• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Irrational Science Fiction & Fantasy Clichés

Naughty_Felid said:
City watches/militia in fantasy novels also carry spears a lot when a club would be a more sensible weapon if you a breaking up a fight in a tavern.
Click to expand...

In medieval times, some would, depending on when, where and the political/financial situation. At the bargain bin end of the scale, a village watchman would probably not have a uniform and be kitted with whatever weapon they could personally afford - likely just a club or stick with a bit of dog poo on the end.

The line between "city guard" and "trained militia soldiers required to defend the city against an invading enemy" was often quite blurry. Some were kitted with spears (a versatile weapon, potentially better than a sword and effective both on and off a battlefield), some trained in halberds. Some got armour and identifying uniforms.
 
Tribble said:
In medieval times, some would, depending on when, where and the political/financial situation. At the bargain bin end of the scale, a village watchman would probably not have a uniform and be kitted with whatever weapon they could personally afford - likely just a club or stick with a bit of dog poo on the end.

The line between "city guard" and "trained militia soldiers required to defend the city against an invading enemy" was often quite blurry. Some were kitted with spears (a versatile weapon, potentially better than a sword and effective both on and off a battlefield), some trained in halberds. Some got armour and identifying uniforms.
Click to expand...
On that note, I'll tentatively add this;
Soldiers entering battle using a sword as their primary weapon Swords are cool, and I'm happy to see them on screen as often as possible. However, according to many in the arms and armour community, notably Matt Easton of Easton Antique Arms and Schola Gladiatoria, swords are side arms. In most periods of history (and there are, admittedly, several exceptions), soldiers on the battlefield would be armed with two handed pole arms of one kind or another. The sword would be drawn as a secondary weapon. The feeling is, if armour and shields are taken out of the equation, a skilled swordsman has little chance against even a moderately competent pole arm wielding opponent. Then, there are archers, who might also carry a sword as a secondary weapon.

So, while we're on the subject of archers, and I know we're deviating into areas of both fantasy and historical fiction here, I have an issue with a couple of things about how archers are frequently portrayed. Can anyone guess?
 
PeteByrdie said:
So, while we're on the subject of archers, and I know we're deviating into areas of both fantasy and historical fiction here, I have an issue with a couple of things about how archers are frequently portrayed. Can anyone guess?
Click to expand...

Does it involve peach schnapps or radio soaps?
 
PeteByrdie said:
Okay, because I'm bored, I'm delving into fantasy. Most fantasy is, after all, set on other worlds, or fictional pasts of our own. So, it's still kind of science fiction. But it's not fertile enough ground for a new thread. So, the rules are the same. Whatever appears in one or two franchises is just the rules of that franchise, and that's fine. Whatever cliches make sense anyway in the context of a fantasy story are fine. But things we see frequently in fantasy stories that make no sense are suspect.

Muscle-Bound Barbarian Type Heroes So, you're wandering through the untamed wilderness of a fantasy world slash primitive version of Earth. You're searching for adventure and profit. You slay a monster every month or two, but you live on whatever nature provides. You eat the odd rabbit, deer or bonnacon if you can kill one, bearing in mind you have only a sword, so protein rich food is rare. You'd expect to be sinewy. Why, then, have you the body of someone who spends two to three hours a day training and eats a whole chicken for a snack?

Back Scabbards I know the arms and armour community have a major problem with this, and have talked about it endlessly, but it fits the topic so I'll rehash it. Back scabbards for swords look cool, so they're popular in fiction. But unless you want to draw your sword from behind your head by feeding the blade through your hands, which is slow and probably painful, you can't draw a sword of any reasonable length from a scabbard on your back. This problem is compounded by the popularity of what we, these days, call 'longswords' in fiction. These are longer, two handed versions of arming swords, the cruciform swords one associates with medieval knights. Longswords are popular in visual media (more so than they were historically) because they offer the most cool variety of poses for a character. But, the longer a sword blade is, the more difficult it is to draw from a scabbard on ones back. So, when you see your favourite fantasy hero grab his sword hilt behind his head and draw his sword, ask yourself from where exactly the blade has swung.
Click to expand...
 
PeteByrdie said:
On that note, I'll tentatively add this;
Soldiers entering battle using a sword as their primary weapon Swords are cool, and I'm happy to see them on screen as often as possible. However, according to many in the arms and armour community, notably Matt Easton of Easton Antique Arms and Schola Gladiatoria, swords are side arms. In most periods of history (and there are, admittedly, several exceptions), soldiers on the battlefield would be armed with two handed pole arms of one kind or another. The sword would be drawn as a secondary weapon. The feeling is, if armour and shields are taken out of the equation, a skilled swordsman has little chance against even a moderately competent pole arm wielding opponent. Then, there are archers, who might also carry a sword as a secondary weapon.

