Two Handed Weapons, "Lance", Mounted Combat and basic physics

[Furry Fella]

There is a problem that needs to be cleaned up 

page 2019 states

"It is not possible to use a two-handed swinging weapon
(such as a maul, a greatsword, or a rhomphia) while mounted."

Yet page 62 lists

High Llama Rider
Cultural Skills Cultural Weapons
Ride (High Llama) +35% Dagger +10%
Customs
(High Llama Tribe) (25) Lance +15%
Herd +30% 2H Dagger-Axe +10%
Peaceful Cut +15% Pole Lasso +10%
Spirit Combat +20%

Now dagger axe entry under combat goes Page 208

Category                      Name Base    %   STR   DEX Damage  HP ENC Length  SR Type
Axe, One-handed (1H) Small Axe    10     7       7     1D6+1      6     1       0.4       4     S
Axe, One-handed (1H) Battle Axe    10   13      7     1D8+2      8     2       0.8        3    S
Axe, Two-handed (2H) Battle Axe     5     9        7     1D8+2     8     2       0.8        3    S
Axe, Two-handed (2H) Great Axe      5   11       7     2D6+2    10     2      1.2        2    S
Axe, Two-handed (2H) Dagger-axe    5   13      9     3D6         10     3       1.5–2  1    S

And Page 210 says:

Dagger-axe: This pole weapon consists of a dagger-
shaped head set perpendicularly to a long shaft, similar
in appearance to a short-bladed scythe. It is highly effective
against mounted foes who think they are out of reach. A
spear is often added to the top of the shaft. Up to 2 meters
long. Price: 75 L.

Either the Dagger axe needs to be recognised as its basic terrestrial counterpart from China which is commonly regarded as a a two handed cut and thrust weapon so use able as a thrusting weapon while mounted but requiring  an optional use line as a 2H spear or a thrusting mode OR the prohibition against 2H swinging weapons needs to be reconsidered. Particularly as we are presented with a picture that most Praxians are only marginally more prepared to engage in predominantly foot combat than Grazelanders. Hence all the previous references to Stormbull's being different in beimng equally skilled and happy mounted or on foot?

This then gets a touch more complicated by Lance. Now page 219 on mounted combat has the following:

. The Lance: A lance can be used in a charge, a
straight run of 20 meters or more. If a target is hit
during a charge, the damage bonus of the animal
ridden is used, not that of the rider. If the adventurer
using the lance has had no training in its use,
they can use it at 1/2 their normal attack chance
with a one-handed spear, unless their Ride skill
is below that. It can also be used as a one-handed
spear if the adventurer has the necessary STR and
DEX to use a long spear one-handed.

This looks fine until use and technique comes up. Lance above is explicitly equated with 1 handed spear. This is where the problem starts  - couched lance (i.e. single hand and held tightly gripped under the armpit) requires Both a high cantle / backed and rigid braced saddle AND Stirrups other wise the basic physics of the impact will promptly lever the user out of the saddle and air borne. The issue is what seamen would call metacentric height. More simply your position of balance and rotation is ones behind in the saddle and without stirrups to enable the riders feet to be planted / braced and balance point moved by leaning forward and resisting the turning moment at impact with almost all the bodies muscles you go flying.

Now impact charging "Lancers" did exist before stirrups but they used a VERY different technique - the "lance" is generally referred to as a Kontos (translates as barge pole), or Xyston and sometime a Sarissa. The technique uses two hands and either braces the "lance" down on the thigh (below ones point of balance) or raises both hands again changing the pivot point. These techniques only require the special saddle High cantle / High backed and rigid for bracing. But after impact the Kontos is used very differently - it is always a two handed weapon and is used to both stab and to cut (often likened to the manner of use like later Glaives). Thus is is either a two handed spear or a two handed slashing weapon.

Now discussions of Glorantha and illustrations in the pdf material would appear to largely exclude stirrups or at best limit them fairly significantly. To me this rather necessitates some fundamental changes in combat, background or both?

 

 

 

 

 

[soltakss]

4 hours ago, Furry Fella said:

There is a problem that needs to be cleaned up 

page 2019 states

I know it's a big book, but is Page 2019 accurate?

"It is not possible to use a two-handed swinging weapon
(such as a maul, a greatsword, or a rhomphia) while mounted."

