Merlkir

I clearly lack the Holy Spirit's touch.

1. Riiight. It wasn't about cattle and woman slaves at all. It was the Olden days! When everyone was properly religious. 2. So this whole issue is really about whether or not our lives are predetermined by God, right? I think the saints spoke in tongues, because they were as crazy as pipe-smoking badgers. But hey, if you're into the whole Holy Spirit shebang.. 3. A champion does NOT mean "the winner"! That is a rather modern shift in meaning. A champion IS "the chosen combatant". "Champion - early 13c., from O.Fr. champion "combatant, champion in single combat" (12c.), from L.L. campionem (nom. campio) "gladiator, fighter, combatant in the field," from L. campus "field (of combat);"" So David and Goliath were both their respective sides' champions. As I explained, the Latin form was not "paladin". There was therefore no reason for the Spanish translator to use the word Paladín. The word "palatinus" exists in Latin and means something entirely different. The translator lived in an age when the chivalric songs were already written, the term "palatinus" for knightly chosen warriors was established. So even if he (in the 16th century) used it to describe David, it wouldn't have been because of the use of Latin "Spurius", or "the man of the betweens" from Hebrew. It would've been used, because he'd think David was behaving very bravely and in the knightly way of the Palatines. And what's important - the translator in the 16th century didn't use that word at all! It's a modern translation that uses the word. And linguists agree that both Spurius and "man of the betweens" mean "champion". There simply isn't any connection between David, a concept of a holy warrior and the word "paladin". And no, paladin doesn't come from Hebrew. Its etymology is rather clear and the shift of meaning from a hill in Rome to palace guards to early medieval knights and local officers is well documented and understood.

So much for being through, ey? 1.) it's not a religious battle. You say it is, but it's simply a duel of two champions. That's an interpretation with an agenda. 2.) A chosen one it may mean, but not by god. Baal is not mentioned anywhere near this part, it's clear that Goliath was chosen by his men for being a huge badass. David chose himself, because everyone else was scared. And David heard there was a reward in it. Again, nothing to do with God. 3.) Even if we accepted the silly notion that "spurius" or our wonderful "man of the betweens" both mean "a holy warrior", AGAIN, it has absolutely nothing to do with paladins. As demonstrated by my previous findings about the use of the word in various translations. The use of "paladín" in the Spanish translation is accidental, the translator simply wanted to express David's chivalrous courage and clearly mark him as the champion warrior. (which is what the previous translations used) So, no, you're still wrong, however much you might want to argue with leading experts on hebrew and Latin.

While I don't think it is, that may very well be the case. However, your whole argument about the use of the word "paladin" simply falls apart. The text you're quoting says the etymology of an out-of-wedlock son is false. It makes sense if it meant a chosen man of the public, one representing the others. Which is, you guessed it, the definition of a champion. Even if "spurius" (very coincidentally) meant "idolater", the word "paladín" in the Spanish translation is only used in a rather recent translation. Not even in the 16th century one, it's a 20th century one. And even IF it was used in the 16th century one, it wouldn't be too curious. By that time the knightly romance was well known and popular, as was the use of that word for a knightly champion. It's not that difficult to find a hebrew version with a literal translation, like here: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa17.pdf I'm not sure what "man of the betweens" means exactly, but the translator gives it as "champion". A man from their midst? Yeah, still sounds like a champion. Yeah, you're certainly through with this.

"We all know that the Philistines were extremly religious, along with the Israelites. A simple "champion" doesn't meet the requirements for a religious (Yet brutal) fighter belonging to the Philistine army. Simply put, the English translation is completely wrong." You do realize the term originated in Latin, right? Palatinus is not a latin translation of some hebrew word for a holy warrior. Just for you, I found the relevant part in Latin: As you can see, the word "spurius" is used, not palatinus, not paladin. Quite clearly they're (again) talking about a champion to represent the Philistines, not a holy warrior. btw, I found this version of the Bible in Castilian: from here : http://www.biblegate...:23&version=CST So, where did you get this wonderful Bible translation, according to you from the 5th century or similarly early? http://en.wikipedia....ns_into_Spanish edit2: I'll answer myself. http://www.biblegate...version=RVR1960 a 1960 edition of a translation made in 1569 (!) http://en.wikipedia....ki/Reina-Valera Hilariously, the 1569 version doesn't use the word "paladin" either. Any questions?

