Excalibur's scabbard

[Shannon]

OK, for anyone not familiar with the topic, Excalibur is most commonly considered to be the legendary sword of the equally legendary King Arthur Pendragon, given to him by the Lady of the Lake, as arranged by the wizard Merlin, Arthur's mentor. When Arthur receives the sword, it comes with an elaborately tooled and bejewelled scabbard. Merlin tells Arthur that the scabbard has its own special powers, and even says that it's more valuable than the sword.

This is where it gets a bit tricky. There are various versions of what the scabbard actually does. Some stories say that it protects the wearer from mortal harm. Others say that the wearer cannot lose blood from any wound.

My question is: If we take the latter version in particular as literally true, i.e. the scabbard simply prevents bleeding, what does that actually mean in terms of preventing/mitigating injuries? Bones can still be broken, bruising or internal bleeding could still occur, a piercing wound (such as a bullet or lance or arrow) could still do enormous damage - you just wouldn't lose any blood.

I'm trying to use Excalibur and its scabbard in a story set in the present and would appreciate any insight anyone could bring to the question of how the scabbard should function. It shouldn't be a no-limits invulnerability device, making the wearer unkillable; in fact, I think it's more interesting if its power is rather more limited, but I want to be consistent.

(BTW, in the legends the scabbard was later said to have been stolen by Morgan le Fay and was unrecoverable.)

[Venator]

My question is: If we take the latter version in particular as literally true, i.e. the scabbard simply prevents bleeding, what does that actually mean in terms of preventing/mitigating injuries? Bones can still be broken, bruising or internal bleeding could still occur, a piercing wound (such as a bullet or lance or arrow) could still do enormous damage - you just wouldn't lose any blood.

I guess your first consideration is how you want to define 'blood loss'. If you can't lose blood from a wound you... well, that. Just wouldn't bleed. But you could also define it as blood not being able to be lost from blood vessels either, which would essentially give the wearer ubermench insta-clotting blood.

In the first example... though I majored in toxicology, my knowledge of trauma and injury is rusty, but I have to wonder if simply not losing blood from a wound could actually be more hazardous than beneficial, fluid filling internal spaces or going septic and such.

Either way, your would still be susceptible to breaking bones, bruising, organ damage... and piercing weapons as you said would still be very effective, along with maces and bludgeoning weapons.

[Zixinus]

If I think about it with what little I know about the likely environment he is in, it doesn't give him an advantage over an opponent. It would just increase the odds of survival.

When wearing armor (full chain-mail clothing with a few plates, with a combination of hardened leather and padding underneath) you are already protected from cuts that kill you by making you lose blood. Your mayor arteries are covered. Attacks that manage to get through the armor that just manage to make you bleed will probably not kill you instantly and thus not make you lose the fight. However in a prolonged battle it would be very much beneficial.

It would be very handy to avoid "oh shit, I was bleeding out" moment. That is probably more common than one would think with armored fighting. Imagine that you were fighting one intense battle to the next, high on adrenaline and your only warning is that you are suddenly getting very weak. You have no idea that you were cut or stabbed because you didn't notice the wound when you got it and your clothes are already covered in your enemy's blood. So it would be very valuable as it would prevent that.

But it would be far from make you invulnerable even in an unarmored dual. Bones aren't the only thing you can get at with a sword: cutting tendons and/or nerves will lose you the fight faster than blood loss would have. Your hands, a not uncommon target, would be just as vulnerable as before. If you lose a tendon in your sword-arm your lost the fight. Same with a leg. An attack at the neck might still be a quick fight-ender due to the cartilage and your windpipe.
Targeting the arteries is actually harder to do in a fight than it sounds, so they aren't a high priority target (unless you are fighting someone with inhuman precision, skill and control). It's the head and chest that are primary spots (in fencing anyway). Legs are secondary targets because they are harder to reach, due to the fact that your arms start out of your shoulders and not your hips.

Overall, from an beginner's viewpoint, I would see that the scabbard would be tremendously valuable to a good fighter. It wouldn't necessarily save him but it would allow him to survive some smaller mistakes that would be the end of other fighters. But a brasher fighter relying on this wouldn't really get much farther than otherwise would.

[Zixinus]

Oh, forgot to add: you can also cut the muscles themselves. That's just as good as cutting tendons and are a much bigger target too.

