M Helsdon

Probably not, as the Earth Twins originated in Esrolia and were founded by the Old Earth queen performing a joint ritual with Argrath.

Yes, I was reading that again, last night. Brighteye seems to have powers of Truth and Light. Perhaps its glare means lesser foes can't even come to blows with its bearer, so its multitude of points are never a hazard in such combat. However, lesser shields of that shape are unlikely to have the same capability.

Orlanth’s worshippers specialize in use of the sword, and pride themselves in using all weapons. Orlanth defeated all the Elemental Deities in combat and gained use of their weapons at some time during the Gods War. Some other cults, less fortunate in receiving the use of all weapons, view with dislike Orlanth’s appropriation of their favorites. Whether the same is true for shields I don't know, but I suspect that his worshippers use round shields because he bested so many Solar gods in combat. It's possibly a bit like a warrior in Homeric combat, stripping his defeated foe of their panoply, weapons and shield: all valuable and prestigious items.

Um, no, I'm saying it could have magical properties if used by a Star/Jannisor cult - though I have no idea what they might be. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much information around about Jannisor and Brighteye (and I have searched). The term Orlanthi covers an awful lot of cults, including, by marriage and other means, many Earth cults. Judging from Sun County, and the updated material in Pavis:GtA, and other sources, hoplites and phalangites fight in phalanxes (though there's a never-ending debate in our world regarding exactly how phalanx combat worked). I personally suspect that the Stonewall Regiments fight in a recognizable phalanx (it's in their regimental names), and their magic strengthens and requires that they fight in that way. I also suspect that most regiments in Glorantha (excluding the deeply magical ones like those derived from the Lunar College of Magic or Argrath's magical regiments) fight in ways that can be described using terrestrial terminology, but augmented by their own particular magics.

Something that may be of interest is that the horse nomads used some unusual weapons and materials. Pausanias, writing in the 2nd century AD wrote: On seeing this a man will say that no less than Greeks are foreigners skilled in the arts: for the Sauromatae have no iron, neither mined by themselves nor yet imported. They have, in fact, no dealings at all with the foreigners around them. To meet this deficiency they have contrived inventions. In place of iron they use bone for their spear-blades, and cornel-wood for their bows and arrows, with bone points for the arrows. They throw a lasso round any enemy they meet, and then turning round their horses upset the enemy caught in the lasso. That's well outside the relevant period, though the use of materials is relevant to Prax and Pent. There's evidence of the Scythians also using lassos as weapons much earlier. The lid of a Greek pyxis from the 5th century BC depicts mounted Amazons using lassos as weapons against hoplites, and Herodotus is familiar with the horse nomads using lassos as weapons.

The Guide says: Gloranthan warfare is superficially similar to that of our world. Formations of foot or horse fight under the leadership of a general, king, priest, magician, or warlord against their enemies. Ambushes, skirmishes, field battles, and sieges are used to break an enemy’s will to resist, just as in the wars of our own world. And: As a result, Gloranthan armies often use tactics or strategies that would make no sense in our world but may be fundamental to using their army’s magic to its best effect. Armies are often assembled according to sacred formulae and combatants are often chosen to best match ancient myths. Certain individuals or units may lack any direct military value, but must be present for other regiments to use their own best magic. So I would tend to agree with you; there are hoplites and horse-archers, but each derive some of their capability from their deities and the associated traditions. However, if a spiky star shield isn't magical, then it's a liability. If it's used by a Star Captain cult, or by members of Jannisor's Hero Cult then it probably will have magical properties.

A related page...

That sort of behavior shows that horses can be trained to do even more complex manoeuvers. When the horse archers dominated the steppes (before and after the introduction of the stirrup) it is apparent that the relationship between rider and horse relied on life-long experience: children learned to ride and use a bow from a very early age, and horses were trained to work with them - those that didn't were probably culled or relegated to other uses, such as pulling wagons.

Yes, which is why there have never been any serious terrestrial shields of that form. Perhaps. I don't know who or what Brighteye was. Given the date of Dan Barker's illustrations, I suspect he received an outline from Greg, so I am not going to argue with two canonical illustrations, however 'strange' the shield design is. In fact, the only fantasy world that has weirder shields is Tekumel, judging from the professor's illustrations in the Armies of Tekumel booklets.

Perhaps instead of trying to show how knowledgeable you are, you should actually do some research about the topics? There's a great deal of ancient art depicting horse archers performing the Parthian shot, and many of those artists would have been producing their art from their own observations, or for a warrior elite intimately familiar with what was and what was not possible. You should also take note of your previous and current behaviors. From a Neo Assyrian cylinder seal:

True. I don't see them as being very practical; they are cultic paraphernalia. They are inspired by Dan Barker's two pieces of art, reprinted in the Guide. All the others are based on real Bronze or early Iron Age shields (even the lion head, which is derived from one portrayed on a Carthaginian/Phoenician ring seal - I did alter the shape).

