| Author |
Message |
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
 Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
As Jean said. There may have been no "guilds of assassins" but there were more then a few rather extensive espionage networks.
Philip of Spain said that Her Majesties spies were so good, that his secret plans for invading England were shipped across the channel, read by Elizabeth, and shipped back, and entered into the palace rumor mill before he could hand them officially to his ministers.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
    |
 |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| R D Moore wrote: | | Joe Fults wrote: | | I think we have a glamorized super weapon vision assassins thanks to computer games and popular culture today which is honestly a bit disturbing to me. However, I suspect that an assassin could probably be just about any murdering thug that decided to take specialization in killing important people (instead of just peasants and folks low on the social ladder like the blue bloods) and then make a go at paying the bills. In that respect, I'm somewhat doubtful that there really would be an assassin archetype. |
I agree! I read an interview quite a while ago in which a Mafia hitman was interviewed, and I think we could conceivably apply his modus operandi to ancient assasins-methods making the best use of the weapons available, of course. What he did was to watch his victim until a pattern of behaviors could be established then merely walk up behind this person at the most "opportune" time and shoot them in the back of the head. So, to me, the word "assasin" here, conjures up visions of a person stepping from the shadows to stab you in the heart or some other vital area. One minute you're walking confidently along and in the next instant your mortally wounded by some thug too cowardly to face you in battle. I may be wrong. Maybe they appearewd out of nowhere dressed in black and performed the dance of death in front of you before they cut off your head with a sharp katana. |
Have to agree with these. In fact, when we look at the primary sources--say, Machiavelli's The Prince and Baldassare Castiglione's memoirs, we seem to get the impression that the methods of assassination preferred by the oh-so-subtle and oh-so-devious Italians (cue what jean said in the previous post) were neither particularly subtle nor very devious; mostly they just hired thugs or gathered a number of like-minded kinsmen to corner the target in a deserted alley or jump him in the dark of the night, then mobbed him to death. Even Sir Kenelm Digby's account of a night ambush that he got embroiled in during a visit to Italy followed this model to the letter--the attackers used numerical superiority to put pressure upon the target (one of Digby's friends) and channel him into an alley, and then sneaked a few more men around to the other end to seal the target's route of escape. Unfortunately the target was traveling with friends, and one of them (Digby) was a particularly skilled swordsman who managed to turn the attackers' tactics to his advantage by using the alley to restrict the number of people who could fight him and his friends simultaneously.
It's also a good idea to watch the Discovery Channel show on ninjas--I forgot the exact title, but it gives a far more accurate picture of how these spies and assassins worked. In the last (or next-to-last) part of the show, they set up a situation where a modern ninja has to commit the simulated assassination of a target defended by two professional security contractors, and he managed to do that not through movie ninja tricks but by clever social engineering. He posed as a Discovery Channel crewman, wormed his way into the guards' confidence, and launched the brief but deadly final assault when the two clueless guards allowed him get too close to the target they were supposed to protect.
Now that is an assassin I can easily believe in.
(By the way, I think I've said elsewhere that even the Ismaili assassins of the Middle East usually worked in groups of at least two, not as the super-skilled lone wolves so prevalent in spy and fantasy stories.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Most of the stealth, high level skills i.e. the James Bond / Ninja qualities would be much more in spying, information gathering or " agent provocateur " and dirty tricks type of things than actual killing by the " master spy ".
Actual assassinations would probably be the blunt instrument when subtlety was no longer needed or an " enemy " became an immediate threat or really REALLY got the King or High Noble(s) angry or greedy !
Think of the Templars: Gathering / creating a false case of witchcraft and in effect doing a political assassination before it became legalized assassination/executions. ( And stealing their treasure and lands as a bonus ),
If you could provoke an enemy into an act of treason or convince the King ( A paranoid King ) that one of your rivals was plotting against him, it would be a great way to get rid of him or her !
In other words: Italian Renaissance politics or Byzantine politics. So brains rather than brawn in the service of " Raisons d' États " with the occasional stiletto between the ribs when convenient. A skilled killer or warrior doing the job, a bunch of hired tugs or a duped " lunatic/patsy "
[Note: Anybody notice that the realy dirty tricks kind of thing have French names.    ( Joke and I'm French Canadian ). |
HaHa, the french are lovely people although I cant help myself:
We were talking about the friendship between Britain and France just the other day in History, and of course the ups and downs of the relationship My History teacher is an ex-soldier, hes fought all over the world, and trained with the french army which apparently isnt very common because they preferr to keep themselves to themselves but, we were talking about their tactics in various battles and he said "There are only two things the french are good at, Kissing, and Retreating unfortunately the two dont exactly go hand in hand" not that i want to turn this thread into french jokes, (no matter how many posts we would get lol)
So what does everyone think would happen if an assassin came up against a knight from say the late 13 hundreds, say 1350 ish?