By smaller mistakes I mean that the thing would not at all help you against a well-made competent attack. Against stuff like accidentally or barely-made cuts, small stuff that's where it would be useful. But those kind of cuts will not immediately stop you anyway.

Also, it would not be really a visible defense or give an aura of invulnerability. Anyone seeing that a cut isn't bleeding will just assume that the opponent made a bad attack and barely pierced the skin.

[Shannon]

Thanks guys, all good points and things that I was concerned about. I've been practicing kendo for over 12 years and have been lucky enough to work with some sensei who also have skills in kenjutsu. Interestingly, there are strikes that directly target the brachial and femoral arteries of someone in samurai armour, but only when the target is lured into a compromising position. Of course, severing tendons, muscles, limbs and disembowlement is all good stuff, especially with an unarmoured opponent. Even when armoured, try going up against someone who can really use a naginata while you're using a sword!

Anyway, back to the story. A bit of context: The protagonist is a former soldier, medically discharged, who 'discovers' Excalibur and its scabbard in a cave after having been recruited to fight Deep Ones and Cthulu cultists. Excalibur itself is portrayed as a spatha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha), and actively conveys some knowledge of how to use it to the protagonist (i.e. it shifts his feet, adjusts his balance and the angle of his swing etc). Being Excalibur, it also cleaves through just about any personal protection someone can wear, but it's not going to be killing tanks!

I want the scabbard to be able to do enough to keep the protagonist alive against both modern firearms and more primitive weapons without making him invulnerable. If I shift its protection level more toward the 'prevents mortal injury' part of the spectrum, then I should avoid all the potential complications that come with simple ultra-clotting. I still want to limit its protection, though. Perhaps this:
1. Immediately prevents external blood loss;
2. Prevents infection;
3. Counters poison;
4. Prevents the wearer from going into shock;
5. Mitigates/prevents major damage to bones and tissues by providing enough resistance or healing to turn a crippling or fatal blow into something survivable that will heal within hours or days.
6. Maybe it turns aside critical attacks to something that still injures but less seriously? Say, an attack would sever a limb - instead, the wearer suffers the pain of the attack and may be severely bruised, but doesn't lose the limb.

All this is sounding something like a Wolverine-esque healing factor, but IIRC, back in the old days, his power wasn't nearly so uber as it is now.

Thoughts?

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that gunshot wounds are almost invariably disabling, life-threatening, or both... unless they just barely even touch your body. I don't know how you go about making Excalibur (or its scabbard) capable of protecting the protagonist against bullets without making him outright invulnerable to him; if they still pierce his flesh as normal, they will do devastating harm.

And he's already at the disadvantage of bringing a sword to a gunfight...

[Zixinus]

Didn't Arthur in the legend also have a whole host of other magical weapons, armor and tools? I recall from QI that he had a magical spear at least, with its own name.

If you want to give him more changes, why not just pick a shield that cannot brake and thus will be able to stop bullets*? As well as soak up the kinetic energy of the impacts? Combined with Excalibur's ability to assist the user in its correct user, such a shield would truly give him a chance to survive a gun encounter as well as fighting someone inhumanely strong/fast. Yet it would still keep him vulnerable and quite mortal.

A shield would have really been a suitable weapon for King Arthur's time and I would have a hard time imagining that he didn't have one. So it would make sense for the sword to be paired with a shield. It isn't just a movable wall (you use that way against archers), but can be better summed up as a weapon against the enemy's weapon. Have a look at this video to have a better understanding, just wait until minute 3. I recall that for some reason the Japanese didn't use shields so this might be something you aren't familiar with.

*Shields used on the battlefield were never made out of metal. At best they had metal trimming around the edges.

[Me2005]

If you want to give him more changes, why not just pick a shield that cannot brake and thus will be able to stop bullets*? As well as soak up the kinetic energy of the impacts?

Congratulations on coming up with Captain America's shield. Perhaps that was taken from Arthurian legend, but it's so ingrained in pop-culture now that you probably shouldn't use it for a new character.

I like the idea of the scabbard being somehow powerful. Preventing bleeding is a pretty big deal by itself. I think more is made of gunshot wounds than there really is to them (it's not the "Boom, headshot" portrayed in media - many people survive being shot) and that blood-loss prevention alone would be very beneficial. I'd say 1-4 are all that are needed on your list of things to allow/prevent, 5 & 6 seem to go too far into 'neigh-invulnerable' territory. You'd have a more mortal-seeming character - especially if they found themselves in a situation where the scabbard was taken and they started bleeding or went into shock because they didn't have the benefits it bestowed.

