#1 Posted by KingOfAsh (3621 posts) - - Show Bio

Fufill my curiousity.

#2 Posted by Lord_Johnathan (3300 posts) - - Show Bio

Joan of Arc was real, and therefore just human, all sources on King Arthur give him pretty superhuman abilities.

But I'll go the way of Buckshot and it ends with Arthur bedding the maid of France.

#3 Edited by WillPayton (9548 posts) - - Show Bio

Arthur easily. He was a knight with real leadership and battle skills. Joan was just a crazy girl with charisma. She got lucky that she didnt get all her men killed, and they thought it was because God was helping them. No god is going to help her win against Arthur.

#4 Posted by KingOfAsh (3621 posts) - - Show Bio

@Lord_Johnathan said:

Joan of Arc was real, and therefore just human, all sources on King Arthur give him pretty superhuman abilities.

But I'll go the way of Buckshot and it ends with Arthur bedding the maid of France.

Is King Arthur real I wonder?

@WillPayton said:

Arthur easily. He was a knight with real leadership and battle skills. Joan was just a crazy girl with charisma. She got lucky that she didnt get all her men killed, and they thought it was because God was helping them. No god is going to help her win against Arthur.

#5 Posted by SNascimento (441 posts) - - Show Bio

If Arthur was anything near what he was in the Warlord Chronicles he would win.

#6 Edited by Lord_Johnathan (3300 posts) - - Show Bio

@KingOfAsh:

It seems likely there was a king who ruled much of modern day Britain who fought against the Saxons and was highly regarded by his people, or perhaps several great kings of dark age Britain whose deeds over time were merged into a single account. The most likely hypothesis speculates that he was a benevolent (by the time's standards) monarch based in what we now call Wales with highly sound and fair judgement and leadership (again by the time's standards) and likely brought his land economic prosperity (again, by the time and locale's standards, the Romanized British Kingdom would probably considered dirt poor compared to 1500s England). And of course; for a time helped keep the germanic (and pagan) Angle, Saxon, and Jute invaders pouring in from Scandinavia and central-northern Germany.

Given that in these days monarchs were expected to hold their own in a fight and lead the army into battle during times of crisis, it's highly likely that he was a skilled warrior His equipment would likely be very roman in style, perhaps with some influence from the native celtic people. I'd imagine he'd wear something like a well decorated and suit of Lorica Hamata (Roman chainmail) armor with greaves, and arm-guards and an especially stylized helmet to denote his kingship, likely of a Heddenheim-esque style as was typical of late roman cavalry.

By the time the Romans ditched Britain and the heavily romanized natives tried to make their own little Rome, the famed rectangular scutum shield was ditched for the oval shaped Clipeus shield, which was usually not quite as strong as a Scutum, but was substantially cheaper and quicker to make, and given the dire straits Rome was in at that time, being as cheap as possible while still being effective was a necessity. Arthur himself would have probably had some reinforcement to his shield, unlikely to be much more than some strategically placed metal strips to better hold it together, maybe a bit of added thickness on his shield.

His weaponry would likely be similar to that of the later Roman empire, where the shorter gladius that carried the republic and the dynasty of the Caesars was ditched for the longer Spatha, which used to be a cavalry sword. Late roman soldiers also brought along a thrusting spear called the "Hasta" which replaced the sword as the primary weapon for Roman soldiers, as the Spatha was too long to be slashed in tight formation. Given that this is an individual duel, he'd probably just use whatever is more convenient or comfortable to him. I will note that a spear wielder will typically beat a sword wielder who is otherwise identically equipped and equally skilled by repeatedly stabbing at the sword user while backing away until the sword swinger dies the proverbial death of a thousand cuts...or maybe just one if the Spear user gets an early kill shot. Finally, he also would have a "Pugio" or Dagger. But no one cares about knives in a sword fight.

Ranged late roman weapons consisted of a throwing spear called the Verrutum, the heaviest of the javelins the romans used, the shorter lanceae, the oversized weighted dart known as the Plumbatae which had a lead tip and you could easily carry a half dozen of. Archers would use a recurved composite bow and maybe an early form of crossbow called the "manuballistae". But I doubt that Arthur would have used either kind of bow and even the Javelins are a bit iffy at best.

Joan on the other hand was likely to have been equipped with her Arming or "Bastard" sword, a lance for usage while on horseback, the finest suit of plate armor that could be found in France at the time (and while the Germans are hands down the best medieval armor makers, French plate armor was still very well crafted, it's just that gothic plate armor is godlike in it's beauty and functionality and French armor is just amazing), perhaps a small shield such as a buckler to provide protection while still allowing her to use her sword two handed if she wished, and I highly doubt she carried any ranged weapons,

Joan's equipment is definitely superior in most aspects, but her combat ability is questionable given that not all agree as to whether she actually killed anyone or even swung a weapon in anger or not; while all accounts say that Arthur fought in the front lines against any foe his Kingdom faced and was so good at it that his skill became legendary.

#7 Posted by The Stegman (25015 posts) - - Show Bio

Arthur because. 
 
 

#8 Posted by KingOfAsh (3621 posts) - - Show Bio

@Lord_Johnathan: Thank you