home

Author Topic: Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons  (Read 4332 times)

Offline King of Fighters

  • Posts: 69
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« on: September 19, 2005, 05:28:22 PM »
Does anyone know where I could find this figure?

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sylvain.quirion/images/greens/images/kislevite.jpg

It came up while I was searching "Kislevite" on Google.

Offline rufus sparkfire

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 33357
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2005, 05:34:27 PM »
Hmmm. According to the site, it's been sculpted for Mordheim:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sylvain.quirion/siteanglais/fanatic/greensfan.htm

So it might be available from Fanatic eventually (those Sisters of Sigmar certainly are).
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!
If I wanted to.

Offline Kernschatten

  • Posts: 1462
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2005, 05:34:55 PM »
It is a "green" sculpted by Sylvain Quirion for Mordheim. When was it sculpted and will GW actually release it are the real questions.
"We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you. God damn you all to hell."

Offline Midaski

  • Sunny Sussex, England
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 11891
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2005, 06:13:05 PM »
I'll have to hunt it out, but I think it was used 'painted up' in the TownCryer issue that launched the Kislevite Warband.

I have made similar models with the Horse Archer metal torsoes on Militia plastic legs.
There are two torsoes in that firing position - one guy with jacket and furry hat, and the other has naked upper body and topknot.
 :wink:
Quote from: Gneisenau
Quote
Metal to Finecast - It is mostly a swap of medium. 

You mean they will be using Ouija boards instead of Tarot cards for their business plans from now on?

Offline Senor D

  • Posts: 504
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2005, 07:38:03 PM »
Ooh, I like that warrior priest there...

Hope he comes out soon...
yep.

Offline PLAY4FUN

  • Posts: 260
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2005, 02:14:09 AM »
That's interesting, the Sigmarite warrior-priest is wearing a sword (although he has a hammer on the accessory sprue).  I had assumed that they didn't carry edged weapons, partly because of the historical precedent for Christian clerics to fight with maces and partly because I'm not aware of any other Sigmarite priest figures (or similar, e.g. Sisters of Sigmar) carrying swords.  That said, I certainly haven't seen all the various figures in the Classic or Mordheim ranges.  Does anyone else know about Sigmarite priests using swords?
Isn't it great when you can make a model for less than the price of a cup of coffee instead of having to pay GW $30.00 for their version.

Offline Senor D

  • Posts: 504
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2005, 02:24:43 AM »
Christian clerics fought?

Didn't know that, tell me more.

I imagine that the use of hammers by Priests of Sigmar is mostly due to the weapon's particular significance for the Cult, rather than any sort of prohibition.
yep.

Offline Kernschatten

  • Posts: 1462
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2005, 03:33:31 AM »
Quote from: Senor D
Christian clerics fought?

Knightly orders during the Middle Ages came in two flavors, secular and religious. The religious orders were both knighted and ordained as monks. Think Knights Templar and Teutonic Knights for starts.

And let's not forget all the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and such who ran around in full armor, waving swords. (Pope Julius II comes to mind off the top of my head, he personally lead his troops in the field against the renegade Papl States.) Most of the upper echelons of the Catholic Church at one time came from the nobility. It was quite common for second and third sons (and so on) of noble houses to enter the clergy (in part to keep them busy from plotting against their fathers' heirs). Most of them would have been trained for knighthood from an early age.

@PLAY4FUN: I'm not familiar with the precedent for Christian cleris to wield maces.
"We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you. God damn you all to hell."

Offline towishimp

  • Posts: 1678
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2005, 05:40:38 AM »
I've never heard of any historical basis for the whole "Christian clerics can't use edged weapons."  That doesn't mean it's not out there, but I have read a fair bit about the middle ages.  I blame D&D for perpetuating this one, regardless of whether or not there's any historical truth to it.
One cannot be deeply responsive to the world without being saddened very often. -- Erich Fromm

Offline Rorrak

  • Posts: 1276
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2005, 06:14:03 AM »
I think the "Clerics use blunt weapons" actually comes from Role Playing games. I'm guessing here but they specialized in killing undead and blunt weapons hit skeletons better than edged.