What do you think would happen?
P.S love you really france
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Douglas Huxtable wrote: | | P.S love you really France |
By the way the earliest Québec French are about 400 years removed from the French in France and culturally very North American, so any current French jokes don't really apply to us. So, no offence taken although to be fair one should make a big distinction between the political positions of various French governments and the courage of it's soldiers.
It doesn't help that the bravest tended to be among the dead over many centuries of French history: I don't think the gene pool has yet recovered from the losses in the napoleonic wars and the massive slaughter of the first world war where almost an entire generation was lost. ( Those guys were not cowards or unskilled fighters ).
Back to Topic: Assassin versus Knight !? Well, as usual the answer is it depends.
Is the assassin trained in the use of war weapons to a skill level equal or superior to the Knight or is he only sneakier ?
A stab in the back is a different skill than a stand-up face to face fight.
Also if your Knight is not taken unawares and is in full armour and the assassin is not armoured ! Well, I would bet on the armoured Knight against 10 to 1 odds against unarmoured assassin(s).
We risk having one of those Knight against Samurai discussions.
Now if the assassin poisons the Knight the Knight's fighting skills are sort of irrelevant.
A good assassin can be a good fighter also but need not be as the skills sets needed for an assassin involve surprise and deception, if not ruthless treachery, rather than been the best fighter around: If I throw pepper in you face all I may need is a dagger, a second of distraction and fast legs to get away from your friends.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Douglas Huxtable wrote: | So what does everyone think would happen if an assassin came up against a knight from say the late 13 hundreds, say 1350 ish?
What do you think would happen? |
There's no easy answer for this. If you've paid close attention to the discussion, then it'll certainly be obvious to you that some assassins--like those who killed Thomas Becket--were actually knights or at least men-at-arms, and it's a safe bet that these men would have been every bit the equal of their peers in social and military status. If you're talking about the run-of-the-mill hired thug, though, I don't think one of those would have much chance against a trained man-at-arms, although a sufficient number of them might be able to mob the man-at-arms and distract him long enough for the rest to do the dirty work. If the man-at-arms was the man they were supposed to kill, though...well, things could get a little complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed I have been reading everything very carefully lafayette c curtis as it would be stupid not to as i asked the initial question 
Ok then maybe to make it slightly more plausable if thats possible lol. We should add some controls and more bits of detail, for fun lets say on the assassins behalf:
He has been ordered to assassinate a knight and it MUST BE DONE ON THE BATTLEFIELD while he is distracted by having to defend himself from not only the assassin but multiple enemies, bare in mind the assassin must do the same, but can move much more quickly through the chaos of battle.
He has been given a description, he is to look for a particular crest on the knights surcoat this is how he will identify his target. He has no other knowledge on skill, reason for him being targeted etc. He has been told to floor the Knight, give his masters message to the victim then finish the target, it is up to him how he does this.
Bare in the mind the battlefield is packed with battling men, using ballistic/long range weapons such as bows, crossbows etc is nearly impossible, other throwing weapons may reach the target but may not be fully effective as he has a full harness of armour, he has also a full face helm a hand and a half sword and a buckler.
The assassin has no time frame other than the fact it will be an advantage to him to kill in the chaos of battle, when escape will be easiest and on lookers minimal, he is to attract as little attention as possible, his second objective is to be quick enough that the Knights soldiers think he has been killed by the enemy they are engaging not a third party as it were.
As to skill level, we will say they are both fairly experienced and of the same fighting ability although, styles are very different.
Everyones opinions now the rules have been changed abit?
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: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Douglas,
This last scenario seems flawed. Every person in the opposing army can be said to be a potential assassin for the doomed knight. A leader of the opposing may have even told his men to target the doomed knight. So, he's already a marked man.
Looking for a particular surcoat is a start, though, but important people were known to have dressed others in their coats of arms as decoys in battle. Hopefully, the mark isn't one of those. Hopefully his tunic/tabard/jupon isn't so smeared with blood or obscured by a shield that he can't be recognized as well.
As for delivering a message to the marked man, I think that it might be hard for the mark to hear it with an arming cap, coif, and helm on in the midst of the din of battle. And that assumes the assassin isn't too out of breath to deliver it.
I don't believe an assassin would be able to move more quickly on the battlefield either. If he's not recognizable by the people surrounding him, he'd have to fight his way in or out and past the other people trying to kill his mark. If I were hiring the assassin I'd want him to kill the mark some other time. The chances of the assassin being taken out on his way to the mark are too great, in my opinion, and constitute a foolish risk to his chances of success and to my investment in him.
