Swords of Central Genertela

[M Helsdon]

Am preparing a preview printout for Dragonmeet.

Edited November 9, 2019 by M Helsdon

[M Helsdon]

8 hours ago, Neil Patterson said:

Having stumbled across this project, I'd be very interested in obtaining a copy.

I note you indicate "expensive" for price; is there a ball park figure?

I even started looking at the feasibility of going to Dragonmeet (which I confess wasn't on my radar) as I figured cost would be about that for postage if using National Express, with a show to boot. I've discovered the train has a replacement bus service that day anyway, meaning avoiding that = extra time in any case.

For me I'd want to reserve a copy for collection, paying up front (which would probably the most practical way to pay in any case). However, before committing I'd like some idea of potential cost; I'm aware this may depend on numbers printed and whether it's worthwhile for you.

Hi Neil,

I'm afraid there's a limit on the number of previews I am allowed to sell, and that limit was exceeded yesterday. A couple of copies will be posted (some abroad) and it will be expensive as it is a thick heavy book.

Am asking if the limit can be stretched a little, but there's also a very hard limit of what I can transport to Dragonmeet, as I will be travelling by train/bus/tube.

Have just sent a copy of my files to a printer to do a one copy black & white, soft cover test, which I should get back by the middle of next week. Their document preview showed a couple of issues: middle cut out of a double page spread (I can fix); a few thin black lines around some illustrations (which I can't fathom as they aren't present in the Word or PDF versions).

The preview, with any faults I can't fix, will cost about £60, for a 380 page full color hardback. The print run is small, and vanity publishing is expensive.

It looks as though it would be more feasible for you to wait on the PDF? Am sorry about this. I didn't anticipate there would be so much interest in a preview.

Spine not shown (changes likely):

Edited November 9, 2019 by M Helsdon

[Neil Patterson]

9 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Hi Neil,

I'm afraid there's a limit on the number of previews I am allowed to sell, and that limit was exceeded yesterday. A couple of copies will be posted (some abroad) and it will be expensive as it is a thick heavy book.

Am asking if the limit can be stretched a little, but there's also a very hard limit of what I can transport to Dragonmeet, as I will be travelling by train/bus/tube.

Have just sent a copy of my files to a printer to do a one copy black & white, soft cover test, which I should get back by the middle of next week. Their document preview showed a couple of issues: middle cut out of a double page spread (I can fix); a few thin black lines around some illustrations (which I can't fathom as they aren't present in the Word or PDF versions).

The preview, with any faults I can't fix, will cost about £60, for a 380 page full color hardback. The print run is small, and vanity publishing is expensive.

It looks as though it would be more feasible for you to wait on the PDF? Am sorry about this. I didn't anticipate there would be so much interest in a preview.

Spine not shown (changes likely):

OK. Thanks for the response. If you can stretch the limit I'd still be interested in a copy even if it means expensive postage rather than a trip to Dragonmeet.

Neil

[Bill the barbarian]

On 11/5/2019 at 11:10 AM, Monty Lovering said:

The main problem I have had is that impala are just too small, even for pygmies. So for all the pygmy tribes I have assumed that their mounts are 150-200kg (maybe the pick of the herd), which is the minimum you need to carry 50kg, and that they make extensive use remounts (just like the Mongol hordes on their little ponies did). On raids/in war, adolescents hang back from the action with a herd of remounts and as missile ammunition is depleted and mounts tire, the warriors swing back in waves to pick up reloads and a fresh impala/bolo lizard/ostrich, always working it so that there are always a wave of fresh mounts and riders with full quivers on the assault.

This sounds good to me, You have to figure that the beasts that carry the warriors would have to be just as alpha as the warriors. The tactics are what I have read over the years, and make use of the situation in a realistic way so thanks for the articulation.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[M Helsdon]

6 hours ago, Neil Patterson said:

OK. Thanks for the response. If you can stretch the limit I'd still be interested in a copy even if it means expensive postage rather than a trip to Dragonmeet.

There's a limit on the number of previews permitted. Will announce if more are allowed.

[M Helsdon]

I may bring a very few spare copies to Dragonmeet, but they will be sold by Chaosium on a first come, first served basis.

