Jump to content

High Llama Riders and 2H Dagger Axe


Ryan Kent

Recommended Posts

On 10/19/2021 at 8:05 AM, Darius West said:

The notion that you can't use a 2h weapon from a mount is wrong.  It isn't optimal, but it isn't impossible, and training can compensate irl.  I mean, cataphracts used sarissa sized lances in an overhand 2 handed position with no shield, and a bow isn't exactly a one handed weapon, and bastard swords are purpose designed for cavalry use and they are 1h/2h weapons.  If anyone debates the use of a pole-arm from horseback I draw your attention to Guan Di, War God of China and hero of the 3 Kingdoms period who used a guan dao (glaive-like polearm) from horseback, much as samurai used naginata from horseback.

There's a big difference between using a pole weapon two-handed when mounted, and a bladed one, I totally agree. 

I'm not aware of any evidence bastard swords (by which I mean "swords intermediate between a 'pure' arming sword and a 'pure' long sword") were developed for cavalry use. Arming swords had been used for centuries from horseback on foot targets before anything you could call a bastard sword arose. The adoption of the spatha by cavalry was definitely because they were cavalry, as the gladius was not very useful from horseback. 

The longsword itself (terminology with swords is dreadful wooly, I use current usage, "a sword with a hilt suitable for two hands with a blade somewhat longer than an arming sword which was still a useful single-handed weapon") was definitively NOT intended for cavalry use two-handed. It arose as a response to improvements in armour and was secondary weapon used primarily two-handed on foot, with the 'half-sword' grip being best against heavily armoured opponents as it effectively uses the sword as a spear, but only used one-handed when mounted.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's all about a few things:

  1. Stirrups. I cannot be arsed to have bronze-ish authenticity down to no stirrups. So one-handed lance at the charge is a thing, which it wasn't really without stirrups. Not entirely sure whether the rules for charge would apply to two-handed weapons without stirrups either.
  2. The animals neck. A bison carries it's head low and has compact horns. A rider could swing a two handed weapon and not endanger their mount. A rhino carries its head low, and although it will have a sticky-up horn it's probably safe from the sweep of a two-handed weapon as it is far enough away from where the rider will sit.  However, some two-handed weapons will be useless against target on foot. Imagine swinging a great sword at foot targets from a rhino's back. Other mounts have high head carriage (extremely so in the case of the high llama), and some additionally have horns. With these, a two-handed weapon can be used one side or the other in a melee round but not both, and cannot be used against a target directly in from or on a front diagonal as the neck and or horns is/are in the way, unless it's a thrusting weapon in which case frontal or front diagonal attacks are possible.
  3. The dagger axe is vastly over-powered IMO. It's a great axe with a point on the end and a very small bit. 2d6 damage. It can be used two handed against targets on one side or the other in a melee round, including those to the front or front diagonal. If the high llama has a pillion passenger, this is how they do it. It can also be used one-handed like a polo mallet or a lance. That's how a rider would use it. Same skill.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2021 at 1:46 AM, Monty Lovering said:

There's a big difference between using a pole weapon two-handed when mounted, and a bladed one, I totally agree. 

I'm not aware of any evidence bastard swords (by which I mean "swords intermediate between a 'pure' arming sword and a 'pure' long sword") were developed for cavalry use. Arming swords had been used for centuries from horseback on foot targets before anything you could call a bastard sword arose. The adoption of the spatha by cavalry was definitely because they were cavalry, as the gladius was not very useful from horseback. 

The longsword itself (terminology with swords is dreadful wooly, I use current usage, "a sword with a hilt suitable for two hands with a blade somewhat longer than an arming sword which was still a useful single-handed weapon") was definitively NOT intended for cavalry use two-handed. It arose as a response to improvements in armour and was secondary weapon used primarily two-handed on foot, with the 'half-sword' grip being best against heavily armoured opponents as it effectively uses the sword as a spear, but only used one-handed when mounted.

This made me smile.  Yes, there is a point where things get a bit hair-splitting in some definitions.  We are definitely on the same page I think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...