I don't think the scenario is viable. If I were the person hiring the assassin, I wouldn't choose that scenario. If I were in the opposing army, I might send a picked band of men toward the mark (people tried to fight their way to kings and other leaders all the time) if they were militarily an important target. I'd wait to see if the battle did the work for me, then perhaps hire the assassin for something with a higher chance of success.
Just my opinion.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very valid points and i know the scenario seems flawed, its just fun to see people opinions if they try to look past the in-accuracy of it, far from the point I dont think many assassins would want to take this mission/assignment like you said too risky, but this scenario is only for fun see peoples opinions on what could occur.
Look past the flaws in it, will be interesting to see what people think.
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: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Douglas Huxtable wrote: | Very valid points and i know the scenario seems flawed, its just fun to see people opinions if they try to look past the in-accuracy of it, far from the point I dont think many assassins would want to take this mission/assignment like you said too risky, but this scenario is only for fun see peoples opinions on what could occur.
Look past the flaws in it, will be interesting to see what people think. |
Looking past the flaws will only get you flawed responses. If I look past the inaccuracy of it, I'm far enough into the fantasy world that anything could happen. This is a forum for historical arms and armour and related discussions after all and I prefer to look at things in that context.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thats up to you .
it doesnt have to be fantasy if you look past the flaws you speak of, but perhaps i have presented the scenario in the wrong manner and maybe there is not much point speculating on what may happen if you say that its flawed, but people can say what they feel its only a bit of fun.
Is this not off topic?
Off-topic Talk
Discussions of general history and other miscellaneous topics relating to arms and armour that do not specifically fit our other forums
I dont think it slips out of that category too far, but im not arguing against what your saying.
Maybe we should concentrate then on the assassin and the knight being alone somehow, 1 v 1 lets see who thinks the knights tactics would win, or the assassins, what weapons they could use etc.
this may be a better aspect to look at it from that may give us an interesting set of results that we can weigh up to see who everyone on the forums thinks would win no matter how improbable it is that an assassin comes up against a full armoured knight alone.
I for one believe the knight would win.
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: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Douglas Huxtable wrote: | Maybe we should concentrate then on the assassin and the knight being alone somehow, 1 v 1 lets see who thinks the knights tactics would win, or the assassins, what weapons they could use etc.
this may be a better aspect to look at it from that may give us an interesting set of results that we can weigh up to see who everyone on the forums thinks would win no matter how improbable it is that an assassin comes up against a full armoured knight alone.
I for one believe the knight would win. |
1 on 1 is probably better, though you'll need to be more specific.
-What era/area is the knight from? How wealthy are they? (these questions will help determine how well armed and completely armoured they are). How experienced are they in combat?
-The assassin: How are they armed/armoured? How skilled? Are they a hired fellow man at arms, common thug, or a member of a mythical super-secret society of melt-into-the-dark-ninja types?
-Where is this combat taking place?
If we don't have definitions for a common starting point, any discussions could be fruitless.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Huxtable
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The knight:
Early 30's, healthy, from late 13 hundreds, fairly rich but not very rich, full harness, single hand sword in scabbard, buckler and a typical dagger. Well trained through child-hood and through teenage years, very experienced on paper as it were, has fought in say 3 or 4 battles, 3 of which his allie(s) were victorious 1 was a defeat, he was ransomed back with family money.
The Assassin:
Trained only through being a mercenary for 5 years, healthy, early 30's. Poor with no income but this does not affect his kit, he is wearing very little armour, perhaps leather vambraces and some sort of very light gambeson under his surcoat.
Knives, single hand sword, knuckle duster etc.
Hood etc, his identity is unknown to the Knight however the assassin knows who the knight is, but knows of no weaknesses or strengths.
Location: they are in an empty courtyard,no obstacles apart from the occassional market stall that have been abandoned.
weather is fine, but moist and clingy, may make breathing more difficult for knight, affecting his performance.
This should make it easier
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Douglas Huxtable wrote: | The knight:
Early 30's, healthy, from late 13 hundreds, fairly rich but not very rich, full harness, single hand sword in scabbard, buckler and a typical dagger. Well trained through child-hood and through teenage years, very experienced on paper as it were, has fought in say 3 or 4 battles, 3 of which his allie(s) were victorious 1 was a defeat, he was ransomed back with family money.
The Assassin:
Trained only through being a mercenary for 5 years, healthy, early 30's. Poor with no income but this does not affect his kit, he is wearing very little armour, perhaps leather vambraces and some sort of very light gambeson under his surcoat.
Knives, single hand sword, knuckle duster etc.
Hood etc, his identity is unknown to the Knight however the assassin knows who the knight is, but knows of no weaknesses or strengths.