Something else to think about - if Excalibur can slice through 'personal protection'-level armor, it could probably slice through a car door, most home or business-grade front-doors, furniture, small trees, and other obscure-use stuff. Contrasting it against regular swords that can't do that would be interesting. Note though - modern knives can pierce all that stuff, but most probably can't slice it. Being able to slice it would probably imply that you could hack away at a tank and eventually get through (as if you were using a can opener), or pierce it's armor (not into it's engine block or other solid-steel parts though). Frankly, that'd be pretty cool too.

[Zixinus]

Congratulations on coming up with Captain America's shield. Perhaps that was taken from Arthurian legend, but it's so ingrained in pop-culture now that you probably shouldn't use it for a new character.

Yes that did occur to me, but why fix something that isn't broke?

Again, it would be odd for King Arthur not to have used a shield (magical or otherwise). Armor wasn't that good at the time. If the OP's character knew contemporary sword use that actually meant sword-and-shield, especially for a military man like a king. European fencing sticks with using shields and bucklers for a very long time, practically all the way until swords are still practical (that's where the word "swashbuckler" comes from, someone carrying a buckler alongside their sword). Also, I don't recall the Captain's shield able to magically soak up kinetic energy as that's all the Captain (although it's tendency to come back to the Captain after he throws it is probably magical).

If I were facing a medieval-esque battle than I'd have more use for a shield than for the OP's scabbard. The scabbard might help be survive but the shield is going to actively save my life. If I were fighting with a one-handed sword I'd try to get a shield or buckler. If I were facing firearms, I'd get a modern ballistic shield just to get a change to get close.

A shield that doesn't brake is far from as much of a stretch as a sword that can cut through metal armor. The kinetic-soaking bit isn't that important, again it isn't just a mobile wall.

I don't know if it was part of the Arthurian legend or not. I am not familiar with it, aside the tidbit I already mentioned. But I wouldn't be surprised if it had been part of it. Or other medieval literature giving magical shields next to magical swords.

Besides, just because a pop icon uses it doesn't mean you shouldn't. Why should the OP's character distance himself from the Captain?

[Me2005]

Yes that did occur to me, but why fix something that isn't broke? ...
Besides, just because a pop icon uses it doesn't mean you shouldn't. Why should the OP's character distance himself from the Captain?

Because it isn't broken. Giving the appearance that you copied the good 'Cap would likely be a turn-off as coat-tail riding to many. Especially with the recently released and highly successful movies and television shows.

Again, it would be odd for King Arthur not to have used a shield (magical or otherwise). ...If I were facing a medieval-esque battle than I'd have more use for a shield than for the OP's scabbard. The scabbard might help be survive but the shield is going to actively save my life. If I were fighting with a one-handed sword I'd try to get a shield or buckler. If I were facing firearms, I'd get a modern ballistic shield just to get a change to get close.

No disagreement there, just saying that giving a man a 'special' shield that can stop bullets as it's power wouldn't be unique.

[Crazedwraith]

If you've got a knight themed Hero who is going to think twice about him having a shield? If its not round and he doesn't throw it. No one will think 'ripped off captain america', they will think 'standard issue knight gear'.

[Zixinus]

No disagreement there, just saying that giving a man a 'special' shield that can stop bullets as it's power wouldn't be unique.

OK then, how do you propose allowing a sword-wielding guy survive a fight with firearms involved? Without making him somehow invulnerable or super-powered? Block the bullets with his sword?

Oh, and it turns out that Arthur did have a shield named Priwen or Pridwen. In some sources it is made out of giant diamond and was impregnable to spears (which would also probably mean lances). Making it stand up to bullets wouldn't be a stretch compared to that. It was so polished that it could make reflect glare, which would actually be useful against firearm-wielders and a good way to distinguish it from the Captain's shield.

Because it isn't broken. Giving the appearance that you copied the good 'Cap would likely be a turn-off as coat-tail riding to many. Especially with the recently released and highly successful movies and television shows.

Again, so what? As long as the OP's book doesn't advertise itself based on this, it would just be something that makes sense. Is the OP's character going in only with a shield, is turned into a supersoldier, fights in the second world war, dresses in a spandex uniform and paints himself in the colors of the his nation's flag?

Calling it coat-tailing is a bit premature.