Yet page 62 lists

High Llama Rider
Cultural Skills Cultural Weapons
Ride (High Llama) +35% Dagger +10%
Customs
(High Llama Tribe) (25) Lance +15%
Herd +30% 2H Dagger-Axe +10%
Peaceful Cut +15% Pole Lasso +10%
Spirit Combat +20%

Honestly, I would just assume that 2H Dagger-Axe is an exception to the general rule that 2H Weapons cannot be used when mounted. Keeps it nice and simple.

 

This looks fine until use and technique comes up. Lance above is explicitly equated with 1 handed spear. This is where the problem starts  - couched lance (i.e. single hand and held tightly gripped under the armpit) requires Both a high cantle / backed and rigid braced saddle AND Stirrups other wise the basic physics of the impact will promptly lever the user out of the saddle and air borne. The issue is what seamen would call metacentric height. More simply your position of balance and rotation is ones behind in the saddle and without stirrups to enable the riders feet to be planted / braced and balance point moved by leaning forward and resisting the turning moment at impact with almost all the bodies muscles you go flying.

Now impact charging "Lancers" did exist before stirrups but they used a VERY different technique - the "lance" is generally referred to as a Kontos (translates as barge pole), or Xyston and sometime a Sarissa. The technique uses two hands and either braces the "lance" down on the thigh (below ones point of balance) or raises both hands again changing the pivot point. These techniques only require the special saddle High cantle / High backed and rigid for bracing. But after impact the Kontos is used very differently - it is always a two handed weapon and is used to both stab and to cut (often likened to the manner of use like later Glaives). Thus is is either a two handed spear or a two handed slashing weapon.

Now discussions of Glorantha and illustrations in the pdf material would appear to largely exclude stirrups or at best limit them fairly significantly. To me this rather necessitates some fundamental changes in combat, background or both?

I think you are over-thinking this.

People on horseback have used lances for a long time, so I have no problems with lance being used in Glorantha. If they don't use stirrups then they use some other technique. Personally, I don't really care about what techniques people use to get certain effects.

 

 

[Simon Hallett]

he main reason I like points like this is that I hope it encourages people to do a bit of primary research for themselves which may enhance their game.

Most of the crusty gamers,, re-enactors and HEMA dudes on here can make their own judgements, but I think these apparently minor points are interesting for newcomers who may not have studied military history or ever wielded a weapon. 

For example, a quick look at a cataphract, (an early heavily armoured warrior for those who don't know already), shows him happily using a lance without stirrups.

But hang on a minute, he is also using it 2 handed!

So we not only have another weapon being used 2 handed on horseback, it is a technique which doesn't allow you to use a shield, with significant in game consequences if you go down that route.

A few centuries later, your problem is solved by the clibanarius, now with shield and stirrups. So it all depends just how 'ancient' versus 'early medieval' you want your game to feel. No one is going to shoot you either way!

I have never tried to write my own 400+ page rule book, so I am sure it is real easy to miss some odds and sods, but I quite like having the little glitches pointed out so I can have a think how I want to apply a particular rule. 

By the way Soltakss, I love your website. Fab stuff. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Simon Hallett
Opps, mis typed 'pointed' and did not want to awaken Soltakss' ire! Page 2019 indeed...

[Lord High Munchkin]

Some things are simply inordinately difficult - which for most people means “impossible”.

The ancient Chinese certainly used dagger-axes 2H while standing in rapidly moving chariots (I’d say as hard a feat as while riding), so I wouldn’t worry too much over the point. A hefty penalty or a Dex resistance roll should cover it. Cultural familiarity might mean that Llama Riders are raised to do such things

Not everything can be covered in the rules, this probably falls under the category of a GM ruling.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Lord High Munchkin

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, soltakss said:

People on horseback have used lances for a long time, so I have no problems with lance being used in Glorantha.

Yes, but they way that they used them didn't give the same sort of "oomf" that the couched lance gets in a charge. Generally, these were shorter weapons, and were used overhanded, and the wielder either threw the lance or let go upon impact so as not to get unhorsed. 

I'd suggest not using the charge rules, but instead just upping the riders db a step for the mounts movement. Adding in something like the old "Attack on the run" rule would fit, too. 

3 hours ago, soltakss said:

If they don't use stirrups then they use some other technique. Personally, I don't really care about what techniques people use to get certain effects.

