Horses and Sartar

[Shiningbrow]

9 hours ago, Darius West said:

Most of the people on this forum despise Mongoose for various reasons.

Oh yes! And it amuses me... because, while apparently YGMV is a huge positive aspect of the game and culture, it's not allowed to apply to Mongoose. Ie, they weren't allowed to have their own vision or variation on the world and do something different with it. Besides which... hate the publisher, not the author's and their work! (especially for MRQ2) However, this is OT...

9 hours ago, Darius West said:

As to mercenary soldiers and drive skill (a) 10% won't achieve much

True! But... if you're an Orlanthi Cityfolk, you can get +10%, and then Mercenary/soldier +10%, plus categories, plus Free Skill Points. +10% is a very typical skill addition throughout all of character creation. And... look a the skills in RQ2...or 3.... or even RQG....

9 hours ago, Darius West said:

(b) are you sure the primary use of the skill isn't for driving supply wagons?

No, I'm not. However, that same logic could apply to so many other occupations as well, and so I'm not convinced that "driving supply wagons" would really feature that highly in a mercenar/soldiery (especially when you look at the other skills on that list: 1H Axe +10%, 1H Flail +10%, 1H Hammer +10%, 1H Sword +10%, 2H Axe +10%, 2H Flail +10%, 2H Hammer +10%, 2H Sword +10%, Athletics +10%, Bow +10%, Crossbow +10%, Dagger +10%, Driving +10% (**Supply Wagon), Polearm +10%, Riding +10%, Shield +10%, Sling +10%, Spear +10%. Pick the odd one out....

Crafters don't get it. Neither do Merchants. And I would have thought those two would be more likely to drive wagons that the warrior types. (NB farmers do at +5% as an automatic)

Slightly related to this, why would Cityfolk Orlanthi have drive, but not the other Orlanthi two (especially Nomadic)?

[g33k]

15 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

... I'm not convinced that "driving supply wagons" would really feature that highly in a mercenar/soldiery ...

Supply wagons are *critical* for armies.

Not so much for small bands of Adventurers; but larger groups absolutely.

[M Helsdon]

I've been examining old documents by Greg Stafford shared with me by various people when I was writing Armies and Enemies of Dragon Pass. I will delete this post if requested as it contains Chaosium IP. 

There are two describing horses. One is dated to 1997. An earlier one, a text file, probably from earlier in the 90s, says:

The Galana is the most common horse breed in Dragon Pass, Kethaela, Maniria, Ralios, and Talastar. This tough big-headed horse is used to swiftly pull chariots over uneven ground, with only the largest suitable as cavalry mounts.  

They are named for Galana the Sun-goddess and Galanin the noble ancestor of the Sun Horse-worshiping Galanini clans of the Enerali tribes of central Ralios. At the Dawn the Enerali chiefs fought from chariots pulled by their ponies, sacred to their horse deity. They had survived the Great Darkness by following the sacred herds.

Elsewhere, the Galanini clans were extinguished during the Darkness, though their horse herds survived throughout Orlanthi lands and were placed under the protection of Orlanth’s thane Elmal and his wife Redalda the Horse Goddess.

The Galana ponies of the East Wilds of Ralios are smaller than their cousins elsewhere, but share the same attributes: small ears, a fine muzzle, a flat nose, long neck and small hooves, suited to rough and stony ground. The mane and tail are long and wavy. 

This breed can graze on shrubs, leaves and grasses. The Galana are dun to brown, usually with tails and manes darker than their coat. 

The cattle-herding Pol-Joni entered Prax two centuries ago, securing their place in the Battle of Denzis Water. Despite not being included in the Survival Covenant, their horses (and cattle) have partially adapted to the harsh conditions of Prax, requiring only two thirds of the fodder and water of those elsewhere. The horses of the Pol-Joni are primarily a hardy subtype of the Galana, through mixed with other breeds. They have a strong, well-muscled body, a broad chest and powerful, rounded hindquarters. A piebald coat is common: usually a mixture of white or pale gold, and brown. 

Much of this information is summarized in RuneQuest Glorantha Bestiary published in 2018, but long predates it. Obviously, this is no longer fully canonical. Redaylda's husband is now recognized as either Hyalor or his son Beren.

Edited May 11, 2023 by M Helsdon

[Shiningbrow]

On 5/11/2023 at 12:25 PM, g33k said:

Supply wagons are *critical* for armies.

Not so much for small bands of Adventurers; but larger groups absolutely.

Oh, I would never suggest supply wagons aren't critical for armies, nor appropriate for a mercenary band.