[Ahriman238]

Congratulations on coming up with Captain America's shield. Perhaps that was taken from Arthurian legend, but it's so ingrained in pop-culture now that you probably shouldn't use it for a new character.

Next you'll be saying this character can't have Arthur's Cloak of Invisibility (well, mantle), because that was also in Harry Potter. Though I mostly remember him having it from secondhand sources.

Arthur had three swords, first the Sword from the Stone, sometimes called Caliburnus or Caliburn, which was destroyed in his first duel with Pellinore (who joined the Knights of the Round Table later.) Then Excalibur, gifted to him by the Lady of the Lake and returned to her upon his death. His third was Clarent, the sword of peace which he never wielded in battle but used to knight whomever he found worthy. This sword was stolen by Mordred and eventually used to kill Arthur, thereafter being known as the Coward's Blade.

He had a dagger, Carnwennan (little white-hilt) which in some accounts could shroud the user in shadow, and a lance named Rhongomyniad (spear-slayer) that always struck true. And a named helmet, Goswhit, no special powers mentioned AFAIK.

Past that, if you're just looking for magic items of an Arthurian theme you have the Round Table, which Merlin made in imitation of a magic silver table that served as pedestal for the Grail. The grail itself, naturally. The Seat Perilous, with flaming words proclaiming that only the worthiest knight could sit on it, and would strike dead any who dared. Gawain and Lancelot also had named blades.

Lancelot is usually described as having a magic ring. In the stories I grew up with, he could turn invisible by twisting the ring to the right, one rotation to the left would turn his armor scarlet, another turn blue, then black, then back to it's normal pearly white. He mostly used it to enter tournaments multiple times. As an adult, I've heard it said that the ring protected him from all sorceries and illusions would wither before his gaze and trouble neither him nor his companions. Another talisman is the Stone of Giramphiel, which was claimed by Gawain in battle and stopped both magic and dragon's flame. A green sash that would stop a sword-blow, and green armor that was impenetrable. Tristan had a named bow, Fail-Not, though I don't recall it necessarily having magic powers.

Plus a cup/glove/mantle that could only be used or fit properly on a faithful woman.

And wasn't there a heap of magic items in the story of the Foundling Prince? The sword of an evil giant-king, the blood of the Black Witch, a fairy boar that carried magic scissors, razor and comb?

Plus in some versions Prydwain was Arthur's impossibly swift ship.

[Me2005]

If you've got a knight themed Hero who is going to think twice about him having a shield? If its not round and he doesn't throw it. No one will think 'ripped off captain america', they will think 'standard issue knight gear'.

Eh, this quote:

If you want to give him more changes, why not just pick a shield that cannot brake and thus will be able to stop bullets*? As well as soak up the kinetic energy of the impacts?

conjured up visions of Captain America, whose shield does exactly that. Using a non-round shield or a ballistic shield would be fine.

OK then, how do you propose allowing a sword-wielding guy survive a fight with firearms involved? Without making him somehow invulnerable or super-powered? Block the bullets with his sword?

Perhaps by taking cover, wearing body armor, and occasionally getting hit, the way modern soldiers (which the OP specifies the character as) do every day.

But I'll concede - he could have a shield. I think it was mostly your wording that made me think of this character charging in shield-first in a way overly reminiscent of the Captain.

Personally, I think a story about a modern soldier using mostly modern tactics but carrying around this sword for specialty use and mostly its healing powers would be more compelling, however.

[Zixinus]

To the OP: I do have to echo that point 5 and 6 is a bit on the "making him invulnerable" type.

The idea that it would give a sort-of healing factor is interesting though. It would certainly explain how a conqueror renown for his bravery in battle managed to survive so many of them. It would also explain why Merlin would think the sheath to be more valuable than the sword itself (unless he's referring to the jewels). Maybe scale the factor down so that mayor wounds still take weeks or months to fully heal (while they would otherwise need years and physical therapy)?

But as far as making your character not invulnerable, you just have to decide how useful the sheath should be. There is a difference in helping survive a fight and win a fight.

Perhaps by taking cover, wearing body armor, and occasionally getting hit, the way modern soldiers (which the OP specifies the character as) do every day.

Good point, I just assumed that the OP talked about how the scabbard would be important and thought his character is stuck with a sword. I realized that him just picking up a gun and using it properly is the more sensible option after I made the post.
Though then the character is just in regular gun battles which is less interesting.

