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

[Atgxtg]

9 minutes ago, Joerg said:

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.

I think you'r right. I looked at the pictures of the Knights from Fronela and Sheshnela in RQ3: Glorantha. The Fronelan knight's saddle might be one, he is in Gothic plate and his horse is in plate barding, but I wouldn't bet money on that saddle.

9 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Your thesis that it takes stirrups to make shock cavalry clearly isn't tenable.

That's not my thesis. I'm only saying that in RQ terms they should get the horse's db.

9 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Does a set of stirrups improve the seat? Yes.

And it keep him from being knocked off his horse by the impact. Equal and opposite forces here.

9 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Does it increase the force a lance can exert before the rider has to let it go? Maybe. Not by that much

But is also allows him to exert the force longer, and a faction of a second does make a big difference here. 

 

9 minutes ago, Joerg said:

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.

Then we don't really disagree, because that's my point. 

Now, this being Glorantha and all, a couple of point of Glue would probably do the job. 

 

9 minutes ago, Joerg said:

As for RQ3 combat rules, those were written to allow medieval combat, too.

Which could have been handled without changing the wording. Steve Perrin probably did that to indicated that yes, you had to do it that way to get the bonus. 

9 minutes ago, Joerg said:

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.

I just figure it as a backup weapon for if/when they get caught with thier pants down and have to fight on foot. If I lived in a place where every combatant was mounted, I'd want a foot weapon that was especially effective against mounted troops. 

[Atgxtg]

9 minutes ago, soltakss said:

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

More a case of the intent of a rule. 

[Joerg]

15 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Now, this being Glorantha and all, a couple of point of Glue would probably do the job. 

Glue would be able to join your pants with the saddle. You need an equally powerful Dispel Magic to get out of the saddle e.g. when your horse buys a crippling hit on one of the limbs, though.

 

15 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I just figure it as a backup weapon for if/when they get caught with thier pants down and have to fight on foot. If I lived in a place where every combatant was mounted, I'd want a foot weapon that was especially effective against mounted troops. 

IMO Praxian Beast Riders avoid fighting on foot. They'll probably let themselves be taxied out of the conflict and return on another mount of theirs, unless it holds their allied spirit.

A single person on foot is dead meat in a combat between Praxians. I think that taxiing unseated comrades out of the thick of combat and remounting them to join the fracas is a fairly standard activity. Not that any Praxian will be willing to admit being unseated without the mount below him being disabled beyond what a simple Heal spell can fix in the field.

It is true that High Llama riders spend quite a bit time out of the saddle to pick up low-growing foliage for their originally tree-browsing mounts, or have slaves (or possibly trained herd men) perform this task. They do so standing next to their mount, however, and are likely to be back in the saddle at the first suspicious noise. Besides, for cutting off foliage they probably wouldn't use a dagger ax either, leaving that lashed to their saddle.

 

A dagger ax on foot will probably work best against Sable riders. Bison riders and High Llama riders have a range advantage when mounted, and Impala and Zebra riders have a range advantage from mounted archery (as do some Sable clans). But I think a dagger ax rotated like a polo club is the ideal weapon for a High Llama rider to wreak havoc with impala riders crowding them, peppering them with arrows. I wouldn't protest against demanding a combat round preparation to be able to attack with a one-handed dagger ax while mounted, though, getting that thing up to speed in rotating arcs.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

Glue would be able to join your pants with the saddle. You need an equally powerful Dispel Magic to get out of the saddle e.g. when your horse buys a crippling hit on one of the limbs, though.

Or wait for the spell to expire. 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

IMO Praxian Beast Riders avoid fighting on foot.

Mine too. But I figure there are times when they are camped out or some such and the enemy could attack them while they are on foot. So I could easily see them picking up a little skill in anti-cavalry weaponry just in case. Plus, it would also give the riders some insight into how footmen with anti-cav weapons will fight. 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

A single person on foot is dead meat in a combat between Praxians. I think that taxiing unseated comrades out of the thick of combat and remounting them to join the fracas is a fairly standard activity. Not that any Praxian will be willing to admit being unseated without the mount below him being disabled beyond what a simple Heal spell can fix in the field.