I just think that the group of skills it's linked it - combat skills - may suggest that the chariot is the more more likely intended usage. Of course, there's no reason it couldn't be for both. (although, I also suppose it depends on how you view your soldier/mercenary... how many chariot companies are there around??)

In many armies, it's the hangers-on that drive a lot of the wagons, not the soldiers (yes, I know that many do as well!!)

[Erol of Backford]

Because I am glad the WoD says that chariots were supplanted in the Holy Country.

Clans supported heavy chariot cavalry (that were eventually supplanted by heavy horse cavalry once large enough horses could be reliably obtained from the Grazelands. Curious why they didn't start breading their own? I assume they did once numbers were up.

Do we assume most Heortland Plateau city bread some horses? 

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/holy-country-notes-with-maps/

Canon or not I like it...

[davecake]

I regard deities like Finovan or Helamakt etc somewhere between Jeff and Darius. Like Jeff, I do not think these any of the huge number of Thunder Brothers are worshipped as independent deities. They are at most sub-cults of Orlanth. As are the very many sub-cults or Orlanth described in the same sources. And like Jef, I agree the major cults described in the book - Thunderous, Adventurous, Rex and Vinga - are the only ones that regularly rise to have dedicated temples or worship ceremonies, and you can play RQG perfectly fine without knowing about any of the others, and for new players it is better to just not have to deal with a range of names that just complicate a setting that already has a reputation as being somewhat overwhelming for new players. 
But like Darius, I think they are worthwhile, part of the richness of Glorantha that makes it such a great setting. And many of us are very far from new players, and are happy to complicate our games a bit more. And they have game uses. They can help distinguish one clan or one character from another, in a society in which the great majority all worship the one deity, and emphasis the richness of Orlanth society. They give us handy hooks to hang stories and myths on, which in turn makes them feel more Gloranthan and more like something from a living culture. There is a bit of a ‘Glorantha non est hoc’ tendency in some RQG material that has sensible goals (to push back against a tendency to overwritten material that over complicates and reduces verisimilitude to anyone familiar with the historical inspirations), but sometimes goes a bit too far, because it removes material that can be inspirational and add to the richness of the setting. 

So I think that it’s fine to keep such material in the game and source material. I’d like to have seen a few more of these minor deities in the Prosopedia (though I’m sure that a few will show up in the Sartar book or the Mythologies book here and there). 
and I think they are great for JC material. But I think cult writeups is going too far, and most don’t even require a sub-cult writeup. Some might be full minor sub-cults, with a spell gained through membership - the several hero cults of Humakt are a great example of how this enriches the game (and yes, I know the Orlanth cult has some of these written up - I’m just saying I don’t think a few more would hurt). But many of the Hero Wars era ones are less than that. Some might just be noted as ‘the source of the X spell’. Some are ‘the source of Orlanth’s friendship with X associated cult’ (and some might add an associated cult just for members of that sub-cult and nothing more). Some might just change the list skills counted as cult skills where they are strong, or cult spirit spells available. Some don’t even represent that - they are just figures that represent the model of Orlanthi behaviour for a subset of Orlanthi society (this is what Orlanthi behaviour for a weaponthane is, this is the name for Orlanth acting as a chief) - and maybe if they grant useful abilities, it is the ones intrinsic to being an Orlanthi in that role or doing that thing, and we don’t need to represent that any more in the game. 
And for detailing myths and heroquests? Honestly, they help a lot. It lets you disguise roles when you have more than one Orlanthi in your group. It lets you write myths about internal division within Orlanthi society. 
So my opinion on these minor figures is more or less let a thousand flowers bloom - but let’s be clear that not every flower should be treated like a potential tree. 

And Heortling Mythology shouldn’t be treated as canon. There is a bunch of stuff in there that is clearly written for specific reasons or with specific elements that aren’t useful any more. I particularly discard anything that is heavily based on the Three Worlds Model, which I find positively unhelpful. But it’s a marvellous source of inspiration, with a lot of Gloranthan gold. If you are looking for ideas for an Orlanthi game, a flick through should give you some excellent mythic ideas. Judge them on their usefulness and current relevance absolutely. But there are quite a few babies in that bath water. Maybe the forthcoming Sartar and Mythology books will have picked out all the good stuff - but I doubt it. And having your own attempt at fitting such ideas into your own context is part of the creative fun of Gloranthan writing, be it for the JC or your own game.
And if some such efforts are ‘doing Glorantha wrong’, well they won’t end up very compatible with Chaosium publications but they might be great in their own way (the ‘Stormspearia’-Glorantha is practically a variant game and variant Glorantha that significantly diverges from the official, and it’s not to my taste for the game I run, but I keep buying it because it’s so damn entertaining, and has lots of useful ideas therein). 