Well, surely, the Spanish translation is not older than the earliest occurence of the word. If anything, it's shift in meaning of the word in Spanish. English translation of the same part says: "As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. 24 Whenever the Israelites saw the man, they all fled from him in great fear." So, Goliath was a champion of the Philistines. There is no religious connotation. Do we have any Hebrew speaking/reading Bible experts to read the original for us? Look, I would be my last pair of shoes that the Spanish translation and misuse of the word "paladin" in this context is later than the knightly context which you seem to dislike so much. Yep, a quick search confirms that the first translation of the Bible into Spanish happened in the late 13th century. Which is about 100 years later than the earliest known version of Song of Roland. Which uses the term paladin in knightly context, speaking about a dude who lived in the 8th century. So no, you're wrong.

English this, english that... You're not the center of the world, you know. The word "Paladin" has been applied long before the Arthurian legend. As I mentioned previously, David of Israel was considered the Paladin of the Weak. And it somehow makes more sense than the Round Table nonsense, because he clearly establishes a direct relationship with a God, granting him the necessary powers to hold such title. Sorry to be picky, but could you provide some kind of a source for this claim? You're being a bit hostile and I know of no such a mention of David as a paladin of the weak. The word comes from Latin - palatinus = from/of the palace (as in the Palatine hill). Ie palace guards. Nothing to do with God of any kind.

As we all know too well, dolphins are bull****. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiPprH7tEi8

Well that was necessary.

A Sassanid reenactor, iirc? I think I have a few photos of him doing horse archery somewhere.

Yep. The labour intensity of the current way of making game assets restricts developers and games' scope quite a bit. It takes this many man hours to make a sword, this many to make a helmet. I'm a bit tired of the "lovingly handcrafting" approach to making games. Support procedural generation!

Yes. :D So many equipment types most likely reduce possible (achievable) variety overall.

The thing is, the word "paladin" has a lot of pre-RPG context, which seems to be (at least to some extent) inspiration for PE. They're like...duuuude, they're bringing the paladin back man! Totally!

Hey, thanks! @knee: yes, it could, but it does seem like it's attached to the pants all over its surface. Ancient greaves for example do go up over the patella, but not quite that far and they do indeed provide a comfortable range of movement. @bracers: I mentioned the Hungarian one (which I wrongly remembered as Avar) and the Vendel ones. I haven't seen the Armenian one before, padded cotton/silk bracers are an interesting idea. The Scythian greave is also interesting. poor wording on my part. I meant to say just standing to the side doesn't prevent you from getting hit there. It does make it less likely, sure. About being Belorussian, I just thought I recognized tiny Slavicisms in your English. (being Czech myself) And these fights are quite popular in most Slavic countries, you seem to speak from some kind of practical experience. HEMA organizations don't do much armour fighting and almost no shield fighting, so it was a pretty safe guess. HEMA people are also quite picky about historical accuracy, bohurt fighters a bit less so. I've seen some beautiful equipment at these events, but boy do they not worry about anachronisms and adopted modern protective inventions. Which is perfectly fine if it keeps them from getting seriously hurt while doing this intensive sport.

Lost in another world, ey? :D I could see that, yeah. Get Harry Turtledove on that, he'll sort you out!

Oh boy. 1) that painting is useless. It's a romanticized depiction of a battle of Grunwald, as you say, painted in the 19th century. People in the 19th century had very funny ideas about medieval armour. 2) The 18th century (!) Rajahstani armour falls under "late Indo Iranian", which I mentioned as an exception. 3) That was a joke btw. The point was - if you can't see it in depictions, it's very difficult to prove its existence. 4) That's exactly what I was asking about, if there were any finds of this kind. You post replicas, which may or may not be based on such finds. I have no way of knowing. People make "replicas" of Drizzt's swords you know. 5) Here come the assumptions. According to my profile, I am a male. Just so you know. I have worn armour, both mail and plate. I have fought with swords in armour. Surely, the sword wasn't sharp, but that's as close as one can get, legally. The mail sleeve hangs from your shoulder. You can also tie it with a strap to the forearm, so the weight is distributed more evenly. The point is - you're covered in armour from shoulder to the hand. With a bracer you have a gap from the shoulder to the elbow. Be that as it may, I'd still love to see such a test, with various weapons, amounts of padding etc. etc. 6) As mentioned earlier, it's a painting from the 19th century, it speaks of nothing else but the level of knowledge about armour in 19th century. You can google many "reconstructions" from the 21st century which are very inaccurate. 7) Ehm, yes. Almost ANY depiction of a person in mail would not show any bracers. A couple of knights: http://upload.wikime...von_Klingen.jpg A random page from the Maciejowski bible: 8 ) The mobility loss is negligible. I'd question the "doubtfulness" of the shoulder getting hit. In battle it doesn't matter that much how exactly you stand. Sure, you can hope you don't get hit, but it happens. Interestingly, the concept piece with only one pauldron, (which we're talking about) has the LEFT pauldron. So it's the shield arm that's covered, not the sword arm. Just btw. So we'd assume, by your thinking, he's always facing the enemy with his left side. Or maybe he's left handed? Anyway, it still seems silly to me. The weight and mobility difference is minimal, not really the tradeoff for protection provided by a pauldron. 9) Oh, you don't say! Plate armour doesn't bend?! That's news to me. You know, I'm almost offended you assume I'd think that was the case. Of course the plates itself don't bend, but the leg under the armour surely bends, so the armour has to accomodate for that. How do the plates over the knee slide, if they do at all? They seem stuck to the boot/pants for good, how does the leg bend at the knee? Also the pointy bit at the bottom, I wouldn't want to have that poking my foot. Greaves are usually shaped a certain way to allow for easy movement without sharp bits of metal poking or breaking your leg. This doesn't quite look like it'd allow for movement entirely. I wonder, are you Russian by any chance? Do you do bohurt, or any kind of armoured boxing like that?