I agree 100%. I can still see someone picking up a polearm to keep an enemy rider at bay long enough for a tribemans to ride over and give him a lift. 

[Joerg]

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Mine too. But I figure there are times when they are camped out or some such and the enemy could attack them while they are on foot. So I could easily see them picking up a little skill in anti-cavalry weaponry just in case. Plus, it would also give the riders some insight into how footmen with anti-cav weapons will fight. ly

More importantly, there may be situations where plundering a settlement or farm may require Praxians to dismount and enter buildings or caves. But then, I have yet to see a rpg that penalizes weapon use when dismounted, except for lance charges and similar.

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

I agree 100%. I can still see someone picking up a polearm to keep an enemy rider at bay long enough for a tribemans to ride over and give him a lift. 

But then there has to be a reason why there would be this kind of pole arm at all. Long wooden poles are a rather precious commodity in Prax, so you wouldn't waste one for a weapon you can only use dismounted. By this logic, the Llama folk must be able to use this weapon from the saddle, and the most logical way I can see is in the polo club style.

[Julian Lord]

On 7/15/2018 at 11:51 AM, Furry Fella said:

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

These problems are interesting -- the greatsword is technically cut and thrust rather than a swinging weapon (though it certainly can be used in that bludgeoning manner), as well as actually being usable one-handed.

And just from personal experience of needing to rely daily for my bad knees on what's basically a quarterstaff, using it two-handed is the exception rather than the norm. If I were a competent rider, I'd certainly be able to use it while mounted. It would certainly be less effective than some other weapons in that situation, but not impossibly so. Being able to alternate very swiftly between one hand and two is actually one of the staff's main advantages.

The staff you *can't* use one-handed nor mounted is the Long Staff, the 10' pole of AD&D yore, which was used by infantry against mounted riders.

Probably most pole weapons can be used one-handed at least to some degree, though even a simple quarterstaff is a bit heavy for purpose and not balanced for it.

But spears and lances certainly can be, with the exception that the long cavalry lance is poorly adapted to close combat.

Historically though, the spear was a basic close combat weapon in mounted combat.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Julian Lord

[Julian Lord]

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

A single person on foot is dead meat in a combat between Praxians

The Morocanth don't look that dead to me, Joerg ... 😎

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

More importantly, there may be situations where plundering a settlement or farm may require Praxians to dismount and enter buildings or caves. But then, I have yet to see a rpg that penalizes weapon use when dismounted, except for lance charges and similar.

I have. RQ3 for one. In the Vikings supplment there are some stats for Huns and they get a penalty if they have to fight on foot. I believe they were considered to be Demoralized. 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

But then there has to be a reason why there would be this kind of pole arm at all. Long wooden poles are a rather precious commodity in Prax, so you wouldn't waste one for a weapon you can only use dismounted.

Yeah, unless it is made from bone or some other local material. 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

By this logic, the Llama folk must be able to use this weapon from the saddle,

Okay, still with you.

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

and the most logical way I can see is in the polo club style.

Uh, I doubt it. I think that would would probably be too difficult. It's got a higher ENC that a Great Axe, and all the weight is at the far end. I think it would easier to swing a greatsword one handed than the dagger-axe. Considering that the skill the character gets is listed as 2H I'd be more inclined to believe that they can hold it like a staff or bill-hook and just guide their mount with their legs. 

 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

These problems are interesting -- the greatsword is technically cut and thrust rather than a swinging weapon (though it certainly can be used in that bludgeoning manner), as well as actually being usable one-handed.

I've seen stuff that suggests that it is wielded like a staff, which is why it has the double quillions and unsharpened section of blade near the hilt. But then in real life a spear is used to cut and swing, too. 

[Julian Lord]

33 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I've seen stuff that suggests that it is wielded like a staff

I use a staff every day, and I'm unconvinced -- against heavy armour, greatsword was likely used as people picture it (plus the odd stabbing into the joints etc), but where it did likely have a commonality with quarterstaff is in the combination of speed and reach and usefulness in situations against multiple opponents.

