M Helsdon

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.

These probably depict replica shields carried by members of Jannisor's Hero Cult, when no Lunars are around...? Lunar parade shield...

Hoplite and phalangite phalanxes fought in different ways; hoplites used a one-handed spear and so stood front-on; phalangites used a two-handed spear and so stood in a side-ways stance with their left shoulder facing towards the front of the phalanx, their shields were much smaller than those of a hoplite, with about two thirds the diameter. Hoplite shields were roughly three feet in diameter; phalangite shields roughly two feet in diameter. Hoplite shields were held using a hand grip and a forearm cylinder; phalangites had no arm free to hold a shield, and so their shield was suspended from a strap. The weapon used dictated the stance of its user, and the frontage they occupied in the battle-line. The hoplite shield was also much heavier, but given the weight of a phalangite's pike, they carried an equivalent weight of arms and armor. This is supported by archaeological finds. In Glorantha, it means that Solar and Lunar phalanxes fight in a different way to Sun Dome phalanxes.

Latest shields... Anyone familiar with Bronze/Iron Age shields may recognize the origin of a few... In Glorantha: a hoplite shield from one of the Stonewall Regiments; a phalangite shield from one of the Sun Dome temples; two 'Star Captain' shields (which is closer to the legendary Brighteye is open to debate); three ornate Barbarian Belt shields (the last displaying a ram's head). All drawn more-or-less to scale.

Hmm, you may be correct. However, the illustration on page 336 shows no eye, just a shield boss. Back to the drawing board.

Examining Dan Barker's excellent illustration of Jannisor, I've attempted to recreate his shield Brighteye. However, I cannot determine whether the shield has eight or nine points... First of a sequence of Gloranthan shield designs. The versions to left and right are covered with leather; the middle shield has a thin layer of metal with grooves to deflect strikes with spear or sword.

My own personal thoughts... Innovation Most of the cultures of central Genertela are innately conservative, wary of innovation and change after the disasters of the Second Age. Even worshippers of deities personifying Change are subject to the boundaries of their gods' actions. This dogmatism relates not only to arms and armor but to tactics as well. The older a regiment is, the more unwilling its soldiers and officers are to deviate in the slightest from received tradition. Tribal warbands are similarly constrained to fighting in the ways their ancestors did; a warrior might obtain a metal sword instead of one edged with stone or bone, a shield faced with bronze instead of wood or hide, but the way they fight does not change. Ancient regiments like the Stonewall Phalanxes would rather riot than change the pace they march at – adherence to tradition is why we have survived! Fighters may even carry equipment and weapons they cannot use, because their presence is required for ancient battle-rites and formulae to be effective. Newer regiments, such as those raised by Hon-eel are far more flexible (though their magic is usually weaker than the units over a thousand years old). But after over a hundred years, even those regiments become increasingly hide-bound. Fazzur Wideread, widely regarded as the greatest general of the period, fully utilizes ancient writings. An avid scholar in his youth, he is extraordinarily well-read, having read antique military treatises and modern Lunar battle manuals such as the Light of Action. Much of his genius comes, not from inventing new maneuvers and ploys, but in utilizing and combining old tactics and stratagems in novel ways. Lunar regiments are the most flexible, as the Moon is Change within Time, but even they become conventional and traditionalist as time passes. It requires a heroquest by a Hero to modify their accustomed ways. A case in point is the use of stirrups; these are widely used by the nomads of Pent and the Wastelands, but their adoption by others is slow and piecemeal; their use is alien to many cavalry gods. Thus, some of the newer Lunar cavalry regiments use stirrups (or an individual may have successfully heroquested to obtain them) but many older regiments cannot. The great Dara Happan hero-general Kastokus quested for, and implemented many changes in his cavalry army in the Second Age, which may have included the use of stirrups. However, his revolutionary innovations were anathema to the deeply reactionary culture of the Imperial Court, and undoubtedly contributed to his political fall, and to his execution. Most of his new insights were lost.

Ernalda is such a major goddess, that the local most important god is probably her husband, almost everywhere, with a few exceptions, such as lowland Peloria. [As I know a very hard-working sheep farmer in Ceredigion, despite being English, I don't do sheep jokes... 8-) ]

II-13. Alfostios The Cooper. He carries a saw, with a barrel beside him. Good catch.

Very true, but this art is recent, and I'm assuming that if it broke canon Jeff would have had the artist cover the barrels with boxes or bales. Barrels are fairly ancient tech. Herodotus mentions palm-wood casks - now, those weren't exactly barrels in form or construction; the Egyptians had open-ended casks even earlier, but the first true barrels date back quite a way. Our bronze wouldn't, but Gloranthan bronze seems to have distinct qualities. On one of the Facebook groups there's a fairly lively debate going on about stirrups, and cavalry rode and fought with lances and kontos centuries before the stirrup was introduced.

Purely my understanding.... Osentalka was the name given as part of the 'God Project' - 'The Perfect One', a title rather than a name. Nysalor is simply one of his names. No idea, but the number seven reoccurs in Gloranthan myth - the Seven Lightbringers, the Seven Mothers, almost as though the Seven Mothers were attempting to heroquest the Seven Lightbringers, and did or got something else. It sounds very much like one of the descriptions of the deeper Underworld. Chariots are usually Solar vehicles, even though other gods have them. Orlanth took just about every other Elemental weapon, and he may have taken/copied Yelm's chariot as well, especially as Elmal is sometimes the Sun Stallion pulling Orlanth's chariot. A very tangled web of mythology.

Here's the recent Swenstown picture I was thinking of... Barrels, bales, baskets...

What is astonishing, is that relatively early dynasty Egyptians were making lathe-turned stoneware, dishes and bowls. Those made of alabaster aren't too surprising, it's a very soft stone. But other vessels are made of basalt and granite. The amount of time and effort required is daunting, but I believe workshops have been excavated, and some tomb decorations show the process. To lathe the harder stones, you need a hard stone bit, probably frequently replaced, and sand used to provide an abrasive. Some of the bits, made of quartzite, which is harder than granite, have been excavated. Fortunately, quartzite can be found in usefully shaped pieces, meaning they didn't have to have anything harder to shape it. I suspect that some Gloranthan cultures have this technology, but not all.

Glass beads and faience date back a very long way, but actual glass vessels are probably out, unless of dwarven manufacture. Barrels - a moot point, given that I believe some appear in recent illustrations. A basic lathe dates back to around the 13th century BC in Egypt, with evidence of use in Assyria and Greece. The slow potters wheel goes back at least to the 45th century BC, and the fast potters wheel to the 30th BC, so it depends upon what you define a potter's wheel to be. Spinning wheel - concur. Rotary quern - depends how you define it, but some have been found with La Tène style ornamentation. Yesterday I was writing something on this topic... Purely my personal assumptions (and aspects of the Blood Games are based upon Etruscan funeral 'games') Funeral Games In victory, the death of heroes and champions are often marked by funeral games including various contests, and feasting. A valiant death in battle may be remembered for generations, with their family and community regularly leaving offerings. The site of their burning or burial may even become the focus of a hero cult. If the body of the fallen warrior was recovered, among the Orlanthi and urban Dara Happans it is burned upon a pyre. Some Orlanthi prefer the ashes to be blown away by the winds, but others, like the Dara Happans, collect the ashes and bones and inter them in funerary urns. The Dara Happans mark the death of nobles with gladiatorial Blood Games, the slain gladiators burned to accompany and serve the fallen aristocrat in death. Blood Games are often cruel, with blindfolded naked prisoners armed with clubs forced to fight fierce dogs which symbolize Jajagappa the Catcher of Souls.