Offline Border Prince

  • Posts: 346
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2005, 07:04:17 AM »
As I recall William the Conqueror's (half?) brother, Bishop Odo fought with him and used a blunt weapon as there was a prohibition on spilling blood. I think it was something to do with fighting other Christians (there are passages about not spilling the blood of people of the same faith in the bible), and was related to saying Mass, in which case it would not apply to religious orders.

Presumably he crushed skulls and broke limbs but only in a very gentle and clean manner.

Offline rufus sparkfire

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 33357
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2005, 08:02:02 AM »
Quote from: Border Prince
As I recall William the Conqueror's (half?) brother, Bishop Odo fought with him and used a blunt weapon as there was a prohibition on spilling blood.


As far as I know, it was against canonical law for a priest to shed blood. Or at least, it was against eccliesiastical tradition to do so. But there seems to be very little evidence to support this, and it wasn't followed universally.

Also, I've heard it said that some medieval priests used the mace so as to avoid 'taking up the sword', which was also forbidden.

 :?
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!
If I wanted to.

Offline Border Prince

  • Posts: 346
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2005, 09:07:43 AM »
I suppose (and this is purely conjecture) that a ban on taking up swords could be justified on a "separation of powers" ground (although that is an extremely anachronistic term). The sword was a traditional symbol of secular power (look at English coronation symbols and royal seals). To bear the sword would therefore potentially mark clerics as secular people and subject to the secular jurisdiction. Which of course was hotly disputed at times and therefore (by the Church at least) forbidden.

From a WFB perspective that can work through: clearly swords are symbols of authority in the Empire, just think of the Runefangs. An Elector Count's authority is tied to that sword. By contrast hammers are associated with a god, and from the church's perspective a higher authority. That could even play through into popular symbolism, giving a further nuance to why there was such an issue about handing over the Hammer of Sigmar from Karl Franz to He Who Should Not Have Been Introduced Into The Game. The return of the hammer by Luthor therefore can be seen as restoring the balance of power between church and state.

Offline FR1DAY

  • Posts: 3675
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2005, 10:40:53 AM »
I alway thought it was the spilling of blood issue. That is why the inqusition used fire for torture, as it quarterized the wound preventing bleeding and the spilling of blood, which was forbidden.

The models have been around for a few years. As Midaski said the kislevite was in the pictures of the kislev warband when they where released ages ago, I tried to get one then to no avail.  There is also another one with a great axe.

The sister are out as you know.

The other character I saw quite some time ago as well. They were due for release with the empire in flames book, but never made it. They would make great unit leaders or characters.
There are 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack.

So why you complaining!

Offline PLAY4FUN

  • Posts: 260
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2005, 12:23:05 PM »
@ Kernschatten: The answers by Rufus Sparkfire and Border Prince match my understanding of the historical situation.  Generally we're talking about clergy with both spiritual and secular responsibilities, such as Bishops and Abbots, who had some form of obligation for military service.   At least some of them carried maces for the reasons stated.  The practice wasn't universal and I hadn't considered the military orders.  

As an aside on the general issue of clerics in combat, my copy of Contamine's "War in the Middle Ages" has an anecdote about the chaplain to the Earl of Douglas, who was promoted to Archdeacon and Canon of Aberdeen for his military prowess against the English at the Battle of Otterburn, although he used an axe, not a mace.  There was clearly more than one way to get ahead in the Mediaeval Church!  In case any of our English members are concerned, I believe that proficiency at hitting the English with an axe is no longer a criterion for promotion for Scottish clergy  :wink: .  (I'm less sure about Scottish soccer fans :)  )
Isn't it great when you can make a model for less than the price of a cup of coffee instead of having to pay GW $30.00 for their version.

Offline Kernschatten

  • Posts: 1462
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2005, 03:23:11 PM »
I had forgotten about the Canonical Law prohibiting the spilling of blood. Now, I need to look into this more. Like I said, during the Middle Ages there was a large portion of the priesthood that came from nobility. Many of them would have been knighted and received their spurs. Hmmmm....

As far as clerics and RPGs, there was an article many years ago in the beginnings of the dungeon crawl days that put forth the argument that weapon restrictions for the classes had more to do with "training". A magic user could only use daggers and staffs (staves?) because they spent most of their time learning their trade, clerics only used blunt weapons because they required less training then the use of a sword and so on.
"We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you. God damn you all to hell."

