How much STR and DEX do you need to use a long spear one-handed?

[g33k]

<sigh>

I tried to warn 'em.

Honest I did.

[Julian Lord]

12 hours ago, Brootse said:

Heavy cavalry charges with lances were done centuries before stirrups, and over 1000 years before the medieval chargers.

By cataphracts -- which is ironically the new term for Western heavy cavalry after it was decided that "knight" was too mediaeval, even though in the germanic languages the word originally just meant soldier, and in the Latin/Romance Imperial/Late Antiquity/Early Mediaeval period "mounted soldier (of the upper classes)".

Although in Glorantha, "cataphracts" are "heavily armed noble cavalry" (i.e. Latin "equites" i.e. knights) ; whereas IRW cataphracts were standard heavy cavalry units with no necessary link to the upper classes, as they tended to be financed by the Government (in Europe, only the Eastern and Western Roman Empires ever had units of cataphracts).

Cataphracts were arguably more effective at cavalry charges than knights, because they were trained to always keep the line as a cohesive army unit ; the advantage of the knight was that the class combined cavalry charging with individual mounted fighting (where the stirrup did help), and heavy infantry capability both in a unit and individually.

(In the very unlikely supposition that I ever rebooted a Seshnelan campaign, I'd probably play it so that "knights" first emerge out of the Western cataphracts as an innovation of the Hero Wars (which would parallel RW military history) ; and I'd base them on 1st-7th Century ones, not 8th-14th, certainly not Arthurian ... )

[Julian Lord]

10 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

For a couched lance charge? Source on this? A high-backed saddle is widely considered a prerequisite.

The main advantage of the high-backed saddle is that it made it very difficult to dismount you.

[SDLeary]

27 minutes ago, Julian Lord said:

Although in Glorantha, "cataphracts" are "heavily armed noble cavalry" (i.e. Latin "equites" i.e. knights) ; whereas IRW cataphracts were standard heavy cavalry units with no necessary link to the upper classes, as they tended to be financed by the Government (in Europe, only the Eastern and Western Roman Empires ever had units of cataphracts).

Parthian (Arsacid) Cataphracts were noble, as I believe were Sarmatian. Later Sassanid Persian were standard cavalry units. Rome already had a professional army, so it remained such as they adopted units and tactics from outside the Empire.

SDLeary

[Shiningbrow]

2 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

certainly not Arthurian

By "Arthurian", you mean.. ???

[Shiningbrow]

2 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

certainly not Arthurian

By "Arthurian", you mean.. ???

[Kloster]

17 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

For a couched lance charge? Source on this? A high-backed saddle is widely considered a prerequisite.

You don't need a couched lance charge to obtain a good lance cavalry charge. Just look at Gaugameles. Darius army, while largely superior in numbers (and with a good cavalry), was completely destroyed by the shock of Macedonian cavalry charge on units that were fixed by the phalanx. It was in 331 BC, far before the discovery of stirrups, over 1 millenium before medieval knights began to use the couched charge, and the hetairoi were the ruling class nobles of Macedonia, as were the Roman equituus.

[Kloster]

5 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Rome already had a professional army,

After Marius, which means after 100BC. Before that, a drafted army, based on census, where richer people had a higher probability to be drafted, but were better equipped because THEY were paying their equipment, which led the richer class of census (the ruling class) being drafted as cavalry. The professional army appeared centuries later.

[Akhôrahil]

10 minutes ago, Kloster said:

You don't need a couched lance charge to obtain a good lance cavalry charge. Just look at Gaugameles. 

No, of course not (you don’t even need a lance for a good cavalry charge!) but we’re talking using the steed’s damage bonus on a lance charge here, and that supposedly requires a couched lance for full effect.

Again, it’s weird that you don’t get any significant bonuses for mounted outside of the lance and mounted archery.

[Kloster]

9 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Again, it’s weird that you don’t get any significant bonuses for mounted outside of the lance and mounted archery.

You have (or at least you did have) the benefit of a hit location of 1D10+10 while your opponent is using 1D10. I haven't checked if RQG still has this rule. Otherwise, combating on horseback is a disadvantage because your combat skill is limited by your riding skill (which seems logical). This is not much and on this you are right.

