Joerg

Yes, and Sartarites have made Nochet their biggest urban presence despite that problem. The death of Sarotar was followed by a number of violent deaths, probably including ancestresses of Hendira. Relationships between House Norinel and the Sartar dynasty were best described by "secret war". True. After the Opening, there was a well-established Sartarite presence in Nochet. That may have had to do with the death of Tarkalor at Grizzley Peak. Tarkalor was the last of the people involved in that secret war. Basically, over the course of fifty years, a Sartarite presence worth about five tribes has been established in Nochet. The later arrivals will have been sponsored or at least promoted by earlier arrivals, but how did the early arrivals find acceptance in this Grandmother-ruled city? I doubt it, unless there is a permanent Puppeteer presence in Nochet. The Puppeteers are a tribe unto themselves, a tightly knit group of entertainers and magicians. There is that possibility, although I think for Sartar a visit at Ezel would have been more important. Sartar was well versed with Heortland cities. And he may have been the first Larnsti in at least half a millennium to have left Hendrikiland. Not quite the beginning of the kingdom, but possibly the early reign of Saronil, and no more than one or two clans' population. Most likely merchants maintaining ties with their home city or clans, organized in a guild.

Those kinds of cross-marriages are behind my research, really... But about a quarter of Nochet is Sartarite in origin, and the Sartarites have either come in clans or guilds or have founded them here, and given them the appearance of Esrolian houses or guilds. I suppose that means that they send a female leader to deal with the powers in Nochet. Sartarite guilds and houses may be reckoned as unreliable and disorderly, lacking the absolute obedience a Grandmother can command. This lack of grandmothers may limit their participation in city decisions, but it helps maintaining a Heortling identity. I am trying to get something analogous to a clan questionnaire for the Sartarites in Nochet. When did they come into the city? That shows until when they participated in Sartar events, and when they started to participate in Nochet events. This may concentrate around major setbacks for Sartar, e.g. the aftermath of the Battle of Grizzley Peak, the invasion in the middle of Terasarin's reign, the troubles after Terasarin's Death leading up to the conquest of Sartar, the Starbrow Rebellion, or other more local events and rebellions. Did they come to Nochet at once, or did they spend some time in their tribal confederation city, and maybe form a new clan out of folk that didn't quite achieve what they wanted in say Jonstown or Wilmskirk? Were they sent by a city guild to provide representation in Nochet? Who sponsored their establishment? Does it have to be a Nochet House or Guild, or can it be a temple (Grace Temple or Orlanth Hill)? What other obligations did they have to enter? Do they maintain a tribe-like network, e.g. preferred marriage partners? How are their links to the Sartarite homeland?

If so, they get represented thrice: There's the Tarsh Exile hero unit, which is the twin children of Arim somehow returned (or re-incarnated/heroformed). The "Falling Hills" exotic ability has been assigned to the Earth Shakers unit rather than the hero unit. The Sartar Magical Union unit is a band of magicians with very weak bodyguards and a standard spirit without any exotic magic. But then there might be a tradition of Earth Twins born to the avatar of the Earth Mother and her King lover that predates Arim's wooing of Sorana Tor. The Cult of Caladra and Aurelion may have taken its "twins" theme from the fact that the God Learner project leaders were twins, but their success might be tied to resonance with older instances of Earth Twins. Like e.g. the children of Norinel and Kimantor. Thus, this unit's wyter needn't be exactly Arim's twins. Interestingly, the old (I would thing WBRM, from the typeface) army listing used as an illustration on http://www.glorantha.com/on-magical-battalions-in-the-hero-wars/ has marked the Sartar MU Earth Twins unit with a (T) which indicates that they (and the Warm Sisters, the Snake Pipe Dancers and the skirmish units Scouts and Bush Rangers as well as one each horse and foot city militia, but not the Thieves Arm) may join the Tarsh army. Still, there is some leeway for the Sartar Magical Union magicians using a different instance, or just the principle, as their wyter.