[Jeff]

3 hours ago, davecake said:

I regard deities like Finovan or Helamakt etc somewhere between Jeff and Darius. Like Jeff, I do not think these any of the huge number of Thunder Brothers are worshipped as independent deities. They are at most sub-cults of Orlanth. As are the very many sub-cults or Orlanth described in the same sources. And like Jef, I agree the major cults described in the book - Thunderous, Adventurous, Rex and Vinga - are the only ones that regularly rise to have dedicated temples or worship ceremonies, and you can play RQG perfectly fine without knowing about any of the others, and for new players it is better to just not have to deal with a range of names that just complicate a setting that already has a reputation as being somewhat overwhelming for new players. 
But like Darius, I think they are worthwhile, part of the richness of Glorantha that makes it such a great setting. And many of us are very far from new players, and are happy to complicate our games a bit more. And they have game uses. They can help distinguish one clan or one character from another, in a society in which the great majority all worship the one deity, and emphasis the richness of Orlanth society. They give us handy hooks to hang stories and myths on, which in turn makes them feel more Gloranthan and more like something from a living culture. There is a bit of a ‘Glorantha non est hoc’ tendency in some RQG material that has sensible goals (to push back against a tendency to overwritten material that over complicates and reduces verisimilitude to anyone familiar with the historical inspirations), but sometimes goes a bit too far, because it removes material that can be inspirational and add to the richness of the setting. 

So I think that it’s fine to keep such material in the game and source material. I’d like to have seen a few more of these minor deities in the Prosopedia (though I’m sure that a few will show up in the Sartar book or the Mythologies book here and there). 
and I think they are great for JC material. But I think cult writeups is going too far, and most don’t even require a sub-cult writeup. Some might be full minor sub-cults, with a spell gained through membership - the several hero cults of Humakt are a great example of how this enriches the game (and yes, I know the Orlanth cult has some of these written up - I’m just saying I don’t think a few more would hurt). But many of the Hero Wars era ones are less than that. Some might just be noted as ‘the source of the X spell’. Some are ‘the source of Orlanth’s friendship with X associated cult’ (and some might add an associated cult just for members of that sub-cult and nothing more). Some might just change the list skills counted as cult skills where they are strong, or cult spirit spells available. Some don’t even represent that - they are just figures that represent the model of Orlanthi behaviour for a subset of Orlanthi society (this is what Orlanthi behaviour for a weaponthane is, this is the name for Orlanth acting as a chief) - and maybe if they grant useful abilities, it is the ones intrinsic to being an Orlanthi in that role or doing that thing, and we don’t need to represent that any more in the game. 
And for detailing myths and heroquests? Honestly, they help a lot. It lets you disguise roles when you have more than one Orlanthi in your group. It lets you write myths about internal division within Orlanthi society. 
So my opinion on these minor figures is more or less let a thousand flowers bloom - but let’s be clear that not every flower should be treated like a potential tree. 

And Heortling Mythology shouldn’t be treated as canon. There is a bunch of stuff in there that is clearly written for specific reasons or with specific elements that aren’t useful any more. I particularly discard anything that is heavily based on the Three Worlds Model, which I find positively unhelpful. But it’s a marvellous source of inspiration, with a lot of Gloranthan gold. If you are looking for ideas for an Orlanthi game, a flick through should give you some excellent mythic ideas. Judge them on their usefulness and current relevance absolutely. But there are quite a few babies in that bath water. Maybe the forthcoming Sartar and Mythology books will have picked out all the good stuff - but I doubt it. And having your own attempt at fitting such ideas into your own context is part of the creative fun of Gloranthan writing, be it for the JC or your own game.
And if some such efforts are ‘doing Glorantha wrong’, well they won’t end up very compatible with Chaosium publications but they might be great in their own way (the ‘Stormspearia’-Glorantha is practically a variant game and variant Glorantha that significantly diverges from the official, and it’s not to my taste for the game I run, but I keep buying it because it’s so damn entertaining, and has lots of useful ideas therein). 

I am going to be blunt. Finovan and Helemakt are not RQ cults. The names don't appear in the Prosopaedia, the Cults books, or even the Sartar book. Finovan might once have been the name of a wind or an ancestor in the Hendrikilands, but now just the name of some hills east of Whitewall. Maybe a shaman can find him and you can set up a little spirit cult for him. 