But it's a heavier weapon, and more unwieldy than a staff, and your reach is all on one end of it.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Julian Lord

[Atgxtg]

37 minutes ago, Julian Lord said:

I use a staff every day, and I'm unconvinced -- against heavy armour, greatsword was likely used as people picture it (plus the odd stabbing into the joints etc), but where it did likely have a commonality with quarterstaff is in the combination of speed and reach and usefulness in situations against multiple opponents.

Well, John Silver, a Birish nobleman (not the pirate) wrote a fencing manual, Paradoxes of Defense that was printed in 1599 where he states that

Quote

Of the two hand sword fight against the like weapon.

Cap. 10.

These weapons are to be used in the fight as the short staff, if both play upon double & single hand, at the 2 hand sword, the long sword has the advantage if the weight thereof is not too heavy for his strength that has it, but if both play only upon double hand, then his blade which is convenient length agreeing with his stature that has it, which is according with the length of the measure of his single sword blade, has the advantage of the sword that is too long for the stature of the contrary party, because he that can cross & uncross, strike & thrust, close & grip in shorter time than the other can.

37 minutes ago, Julian Lord said:

But it's a heavier weapon, and more unwieldy than a staff, and your reach is all on one end of it.

Not surprising, steel is a lot denser than wood. There are some greatswords that has amass of under 2 kilograms, though. I suspect that a lot of that has to do with when the sword was made and for what purpose.   

[Joerg]

5 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

The Morocanth don't look that dead to me, Joerg ... 😎

They crop up in teams, and are on the hoof just as every other Praxian.

 

[Julian Lord]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Well, John Silver, a Birish nobleman (not the pirate) wrote a fencing manual, Paradoxes of Defense that was printed in 1599 where he states ... (etc)

Well, you certainly can use a staff very similarly to how you'd use a greatsword, which would likely be the best approach to the weapon by a swordsman not fully familiar with staff fighting. The staff is very effective when used that way, and you can get a lot of weight into your strikes with it.

But one of the basic quarterstaff stances, the so-called "half staff" stance, where your grip the staff two-handed towards the middle and so can parry and attack with each end has no real equivalent with greatsword.

Another big difference is that you can push either end of the staff with your palm, but greatsword only lets you do that at the pommel end. That does admittedly make little difference if you're using a technique similar to greatsword, or if you're fighting only one opponent.

Interesting perspectives here : 

 

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

Well, you certainly can use a staff very similarly to how you'd use a greatsword, which would likely be the best approach to the weapon by a swordsman not fully familiar with staff fighting. The staff is very effective when used that way, and you can get a lot of weight into your strikes with it.

Yeah, and some decent reach, too, although not as much as when thrusting. 

7 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

But one of the basic quarterstaff stances, the so-called "half staff" stance, where your grip the staff two-handed towards the middle and so can parry and attack with each end has no real equivalent with greatsword.

There is "half swording" when you grip the sword somewhere along the blade and can strike with the ends. It's more practical with greatswords than with other blades due to the greater length, and the fact that greatswords weren't necessarily sharp. They didn't need to be.  But, yeah they are different weapons. 

 

[styopa]

19 hours ago, soltakss said:

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

Sorry, but I hate that puerile response so bad.

Do we have gravity? Do the characters need to breathe?

Do big weapons generally do more damage than smaller ones?  Why?  Why do we bother? 

We have magic, we should just disregard physics entirely.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

Sorry, but I hate that puerile response so bad.

Do we have gravity? Do the characters need to breathe?

Do big weapons generally do more damage than smaller ones?  Why?  Why do we bother? 

We have magic, we should just disregard physics entirely.

Yeah, it's a "where do we draw the line" sort of thing.

I once saw an RPG that just boiled the characters down to one ability score. Whenever they tried to do anything they would roll against that one ability. I can't even remember if that RPG had any modifiers, either. Yes, it's very simple, but I think most of use prefer something a little more detailed and, dare I say it "realistic". 

[Julian Lord]

eh can't delete this, should be able to

 

8 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Julian Lord

[M Helsdon]

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 10:51 AM, Furry Fella said:

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

I suspect that this may be because there was a simplification made at some point during the evolution of the rules, for good gaming reasons, one of which being that it will avoid groups diverting from play to have this very discussion about saddles, stirrups and real world weapons.