Recently necessary disclaimer: This is not presented as fact, but as proposal for working out the background of Sartarite clans or houses in Nochet. A clan grows overcrowded in one of the city confederations in Sartar. What can they do? Prior to the city confederations, a clan would have sent off a splinter clan with some of the herds, seed grain, and the tools necessary to claim a new clan tula elsewhere. Rarely, they would have land to spare for the new clan, but more often that new clan would start over far from home. By the time of Sartar, most places suitable to start a new clan had been claimed. Occasionally a place on the border to some unpleasant neighbors would become available, like the Pol Joni establishment at Barbarian Town which opened some farmland south of the Dundealos, or the opening of Pavis County by Dorasar’s founding of New Pavis. But with the city confederations, there was another option. Even before reaching the critical population size, excess people could be shunted off to the cities, where the constituting tribes controlled plots or even housing. These folk would formally retain their clan identity, at least for a while, but they usually were too removed from clan activities to participate in the decision making. Over time, these folk could join the guilds, or possibly move on. Are there “urban nomadic” clans in Sartar, taking temporary residence in a place but moving on after a while? And over time, Sartarites began populating the Sarli district of Nochet. Some may have started as squatters, putting up camp on plots that weren’t inhabited (although quite likely someone would have used them as pastures or even gardens). Others may have looked for a sponsor, an established house in Nochet that would lease their ancient claim on some plots in the city to the newcomers, possibly defining a client relationship and imposing some of the civic duties tied to that plot, too. This might demand the formation of a house or a guild. Would such clans or guilds be Adjusted (Heortling-style mildly patriarchal) or Traditional Esrolian (i.e. mandatorily female-led)? Later (Lunar, but also internal) troubles might send entire clans (or what remained of them) packing from Sartar. How would a refugee clan establish itself in Sarli? Another question is how such a clan would feed itself. I get the impression that the granaries of Nochet are one very real power instrument in the hands of the Queens of Nochet, although failure to feed the city was a surefire symptom of not being fit to be Queen. How could a newcomer clan partake from that source, and how would that clan be expected to contribute? Does this require intercession of an Enfranchised House who would take the feeding upon their own responsibility, and who would define a se of demands to the new clients? I have some questions about the history of Sarli district, too. The presence of Orlanth Hill makes this a logical point for Adjusted clans, providing a priesthood to the temple that sin not so easily cowed by the demands of the Grandmothers. Such clans/houses will originaly have hailed from Heortland, or from a fusion of Adjustment warlords from Heortland with an Esrolian house. Following the conflict between Finelvanth and his wife, there probably wasn’t much sympathy for Adusted houses in Nochet. However, there was plenty of space available, especially in the neighborhood of Orlanth Hill which may have been a symbol of bad luck in Grandmother circles. Do the temples own land in Nochet (apart from their actual sites) where they can install clients without consulting any of the Enfranchised Houses? Does Orlanth Hill priesthood have claims for plots in Sarli?

Orlanth has several shields - at least the (presumably square) shield of Arran from his wife and the golden round shield (IIRC of justice) he wrestled from Yelmalio at the Hill of Gold. I would bet there is a myth about Wild Orlanth/Varanorlanth grabbing a bush or some slain beast's bones to parry every incoming blow, too. While I haven't seen anything of this repeated in later publications, the old Hero Wars hero write-up had a sword thane, a spear thane, a shield thane and a backboy to surround the Orlanth hero, so there are several candidates among the lesser god names (previously and since mostly and collectively the Thunder Brothers) that we were inundated with in Thunder Rebels that may step forth as embodiment of Orlanth's shield. I still like that concept, not in the least because it allows a weapontake rite to prepare an entire party for a heroquest which has been written as a solo experience, and to step up and perform a crucial and for this individual specific task. Maybe that's for training heroquests, but it may provide well choreographed first steps on the hero plane, and a first minor hero plane benefit for a character. And we know which groups will have exploited such easy rides to the hero planes for their own nefarious plots...

If such a shield could be used Captain America style as a heroic feat, it would be quite the terror weapon. Perhaps better reserved for a One Unique Thing. So, are there cross-shaped shields for Humakti, or do they make do with cross designs on the surface of their shields? Would rune-shaped shields be able to project the power of that rune? Light or fire rune shields are quite common, and have been imbued with light magic in the canon. There might be room for disorder-shaped shields in shield push matches, although that bears a risk of backfiring.

Coming back and finding your body in dominant possession of something else, since you didn't leave a fetch behind to guard the body. Another possible hazard of smoking in a hazia den, you never know in which body you will awake. This could be a reason why bodyguards would be prohibited from using hazia - an assassin could infiltrate in their body. For spies, a form of covert possession would be even more interesting, allowing a ride on the victim during its official functions. The good news is that since you are discorporate, you can engage the spirit in spirit combat without having to wait for a shaman. The bad news is that you will probably have spent most of your magic while traveling about without your body, and are in dire need of it to regenerate your magic, so you would have to attack the occupant at your weakest.