 

 

[davecake]

On 7/21/2023 at 4:26 PM, Jeff said:

I am going to be blunt. Finovan and Helemakt are not RQ cults.

On 7/21/2023 at 12:35 PM, davecake said:

There is a bit of a ‘Glorantha non est hoc’ tendency in some RQG material

And I’m not a fan of that tendency. I don’t find ‘the background and mythology is too rich’ to be a compelling problem with Glorantha, that demands pruning like an overgrown garden. 
But FWIW, I do agree that they should not be cults in the sense of independent cults, or full sub-cults. But minor local variations, or myths that are meaningful as HeroQuest paths, or ‘rites’ used at particular times or places, and otherwise have minor game significance? Why not? 

[Ali the Helering]

IMG they are part of that accumulation of local storm deities who the God Learners identified as a single deity under the title Orlanth.  Firstly because it fits with RW Bronze Age religious structures.  Secondly because it is truly MGF.

[Bohemond]

I think it's important to factor in the issue of terrain when discussing the degree to which chariots were used in warfare. Historically, the cultures that relied on them heavily tended to be Middle Eastern cultures where warfare was happening on broad plains. Flat land is very conducive to chariots, whereas very hilly ground is not--if driven too fast, the chariot easily overturns, throws off its riders, or shakes so much that aiming a missile weapon becomes difficult. 

The Mycenaean Greeks seem to have used chariots militarily, but at some point during the Greek Dark Age they appear to have abandoned that practice and relegated them mostly to transportation and sports. Homer displays a memory of chariot warfare in the Iliad, but doesn't understand how they are used--his warriors ride chariots around the battlefield and then leap out to fight on foot when they find a target. 

The Archaic and Classical Greeks and the Romans throughout their history did not fight from chariots and instead built their military systems around infantry, which works much better in the terrain they had. Among the Celts, chariots enjoyed some use in warfare, but mostly for pre-battle displays of bravery and as a sort of emergency evacuation vehicle. The Classical world primarily used chariots for sport-racing, and those chariots were surprisingly light, stripped down vehicles--the charioteer was expected to balance on the axle instead of enjoying a  'carriage' to ride in on top of the axle. Our popular imagination is heavily shaped by the various theatrical and cinematic versions of Ben Hur, which don't really accurately capture the nature of Roman chariot racing. 

What does this have to do with Glorantha? Prax and Sun County and perhaps Sun County and the Local and Dinacoli clan lands in Sartar are good flat fields conducive to chariot warfare, but the hilly and forested nature of much of Sartar means it would be hard to use chariots effectively in combat unless one had special magic to counteract the bouncing it will do on rocky terrain. I think Sartarites would use chariots primarily for ritual matters, to provide a speaking platform for a chieftain to address his forces, and as a spell-casting platform that can be repositioned as necessary (but probably not for a lot of spell-casting while the chariot in in motion). 

It's also worth noting that lots of deities in both the real world and Glorantha are depicted driving chariots--Zeus, Apollo, Hades, Thor, Orlanth, Valind, Yelm, Ronance. But with the exception of Ronance, these are gods associated with the Air or the Sky,. where the 'terrain' is a lot less rocky and one can assume that divine power smoothes out whatever mystical surface the chariot moves on. So I could easily imagine a priest of one of those gods using his magic to ride his chariot above the battlefield (sort of like Gagarthi riding their horses), throwing down spells and missiles as air support. But in the absence of a specific 'Fly Chariot' spell, I would think that would require a fair number of rune points to get a chariot, one or more horses, and one or more riders into the air. 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Bohemond

[Ali the Helering]

I don't things have changed much on Malta since the fall of Rome

[Bohemond]

11 minutes ago, Ali the Helering said:

I don't things have changed much on Malta since the fall of Rome

Racing traps like the ones used in harness racing (shown here) are loosely similar to the racing chariots the Romans and Greeks used, although they are controlled sitting down rather than standing. But they're not directly descended from Roman chariots. Modern harness racing seems to have emerged only in the 16th century and didn't really emerge until the later 18th century (SFAIK).  So this isn't an example of historical continuity so much as independent convergent evolution of the form. 

[Ali the Helering]

1 hour ago, Bohemond said:

Racing traps like the ones used in harness racing (shown here) are loosely similar to the racing chariots the Romans and Greeks used, although they are controlled sitting down rather than standing. But they're not directly descended from Roman chariots. Modern harness racing seems to have emerged only in the 16th century and didn't really emerge until the later 18th century (SFAIK).  So this isn't an example of historical continuity so much as independent convergent evolution of the form. 