So, while we're on the subject of archers, and I know we're deviating into areas of both fantasy and historical fiction here, I have an issue with a couple of things about how archers are frequently portrayed. Can anyone guess?
Click to expand...

Chewbacca has a laser crossbow yet we were led to believe Han hadn’t had a go until recently. Yeah. Right. Why you need the benefit of the build form of a crossbow when a large laser pointer would do or even a light sabre that fired the beam.... well.
 
And Jedi definatley have trouble (unless they are used to it) with slugthrowers...
 
Isn't there a design of back scabbard where the sword isn't in a full sheath? This goes double for sword designs that aren't' actually straight. It's like the type used for Scimitars. http://www.thefantasyforum.com/threads/scimitar-sheath-question.5786/
Generally the scabbard ... on swords with broader tips than handle cross-sections would have slots in the side. Once the sword was drawn to a certain point, and the blade would no longer fit through the regular hole, there would be a slot so supplement it's length, thus allowing it to be drawn.
Click to expand...
A similar logic could be applied to situations where a traditional scabbard is geometrically impractical.
 
PeteByrdie said:
how archers are frequently portrayed......
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it's relevant, but I recall seeing (i think) a 'mythbusters' episode (or it might have been the British TV equivalent, the name of which escapes me, but it might have been something like 'it's not rocket science') in which the problems of archers was explored in relation to the effects of gravity. Inasmuchas once the arrow has been released from the bow (or crossbow) it then becomes subject to the laws of physics with regards to ballistics, so archers are often depicted as shooting straight at their targets, but in reality would have to 'aim high' as the arrow would drop towards the earths surface along it's path of travel towards the target.
 
It’s usually the really quiet girl they’ve been protecting through the whole movie who turns out to be the most devastating force. Unfortunately, the latest Star Wars led with this and the people were perplexed and in no small measure titted off by the wokeness at both the early reveal and lack of a twist.
 
Tribble said:
In medieval times, some would, depending on when, where and the political/financial situation. At the bargain bin end of the scale, a village watchman would probably not have a uniform and be kitted with whatever weapon they could personally afford - likely just a club or stick with a bit of dog poo on the end.

The line between "city guard" and "trained militia soldiers required to defend the city against an invading enemy" was often quite blurry. Some were kitted with spears (a versatile weapon, potentially better than a sword and effective both on and off a battlefield), some trained in halberds. Some got armour and identifying uniforms.
Click to expand...
] Good post. I'm taking about fantasy novels when the guard arrive in full mail, sheilds and spears who go in to break up the tavern fight and get easily dispatched by Conan, etc swinging a cow's leg.
 
PeteByrdie said:
On that note, I'll tentatively add this;
Soldiers entering battle using a sword as their primary weapon Swords are cool, and I'm happy to see them on screen as often as possible. However, according to many in the arms and armour community, notably Matt Easton of Easton Antique Arms and Schola Gladiatoria, swords are side arms. In most periods of history (and there are, admittedly, several exceptions), soldiers on the battlefield would be armed with two handed pole arms of one kind or another. The sword would be drawn as a secondary weapon. The feeling is, if armour and shields are taken out of the equation, a skilled swordsman has little chance against even a moderately competent pole arm wielding opponent. Then, there are archers, who might also carry a sword as a secondary weapon.

So, while we're on the subject of archers, and I know we're deviating into areas of both fantasy and historical fiction here, I have an issue with a couple of things about how archers are frequently portrayed. Can anyone guess?
Click to expand...
Where do you want to start?
 
Naughty_Felid said:
] Good post. I'm taking about fantasy novels when the guard arrive in full mail, sheilds and spears who go in to break up the tavern fight and get easily dispatched by Conan, etc swinging a cow's leg.
Click to expand...

If a guard is kitted out in very expensive armour and weapons there's a good chance they're highly trained soldiers who know how to kick bottom. They don't hand that stuff out on the first day on the job, y'know.
Cow legs, however, do make good improvised weapons, especially if still attached to a live cow.
 
Tribble said:
If a guard is kitted out in very expensive armour and weapons there's a good chance they're highly trained soldiers who know how to kick bottom. They don't hand that stuff out on the first day on the job, y'know.
Cow legs, however, do make good improvised weapons, especially if still attached to a live cow.
Click to expand...
Yet they usually die horribly and quickly. They are the red shirts of the fantasy world.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Click to expand...
Shad did great work building a specialised back scabbard. And I'm aware that the community proved that it's possible with short swords. However, it's not only more difficult to draw a sword from ones back, but more difficult to sheath it, unless you're using one of Shad's inventions.