Why would you say that? "That over there is our most beautiful princess with her ugly handmaiden. You mustn't speak to her before the ceremony." Anything else is a mere misunderstanding. "No, the handmaiden isn't part of this deal."

You mean like requiring the lesson that the "parting shot" was derived from the Parthian shot? Thanks, I knew that before. I am looking at the distinct possibility that that maneuver saw much greater variability in the escape vector with the introduction of the stirrup. Charging in, then riding away at an angle in good order is quite a feat on an ancient battlefield, where there were hardly any organized retreats. Riding away the direction one came from while continuing to fire still seems impossible to me without stirrups. Some reality check - assumptions follow: A cavalry charge with melee weapons can veer off to the left, in which case they can keep attacking foes with the reach of the forehand (or throw javelins or tomahawks), or it could veer to the right, interposing the shield with whatever missiles the attacked line might decide to lob at the riders. If a Parthian shot requires one direction only, a cavalry response to their charge could take that into account. It does take familiarity with the Parthian attack pattern, of course. Again? Sure. This is hardly the first time archery and horse archery were discussed. I am a bit more familiar with the Huns along the Danube than with Asia Minor. Regarding archery, I have done quite a bit of research and a little bit of experimentation, too, including learning from highly reputed experimental archaeologists from the Schleswig museum. Much of that happened 25 years ago, admittedly, and it had a focus on my region, which doesn't have that much of a horse archery tradition that we know about. (The Tollense Crossing battle findings might change that.) I didn't have to take in consideration that the bow could have been held in any other way but vertically because the bow hand on the bowl has very good detail. That's how I arrived at the problem with the bow horns. Textual analysis and interpretation of imagery should always be taken to the test, and material finds need to be reconstructed to find out about their use. Book- and imagery-learned archaeologists did reconstructions that were complete fails, e.g. with an Iron Age yew bow that was found rather warped and whose reconstruction strung it the wrong way around. Have you ever shot an arrow mounted on a moving saddle, without footholds? I have on two occasions, as one of the more original challenges of a fun archery tournament, probably not even approaching a horse saddle experience, but an experience of firing a bow from an awkward position. As a non-rider, I have to rely on observation of others for issues of horsemanship, but thanks to my horse-crazy niece, those include first hand observations. This post wasn't about academic knowledge. It was about matching experiences with book learning. How to shift your stance for upward or downward shots to get optimum stability from the waist. Where to be cautious of terrain features when firing your arrow - being tall and shooting a tournament bow with rather weak power for the heavy (because long) arrows I fire, I often had to kneel rather than stand to avoid entanglement with branches at the designated firing position. There are books about field archery that one can research on this topic, or one can take some training. Yes. That's what I did with the image of the archer, taking it as expert evidence. Ancient art is lousy with perspective. The only way to determine whether the left arm of the archer is before, above or behind the horse is to deduce it from his anatomy and his equipment. And my analysis suggests that he could fire back at an angle of about 150° from the head-to-tail line of his horse, not straight back. Observation of that re-enactor showed how he stood up above the saddle and twisted his hips for a shot in pretty much the same angle, but I am willing to believe that he could have made a shot over the tail of his horse. Security precautions prevent placing such shots, even on private no-admission lands. I don't know enough about horse riding and training to be able to tell how twisting around and pushing the right leg into the horse flank will tell it to turn left, so I am asking people with riding experience how a normal horse would react to a rider twisting his upper body almost ninety degrees to the left. Would that normally guide a horse to veer left? And is it possible to train a horse to keep course despite that leg signal, or how hard is that? Could such an reaction be too deeply grounded in the communication between rider and steed? In the case of the re-enactor in the video, he sort of signaled the horse that he was doing stunts by standing up in the stirrups. Our stirrup-less Parthians may have had other means to communicate an "ignore my kegs now", but I am interested in how hard that would be to train horse and rider.