Offline Border Prince

  • Posts: 346
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2005, 04:06:06 PM »
Quote
a large portion of the priesthood...came from nobility. Many of them would have been knighted and received their spurs.
Indeed. However, feudal obligations to fight were tied to land grants. As the clergy could not (at least in theory) receive land in a secular capacity, they would never need to actually fight (although some evidently chose to!).

In England clergy held land in "frankalmoign", otherwise known as free alms, which imposed spiritual (and possibly financial) obligations on the clergy, but no military obligations. Elsewhere (or where the church was a landlord of tenants holding by knights' service) the clergy would frequently compound their feudal obligations into a financial obligation, or appoint a deputy. You won't find this in books on the medieval church very easily (mainly as it varied between territories, and the universal aspects of medieval thought rarely discussed it), much better to look at Littleton's New Tenures for the situation in England, or commentaries on the Lombard Libri Feudorum.

And of course the clergy who did use swords might just have obtained dispensations. Nice and easy if you are Julius II of course, even without a doctrine of Papal infallibility. And are we also assuming that the opposition have not been excommunicated/the war is otherwise holy?

Offline Kernschatten

  • Posts: 1462
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2005, 04:20:08 PM »
Quote from: Border Prince
Quote
a large portion of the priesthood...came from nobility. Many of them would have been knighted and received their spurs.
Indeed. However, feudal obligations to fight were tied to land grants.

Excellent point. I wasn't thinking so much about feudal obligations as I was wondering how many nobles would willingly lay down their sword for a mace upon taking their priestly vows.
"We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you. God damn you all to hell."

Offline Border Prince

  • Posts: 346
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2005, 05:54:43 PM »
Quote
I was wondering how many nobles would willingly lay down their sword for a mace
Well any sample size would be small and based on atypical individuals. There can't have been many nobles in a position of power, prestige and influence who would choose to fight if they could avoid it.   However, such atypical individuals might simply have ignored the rules, after all, would you complain about an individual breaking the rules who had the power to damn you to hellfire and damnation and was perfectly willing to use weapons (edged or otherwise) to send you there?

Also, most nobles entering the church would have been prepared for that position from an early age: the usual trend (certainly North of the Alps) would be to have the eldest son trained for the usual military/governing role, with a second or third son expected to enter the church and educated accordingly. That doesn't me they wouldn't have had a standard noble education, but the emphasis would have been elsewhere than arms.

Offline Swan-of-War

  • Posts: 857
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2005, 08:01:08 PM »
HIJACK!
Check out my blog at Warriors of Mustache

Offline reiksmarshall

  • Posts: 1143
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2005, 08:11:05 PM »
Your point being? :lol: We are having a cultured discussion on the fine print of medieval religious war practices. The orogianl figure has been found, and know we are helping another come to terms with the bladed instrument on another we found on our merry travels! :-D

Officially you werent supposed to spill the blood of another christian if you were a priest, although that was ignored at certain times if needs be. However, how this applies to warhammer is moot indeed, as no other nation worships sigmar, so the need to preserve their soals is diminished (entirely in fact). Actually, the only times they need to use hammers and maces is when fighting rivals during civil wars, which hopefully dont occur all too often, or renegades or heretics because they havent confessed to their sins yet. All of which is rather gloomy as it involves fighting ourselves - as if we dont have enough enemies already!
Supreme Commander of the Emperor's glorious armies, Grand Marshall of the Guardians of the Reik and Founder of the Anti-Helbalster Foundation!

Offline Dazgrim

  • Posts: 545
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2005, 04:04:56 PM »
That has always been my understanding on the idea behind no bladed weapons for priests. Hammers and maces were considered acceptable as these weapons were assumed to cause crush damage without causing bleeding, similar were the tortures used by the Inquisition, things like branding and stretching on the rack were seen as admissible as no blood was produced using these tortures. However, I disagree as to the concept of the ban only applying to fellow Christians, as I read some where that in one of the witch trials the accused was released as her accusers had used blades to extract their confession. Of course one of the main ways to discover wether a person was a witch was to prick them, witches were supposed to be marked by the devil around their genitalia such that this mark could not bleed and could not feel pain.
Following the witch hunter idea I think that WP should be allowed crossbows as these are the 'typical' witchhunter weapon.
Don't hug me I'm British, we only show affection to dogs and horses.