[Ahriman238]

I guess I should have asked before listing all magic I could think of. Shannon, how much or how little are you planning to invoke the Arthurian Mythos here? Cause if it's a one-off, guy finds magic scabbard goes on to have unrelated adventures, that's fine. But if he's going to become embroiled in a search for Arthurian relics or ancient quests and monsters, well you'll want to do some more research.

[Me2005]

Though then the character is just in regular gun battles which is less interesting.

I think the sword could be very useful against the mythical creatures he is also expecting to fight. And against the occasional door/tank/body armored opponent/other odd situation the character finds himself in where a regular rifle won't solve the problem, but a sword with magical cutting power might be beneficial.

And swords don't run out of ammunition

[Darmalus]

I'm reminded of the character from the... Well World series, I think. What if, in addition to super clotting, it just make the wielder lucky? If a bullet can miss a major artery, it does. If a 50 cal sniper round can punch through him and miss every major organ and go out his backside, it does. He can get raked by giant claws and while they tear skin and muscle they fail to sever any nerves. But if a dragon bites his head off... He's dead, Jim.

Basically he gets to act like an action hero where anything that isn't obviously instantly fatal is just a painful flesh wound. Thinking in RPG terms, he can't be critically hit and all attacks do minimum damage.

[Shannon]

Thanks, people. I meant to respond last night, but my internet connection had other ideas . . .

So:

Didn't Arthur in the legend also have a whole host of other magical weapons, armor and tools? I recall from QI that he had a magical spear at least, with its own name.

I truly hadn't considered that. My initial concept was just Excalibur and its scabbard as an edge against the Cthulu Mythos - kind of Earth mythology vs alien mythology. Neil Gaiman had a similar idea in his short story Only the End of the World Again (Lovecraft's Monsters, Ed. Ellen Datlow).

A shield would have really been a suitable weapon for King Arthur's time and I would have a hard time imagining that he didn't have one. So it would make sense for the sword to be paired with a shield. It isn't just a movable wall (you use that way against archers), but can be better summed up as a weapon against the enemy's weapon. Have a look at this video to have a better understanding, just wait until minute 3.

OK then, how do you propose allowing a sword-wielding guy survive a fight with firearms involved? Without making him somehow invulnerable or super-powered? Block the bullets with his sword?

Oh, and it turns out that Arthur did have a shield named Priwen or Pridwen. In some sources it is made out of giant diamond and was impregnable to spears (which would also probably mean lances). Making it stand up to bullets wouldn't be a stretch compared to that. It was so polished that it could make reflect glare, which would actually be useful against firearm-wielders and a good way to distinguish it from the Captain's shield.

That's brilliant, thank you. The video is particularly useful, since I have little practical knowledge as to using a shield (my experience being limited to single sword, naginata, or paired long and short swords). It just didn't occur to me to use a shield, which is why I was getting myself in a tangle about the scabbard being able to sufficiently protect him. There will be no blocking bullets with Excalibur - he isn't a Jedi!

To elaborate a bit more, the mythological "Arthur" that I'm basing this on follows the model of a Romano-British or Celtic war leader, as in some theories. That's why I made Excalibur a spatha. If "Arthur" served in a cavalry unit, then he could've used an oval cavalry shield very easily. I'm leaving the background of Arthur deliberately vague.

I recall that for some reason the Japanese didn't use shields so this might be something you aren't familiar with.

Quite right. Early Japanese warriors did use sword and shield, but with the rise of the samurai, who were originally horse archers, they fell out of use. Two-handed weapons figured much more prominently and the only shields were those fixed shields used for cover on the battlefield.

Perhaps by taking cover, wearing body armor, and occasionally getting hit, the way modern soldiers (which the OP specifies the character as) do every day.

Good point, I just assumed that the OP talked about how the scabbard would be important and thought his character is stuck with a sword. I realized that him just picking up a gun and using it properly is the more sensible option after I made the post.
Though then the character is just in regular gun battles which is less interesting.

Yup. In fact, when he first finds out what he's got, and another character wonders if he got it because he's a soldier, he says something like "I would've preferred an M4 carbine." But in the situation he finds himself in, he doesn't have a gun, he has a sword that'll show him how to use it and cut through most things, plus a scabbard that'll keep him alive long enough to do so. Though I doubt it'd save him from a shoggoth.