They integrate spirits - do you mean into the array of contactable spirits, or do they fuse their magical self with that spirit, inheriting its powers? The way I have read the HQ animism rules, spirits are offered temporary housings that allow them to taste the material world, but aren't becoming part of the self of the spirit magician. That's somewhat different to the impression I get from absorbing a spell spirit's knowledge in RQ3. The Spindle Hag - she is the thread-maker. Does this get reflected in her magics? It certainly does say something about how all those previous moon goddesses were co-opted into the current one.

Sure, if your adventure needs a situation where it is contraband, make it so, The reason why may vary, though. Hazia appears to be a meditation aid, so who is to say that the person reclining with the pipe and lost wherever is not engaging in a private religious observation? Likewise, orgiastic excesses are part of the Lunar experience, and not just simple pleasure-seeking. Traditional Christian church services are full of contemplation aids, like the communal singing of hymns, the drone of the organ pervading the body, and short meditative sequences. They may sometimes feel archaic, but they have powerful subliminal influence, something the modern forms of service often lack. You said shamans can carry with no problems - but that's registered (and sworn in) shamans only. Rogue shamans may be unable to hide their nature, but that doesn't give them an imperial carry permit any more than every off-duty mercenary may lug about in full equipment. They may very well be politely asked to give up their stores for safe-keeping. And too bad about the mice or roaches in our storage room...

Taking a lance impact off center will turn those spikes against the wielder, too. Or his mount, if mounted. Then there is the danger of entanglement with loose cloth or ropes. You also guide slashing blades to hack into the center. Depending on the reinforcement of the outer rim, this might act as a sword catcher, but then soft-rimmed Viking shields are said to have offered that feature, too. On the other hand, you have the protection of a holy symbol here. Melee use may be a secondary consideration, and possibly discouraged. Or there might be an invisible area of protection between those points, making it just another round or obtuse-angled polygonal shield in combat applications.

I said I didn't think that the high llama tribe uses missiles, but that was German thinking slipping in. Missile in German is "Geschoss", something you shoot from a device (sling, bow etc) and which you are quite unlikely to recover. Javelins, darts and tomahawks are thrown weapons ("Wurfwaffen"). Most of these make somewhat decent melee instruments, too. We sometimes say that the tribes get their weapons thtough trade, but that is only partially true. Spear and javelin shafts and axe handles will be procudced by the clans, maybe from imported timber, but by local warriors performing this quite specialized craft. Archery using horn bows requires yet another level of craftsmanship, and even some level of alchemy for the perfect glues. This is a craft that is hard to do while on a trek, you need a workshop for this where you can let your bow assembly parts rest, and possibly temper. But then producing the pitch or providing the resin for affixing spear points is quite an alchemical process, too, even though it was known in paleolithic times. And again, this required at least a few days of "sedentary life". Taking control over an oasis will provide such workspaces, but I imagine that there are certain places hidden in the wastes where some craft resources would attract a few people to stock up their ammunition or raw materials. Do Praxians mine for flint or similar knappable rock, or do they find enough on the surface?

That isn't quite what I meant. There is the problem of the impala leaps, which I imagine would create a lot of bouncing that needs to get counteracted, and the rider needs to avoid simply being lifted out of his position. The image of the shot impala in the Guide p..442 has a saddle with something like a ridge in front, but I don't know how much art direction went into that. I don't think that there are modern riders who come close - Praxian nomads probably spend more time on their steeds than on the ground. Every short distance will be covered riding. A bit like contemporary folk using their car for a 200 m trip for a package of cigarettes. I don't quite get the bond in terms of intimacy with the species of steed or rather with individuals. My teenage niece is horse crazy, so I get to listen to horse character and individual oddities of certain horses. She recently switched horses and is in the process of training both the horse and herself to proficiency. So I wonder how much of the rapport with the steed is on an individual, one-on-one basis, and how much is transferable to other individual mounts. I also wonder how that life in the saddle affects Praxian (or Pentan) walking and running. They should be accomplished leapers (onto the steed, and off it), but they certainly don't train long distance running, that's for slaves.

Yes, thank you for noticing. The post was a reaction to this: Those comments were of course completely objective and in no way patronizing, so I apologize for getting annoyed out of nowhere.

From Hrestol's Saga and from the Arolanit descriptions, it appears that horse riding started out as a talar privilege unavailable to the horali caste. Building magical tools for the enslavement of others does have a very long tradition in the west - one of these, imitating a mostali design, lies in the early stories of the Vadeli segregation. One reason why the Men-of-All of Hrestol were named knights in older sources is their use as elite (and presumably heavy) cavalry in battle. The Malkioni don't appear to use regular bows, but have standard issue crossbows. Those don't reload well on horseback. Everybody did. That's sort of the point in the martyrium of the horse.