The PDF may be available in a few weeks, so making special trips to Dragonmeet for a book that may be sold out is not advised.

I assumed, naively, that there wouldn't be much demand for what is a big expensive book.

[M Helsdon]

On 11/5/2019 at 6:10 PM, Monty Lovering said:

they make extensive use remounts (just like the Mongol hordes on their little ponies did).

Most ancient armies, whether using cavalry or chariots did this, because if one horse cannot be ridden, it turns the rider into infantry; for chariots, it is even more of an issue because you require a trained team used to working together. A cataphract needs several mounts. Most mounts are expensive as they have to be trained, if not to the standard of war mounts, to cavalry, which is why many cavalry regiments are either aristocratic in nature, or aspiring aristocrats hoping for a land grant. Nomads are a bit different, of course.

This is covered in the book...

[Monty Lovering]

1 hour ago, M Helsdon said:

Most ancient armies, whether using cavalry or chariots did this, because if one horse cannot be ridden, it turns the rider into infantry; for chariots, it is even more of an issue because you require a trained team used to working together. A cataphract needs several mounts. Most mounts are expensive as they have to be trained, if not to the standard of war mounts, to cavalry, which is why many cavalry regiments are either aristocratic in nature, or aspiring aristocrats hoping for a land grant. Nomads are a bit different, of course.

This is covered in the book...

Can’t wait to read it!

But I think there’s a difference between the number of remounts needed with mounts that weigh 150kg and carry over 30% of their weight (like my image of Praxian Impala) and Fronan war horses of 700kg carrying less than 25%. 

The research I’ve done shows (for example with the British cavalry) a cavalry mount had the later expection and of being useful (if given enough food) day after day without breaking down. Yes, they had remounts but for injury and accident as opposed to returning from melee to get a fresh horse. 

And yes, canon has given us unhistorically large horses in Glorantha. Horses of Arab size (so Vusano or Churian) carrying an armoured warrior might need changing in a battle, but a big Fronan or Doran, less so. 
 

But smaller mounts - especially of cavalry using missile weapons and avoiding melee - would get changed in a battle, several times. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Most ancient armies, whether using cavalry or chariots did this, because if one horse cannot be ridden, it turns the rider into infantry; for chariots, it is even more of an issue because you require a trained team used to working together. A cataphract needs several mounts. Most mounts are expensive as they have to be trained, if not to the standard of war mounts, to cavalry, which is why many cavalry regiments are either aristocratic in nature, or aspiring aristocrats hoping for a land grant. Nomads are a bit different, of course.

This is covered in the book...

It was something of a thing with later armies as well, for much the same reason. I think it fell out of favor in the middle ages due to the greater costs to feed and maintain grain fed warhorses, as opposed to horses than can live off of grass.

[soltakss]

21 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Am sorry about this. I didn't anticipate there would be so much interest in a preview.

We've been telling you for ages that there would be more than enough interest!

But do you listen? No, kids nowadays ...

 

[M Helsdon]

15 minutes ago, soltakss said:

We've been telling you for ages that there would be more than enough interest!

You have.

15 minutes ago, soltakss said:

But do you listen? No, kids nowadays ...

I'm older than you! 😉

[soltakss]

15 minutes ago, M Helsdon said:

I'm older than you! 😉

Then you should know better!

[M Helsdon]

4 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

The research I’ve done shows (for example with the British cavalry) a cavalry mount had the later expection and of being useful (if given enough food) day after day without breaking down. Yes, they had remounts but for injury and accident as opposed to returning from melee to get a fresh horse.  

If you are referring to British cavalry horses from the late 18th century on, there had often been many generations of breeding, and a regime of particular fodder, but even then, a horse couldn't be in constant use, day after day, but had to be rested.

4 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

And yes, canon has given us unhistorically large horses in Glorantha. Horses of Arab size (so Vusano or Churian) carrying an armoured warrior might need changing in a battle, but a big Fronan or Doran, less so. 

Daron are still canon; not certain about the others.