In terrestrial history, prior to the introduction of the stirrup, various forms of saddle were in use, and some were entirely capable of holding the rider in their seat, whilst transferring some of the momentum of the mount to their attack.

For example, a kontos (a 2H lance in RQ terms) was held with both hands across the mount’s neck, levelled at the opposing rider, while directing the mount using the knees, leaning forward and bracing the legs just before impact. This hold gave great power to the thrust, utilizing the momentum of the mount for maximum impact. The shaft was firmly grasped to avoid the hands sliding along the shaft on contact. However, this technique made the kontos a specialist weapon requiring considerable training and good horsemanship to use.

Similarly, a javelin thrown by a rider would also gain range and force from the momentum of the mount - without the rider making direct contact with the target.

In fact, a large number of two handed weapons were used, meaning that the rider directed their mount with their knees and prick spurs, and very few used a shield when mounted. Xenophon recommended riders should wear a leather sleeve to protect their left arm.

The other reason why this has been simplified may be because to treat it with accuracy, would require the exact type of saddle being used would be required, and there were a wide variety in use in the ancient world, and there's canon evidence of a wide variety being used in Glorantha. However, going into minute detail as to whether a rider is riding in the Hyaloring manner, as per the Starkin regiment, and so isn't using any saddle other than a blanket, or using a more complicated saddle would probably bog things down. Based on canonical descriptions and art, just about every type of ancient saddle is in use, somewhere, ranging from a simple saddle pad, an arched frame, a 'four horned' saddle, or one (also) with raised pommel and cantle. The latter two types provide a skilled rider to employ the full momentum of the mount in combat, and a 'four horned' saddle allows, I have it on good authority, a rider a very wide range of movement.

The two things stirrups allow, are for the rider to be more comfortable if riding for long periods of time, and to use certain mounted archery techniques - though horse archers managed very well for centuries without stirrups.

The literal long-hafted dagger-axe was historically an infantry weapon, but I suspect this term is used instead of sagaris - some of which were 1H weapons, but others were larger and were deployed two-handed from horseback.

Praxians use a form of stirrup as a means of climbing up onto the tallest mounts.

[RQ3 illustrations of 'knights' are no longer canonical.]

Edited July 17, 2018 by M Helsdon

[Furry Fella]

On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 4:57 AM, Atgxtg said:

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. 

The question here is what overhand techniques - If one uses 2-handed Kontos techniques with body weight forward etc them there is pently enough to get the boost from the mounts speed and mass etc.

That technique is Not as good as counched lance for several reasons - No Shield, Less Control of mount (no use of reins just thighs), More vulnerable body position and etc. Plus in the final analysis even with years of training and skill ones seat on the mount is Much less secure. All good reasons almost on their own to change and adopt stirrups. When combined it is a no brainer.

However note the following: Lifted from Osprey Elite - Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 244 - 642 . The important element is the commonalty of this technique over a long time amongst all Iranian / Aryan people. This is the basic techniques copied / imitated etc by Hellenistic Cataphracts and others.

Spears, lances, maces, axes, and whips 

The lance was the Savaran’s main weapon of attack from early Sassanian times. 

The Parthian spear, which the Sassanians inherited, was of immense penetrating 

power and is described by Heliodorus as being able to impale two men simulta- 

neously. This capability was most likely due to a combination of the weight of the 

spear itself (Shahbazi, 1986, p.495) as well as the momentum of the charging 

cavalryman. During the charge, the Sassanian lance was carried by two hands usu- 

ally at waist level. Rock reliefs such as Naghsh-e-Rustam show the lance at the 

right side of the horse’s neck. This technique was part of a wider Iranian cultural 

milieu; the Bosphoran rider at Kerc is engaged in the same maneuver. As noted by 

Heliodorus, the spear was fastened to the horse. This suspension device helped 

keep both lance and rider balanced, especially during the charge. The late Sassa- 

nian knight at Tagh-e-Bostan is no longer shown carrying the lance “two handed.” 

Instead, he carries his weapon with his right arm only, a task made possible per- 

haps by the introduction of improved saddles and perhaps stirrups.