Hmm, I suspect that's true if you equate stirrups with metal stirrups, but, as with their use of bone and other materials to make weapons, I wonder if they might use other materials derived from their herd beasts? Bone, horn, hide, sinew? Some authorities suggest that the earliest real-world stirrups were made of materials such as wood and leather, which tend to not be preserved in the archaeological record, except under exceptional conditions, so artwork may be the only means of detecting them, and often it isn't possible to determine what materials are being portrayed.

I suspect there's a suspicion that there was a technological evolution of toe-loops into full stirrups, but as usual our modern assumptions about technological innovation don't necessarily fit into the ancient world, where 'obvious' changes often didn't happen as we'd expect, and some innovations were due to a rare innovation (which sometimes seems to happen in multiple places at roughly the same time, suggesting that certain conditions make it more likely that someone will have an idea and implement it because "it's time is right"). It's one of those things (such as the bow and arrow, the fire stick etc.) where we will never know who, when, or where they were invented. Our window into the past is fragmented and blurry, even in times and places we think we know a great deal about. The herders were warriors long prior to the introduction of the stirrup, so I suspect that's a line that reads well, but is only partially true? The Scythians (and perhaps related people like the Cimmerians if we trust Herodotus) were a terror to the settled peoples of the Near East, without stirrups (and at least one group of Scythians were allied with the Assyrians, for a time, but later aided in their defeat). Stirrups simply made the nomads of the steppes even more dangerous to sedentary peoples within their range: horse riding nomads have none of the logistical needs of state armies (save for fodder - which is why the nomads didn't get much further west than Hungary, as Hungary is the most westward extension of the steppes, and named for the Huns), and a long tradition of warfare with their fellow nomads, which makes most riders experienced fighters, in contrast to most farmers and peasants. Fortunately, we have pictorial evidence recovered from the Hero Wars, showing the use of toe-loops by Praxians, and at least some Lunars using stirrups (as recorded in the Guide to Glorantha - Third Age). Personally, I suspect the Pentans (and some Praxians) use real stirrups. Who knows? They may have been introduced from Kralorela, but thus far archaeological evidence is fragmentary. 8-)

Your attempt is a fail. Your patronizing attitude is not conducive to reasonable debate. That kind of language pretty much destroys your 'analysis'. There's no more evidence for that assumption, than any of your many others. The earliest actual evidence for real stirrups (not toe-loops which appear earlier in India) is in China. The answer in the real world is: no one knows for certain.

True. Sadly few modern re-enactors can shoot a bow from horseback without stirrups (I've seen a Japanese horse-archer do it, but I can't find a copy of the video online). However, the ancient horse-archers learned to ride and shoot from an early age, and the behind-the head draw is one method of approaching full rotation, as the arms can flex the additional distance. There are numerous depictions of the Parthian shot in ancient sources, and it seems improbable that the artists, who were working for the warrior elite, would have shown something that couldn't be done. The steppe horse-archers all seem to have used the thumb draw and variants of it - numerous thumb rings have been excavated, which made the draw more comfortable. Interesting. Thank you.

You'd best go back in time and tell the various people who used the technique it's impossible, Joerg. You also seem unfamiliar with the size of the bow. This re-enactor does a similar shot at 13 seconds. Not being born to ride like a steppes horse-archer he does use stirrups.

Curiously, the Parthians could make the 'parting shot' (in reality the Parthian shot) without stirrups... Note the technique (shown on the famous Hephthalite bowl) which does not require a 180 degree turn of the body, because the bow is drawn behind the head. There's an even older image on a Neo Assyrian cylinder seal, but it doesn't show so much detail.

Zap!!!

True. It's interesting that many things 'we' take for granted, are subject to vigorous (and at times vicious academic debate); things like how a Greek phalanx actually fought, and even how a Roman legion was really organized. There are massive lacuna in our knowledge of the past.

Indeed. Well enough was sufficient for around a thousand years of cavalry combat. I've watched a re-enactor stabbing and thrusting at targets using a Roman horned saddle.