Most ancient horses were smaller, though there were breeds like the Nisean horse which were much desired and sought after, that could carry a heavily armored rider (and the large Daron is perhaps a continuation of the Persian influence on Carmania - but then Carmania in our world was a province of various Persian Empires, and the name still exists as Kerman), whereas most other cavalry weren't so heavily armored - at least until larger horses were bred, including from Niseans taken from the King of Kings' herds.

4 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

But smaller mounts - especially of cavalry using missile weapons and avoiding melee - would get changed in a battle, several times. 

Possibly, if they can retire behind the battle-lines, though it doesn't seem to have been common in the ancient world.

Edited November 10, 2019 by M Helsdon

[M Helsdon]

6 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Then you should know better!

I don't have experience of selling books to gamers!

[soltakss]

10 minutes ago, M Helsdon said:

I don't have experience of selling books to gamers!

You will, hopefully. 

Lots and lots of books, all being well.

We want you to draw until your arms drop off and put out more and more books.

[Jarulf]

I've read through this thread today, and can only agree with all the nice words people have said to you @M Helsdon Your art has improved a lot, and it wasn't bad at all to begin with. Military stuff isn't my forte, but I will buy your book as soon as I can if/when it becomes available, just because it will add to my understanding of Glorantha.

[Bill the barbarian]

2 minutes ago, Jarulf said:

I've read through this thread today, and can only agree with all the nice words people have said to you @M Helsdon Your art has improved a lot, and it wasn't bad at all to begin with. Military stuff isn't my forte, but I will buy your book as soon as I can if/when it becomes available, just because it will add to my understanding of Glorantha.

Me too, budget permitting. So, I will have to be patient.

[Jarulf]

Budgets are very annoying things.

[Monty Lovering]

On 11/10/2019 at 9:24 PM, M Helsdon said:

If you are referring to British cavalry horses from the late 18th century on, there had often been many generations of breeding, and a regime of particular fodder, but even then, a horse couldn't be in constant use, day after day, but had to be rested.

Daron are still canon; not certain about the others.

Most ancient horses were smaller, though there were breeds like the Nisean horse which were much desired and sought after, that could carry a heavily armored rider (and the large Daron is perhaps a continuation of the Persian influence on Carmania - but then Carmania in our world was a province of various Persian Empires, and the name still exists as Kerman), whereas most other cavalry weren't so heavily armored - at least until larger horses were bred, including from Niseans taken from the King of Kings' herds.

Possibly, if they can retire behind the battle-lines, though it doesn't seem to have been common in the ancient world.

Oh, I'm assuming that RQ-G is Dragon Pass-centric, and the breeds I have listed from Anaxial's Roster are still canon. Rather silly if there are only four horse breeds in the world as per the Bestiary. YGMV 🙂

As far as day to day use goes, 'Chapter VIII Movements on page 245 of the 1912 Cavalry Training Manual refers; Section 179: Marches' boils down to 20-25 miles as daily maximum with forced marches of 40-50 miles in extreme need. This assumed leading the horse 25% of the time, stopping for 15 minutes every two hours, and feeding and watering horse every four hours.

For sustained operations with rest days and fighting 15 miles seems reasonable: The 5^th Cavalry Division covered 550 miles in 38 days (which period included actions fought at Nazareth, Haifa, Kiswe & Haritan). The 11th Hussars did 116 miles in 8 days including one day of 38 miles. And that's with a standard service load of 108kg. Of course distance is only part of the equation. A large one is fodder and water. In the Levantine campaign three divisions went 72 hours without water whilst working hard. Such ard use and sometimes erratic forage yielded a 5% attrition rate, including casualties. It's interesting to note that the hunters officers took over did not do well at all, whilst 15 year-old cavalry mounts could handle it. 

But go too far and you'll suffer the 60%+ attrition rate Napoleon suffered in Russia.

The actual force of cavalry (or indeed army) is one thing. The support train is another. I've read the Roman Legions (with an average of 2 cavalry per 100 men) had one mule carrying supplies for every 3.5 men or so, and that number comes up in the 18th and 19th Century too (only changing if there were more wagons available).