[Julian Lord]

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

By "Arthurian", you mean.. ???

Mid to Late Mediaeval is not thematically appropriate to Third Age Glorantha.

[Brootse]

20 hours ago, Kloster said:

You have (or at least you did have) the benefit of a hit location of 1D10+10 while your opponent is using 1D10. I haven't checked if RQG still has this rule. Otherwise, combating on horseback is a disadvantage because your combat skill is limited by your riding skill (which seems logical). This is not much and on this you are right.

The new rules for hit locations RQG p. 220:

Footsoldier Targets: A mounted combatant striking downward with a one-handed weapon effectively hits only the top half of the target. Use the Hit Location table, but roll D10+10 to determine the location hit in this situation.

Mounted Target: For a combatant on foot striking upwards with a one-handed weapon at a mounted target, roll on the Hit Location table. If attacking from the side, a result indicating a hit location on the opposite side means the riding animal, not the rider, took the blow—either in the forequarters or hindquarters, whichever is closer to the attacker’s weapon.

No bonuses to hit.

 

[Brootse]

In many texts lances and bows were emphasized to be more difficult to use on horseback than other weapons. So in my FrankenQuest only lances and missile weapons topped at Ride skill, and the other weapons could be used at max Ride*2.

[Shiningbrow]

On 5/29/2020 at 9:30 PM, Julian Lord said:

Mid to Late Mediaeval is not thematically appropriate to Third Age Glorantha.

Except... King Arthur was supposed to be 6th century... Hence why I asked.

[French Desperate WindChild]

1 minute ago, Shiningbrow said:

Except... King Arthur was supposed to be 6th century... Hence why I asked.

that's one of the bigger issue with the bear king, just after roman Empire but already in classic medieval knights amor and culture. When antic myths are compiled and rewritten by monks and troubadours, the taste changes a lot

[Shiningbrow]

7 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

that's one of the bigger issue with the bear king, just after roman Empire but already in classic medieval knights amor and culture. When antic myths are compiled and rewritten by monks and troubadours, the taste changes a lot

Absolutely! That's why I prefer The Mabinogion version...

Or at least Clive Owens' movie version (with John Matthews - practicing shaman, teacher, and Arthurian scholar/author as technical expert)

[soltakss]

Enjoyed the Stirrups in Glorantha threadjack.

Anyone want to discuss why slings are better than bows, or why bows are better than slings? How about the need/not for stirrups when using horse archery?

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

that's one of the bigger issue with the bear king, just after roman Empire but already in classic medieval knights amor and culture. When antic myths are compiled and rewritten by monks and troubadours, the taste changes a lot

The Great Pendragon Campaign handles this superbly by recapitulating the entire technological arc of the Middle Ages during Arthur’s lifetime.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Thaz]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

The Great Pendragon Campaign handles this superbly by recapitulating the entire technological arc of the Middle Ages during Arthur’s lifetime.

It is indeed a masterwork and a brilliant concept. 

[Julian Lord]

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Except... King Arthur was supposed to be 6th century... Hence why I asked.

But the original French romances depicted Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, the Roman Empire, and the time of Arthur's Kingdom as if they were just like 10th & 11th Century Western Europe, and the later Arthurian Romances depicted the stories as if they were set roughly 11th to 13th Centuries, even though they were supposed to be set in a "time of miracles" in some vague "past".

And even in those original French & Anglo-Norman stories, it was all heavily romanticised.

True, the Welsh/British/Breton source material and historical elements that Chrétien de Troyes used in his poems can be dated to about 6th Century, but what remains in the Mabinogion is really just a fragment, and even what we have now of the latter has been influenced in return by the Arthurian Romances.

The chansons de geste epic poems however present a "grittier" and more "historic" depiction of 8th to 10th Century Europe not so much romanticised, and so more useful IMO as a source of inspiration for the Gloranthan West. The epic poetry of that literary genre is also more consonant with the types and sources of inspiration that Greg used in his creation of Glorantha.

---

As for the Clive Owens film, I found it to be rather ghastly, sorry. I find that these "modern" versions trying to be "Arthurian" but without any of the (Catholic) Christianity fail from their fundamental betrayal of a core element of the source material.