Location: they are in an empty courtyard,no obstacles apart from the occassional market stall that have been abandoned.
weather is fine, but moist and clingy, may make breathing more difficult for knight, affecting his performance.
This should make it easier
|
Well, as I usually say " armour is a great advantage " and if the Knight is wearing it he would be at least ready for a fight or in a situation were fighting would reasonably expected: So he would at least be alert ! One great advantage for any assassin is an opponent who his distracted or complacent and feeling safe i.e. has his guard down.
So we are talking of a surprise attack on a FULLY armed and armoured Knight who is at least generally alert even if he doesn't know that he has been specifically targeted.
If the assassin can get close and appear to be zero threat and them strike without telegraphing his move, them maybe yes the assassin might be successful. If it turns into a fair fight the superior equipment of the Knight turns the odds back in favour of the Knight.
But the ways one can change the initial conditions and the outcomes are close to infinite and where the Topic can become a bunch of " Yes but " and a series of rebuttals ! Fun to a degree, but only to a degree.
On the other hand you might consider turning this into a short story or a novel and start a carreer as a writer ?
( Not joking here since what do writers do except set up situations and resolve them on paper )
EDITED: Looking at this Topic http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...highlight=
Maybe your assassin would be better armed with a warhammer as blow or blows with this could make a serious " dent " in any armour and compensate for the lack of armour of the assassin.
One like this also: http://www.arms-n-armor.com/pole005.html
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Fri 07 Dec, 2007 8:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
R D Moore
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
A lot to consider here, The Knight is better protected and has survived 3 fights, the assasin can move more freely and has more experience - providing he had been fighting during his 5 years as a mercenary. But...can the assin's speed and manuverability enable him to get in a killing thrust somewhere? It would depend which combatant executes the successful deception and attack, who's been fighting longer just prior to this confrontation, who's the fastest - in both mind and body, etc. And should'nt the assasin now be called a mercenary?
|
|
|
|
|
R D Moore
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Next time I'll use spellcheck... I promise.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R D Moore wrote: | | Next time I'll use spellcheck... I promise. |
Why not click on the edit post button and simply correct your mistakes? You can use the spell-checker that's built in, too..
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The knight might have an advantage in training since he had been training from a young age. If the assassin didn't start training until his mid-to-late 20s (five years before his early 30s), what was he doing the first ten years of adulthood?
Of course, if the knight had been fighting off and on for 15 years or so, he might be starting to break down physically. 30 was middle-aged back then after all. Many didn't even last that long.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Smith
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are looking for validation of what you imagine an assassin to be, and not what they actually were. If forced into a fight, in reality they would almost certainly lose, unless they had the advantage of numbers. They most likely had little true skill at arms, and certainly would not compare to a knight or man-at-arms who had been training at fighting their entire lives (unless of course they were simply a knight who had been tasked with an assassination).
Assassins slipped poison into the food while in the kitchen, or bribed a disloyal guard to look the other way while a group of them attacked you. Theirs is the way of a coward or thug. And this likely applies as much to the "infamous" ninja as to any other assassin...
A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robin Smith wrote: | Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are looking for validation of what you imagine an assassin to be, and not what they actually were. If forced into a fight, in reality they would almost certainly lose, unless they had the advantage of numbers. They most likely had little true skill at arms, and certainly would not compare to a knight or man-at-arms who had been training at fighting their entire lives (unless of course they were simply a knight who had been tasked with an assassination).
Assassins slipped poison into the food while in the kitchen, or bribed a disloyal guard to look the other way while a group of them attacked you. Theirs is the way of a coward or thug. And this likely applies as much to the "infamous" ninja as to any other assassin... |
I agree and an assassin shouldn't be confused with a hired killer depending on superior skill to openly and maybe even honourably challenge enemies of his employer(s).
Lets not romanticize assassins as being some sort of superhero or " computer game " hero ", at least if we want to discuss the subject in a historically accurate way.
A hired killer would rarely be motivated by ideals or actually be one of the " good " guys.
In other words 99.99999% of the time Assassin = EVIL in my book in the real world, now or historically. ( Exceptions could be made for those trying to assasinate Hitler or equivalent monsters ! ).
Discussing methods and tactics of assassins can still be interesting but lets not confuse fantasy and grim reality.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Dec, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robin Smith wrote: |
Assassins slipped poison into the food while in the kitchen, or bribed a disloyal guard to look the other way while a group of them attacked you. Theirs is the way of a coward or thug. And this likely applies as much to the "infamous" ninja as to any other assassin... |
It absolutely applies to the ninja. The Ninja could fight like mad if they had to, but they would do absolutely anything to prevent that being the case. If given the choice, the ninja would always choose the dirty trick. They weren't in it for the glory.
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."
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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