Just as the average person will <never> be able to draw a bow that a 14th C archer did as they practiced from childhood, so too our ideas about what a horse can do are based, largely on leisure horses. They are not the mopeds that gallop everywhere in movies, but they are capable of (with the right training and fodder) very heavy use to anything we'd think of putting them through now.

Unless you do endurance riding where 100 miles in ten-twelve hours is possible. But those horses are super-fit.

Size-wise, it's interesting there is some evidence that horses decreased in size from 14.2 (which is the average given by some studies of Roman cavalry horses) to less than 13 hands (early medieval) before increasing again. But the 16h or larger horses that some Gloranthan breeds are capable of are, as we both admit, huge.

One could arguably throw the idea of breeds out the window and just have horses used for what their size, speed and conformation suited them for, which is essentially (outside of some regional varieties such as the Nicean horse) what people did until early modern times.

As far as remounts go, I don't see an issue of a remount herd in the rear for pure missile weapon light cavalry (and light cavalry in melee in anything other than a desperation measure, a tactical feint or an easy victory is doing it wrong).

If you're in melee, withdrawal is an issue. If you are engaging the enemy at 100m and they are, by definition, less mobile than you, shooting off 20-40 arrows in five minutes and then getting reloads is what you need to do anyway. If it includes a fresh mount whoopee. The Mongols had at least four ponies each, and amazingly just like the British cavalry stopped every two hours, but their stops featured a horse change. But that string of horses was kept in reserve in a fight (although ridden on a lead rein held by the rider on the march). Thus my idea about sub-adults looking after the reserve herd, rather than having full warriors do it.

 

 

[M Helsdon]

3 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

Oh, I'm assuming that RQ-G is Dragon Pass-centric, and the breeds I have listed from Anaxial's Roster are still canon.

 

Anaxial's Roster is no longer part of canon.

3 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

The actual force of cavalry (or indeed army) is one thing. The support train is another. I've read the Roman Legions (with an average of 2 cavalry per 100 men) had one mule carrying supplies for every 3.5 men or so, and that number comes up in the 18th and 19th Century too (only changing if there were more wagons available).

 

Many ancient armies could only operate when within easy access of supply depots or by the capture of enemy depots. The Persians inherited the roads and depots of the Assyrian system, and Alexander and his Successors inherited those; away from the Mediterranean coast, Alexander's forces could only operate by capturing the Persian supply system; when his own attempt to supply the army on the return from India went severely wrong, as it wasn't possible to supply the army by sea as intended due in part because of the monsoon winds, his army suffered terrible attrition.

Even with a mule per three men, a Roman army could only operate without additional supplies for a few days.

4 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

The Mongols had at least four ponies each, and amazingly just like the British cavalry stopped every two hours, but their stops featured a horse change. But that string of horses was kept in reserve in a fight (although ridden on a lead rein held by the rider on the march). Thus my idea about sub-adults looking after the reserve herd, rather than having full warriors do it.

The Mongol system was far more advanced than that of their predecessors on the steppes, and no Gloranthan nomad army fights using Mongol organisation.

[Brootse]

4 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

Oh, I'm assuming that RQ-G is Dragon Pass-centric, and the breeds I have listed from Anaxial's Roster are still canon. Rather silly if there are only four horse breeds in the world as per the Bestiary. YGMV 🙂

As far as day to day use goes, 'Chapter VIII Movements on page 245 of the 1912 Cavalry Training Manual refers; Section 179: Marches' boils down to 20-25 miles as daily maximum with forced marches of 40-50 miles in extreme need. This assumed leading the horse 25% of the time, stopping for 15 minutes every two hours, and feeding and watering horse every four hours.

For sustained operations with rest days and fighting 15 miles seems reasonable: The 5^th Cavalry Division covered 550 miles in 38 days (which period included actions fought at Nazareth, Haifa, Kiswe & Haritan). The 11th Hussars did 116 miles in 8 days including one day of 38 miles. And that's with a standard service load of 108kg. Of course distance is only part of the equation. A large one is fodder and water. In the Levantine campaign three divisions went 72 hours without water whilst working hard. Such ard use and sometimes erratic forage yielded a 5% attrition rate, including casualties. It's interesting to note that the hunters officers took over did not do well at all, whilst 15 year-old cavalry mounts could handle it. 