I'm not sure how the leg pieces bend and how comfortable it'd be, but overall it's alright.

Yes, in DnD. So? OH WAIT IS THAT THE ANGEL FROM HOMAM 3 ?! Ermagherd, we used to drool over that box, when the game came out and we couldn't afford buying it. :D

I wonder if the historical concept of a palatine is more what PE draws from, "warlord/charismatic general" sounds pretty much spot on. I like that. The holy warrior archetype is probably my least favourite in all fantasy games. Bah.

Elmore! I was like "Hey, my favourite Elmore painting is that Mongol looking dude from Forgotten Realms!" Then I googled it. Yes, that one by Keith Parkinson. :D But Elmore does have a few nice ones, sure. @SGray: So it's "invisible bracers!" ? Iirc there are suriviving brigandine finds, do they have metal plates in their sleeves? Yes, they're exactly the type of reconstructions which look very nice and historical. But are they? Mail sleeves aren't that heavy. If you replace a long sleeve with a short sleeve and add a bracer made of steel splints, the weight will be probably higher. As for protection, I'd like to see a few tests on that. It's peculiar that long sleeved mail is well documented, while bracers aren't. Which brings me to the last sentence - where is the one vambrace on the sword arm? (I mean, you say "often", so where have you seen it? Reenactors?) Yet apparently, it was worn like that for centuries. Peculiar. Lastly - still not convinced it makes a difference. It's not like plate pauldrons are very heavy, if it's leather, even less so. I am not convinced anyone in their right mind would choose to not wear one of a pir of pauldrons to lose a bit of weight. The blog post was written more about the various nimble rogues wearing no armour except for a pauldron, or berserking barbarians who despise armour, except for that one lone pauldron.

I am aware of the splint-thingy reconstructions for the Vendels and particularly those adopted by Varangian enthusiasts. However, I haven't ever seen them in period depictions, or described in sources. It seems to me all this spawned from a few reconstructions in the Osprey books. Which (I think) are based on an actual find from the Vendel culture and its application on the forearms is a result of measurements of the splint pieces. I've also seen this being reconstructed as greaves (which I think is more plausible, as we have a depiction of a similar device on an Avar medal, coin or something like that. In these periods you'd also often carry a large shield, so covering the legs seems a bit more important than the arms, where you'd ideally have long sleeves of mail. It seems to have been a more common thing to use splint armour in more Eastern countries, true.) I just often notice how separate bracers made from various metal bits sown onto leather, or just leather seem to be a mandatory piece of any armour design, or a fantasy costume. And really, except for a few cases, like these hypothetical splint ones and the Indian (late period, not even medieval) steel ones, I can't recall seeing them being worn and used that way. The high medieval period, of course, had this covered by plate arms. For some reason we (artists) feel the need to put something on the forearms, otherwise the arms feel empty and a simple mail sleeve just offends us by not being tied up with a bracer. ;P Similarly, warriors throughout history seem to have been comfortable fighting without gloves. To us this seems strange and unsafe, so we give our characters at least (!) leather gloves, to protect their knuckles from getting chipped.

Could you post any examples? I vaguely recall some late indo persian ones, but that's about it.

Why against asymmetrical pauldrons? Do you use both your hands equally? Would you stand flat to your opponent, not one shoulder forward? To quote my blog shamelessly (again :D): http://janpospisil.blogspot.cz/2012/04/3-points-on-pauldrons-in-fantasy.html Bracers are another funny thing. As far as I know, they didn't exist. In history, as separate protective items the way they're portrayed in fantasy games. Some armour covered the forearm, sure. But except for use by archers, I am yet to see a real bracer used in combat.

Yeah, put aside the funny masks and the asymmetrical lonely pauldron, this is pretty good looking. Although, are those embroidered pants on the female, or is she wearing stockings? :D