In the terrestrial Bronze Age, no one had stirrups: they are a relatively late Iron Age innovation. Toe loops date further back, but even then to the Iron Age. Gloranthan Bronze Age is partially a matter of technology, but perhaps more a way that its inhabitants relate to their world, which works approximately in the way our Bronze Age ancestors thought their world worked. Hmm, it isn't a matter of 'primitive' or 'advanced' - the steppe nomads had stirrups long before the Romans or Byzantines. In fact the whole idea of technological 'levels' is alien to terrestrial history, where technology uptake was very slow, unless it had an obvious and immediate benefit, and then usually arrived as part of a hostile takeover. The Romans and Greeks could make very clever mechanical devices using small gears and cogs, but they never thought of any major applications for them. They could have built wheelbarrows, dramatically enhancing their productivity; they could have built windmills; Hero of Alexandria didn't exactly build a steam engine, but he was on a potential development path. None of these things happened. The Romans, however, gleefully used innovations from further north such as chainmail, and from further west, such as the template for their swords, and they had the organization to return those innovations to their inventors in force. In fact many major innovations came west from China, but that creativity and invention didn't last, partially due to internal cultural changes, and in part due to a severe case of Mongols. The Mongols happily took over advanced Chinese military technology (including the engineers and troops who could use it) but didn't innovate, and effectively set in motion China's own dark age of the mind, which lasted until Western ships bearing the ultimate fruits of Chinese invention arrived... The Mongol destruction of Baghdad had a similar impact in the Middle East. It's a good thing they didn't get far into Europe. It's a matter of mindset: we're the beneficiaries of several centuries of scientific and technological innovation - which is virtually unique in human history. There were a few times and places where something akin to the Enlightenment could have happened earlier, but didn't. Our entire mindset regarding innovation is utterly different to that of the inhabitants of the ancient world. For that matter, even in the early Enlightenment some of the people we tend to see today as scientific geniuses such as Newton, thought very differently about the world (Newton seems to have spent at least as much time calculating when Biblical prophecies would be fulfilled as he did on gravity and light). Much the same is true in Glorantha, where most of the human population know that innovation leads to disaster, as the end of the Second Age demonstrated. So people do things the way their ancestors did, and their cultic allegiance requires. Goods move, but ideas less so, except perhaps in the Lunar Empire, but everyone outside their domain sees them as tainted with Chaos, and their religious innovations are unlikely to end well. Personally, I see roleplaying within those constraints one of the factors in why Glorantha isn't a run-of-the-mill fantasy setting. However, my opinions do not, in any way, define Glorantha. YGMV.

That's an issue for you and your players. Technological constraints are one thing that defines a setting, if you ignore them, then you are losing some of the richness of it, a trend which ends in plastic fake medieval game settings. YGMV.

Partially true, but a saddle providing a firm seat by a raised cantle and pommels which grip the rider's thighs works just as well.

Your argument is based on misconceptions regarding the effect of stirrups on mounted warfare, dating back to the 19th century. There was shock cavalry long before the introduction of stirrups and the addition of a 'mounts damage modifiers' does not require them. Instead, the seat of the rider is what is important. For warfare, stirrups only contribute the following: * An aid in mounting and dismounting (whilst Glorantha has many tall riding animals, most breeds of horses are unlikely to be large; most cavalry horses in the ancient world were 'large ponies' by modern standards). * Helpful in riding long distances (but the design of the saddle can mitigate this). * The only area where stirrups provide a major benefit is in archery, where a skilled mounted archer can 'stand' in the stirrups, divorcing themselves from the motion of their mount by flexing their knees. However, in RQ terms this level of skill is probably in the high 80%s for riding and archery. So if your players are fixating on the presence or absence of stirrups then they are concentrating on something that isn't important. In fact, stirrups can be lethal in close-order combat, as an unhorsed rider can become tangled in their stirrups, and be dragged/trampled, with no chance to avoid blows or continue to fight, which ancient unhorsed cavalry certainly did. Numerous Roman cavalry reenactors ride without stirrups. In the last year there was a program on television in the UK of a gathering of twenty or so. Already familiar with Arrian's Ars Tactica, they already knew the display drill performed by Roman cavalry in the 2nd century AD. What they lacked was training in throwing javelins from horseback. Divided into two competing teams, after a few days of training, they successfully performed a display, most registering hits on the target. One of their trainers was from the Royal Armouries, and interspersed between scenes of the troopers being taught, he demonstrated his ability to throw a javelin from horseback; the force of his hits was measured, and the momentum of the horse contributed significantly to the penetrating power of the javelin. This is why mounted javelin throwers were a major force in combat for many centuries. Whilst few reenactors have attempted to wield a kontos lance in combat, tests have shown that again, the hit is subject to the mount's 'damage modifier'. And cataphracts, heavily armed and armored, were highly effective long before the stirrup arrived. It's down to the shape of the saddle, giving a firm and secure seat to the rider. So to prevent your 45 minute debate, just note that damage bonuses apply. If your players can cope with playing in a world where the Earth is flat, and there are sheer mountains that are miles high, and a moon suspended up in the air, then they should be able to withstand the shock of a lack of stirrups. It should make little to no difference to play.