Given the shamanic nature of the Black Fangs, I would expect them to have a corner of the hazia market. I don't think that hazia use or addiction are criminalized in Glorantha (outside of the Sun Dome prissies). Imperial privilege circumvention on the other hand will be persecuted heavy-handedly. Hazia is likely a high-tax item, making unlicensed Hazia trade a capital offense against the Empire. Given the discorporation effect, I wonder whether putting several heavy smokers in the same basement would be a good idea.

Given their broad similarity to giraffes, I wonder whether High Llamas sort of neck-wrestle with others of their species, and possibly have a flanking ram attack with those muscular lower necks. Such an attack may very well swipe a less high rider out of his saddle. High Llama riders don't use missile weapons. They use the longer range of their weaponry to achieve a similar effect. You mean, like a knob on the back of these beasts, to plug in? I wouldn't go adjusting steed and rider so easily. Like I said, non-Praxians ride those beasts as well, and without any known complications. We do know that Praxian riding beasts are fairly common in Dragon Pass, at least in some distance of the plains of Prax. (Keeping herds of them on the Praxian border would be a direct invitation to be raided...) The Heortlings are able to ride those beasts without any special blessings of the Praxian deities (although they probably give service to Eiritha for the health of their mounts). No impalas, since there have been no reports of Heortling pygmies, but sable antelopes, bison and possibly high llamas are manageable. I don't know about any canonical Gloranthan culture using kayaks or double-bladed paddles. The Waertagi might, as light attack craft riding their tidal waves. Canoes in the shape of dugout boats, and possibly also in animal skin on frames or exotic carapaces, are ubiquitious, but appear to use the single-bladed paddle.

So you put the development/discovery of the stirrup into the Dawn Age conflicts with Galanini and Pralori (another major cavalry force near Tanisor), preceding the Gbaji War? Galanini met (future) Pentan riders in the development that led to Argentium Thri'ile, fighting alongside Praxians. This would have been after encountering Seshnegi stirruped cavalry. How long did it take them to adopt/steal that equipment? The question is who gets enslaved. If only the horse get's enslaved another bit, that's in keeping with the myth of the fiery, winged and beaked sky creature now bound to the ground. Interesting question here: Do centaurs have a single, continuous chorda in vertebrae, or does the human "half" sit on a similar construct as the human skull, able to twist what comes above about 75° to either side, possessing a separate chorda that somehow communicates with the horse chorda? On the other hand, centaurs have only one pair of eyes, unlike the horse-archer who can leave terrain and neighboring horses observation to his mount while concentrating on the target. Centaur biology has a couple of unresolved questions - like what is their diet, how does their dentition and mouth size correspond to the needs of a quarter metric ton body (assuming a pony-sized horse body rather than a charger or beer wagon horse), and do they just breathe through their noses or do they have gill-like slits around their human hips? How much human anatomy is there in the human torso? I would expect a human stomach (able to regurgitate, unlike the horse part) preceding a second one in the horse abdomen, without any intestine in the human torso. A double set of lungs? A single heart in the horse body, or an additional one providing special service to the human brain and the upper lungs? Which mammalia are functional in a centaur female? How do they give birth? Does the upper torso of the centaur foal come in some horse-head-like posture (possibly with a protective skin that is only broken after birth)? Yes, of course centaurs are innately magical. Still, their foes as well as their doctors will know where to find the vitals, and how those are connected.

I wonder about the coverage of the long form cults. If the Westerners, the Arkati sects, Doraddi, East Islanders, Vormaini, Teshnans and Kralori, and non-human gods like the Sea Pantheon for mermen (and not just sailors) and the dwarf castes are adequately covered in the Gods of Glorantha book, I have little qualms about naming the second book Gods of Chaos or Gods of Terror, but if enough of the above-mentioned folk have been put on the back-burner but were to be included here, I would prefer a different title for the second volume. Magic supplements tend to sell comparatively well to players, as opposed to bestiaries, setting descriptions or scenarios. (Or character sheets...) This is the only form of publication approaching chap-books for the RuneQuest line, and once you substract the rules-y bits also for HeroQuest.