Imagine a film adaptation of King of Sartar that completely jettisoned everything about the Orlanthi religion.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Julian Lord

[SDLeary]

On 5/29/2020 at 3:59 AM, Kloster said:

After Marius, which means after 100BC. Before that, a drafted army, based on census, where richer people had a higher probability to be drafted, but were better equipped because THEY were paying their equipment, which led the richer class of census (the ruling class) being drafted as cavalry. The professional army appeared centuries later.

Yes, but by the time anything in the Roman Army that would qualify as a Cataphract or Clibanari, it was a professional army.

SDLeary

[Shiningbrow]

7 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

As for the Clive Owens film, I found it to be rather ghastly, sorry. I find that these "modern" versions trying to be "Arthurian" but without any of the (Catholic) Christianity fail from their fundamental betrayal of a core element of the source material.

Imagine a film adaptation of King of Sartar that completely jettisoned everything about the Orlanthi religion.

And on that, we disagree (but, obviously, needing to assess each individual film on its own merits). 

The clergy made the story about a Christian myth. This doesn't really tally with likely history, nor the actual time period. So, for me, heavily full-plated armoured medieval knights ruins it as much as the Christian overtones for a 5-6th century setting... Removing the pagan beliefs is basically the same as removing Orlanth.

[French Desperate WindChild]

10 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

their fundamental betrayal of a core element of the source material.

it depends on what is the source material

 

if the source is a feudal well established christian story (don't care the date) about a king son of king with great armor yes, and Merlin is a son of a devil (source of view of past) but thanks to a mother blessed by god (source of view of future) => it is a major betrayal

if the source is a story about a christian king fighting pagans invaders to save the briton culture, with merlin as a druid,  it is a minor betrayal (well it is a major betrayal for the queen)

if the source is a celtic story where Arthur is a pagan warrior king / bear king; and he let (ask ?) his queen have some sexual relationships with his bests warriors to obtain more loyalty in battle, it is a major betrayal too. (christians transformed it in a romance with yelmalio lancelot )

 

Arthur myths are like an heroquest : you can see it in the first age (BC) , in the second age (fall of roman empire), in the third age (middle age), and maybe the fourth age (some are waiting for arthur in our irl future, to save the world, as it is announced in some myths) and of course the XXXth age (star wars, or it was long ago, maybe the wheel of time )

And of course you can change detail of the myth (technology, people, relationships, opponents, allies) but the scheme is the same

a honorable fighter king, a magical weapon, a magicien and great warriors following the king, a queen, and an opponent who wants to destroy the world

Edited May 31, 2020 by French Desperate WindChild

[Julian Lord]

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

The clergy made the story about a Christian myth. This doesn't really tally with likely history, nor the actual time period.

That is, I'm sorry, a rather inaccurate assessment, despite the promotion of such ideas since the latter half of the 19th Century.

6th Century Western Europe was basically Christian, including both Britain and Germany.

Putting pagan stuff into this period isn't a complete anachronism, as paganism wouldn't die out completely for another couple hundred years, but Christianity was the common Religion of 6th Century Europe.

And FWIW I think you're also a bit off as regards "a Christian myth" -- most of the Knights in the Arthurian cycle are depicted as being bad Christians, sinners, lost, and as having pagan tendencies. (it's what makes them interesting, they are the exact opposite of hagiographic perfection, Sir Gawain particularly, including from all of his Welsh/Mabinogion origins)

Nobody really knows who wrote the original Arthurian works, though it's rather unlikely that Chrétien de Troyes was a cleric, but it's pure & unsubstantiated 19th Century theorycraft that the writers were mainly priests and monks.

To the contrary, the major success of the Arthurian genre compared to the chansons de geste and earlier epic poetry was that it provided realistically feminine characters, a feminine perspective, and an aesthetic that girls and women could relate to instead of being bored by.

OK, La Queste del Saint Graal is a lot more overtly Christian including at a mythic level, and that book in particular may indeed have been written by monks. But that's simply more evidence that dechristianised "Arthurian" stuff is betraying its source material.

[Julian Lord]

4 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

with merlin as a druid

That is an outright violation of all of the mediaeval source material.