Except it's not about technique here (like different ways to hold an arrow) but the fact that physics prevent you from getting a certain effect (the awesome damage of a lance charge). It's like loading a musket ball into a sling. Yeah, the ball still does damage, but not the sort of damage it would do if it were fired from a Brown Bess. It's the stirrup and saddle that result in the big damage bonus.

[Furry Fella]

15 hours ago, soltakss said:

I think you are over-thinking this.

People on horseback have used lances for a long time, so I have no problems with lance being used in Glorantha. If they don't use stirrups then they use some other technique. Personally, I don't really care about what techniques people use to get certain effects. 

The issue is the technique is so very different certain other things can't be done. Shield is the most immediate - the best that is possible is a buckler strapped to the forearm. Potentially rather significant against missiles. Kontos use is always 2 handed even in a "standing" melee so no shield use until the Kontos is ditched.  The melee related skill is basically Polearm not spear etc. With two very different modes of use how are these to be called - this weapon is not like a cut & thrust sword with a fully integrated seamless way of using it. Strike Ranks, special damage effects and  damage by method of use change.

Now there 2 exceptions to the no swinging 2 handed weapon mounted, that's about as many  as there are examples for? Following through with the historical cataphract model quickly 2 handed smashing weapons come into play  - very long hafted maces were a staple of the cataphract - swung underarm (& 1 handed vs foot - so as not to risk leaning and so unseating oneself) but swung 2-handed against other similar troops.

[Furry Fella]

 

 

11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It's the stirrup and saddle that result in the big damage bonus. 

OR the use of a radically different fighting style that imposes its own strengths and weaknesses on the character. Historically there are two general cavalry / mounted combat techniques  that threaten infantry with impact and or melee - both are Kontos or similar. I probably need to add that this pre-stirrups and couched lance and relates to infantry still holding their formation.

The Cataphract who says I'm going to intimidate, bulldoze and be invulnerable to you - Big Men on Bigger Horses armoured literally all over  and formed up so close they can barely trot - these act like an armoured steam roller - at the battle of Magnesia these sort of guys rode over a significant part of the Roman army before pursuing far to far.

The flat out manic I'm going to ride over you (or a tleast into you) flat out. This is the really scary bunch of which various Sarmation groups are standouts. These guys did several times ride right over / through significant parts of Roman armies. More vulnerable as not so encased in metal but way more frighting steaming at you at such speed. Arrian in his order of battle against the Alans has multiple ranks close up and lean on each other - both for the morale support to stand the charge But Also because noticeable numbers of Alans Would Ride Flat Out in to the Collision using horse and man as a battering ram. Casualties on both sides from this type of behaviour are not good and if every hangs around and don't "chicken out" the casualties get horrific fast!

[Atgxtg]

49 minutes ago, Furry Fella said:

OR the use of a radically different fighting style that imposes its own strengths and weaknesses on the character.

But that won't get you the same impact and damage with a lance. If I recall correctly the energy in a lance charge, from a heavy horse, it comparable to a .50 caliber machine gun bullet. A rider just can't get that kind of energy any other way. Thats when calvary became "shock troops".I think most other calvary skirmish and harass, and are good for their speed and mobility. Of course you also had the Norman approach of using light lances which had a lot of flexibility, but they didn't have the same sort of shock/impact. 

 

[Furry Fella]

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But that won't get you the same impact and damage with a lance. If I recall correctly the energy in a lance charge, from a heavy horse, it comparable to a .50 caliber machine gun bullet. A rider just can't get that kind of energy any other way. Thats when calvary became "shock troops".I think most other calvary skirmish and harass, and are good for their speed and mobility. Of course you also had the Norman approach of using light lances which had a lot of flexibility, but they didn't have the same sort of shock/impact. 

 

Actually for the full out charge guys it will. The change in technique allows the rider to brace and carry the impact without being levered out of the saddle. That is the basic aim of the low brace as it is below the riders centre of balance and braced onto the thigh much more is directly transferred to the combined mass of rider and mount. The raised two handed position allows the full positioning of the body and its muscles to help absorb and flex with the impact. Equally the position which drives the point down changes the impact angle on the wielder and when at risk of being "thrown" it is the Kontos that is lost.

The really big risk with counched lance is holding tight after the impact rather letting the am relax just after and be carried passed the target. If all works perfectly the pace of your passing draws the lance out. Get it wrong and do an involuntary pole vault - that is greatest using a couched lance against someone / thing on foot - aka below you. The utter worst bewing sticking the lance point into the ground - this usually breaks things including the lancer.