I'm reminded of the character from the... Well World series, I think. What if, in addition to super clotting, it just make the wielder lucky? If a bullet can miss a major artery, it does. If a 50 cal sniper round can punch through him and miss every major organ and go out his backside, it does. He can get raked by giant claws and while they tear skin and muscle they fail to sever any nerves. But if a dragon bites his head off... He's dead, Jim.

Basically he gets to act like an action hero where anything that isn't obviously instantly fatal is just a painful flesh wound. Thinking in RPG terms, he can't be critically hit and all attacks do minimum damage.

Maybe you're thinking of Achilles from Dan Simmons' Ilium and Olympos? There is zero probability of actually hitting him unless you're fated to do so.

[Shannon]

I guess I should have asked before listing all magic I could think of. Shannon, how much or how little are you planning to invoke the Arthurian Mythos here? Cause if it's a one-off, guy finds magic scabbard goes on to have unrelated adventures, that's fine. But if he's going to become embroiled in a search for Arthurian relics or ancient quests and monsters, well you'll want to do some more research.

I think the sword could be very useful against the mythical creatures he is also expecting to fight. And against the occasional door/tank/body armored opponent/other odd situation the character finds himself in where a regular rifle won't solve the problem, but a sword with magical cutting power might be beneficial.

And swords don't run out of ammunition

OK, so he's a modern soldier in a modern world. The group he's with tries to prevent an invasion by the Deep Ones and their human agents (who have access to all sorts of weird magi-tech, being an ancient civilisation that worships immensely powerful horrors from beyond spacetime), and fails. Things go downhill from there. Resources will become scarce in a world full of monsters, which is why having a magical sword and some magical protection is useful.

The idea of searching out other relics, Arthurian or otherwise, makes sense in such a world (especially the shield, which I might add to the initial part of the story). In case you're wondering, his finding of Excalibur isn't an accident - it's arranged by an immortal, semi-benevolent Morgan le Fay. Since she has a thing for testing heroes, sending him a on a long quest to find the means to defeat the minions of Cthulhu makes sense. Thanks for the idea!

[Spoonist]

You should really check out Camelot 3000. Its a gamechanging comic from the 80s. But its got too many of the elements you describe for comfort.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes that did occur to me, but why fix something that isn't broke? ...
Besides, just because a pop icon uses it doesn't mean you shouldn't. Why should the OP's character distance himself from the Captain?

Because it isn't broken. Giving the appearance that you copied the good 'Cap would likely be a turn-off as coat-tail riding to many. Especially with the recently released and highly successful movies and television shows.

It would not be hard to make "guy with Excalibur and a magical shield" distinct from Captain America. Especially if there's regular use of Arthurian mythology.

To the OP: I do have to echo that point 5 and 6 is a bit on the "making him invulnerable" type.

The idea that it would give a sort-of healing factor is interesting though. It would certainly explain how a conqueror renown for his bravery in battle managed to survive so many of them. It would also explain why Merlin would think the sheath to be more valuable than the sword itself (unless he's referring to the jewels). Maybe scale the factor down so that mayor wounds still take weeks or months to fully heal (while they would otherwise need years and physical therapy)?

Fair enough. Note, though, that Alexander the Great had a very active career as a conqueror in real life, and mostly managed to avoid serious injury except on one occasion. It's a lot easier to get away with that when you have a small core of comrades (the Companions, the Knights of the Round Table), who accompany you personally into battle and will literally get between you and enemy swords if you're temporarily unable to defend yourself.

The combination of good armor (which protects you from incidental weapon blows and most arrows) and bodyguards (who protect you from someone shoving you to the ground and jamming a dagger into the gaps in your armor or something) is pretty hard to beat.

[Zixinus]

Fair enough. Note, though, that Alexander the Great had a very active career as a conqueror in real life, and mostly managed to avoid serious injury except on one occasion. It's a lot easier to get away with that when you have a small core of comrades (the Companions, the Knights of the Round Table), who accompany you personally into battle and will literally get between you and enemy swords if you're temporarily unable to defend yourself.

The combination of good armor (which protects you from incidental weapon blows and most arrows) and bodyguards (who protect you from someone shoving you to the ground and jamming a dagger into the gaps in your armor or something) is pretty hard to beat.

I didn't mean that it would help him survive the carrier of a conqueror without those. I meant that it would help him survive it with atop of those precautions. Also it would given him a bit more security if he personally leads a charge and such.

Not to mention that if Arthur got these magical stuff originally, he probably needed it himself to kill alien monsters from beyond.