But go too far and you'll suffer the 60%+ attrition rate Napoleon suffered in Russia.

The actual force of cavalry (or indeed army) is one thing. The support train is another. I've read the Roman Legions (with an average of 2 cavalry per 100 men) had one mule carrying supplies for every 3.5 men or so, and that number comes up in the 18th and 19th Century too (only changing if there were more wagons available).

Just as the average person will <never> be able to draw a bow that a 14th C archer did as they practiced from childhood, so too our ideas about what a horse can do are based, largely on leisure horses. They are not the mopeds that gallop everywhere in movies, but they are capable of (with the right training and fodder) very heavy use to anything we'd think of putting them through now.

Unless you do endurance riding where 100 miles in ten-twelve hours is possible. But those horses are super-fit.

Size-wise, it's interesting there is some evidence that horses decreased in size from 14.2 (which is the average given by some studies of Roman cavalry horses) to less than 13 hands (early medieval) before increasing again. But the 16h or larger horses that some Gloranthan breeds are capable of are, as we both admit, huge.

One could arguably throw the idea of breeds out the window and just have horses used for what their size, speed and conformation suited them for, which is essentially (outside of some regional varieties such as the Nicean horse) what people did until early modern times.

As far as remounts go, I don't see an issue of a remount herd in the rear for pure missile weapon light cavalry (and light cavalry in melee in anything other than a desperation measure, a tactical feint or an easy victory is doing it wrong).

If you're in melee, withdrawal is an issue. If you are engaging the enemy at 100m and they are, by definition, less mobile than you, shooting off 20-40 arrows in five minutes and then getting reloads is what you need to do anyway. If it includes a fresh mount whoopee. The Mongols had at least four ponies each, and amazingly just like the British cavalry stopped every two hours, but their stops featured a horse change. But that string of horses was kept in reserve in a fight (although ridden on a lead rein held by the rider on the march). Thus my idea about sub-adults looking after the reserve herd, rather than having full warriors do it.

 

 

What amount of mounts did a British or a Roman cavalry soldier start a campaign with usually?

[M Helsdon]

33 minutes ago, Brootse said:

What amount of mounts did a British or a Roman cavalry soldier start a campaign with usually?

Roman: we don't know.

British: prior to 1887, depended upon the decisions of the individual regimental colonels. Even when the provision of horses was made the responsibility of the Remount Service, horses were rarely plentiful; in 1900 a Major lamented that although a regiment was supposedly 350 strong, only about 180 horses could be put into the line on the occasion of a review, because there was a policy at the time of having fewer horses in a cavalry regiment than men! One excuse for this was that not all the men were actually cavalrymen, but support staff. In a House of Commons review one MP declared that the army should adopt the rules of Charles XII of Sweden who had had twice as many horses as men in each regiment. 

On campaign, the availability of suitable remounts for a British cavalry regiment was exceedingly variable, depending upon the competence of the commanding officer and the officer required to procure horses.

Earlier than either the Romans or the British cavalry regiments, Xenophon recommended that 'There will need to be a reserve of remounts, or else a deficiency may occur at any moment, looking to the fact that some will certainly succumb to old age, and others, from one reason or another, prove unserviceable.' Unfortunately he does not recommend how many should be available.

Edited November 13, 2019 by M Helsdon

[M Helsdon]

Will share this here... Test printout to check formatting.

[Akhôrahil]

The Mongols could in some cases do 100 miles per day, although 50 miles per day was more common. 3-4 horses for dedicated cavalry seeems to have been pretty common in history - medieval knights and Mongols both tended to those numbers.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Akhôrahil

[Akhôrahil]

On 11/10/2019 at 5:25 PM, Monty Lovering said:

But smaller mounts - especially of cavalry using missile weapons and avoiding melee - would get changed in a battle, several times. 

For one thing, they’re going to quickly run out of arrows if they can’t get back behind the line. I recall that in the Parthians’ defeat of Crassus at Carrhae, huge stashes of arrows were used to resupply the horse archers. It takes a lot to wear down Roman legions.