Just quoting the cultural dress for impala riders. Riding Godiva-style hasn't been reported as especially chafing in the few videos I have seen on the topic (on German TV - due to US sensibilities, I doubt you can find those online except on porn sites), whether with saddle or without.

No intention to do that. What I tried to do was to explain to you the limitations that were blatant to me analyzing that depiction, which (apart from the impossible position of the horse legs - compare the stills from the video) I regard as an expert observation by an artist who knew how to perform that maneuver himself. So, with these basic observations, what I said was that I don't think that a rider with that draw technique and a seat that far from the rear end of his horse, shooting a horned rider bow, would be able to shoot back at an angle better than 150° from the horse-head to horse-tail line. Does this prevent a Parthian shot? Of course not. All you have to do is careen the horse by the missing 30° from directly away from the enemy for the shot, and you get the 180°. But you aren't riding directly away in that moment any more. And if you are riding in formation, either all horses have to careen in the same moment, or all have to run away at that angle from the beginning. And that is a deficit that the introduction of the stirrup removed. If the Parthians pulled this off using only the extreme end of the left broadside arch, they needed extra discipline to be able to shoot at the same part of the enemy line they were riding up to in the charge. More respect to them. But like I said, this is a problem that the stirrup reduces strongly, as the video shows nicely. No, in this case you seem unfamiliar with the mechanics of the bow. I do admit that I don't own a horsebow, but friends of mine do. If you draw one, the horns make an outward movement which increases the span at rest at one unavoidable stage of the process, and again when you release it. As you draw the bow above your head for this behind the head rest for the right hand, only the release part of the cycle matters. That still spells plenty of conflict for bow horns as long as depicted on the Hephtalite bowl. The low angle at which the rider's bow arm is depicted doesn't leave enough room for the release cycle above the horse back. It works fine if the bow is held out to the flank of the horse, however, but that's a difference of about 30° from the tail, or 150° from the head. You don't seem to have gotten my comment on the behind the head draw for the angles for forward and backward shots, so I will try again. Hopefully in easier terms. The archer in the video uses the European three-fingered draw on the right side of his head. For shots directly to the front this means a disadvantage because the horse head gets in the way of the lower bow horn. The behind-the-head draw solves this problem by moving the arrow axis to the left of the head-tail axis, basically allowing the rider to shoot past the head while still facing forward, and reduces the angle by which the upper body has to be twisted to the right by about 15° - maybe only 10° if drawing the bow overextends the left arm to its back. If you don't believe me, take a strong expander and try to imitate the behind-the-head position, and hold a torchlight or a laser along the draw line. If you have a pointing laser, try aiming it while pulling the force of the expander. That's why I think that behind the head draw makes eminent sense for a horse archer. Now twist the upper body to the back. All of a sudden, the advantage for the forward shot turns into even more of a disadvantage for the rearward shot. Rather than winning 15°, you lose those 15° for the rearward bend, so a 180° shot would require a 105° bend of the shoulder line from its normal position perpendicular to the horse-head horse-tail axis, rather than just 90°. Everything clear so far? If not, indicate by breaking your quotes of this text where you lost me. If everything is clear and accepted, no need to quote this. I am not the most flexible person, but forcing my knees facing forward I can pull my shoulder-to-shoulder axis back about 45° without any major discomfort. A trained contortionist might add another 15-20° without much discomfort. You will have to trust me that you need to feel somewhat comfortable with your posture when releasing an arrow. So, let's assume that our steppes horse-archer can bend his shoulders back to a line of 65° from perpendicular, or 155° from the horse-head to horse-tail line. If he anchors his shot on the right of the head, he can add another 5-10° to that, arriving at only 15° from directly rearward (165° from forward). However, our archer on the bowl uses the behind the head draw, substracting those 5-10° from this angle. This result is quite plausible, and it has the big advantage of the bow horns completely avoiding the horseback. Hence my well-considered assumption that 150° is somewhere near the extreme backward firing arch of the archer depicted on the bowl. Human anatomy, personal experience how such a horned bow folds back, and simple geometry. Whether the parting host rides away in a straight line or at a 30° angle doesn't seem to be much of a deal, right? Unless the opposing line has archers, too. At 30° inclination, the fleeing horses provide a target almost twice as big as if they were running away in a straight line. The riders provide their profile in any case, they are fine - until the horse is shot from beneath them, and they tumble at breakneck speed to a ground they cannot see because they are twisted backward. Quite a lethal fall, I would expect, discounting being trampled by friendly hooves. Sorry, but bollocks. The stirrup was invented by steppes horse-archers. In the still below you can clearly see the about 30° extra twist that the hips provide, for a shot that goes back at about 160° - which would be even in my personal mobility range if I was able to ride a horse freehand at such speeds. Without the stirrups, no twisted hips, and much reduced backward firing arch. Which is exactly what I said in the previous post, if you had bothered to read it, which I feel I have every right to doubt. So once more. I doubted the ability to do a rearward shot at 180° without stirrups, and claimed that 150° would be anatomically be the limit. Everything shown in this video helps supporting this assumption. A 150° limit eliminates any problem of hitting the horseback with the lower horn of the bow. Problem avoided. The maneuver of riding up to an enemy line, riddling it with arrows, than turning around as a unit and riddling it with arrows on the retreat is still possible, but the retreat cannot be directly away from the enemy, but has to offer quite a bit of horse flank. Getting the turn right for a huge body of riders is quite an equestrian feat, especially since each of the horses will have its individual rhythm of ground contact and in the air phases. Even more of a feat if done without any guidance from the hands. Getting the departure angle right is another difficulty, although less important - the horse archers would be fine with peppering the left neighbors of their previous frontal attack victims in the defensive line with arrows. And if they hit the end of the line, a 90° turn will be enough to lead the riders away from the enemies. However, the same maneuver with stirrups allows 180° turns, elevating the bow higher above the horse back, and avoiding any impact problems there. The direct rearward shot would remain reserved for stirrup-users like the Sarmatians, but unavailable for the stirrup-less Parthians. But even without that improvement, a unit that could deal severe damage while retreating was worth twice to thrice their numbers unable to do so on the battle-field. As proven against Crassus. So, what Gloranthan implications do I draw from the considerations above? For the Praxian mounted archers, the behind-the-head draw would help to avoid sable or impala horns when shooting forward, regardless of stirrup availability. A full forward coverage still appears unlikely to me, so the mounted archer charge would usually come at an inclination of at least 30°, and probably depart at a similar angle, making the charge-retreat pattern a letter v. Zebra rider mounted archers are better off with regard to beast horns interfering with forward shots, but will still profit from stirrups in their arch of fire, too. Horse or mule riders too, of course.