The sources are by no means unanimous in this.  Certainly there was no course in Malta until 1853 (I think), but races on rather rougher surfaces had been taking place from perpetuity.  Interestingly, when the course was laid out it was in conscious imitation of Roman design.

[Bohemond]

9 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

The sources are by no means unanimous in this.  Certainly there was no course in Malta until 1853 (I think), but races on rather rougher surfaces had been taking place from perpetuity.  Interestingly, when the course was laid out it was in conscious imitation of Roman design.

It is a common mistake in thinking about history for people to assume greater continuity with the past than actually exists, especially over long periods. Speaking as a professional historian, I think the burden of proof generally rests on the assumption of continuity rather than the assumption of discontinuity. Sources by definition cannot prove discontinuity over long periods because sources do not document what doesn't happen or exist. Thus, in the absence of clear evidence, one should not assume continuity.

The fact that modern Maltese racing traps have some vague similarity to Roman racing chariots does not mean there is a direct relationship between the two beyond the fact that a need for a light vehicle was common to both systems of racing. 

But this is a fairly irrelevant debate for discussing the Sartarite use of chariots. 

[JRE]

There is another factor in chariot warfare, and it is mount quality. If you only have small horses or onagers, you may have a better shock effect (not by physical shock, but morale and maneuver) by using chariots rather than cavalry. That would also explain some of the homeric charioteering if you have the chariots just to give mobility to leaders, rather than a fighting platform. Like the horses sometimes used by the vikings to move faster, even if they would dismount before battle.

In Glorantha a traditional wind lord would be ridden around in a chariot, but once battle is joined would probaby just jump down where needed, or jump up and fly. I assume Mastakos may have some smoother ride magic, but it is usually ignored compared to the nifty teleports.

[Ali the Helering]

13 hours ago, Bohemond said:

It is a common mistake in thinking about history for people to assume greater continuity with the past than actually exists, especially over long periods

A hazardous stance to take with respect to an island where at least one site has a demonstrable history of worship for at least 1,900 years of at least four different cultures, with the faint possibility of making that 3,900 with a fifth.

[Bohemond]

On 8/1/2023 at 11:37 AM, Ali the Helering said:

A hazardous stance to take with respect to an island where at least one site has a demonstrable history of worship for at least 1,900 years of at least four different cultures, with the faint possibility of making that 3,900 with a fifth.

There are lots of examples of sacred sites that have changed religions over time. There are sites in England that have passed through Celtic Pagan, Roman pagan, Anglo-Saxon Pagan, medieval Catholic, modern Anglican and finally fully secular control, or some combination thereof. Rome has been continuous inhabited for 2700 years, and yet it would be a mistake to claim that any structure there has the same cultural uses as it did in 500 BC. 

But again, this has gotten a long way from the topic of the thread. 

[Snork]

On 7/31/2023 at 4:34 PM, Bohemond said:

I think it's important to factor in the issue of terrain when discussing the degree to which chariots were used in warfare. Historically, the cultures that relied on them heavily tended to be Middle Eastern cultures where warfare was happening on broad plains. Flat land is very conducive to chariots, whereas very hilly ground is not--if driven too fast, the chariot easily overturns, throws off its riders, or shakes so much that aiming a missile weapon becomes difficult. 

 

The Britons were still using them when Ceasar visited.

 "In chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to throw their opponents' ranks into disorder. Then, after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from the chariot and engage on foot. In the meantime their charioteers retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such a position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have an easy means of retreat to their own lines. Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying power of infantry; and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that even on a steep incline they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them in a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back into the chariot as quick as lightning" (Gallic War, IV.33).

 

Not as rocky as Sartar but not as flat as the or dry as the middle east

Chariots are very good if you don't have big horses. They are also great missle platforms and as stated by JR function as paltforms for spellcasters

 

Edited February 12 by ajs

[Bohemond]

Yes, but by that time they were very old-fashioned in doing so—other Celts had  basically abandoned the use of chariots. As an isolated island population the Britons had less incentive/pressure to innovate.
 

They appear to have abandoned them by the end of the 1st century AD or so—half a century after being conquered by the Romans. The last reference to them is in conjunction with the battle of Mons Graupius, where Tacitus says they were used on a plain (although given that Tacitus is at best using second-hand info, how accurate that description is is unclear).  
 

It’s also important to note that Caesar doesn’t say they fought from chariots. His description says they used them to throw javelins at the start of a battle, and then dismounted and fought on foot.

And, of course, of the three battles where British chariots are known to have been used against Romans, the British lost the second and third.