The slower Cataphract has a different impact - these do vary largely based on the tightness of the formation. Tighter equals slower -trot or max canter but are incredible moving masses that project invulnerability. I have only ever seen 1 short set of footage of just 2 ranks (not the normal 4 to 8+ ranks) and less than 100 in a rank BUT it was shot from the front and it is just so intimidating.

The shock of impact / threat of impact is the believe / perception the the other guy is not going to stop! Mass and pace are one way. Density and inexorability is the other. The Normans like the other key western style horse that fit / become Knight like do this with pace. It is not until quite relatively late that the immense protection gets added so very late 13th century perhaps but more so mid 14th century and later. The western "Cold Bloods" of horse flesh were significant to as being bigger (taller and heavier and broader) with big men in much armour. To match these the comparisons are the top line breeds from Ferghana etc. The alternative for those of smaller but still heavy horses (essentially proportions of true "pony" but full horse sized) - Alans, some Avars erly on groups like Gepids, Lombards etc was sheer pace and ferocity.

What "kills of" the Western Knight is every bit as much population growth as change in weapons and tactics. This added to the economic and social changes remove the guts of the "knightly class" from being able to stay in the game or making them directly subservient to others

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

But that won't get you the same impact and damage with a lance. If I recall correctly the energy in a lance charge, from a heavy horse, it comparable to a .50 caliber machine gun bullet. A rider just can't get that kind of energy any other way. Thats when calvary became "shock troops".

I don't think so. There is no point in ramming the lance through the back armor too unless you can reliably kebab the enemy, otherwise you need exactly enough punch to pierce whichever front armor you face and half the person.

A pilum would barely penetrate a shield, but gives a good estimate at the penetration required for that. It might have a similar effect on armor.

An overhand lance has more mass - if pushed forward from speed, quite a bit more than in normal single hand use.  On the minus side, the lance held by the approaching rider has somewhat less speed than a thrown javelin.

The Late Roman Clibanarii started with overhead lances, but were shock troops nonetheless. Caesar's Germanic horse auxilia wasn't a skirmishing unit, either.

 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I think most other calvary skirmish and harass, and are good for their speed and mobility. Of course you also had the Norman approach of using light lances which had a lot of flexibility, but they didn't have the same sort of shock/impact. 

When facing the fyrd, it isn't required.

[styopa]

I'm going to opine that having a 16-wide, 24-wide, or even more-wide multi-ton wall of horseflesh galloping at them at 30+ kph is going to be the infantryman's FIRST concern.  The guys on horseback are mainly a threat as it primarily signifies that horses likely won't veer away even if you do something like scream or wave a big pointed stick at them.  Certainly his weapon is a concern, but failing an ability to gtfo left or right (as would be the case for a formation infantryman) that horse will - alive, or even if it's killed too late - run you over.  You can't parry it and no amount of shield/armor is going to keep you from getting crushed.

That's why cavalry are shock troops.  Because humans are crush-averse.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

I'm going to opine that having a 16-wide, 24-wide, or even more-wide multi-ton wall of horseflesh galloping at them at 30+ kph is going to be the infantryman's FIRST concern.  The guys on horseback are mainly a threat as it primarily signifies that horses likely won't veer away even if you do something like scream or wave a big pointed stick at them.

Actually the horses probably will veer away. 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

  Certainly his weapon is a concern, but failing an ability to gtfo left or right (as would be the case for a formation infantryman) that horse will - alive, or even if it's killed too late - run you over.  You can't parry it and no amount of shield/armor is going to keep you from getting crushed.

And the horse won't do it because they don't want to get killed anymore than you do. 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

That's why cavalry are shock troops. 

Not without the stirrup. Look at how they were used historically. Calvary were skimishers, who harassed and pursued the enemy. They didn't become shock troops until they had the heavy lance, stirrup, and saddle. 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Because humans are crush-averse.

And horses are spear adverse. Most will shy away from spearmen. That's why Pikemen and spear formations remained  effective.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

I don't think so.

Do the math.  A standard M-2 bullet has a mass of 46.2 grams  and a muzzle velocity of 856m/s. Since E=1/2kgV^2 that's 16976 Joules.