Drawing behind the head makes the angle worse, not better, when shooting back. I think it was designed to be able to shoot straight front without interfering with the horse's head. The traditional European three-fingered draw on the right side of the head would require a minimum angle of 30-50° to keep the bow from interfering with the horse head. Given the shape of the bow, the angle has to be about 130° from the horse head, or the lower arm of the bow would hit the back of the horse, resulting in quite a lot of pain to the horse and an embarrassing short shot and possibly breaking the bow. More or less what I called the left broad-side. That's one advantage of rising up in the stirrups - not only do you get a bit more rotation out of your hips, you also clear the back of the horse by a bit more. That depends on his release. If he uses the thumb release, the back of the hand against the neck will provide excellent stability in the draught length and an anchor keeping the release height constant. Catching an archery release in art is about as hard as catching a horse's foot positions in gallop (like in the depiction above, which is as unrealistic as it can get but has been the artistic depiction of gallop throughout history), as the naked eye isn't quite able to provide a good impression of the fast moving feet. You don't hold an arrow at maximum draught with a war bow, drawing and releasing is one smooth movement. I suppose the archer keeps his quiver on the right hip or on the horse's flank, as the left hip is occupied by the sword which looks shorter than his arrows, and a back quiver would be prone to interfere with this behind the head draw. The rear end of a notched arrow causes almost as much harm as the tip when encountered in a fast movement, not to mention skewered eyes when approaching a target along line of sight of the arrow.

So the Strait of Messina isn't identified with Scylla and Charybdis any more? Odysseus spent most of his epic homecoming in the epic arms of island goddesses. Not entirely his own idea, but that cost him way more time than the opening of the sack of winds within sight of Ithaka.

Outside of grid references, "you" is an acceptable shorthand for "that construction unit there." On the other hand, gainsaying gold caste edicts is apostasy. Report for recycling. In that case, to what purpose would a functional unit propose cloning and memory transfer in the first place?