On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 4:33 AM, 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.

Actually the great bulk of the illustrations are without stirrups and most are without the requisite saddle either. I have raised this question over widespread us of stirrups and got a rather firm push back over their limited existence and use. I am surprised and doubtful of the rationals used but that is almost an aside. The response was Pentians do, likely Grazelanders do, Some Lunars do and Some Praxians do.

[Furry Fella]

5 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Similarly, a javelin thrown by a rider would also gain range and force from the momentum of the mount - without the rider making direct contact with the target.

There have been quite a few experiments looking at the issue of mount velocity to missile fire. The debate and experiments usually have major flaws from poor simulation of the mass techniques needed for engagement. Almost all close range mounted fire is delivered with a passing motion so simple mechanical variants that simulate  head to head are very questionable.

Mounted skirmisher fire was almost always at close range to compensate for crossing speed, and the variable and erratic geometry of motion from being mounted.

Unfortunately we have very limited idea as to how fast these engagements occurred. We can generally be certain that they were likely to be significantly slower than our first instincts might mislead us to. In an era when 1 day is your basic unit of time fast has a hole different meaning.

The best and most reasonable experiments I've found suggest 25% to 35% BUT attempts to fully replicate the necessary manoeuvres fit with later descriptions of combat with archaic peoples that power is traded for "accuracy" as at only 10 to 20 yards base power is plenty.

Anyone ever tried spotlighting rabbits or hares at night from the back of a vehicle? While the target is much bigger  the issues of jolting and relative motion are probably worse. 

[Atgxtg]

22 minutes ago, Furry Fella said:

 Almost all close range mounted fire is delivered with a passing motion so simple mechanical variants that simulate  head to head are very questionable.

Yeah. Plus with javelins most of the force impated in the throw comes from body motion when the thrower puts their front foot down, which they won't be able to do on horseback. Kinda like a baseball  pitcher's windup. So the thrower would gain the speed of the horse but loose his "windup". I don't know if he comes out ahead in the deal or not. 

[Joerg]

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah. Plus with javelins most of the force impated in the throw comes from body motion when the thrower puts their front foot down, which they won't be able to do on horseback. Kinda like a baseball  pitcher's windup. So the thrower would gain the speed of the horse but loose his "windup". I don't know if he comes out ahead in the deal or not. 

The forward kick is also used in boxing or kendo, and basically is about using a forward motion for the strike but without moving forward all the way. The foot is put down after the force has been exerted through the weapon (which may be the fist), taking up the remaining force to prevent the body from continuing onward (like stepping over the release line in Olympic javelin competitions). A rider has this forward motion already. Suddenly leaning forward in the saddle won't increase this much, and would possibly break the stride or balance of one's steed.

Javelins from elevated positions benefit from the downward half of the throw parable, as does the release motion. That's the same principle that makes the two-handed strike with a shinai, katana or bastard sword somewhat faster than the one-handed strike which has to provide both force/speed and direction, compromising on force.

 

Discussing the physics of the RQG rules may be overridden by Gloranthan metaphysics, although the runic properties of heaviness etc. should generally do little but confirm observable physical or magical properties. But if these rules are also to be used e.g. for Mythic Iceland, considerations of the effect of a fully powered Cataphract or Steppe rider lance attack on a shield wall should be working, too. Sooner or later, physics will win. Same as with global warming.

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

 Suddenly leaning forward in the saddle won't increase this much, and would possibly break the stride or balance of one's steed.

Javelins from elevated positions benefit from the downward half of the throw parable, as does the release motion. That's the same principle that makes the two-handed strike with a shinai, katana or bastard sword somewhat faster than the one-handed strike which has to provide both force/speed and direction, compromising on force.

So how much of a bonus do you think that's worth? Break even, slight damage bonus? I could see a range bonus due to height. Is a charging horse as good as, say an alt-alt ? That would be a an easy solution.

[Julian Lord]

Just to finish my quarterstaff ranting with something more fun, here's something else that Gloranthans do but you couldn't do with a greatsword ...

 

[Atgxtg]

Lol! Don't forget poleing rafts and gondolas.