Offline Hagen_von_Loewenstein

  • Posts: 2113
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2005, 04:24:11 PM »
Well, there was something only briefly adressed, but how does the bible say?
"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword". I guess that might make the most sense. While the saying (and large parts of the bible, mostly new testament) say, that is NOT ok to kill ANYBODY, the medieval catholic church wasn't quite SO opposed to killing for mere political and religious reasons. So they simply didn't pick up the sword (as the bible prohibited that) but some other weapon.
There are other examples where clerics in the middle ages exploited such little literal subtlenesses. During lenting season, catholics are normally not allowed to eat meat. Fish is ok. So monks in the middle ages pressed their meat into fish-shape and called it "fish", so they were allowed to eat it.

EDIT: This canonical law about bloodshed might have been due to an interpretation of the above line, as well as other parts of the bible (mostly old testament) that said no believer should shed the blood of another.

Offline Border Prince

  • Posts: 346
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2005, 05:48:45 PM »
@ Reiksmarshall, indeed the point about not worrying about non-believers in the WHFB context is a good one. At which point we can always revert to the symbolism argument: if hammers were good enough for Sigmar against the unrighteous, who are his clerics to argue? They would also be useful for demonstrating the power of Sigmar's church to the faithful around the priest: the hammer is the symbol of that church, and to see the hammer smiting the unholy/deranged/green would be a reminder of how wonderful the church as a whole really is.

Interestingly, the old Grand Theogonist (Volkmar) did not wield a hammer, but a staff as his symbol of office. Admittedly the model had a griffon holding a hammer as decoration on the staff, but at that point the most senior cleric was clearly not using a war hammer. He did have a fair few other symbols of the church doted around though...

@ Dazgrim, Torture is something very different from combat, and had very different rules. Really. Rules on torture were huge, incredibly detailed and usually controlled by the secular arm (especially in Spain. Evidently the Papal States were in a rather different situation). The basis of the rules might have been similar (they would both use the same texts after all), but it is probably not legitimate to infer from one to another.

Furthermore, on your reasoning one could not use a knife because torture was a means of determining (or at least proving) guilt. If it failed, the accused was not guilty. As such, there is the possibility that the tortured party was actually a good Christian, not a witch. To have used a knife to determine that would have risked violating the rule if the tortured were found to be innocent. Presumably "pricking" could be done without a bladed weapon (there would be nothing to stop the use of pointed, but not sharp instruments, after all. It just takes a little inventiveness, and people are so very inventive when it comes to being unpleasant to each other), so could be a means of determining guilt, if done correctly.

@ Hagen_v_L, yes it probably is Old Testament stuff (that was certainly what sprang to my mind), although I think there are some relevant bits in a couple of the Epistles. The instruction in the Garden of Gethsemene to put away the sword probably also helped: all clergy claimed direct spiritual descent from the apostles, and the Pope directly from Peter (the sword wielder). For the medieval mind such succession could also be a succession of a divine command.

On the (largely unrelated) subject of medieval idiosyncracies, one of the best from many people's perspective: Lent was a period of fasting (and some other occasions). As such monks were required to drink less beer (slightly unusual as beer was usually a safer thing to drink than water, and milk was also prohibited, but there we are). To solve a perceived problem, the (Bavarian) monks then brewed beer at twice the strength. All problems (other than dehydration) solved. And you probably wouldn't notice the dehydration if you drank quickly enough.

Offline Guvnor

  • Posts: 1791
  • I'm just north of London
Figure ID - NOW a discussion about Priestly weapons
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2005, 06:12:17 PM »
On the following of the saints - St george is the patron saint of england for killing a dragon. (and i was born on his day :-D )

He, I think, not too sure here, is not well documented, became a priest and rooted out other evils afterwards until his death. His signature weapon was a sword and is considered a relic (should it be found).

On the point of torture, they could use a knife as long as it is not a bladed weapon, i.e. a kitchen knife would be fine.

Cutting the flesh is against the rules but how many people would live to tell the tale?

Out of interest, @ Border Prince, Although torture could prove innnocence i cannot find one case where someone has been released from torture and declared innocent. It probably wasn't worth letting them go after what the people did too them.

EDIT: @ bofto sorry my mistake, didn't look closely enough, thats just what I've been taught at school. :wink:
I have one sentence in response to the engineer and mechanical: Empire is post-feudal age, not post-nuclear age!