Trevp666 said:
I'm not sure if it's relevant, but I recall seeing (i think) a 'mythbusters' episode (or it might have been the British TV equivalent, the name of which escapes me, but it might have been something like 'it's not rocket science') in which the problems of archers was explored in relation to the effects of gravity. Inasmuchas once the arrow has been released from the bow (or crossbow) it then becomes subject to the laws of physics with regards to ballistics, so archers are often depicted as shooting straight at their targets, but in reality would have to 'aim high' as the arrow would drop towards the earths surface along it's path of travel towards the target.
Click to expand...
Certainly, in a battlefield situation where you're firing an arrow over distances, archers would have to take ballistics into account.

Archers threatening someone for several seconds with an arrow on a pulled back bow string Usually, said archer is asking an intruder questions, with a bow string pulled back like it's a cocked gun. Bows are not guns, and a bow of any draw weight is going to test the strength of even the most muscle bound barbarians (see above) if drawn back for even a couple of seconds.
 
And, after I'd thought this topic had been thoroughly explored a couple of years ago, the back scabbard returns.

Nate V has this to say:


And Matt Easton responds thus:

 
Just because you can use a back scabbard, doesn't mean you should.

Not just because drawing it leaves your guard open to a quick stab to the torso. But just try running through the woods and not having it snag on a low branch, sending you landing on your back.
 
Tribble said:
Just because you can use a back scabbard, doesn't mean you should.

Not just because drawing it leaves your guard open to a quick stab to the torso. But just try running through the woods and not having it snag on a low branch, sending you landing on your back.
Click to expand...

Again this stuff misses the point that when these two-handed weapons were used in the West it was for a battle - you wouldn't be wandering around your local fete wearing one. Just like you wouldn't be popping down the garden centre in full plate.

I can't see why people don't see this?

When you are not kayaking do you carry your kayak with you?

Also, we have cars and crap this has completely how we transport stuff. I can carry up to 15 kg of crap on my ebike. On my normal bike as much.

I don't think many people really understand transporting a lot of weight on their backs.
 
Naughty_Felid said:
Again this stuff misses the point that when these two-handed weapons were used in the West it was for a battle - you wouldn't be wandering around your local fete wearing one. Just like you wouldn't be popping down the garden centre in full plate.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of when I did LARPing. People would often go to the camping site, get changed into costume and then go to the supermarket to stock up on food/booze/sundries for the weekend.
The Asda staff were quite used to seeing a variety of elves, mages and armoured loons wandering the isles clutching multipacks of beer. Not usually in full plate, though.
 
Tribble said:
Reminds me of when I did LARPing. People would often go to the camping site, get changed into costume and then go to the supermarket to stock up on food/booze/sundries for the weekend.
The Asda staff were quite used to seeing a variety of elves, mages and armoured loons wandering the isles clutching multipacks of beer. Not usually in full plate, though.
Click to expand...
Who would go adventuring in full plate? Surely, leather armour is more traditional. I say traditional; in fantasy fiction, it seems the armour of choice. There's been much debate about the historical use of leather armour. The consensus seems to be, its use was rare. This isn't a big enough issue to be included as an 'irrational cliche'. Historically it may have been rare, but in fantasy worlds with medieval technology, perhaps not. Although, I have seen arguments against the convenience and efficacy of leather armour compared to, for example, more historically accurate gambeson. But if we throw in the bin every fantasy cliche that wasn't historical to early- to mid-medieval Europe, we'd be chucking out the widespread use of two-handed longswords instead of arming swords, and quivers on the back instead of on the hip.
 
Kyle Hill has made a video that relates to and expands on some points I made in this post.


Well, I can't get the link to work to my post, but it was #8 on this thread.

Never mind, I've figured it out.
 
Last edited:
Delightful said:
Teleporters only being used for transport.

Teleporters would be useful for so much more. They would be a god tech.
Click to expand...
Yes and provided you don't need any machinery at the receiving end they'd be a better weapon than most of the guns, torpedoes, etc used. Just beam a spare lemon, turd or ray gun wrapper into the opposing captain's brain or the starship engine or whatever.
 
Tunn11 said:
Yes and provided you don't need any machinery at the receiving end they'd be a better weapon than most of the guns, torpedoes, etc used. Just beam a spare lemon, turd or ray gun wrapper into the opposing captain's brain or the starship engine or whatever.
Click to expand...
I was thinking beam your enemy into a wall, or mountain, or into the abyssal depths of the ocean, or deep space, or the Earth's core, or whatever...
 
Delightful said:
Yup, just beam a virus into them, or just a small pellet of anything in the right place.

Or use it as a cloning machine. Or to remove all diseases or injuries etc.
Click to expand...
I think Larry Niven used the technology to remove all the products of ageing and disease from cells to confer immortality in the Known Space stories.
 
Delightful said:
Yup, just beam a virus into them, or just a small pellet of anything in the right place.

Or use it as a cloning machine. Or to remove all diseases or injuries etc.
Click to expand...
In Star Trek, this kind of tech is used in their replicators (I think).
I seem to recall they explored the medical applications in Star Trek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top