A knight on horse back with a mass of only 500 kg traveling at only 10m/s has an energy of 25000 Joules.

 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

There is no point in ramming the lance through the back armor too unless you can reliably kebab the enemy,

Agreed. If you can't hit the target it doesn't matter.

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

otherwise you need exactly enough punch to pierce whichever front armor you face and half the person.

Which you couldn't do as effectively without the strirrup and saddle. 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

A pilum would barely penetrate a shield, but gives a good estimate at the penetration required for that. It might have a similar effect on armor.

Not really. Shields are wood, and pilum and only had to stick into the shield to be effective, not get to the guy behind it. And PIlum were mostly used against lightly or unarmoed foes, against whom all weapons are effective. 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

An overhand lance has more mass - if pushed forward from speed, quite a bit more than in normal single hand use. 

But not nearly as much as one with a rider and horse holding onto it. And if the rider does hold onto it, the force on the impact will dismount him. 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

On the minus side, the lance held by the approaching rider has somewhat less speed than a thrown javelin.

Sure. Look, I'm not saying that an overhand lance isn't effective (it is) or than one used by a moving rider shouldn't do more damage than a javelin (it should, if fact even a sword should hit a little harder from someone riding by on horseback). I'm saying that thet shouldn't get the horses db. 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

The Late Roman Clibanarii started with overhead lances, but were shock troops nonetheless.

Designed to go after the Parthian horse archers. 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

Caesar's Germanic horse auxilia wasn't a skirmishing unit, either.

 No, but the rest of his auxiliary Calvary were. 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

When facing the fyrd, it isn't required.

No, and I'm not saying that it is. 

 

 

[Joerg]

32 minutes ago, styopa said:

I'm going to opine that having a 16-wide, 24-wide, or even more-wide multi-ton wall of horseflesh galloping at them at 30+ kph is going to be the infantryman's FIRST concern.  The guys on horseback are mainly a threat as it primarily signifies that horses likely won't veer away even if you do something like scream or wave a big pointed stick at them.  Certainly his weapon is a concern, but failing an ability to gtfo left or right (as would be the case for a formation infantryman) that horse will - alive, or even if it's killed too late - run you over.  You can't parry it and no amount of shield/armor is going to keep you from getting crushed.

That's why cavalry are shock troops.  Because humans are crush-averse.

On the other hand, most horses will shy away from a tightly packed mass of humans or human-sized obstacles. Even well-trained jump horses will shy from obstacles, and it takes a lot of force of personality and trust to take a horse across or through something it cannot quite fathom.

There is a reason why the Grazers are also called Pony Breeders - they breed fast, but not too large horses. Destriers, not chargers. The Galana breed typical among the hill tribes or the sered breeds of Peloria aren't any bigger. (A bison charge is a whole lot more powerful than most horse charges, with the steeds possessing natural ramming gear.)

The situation was similar in Asia and Europe. The typical continental European horse was the Iceland pony, and the breed was brought to that island just before a massive horse plague eliminated the breed from the continent. The Berber horses of al-Andalus then spread across the continent (possibly bearing that disease), and by the time of Otto the Great chargers had been introduced, and proved the decisive advantage against the Magyar at the Lechfeld. (I think this is proven by skeletal finds of horses. I need to check with my niece, who has done some ancestry research on Holsteiner horses, which are similar to charger stock. We discussed the weird proportions of the beasts in 17th century copper etchings and whether the artists would have been very much aware of the proportions of the horses they saw, so we agreed to look at reports on skeletal remains to verify either option. While still in school, she earns her horse money through pencil drawings of horses etc., so she is quite up to date with artistic conventions.)

Domestic bovine stock north of the Alps was rather runty, too - the Romans brought normal-sized cattle stock with their conquest, which then also spread into the neighboring Barbaricum. Further north, the smaller cattle persisted at least until the Viking Age. I assume that bringing the Aurochs back will have a similar effect on the domestic stock of cattle in Dragon Pass, giving this a mythical note, available through the Red Cow heroquest in The Coming Storm (or was it Eleven Lights?).

My personal experience is limited to a 16-wide multi-ton wall of beef in the shape of curious heifers following me down a slippery slope at maybe half that speed, and me being the only man-sized obstacle on the way. Even so, turning around and facing that wall of meat did bring it to a sliding stop.

For some reason, in Dragon Pass a stampeding herd passing through the stack would only disrupt a regular unit.

 

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Do the math.  A standard M-2 bullet has a mass of 46.2 grams  and a muzzle velocity of 856m/s. Since E=1/2kgV^2 that's 16976 Joules.

A knight on horse back with a mass of only 500 kg traveling at only 10m/s has an energy of 25000 Joules.

I didn't disagree with the math - which fails to take into account the impact area, btw. - but to the argument that you need this amount of impact (not energy) to cause a fatal wound to someone standing in a shield wall.

 

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Agreed. If you can't hit the target it doesn't matter.

My point was that the excess energy of a couched lance left after skewering the front rank person is unlikely to cause another casualty.

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Which you couldn't do as effectively without the strirrup and saddle. 

Let's assume that the overhand approach offers half the penetration. That is the difference between being stopped by the rear rib cage and plate armor of the target or piercing that, too. So what's the gain? One result is a kill, the other is an overkill with less than 2% likelihood to cause another casualty. You get the knockback result in either case, your lance is stuck for good or broken, and you are surrounded by half a dozen possibly shaken but still hostile folk with sharp implements taking you and your steed down if you didn't veer off after impact. And I have the suspicion that it is easier to abandon an overarm lance than a couched lance without impaling yourself or your comrades in the next rank on its butt.

 

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But not nearly as much as one with a rider and horse holding onto it. And if the rider does hold onto it, the force on the impact will dismount him. 

Regardless of stirrups or high backed saddles or other devices.

 

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Sure. Look, I'm not saying that an overhand lance isn't effective (it is) or than one used by a moving rider shouldn't do more damage than a javelin (it should, if fact even a sword should hit a little harder from someone riding by on horseback). I'm saying that they shouldn't get the horses db. 

I think they should get the horse db, but no extra bonus from charging, or vice versa.

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Designed to go after the Parthian horse archers. 

The clibanarii included Franks employed in the Western empire. Few Parthians in that region, although there were huns.

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 No, but the rest of his auxiliary Calvary were. 

The point is that this Germanic cavalry was able to provide shock troops without stirrups.

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, and I'm not saying that it is. 

And that's why I think that the couched lance is overkill without any purpose in a battle. Heavy cavalry head on head encounters have different rules, and the attacker is welcome to get the defender's horse's DB.
 

[Pentallion]

Okay, this whole thread is based upon the premise that stirrups don't exist in Glorantha.  the artwork does not support that claim.  GtG pg 442 clearly shows the Praxians have stirrups.  It doesn't matter when stirrups were invented on earth.  All that matters is the secret was discovered by the cults of Glorantha.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

I didn't disagree with the math - which fails to take into account the impact area, btw.

I just said the energy is comparable.  If you factor in for impact area the .50 cal probably has about four times the energy per area at impact, but the lance benefits from the fact that the horse can continue to add energy after contact. 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

- but to the argument that you need this amount of impact (not energy) to cause a fatal wound to someone standing in a shield wall.

Need it, hell no. I think we got our wires crossed. You don't need anywhere near that kind of impact to cause a fatal wound. 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

My point was that the excess energy of a couched lance left after skewering the front rank person is unlikely to cause another casualty.

Yup. I agree. After a certain point (sorry, bad pun) it's overkill. It's much like a bullet, once it goes through you it stops damaging you. A lance is a little different, since it is still imbeeded in the target and moving it will do more damage, but by then it doesn't really matter. If he's still alive he's probably not putting up much of a fight anymore, and poses more of a threat as a terrain hazard.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

Let's assume that the overhand approach offers half the penetration.

I doubt it offers that much. In game terms I'd say it would probably just up db a little,  say up the rider's db a step? The  couched lance requirement for db was spelled out in later BRP games.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

That is the difference between being stopped by the rear rib cage and plate armor of the target or piercing that, too.

Actually it might be the difference between penetrating the armor at all. Penetration is not a linear effect. Remember, most the people whom overhand lances were used against didn't have as much armor or protection that RQ characters have.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

So what's the gain? One result is a kill, the other is an overkill with less than 2% likelihood to cause another casualty.

If the overhand lance was half as effective as a couched lance then I'd agree. But it isn't Much of what makes the counced lance so effective is that the warrior is still holding onto it and so is till adding energy and force to the strike. An overhand lance doesn't get that.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

I think they should get the horse db, but no extra bonus from charging, or vice versa.

The charge bonus is the horse's db, and I disagree. Knights would hanve bothered with counched lances if the overhand one was just as good. 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

And that's why I think that the couched lance is overkill without any purpose in a battle. Heavy cavalry head on head encounters have different rules, and the attacker is welcome to get the defender's horse's DB.

And I think you are wrong. If you were correct, then there was no reason for Knights to switch to couched lances in the first place. 

[Atgxtg]

23 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

Okay, this whole thread is based upon the premise that stirrups don't exist in Glorantha.  the artwork does not support that claim.  GtG pg 442 clearly shows the Praxians have stirrups.  It doesn't matter when stirrups were invented on earth.  All that matters is the secret was discovered by the cults of Glorantha.

Stirrups and the proper saddle. You need both. I'm not saying they don't exist.

What I am saying is that only couched lances used with stirrups and the right saddle should get the horse's db. 

[Pentallion]

8 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Stirrups and the proper saddle. You need both. I'm not saying they don't exist.

What I am saying is that only couched lances used with stirrups and the right saddle should get the horse's db. 

What I'm saying is that everyone has stirrups and the right saddle because in Runequest, everyone gets teh horse's db.

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, Pentallion said:

What I'm saying is that everyone has stirrups and the right saddle because in Runequest, everyone gets teh horse's db.

Apparently. In RQG, anyway. Guess it's yet another reason why I think I'm sticking with RQ3, where everybody doesn't get the horses db. 

[Pentallion]

Just now, Atgxtg said:

Apparently. In RQG, anyway. Guess it's yet another reason why I think I'm sticking with RQ3, where everybody doesn't get the horses db. 

I wasn't aware that RQ3 had people without the horse's db.  Where is that in the rules?

[Atgxtg]

52 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

I wasn't aware that RQ3 had people without the horse's db.  Where is that in the rules?

RQ3 Players Book, page 52, first column, last paragraph, under Special Weapon: The Lance

Quote

The lance is essentially a pike-sized weapon which can be used one-handed when it is tucked under the arm of the rider.

also in the same paragraph

Quote

If another weapon, such as a 1H or 2H Spear, is used like a Lance

and on the second column, second paragraph

Quote

Unlike any other weapon, a Lance used in a charge may take its damage modifier from the animal ridden, not from the wielder.

and the example under Cormac's Saga 

Quote

Seeing two guardsmen with pike approaching he couches Cormac's Short Spear and charges.

So you have to use a lance or spear couched to get the bonus. 

[Atgxtg]

BTW, Guy's I've never seen anybody argue that an overhand spear was anywhere near as effective as a couched one until RQG. Quite the opposite. Every thing I've ever read or seen, that has overhand spear use goes out of it's way to point out that it wasn't like a couched lance charge.

Now the kontos is another case. 

IMO, all melee weapon should probably get a modest damage boost when used in a "ride-by attack", but no version of RQ has given one. Maybe kick of the rider's db by one or part of the mount's db. 

[Joerg]

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Stirrups and the proper saddle. You need both. I'm not saying they don't exist.

What I am saying is that only couched lances used with stirrups and the right saddle should get the horse's db. 

No such thing exists in Glorantha, as far as I know, but there are shock cavalry who may use couched lances and some other form of "avoid being lifted from your steed" contraption on a bison and for some of the heavier horses.

One advantage of the couched lance was that it could be fit with a funnel which acted a bit like a second buckler shield for the right arm, but that same contraption made it harder to release the lance when stuck in an immobile carcass while your steeds still pushes forward.

Overhand lances can be used in a wider arc than the couched lance, which is limited to the right of the horse, and it could be used in the fashion of a melee weapon when there was no charge advantage, still retaining the range advantage.

 

Assuming that the imagery of Alexander's companion cavalry - said to be the first shock cavalry in ancient warfare - is correct, we see riders holding a xyston - basically a lance with another spear point as the butt, making it balanced if gripped in the middle - wielded with one arm, no stirrups in sight, nor any chair-like saddle contraption. Their targets were among the elite of the Persian army, so quite well armed, although the pursuit of the chariot of Dareios has become iconic, too.

Assuming that the Thessalian rider depicted in the frieze, using his secondary weapon, is about 1.65 m tall, his horse is pony sized.

 

Your thesis that it takes stirrups to make shock cavalry clearly isn't tenable. Between Alexander's guys, Caesar's Germanic horse auxiliary and the early Thracian cataphracts and Frankish Clibanarii, we have sufficient counter-examples from Europe alone. The successors spread this through Asia and Africa, too.

 

Does a set of stirrups improve the seat? Yes.

Does it increase the force a lance can exert before the rider has to let it go? Maybe. Not by that much, even if you put SIZ20 STR20 lancers on top of the bison. The lance arm would have to lift 60-100 ENC for an unhorsed rider or foot soldier, and twice more that added to the resistance if the rider still somehow retains connection to his mount. This would result in broken arms, unless the lance has a breaking point protecting the arm of the wielder, or the wielder lets go, sacrificing most of his extra hold on the lance.

Let's assume the wielder lets go. A couched lance may be caught between the arm and the body of the attacker if the horse loses speed ramming into some obstacle (like set spears, shields, or simply a mass of human meat). 

But then there is a good probability that one main purpose of the lance was not to penetrate the front rank soldiers of the spear-and-shield wall, but to push them and their shields aside or into the rear ranks, and then skewering a person in the next rank. The Germanic hog formation used heavy infantry or cavalry to bash into a shield wall, creating a wedge which would then roll up both sides of the enemy, with the survivors of the first elite impact mopping up the rear of the formation from within according to what I read on this subject. Fine against other Germanic formations or Gauls, less successful against post-Marian legions.

 

I am on the record stating that 4th and 5th century heavy cavalry in the Roman Empires probably is a good parallel for Malkioni men-of-all (when they still were called "knights") for at least the last quarter century. I guess that their heavier cavalry might use couched lances and some sort of "don't let me glide off horseback" contraption, whereas the non-noble sergeants of the Horse brotherhood possibly wields lighter lances used in short thrusts from horseback, avoiding the bad impales which tend to disarm them (force them to switch to their secondary sidearm).

I am fine with Sartarite cavalry and Heortland cavalry using overarm lances, possibly sparkling with lightning.

Bison charges should be at maximum impact. Unlike a horse, a bison will charge with lowered horns, exposing a very massive block of muscle which even when pierced deeply will shield any vitals below. The bison lancer probably gets to lean forward automatically in this stance, and might find his heels against the saddle belts or even purpose-made protrusions, giving not just the shoulder but the length of the body as flexible muscular spring force to dampen the impact of lance-holding rider to the steed.

An attacking horse is more likely to rise and trample with the fore-hooves than to lower the head, making the seating more precarious (again, look at that Thessalian rider on the frieze). Not the way to get maximum traction in the saddle, even with stirrups. This appears to be a situation made for an overhand attack on an opponent without the charge bonus, anyway.

That said, a horse can easily rear up, turn on the hind hand and leap to the back, which sounds like a good plan to disengage once your initial shock has dissipated. The lighter the rider is armored, the better this maneuver can work. (Basically, this is a "feat" my niece told me her Holstein gelding used to escape a paddock occupied with horses it didn't like, easily clearing the 1.6 meter high fence. Enough to avoid slipping on downed foes from the initial rush.

 

For the record, I don't think that an overhead spear should fully benefit from the beast's damage bonus. The suggestion to tick it up one level makes enough sense.

 

As for RQ3 combat rules, those were written to allow mediaeval combat, too. Plate over Chain required a horse's damage bonus to penetrate, but then the bonus wasn't reserved for the rider, but also given to the couched spear or pike. But chainmail has disappeared in RQG as the standard metal armor.

 

On the related debate on the use of the blade axe by High Llama riders, I see this as an analogon to the polo club - one-handed use from the saddle. The High Llama variant probably is a bit lighter than the infantry-man version. If your couched lance is 2.5 meters above ground, you don't receive much of a damage bonus from the charge, so using a rotating pick from the saddle offers fearsome impact that might be manageable with just one hand.

 

[Yelm's Light]

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

My personal experience is limited to a 16-wide multi-ton wall of beef in the shape of curious heifers following me down a slippery slope at maybe half that speed, and me being the only man-sized obstacle on the way. Even so, turning around and facing that wall of meat did bring it to a sliding stop.

LOL been there myself...and add to that the thought processing capacity of a lampshade.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Yelm's Light

[soltakss]

So, we've got mile long dragons, a giant bat that flies and people are wondering about the physics of using a lance?