakness with strength, and strength with weakness. |
I think you mixed two words that dont appear in the same context of what i meant, the post wasnt really a question, i just wanted peoples opinions.
The whole warhammer idea i think was suggest by Chad, correct me if im wrong, we agreed that to make the scenario more plausable we should add an armour-piercing weapon to the the assassins arsenal or he would have no chance against a fully harnessed knight.
The acrobatic thing was merely an insight as to the assassins fighting style/background, this information again was needed to make the scenario more plausable, i think you picked two words from the post that dont sit very historically together, they werent meant in the context you speak of.
But thanks for comment
Humans trail a path of light, all land and space that hasnt been trodden by man is dark, all dark must be trodden to bring illumination, so that all others can follow the light that we bring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic