Jump to content

Mounted Combat.


Darius West

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, General Panic said:

Given Glorantha seems to be a small part Bronze Age and more parts Iron Age, Classical and whatnot, I don't see how you can get hung up on real world parallels at all. Ancient Greece, Rome, Sarmatians, Scythians, Parthians, Cataphracts etc ad infinitum - none of these have anything to do with the bronze age at all

My perspective is that Glorantha can be described as Bronze Age because its human inhabitants view and relate to their world in much the way terrestrial Bronze and early Iron Agers probably did. 

Technologically, Glorantha seems to probably be a mixture of Bronze Age and Iron Age, down to about the third century BC, so there is little to no Republican/Imperial Roman influence; the Lunar Empire seems more Assyrian/Achaemenid/Diadochi. Even so, most technologies and traditions seem to date to before Time, so Glorantha is truly ancient compared with our antiquity, but technological improvement isn't a meme of the setting (unless you are a dwarf, given that dwarven firearms do seem to have improved, but given that the dwarves can fabricate living constructs, trying to draw parallels for them with any terrestrial culture is meaningless).

Edited by M Helsdon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Richard S. said:

"They're natural enemies! Just like Glorantha fans and other Glorantha fans! Damn Glorantha fans, they ruined Glorantha!"

LOL!

2 hours ago, womble said:

That thread's hardly a monoculture of discussion, though, is it? New shinies are cropping up all the time for 'us' to offer our suggestions and praise for, and, occasionally nitpick with each other... And it's actually worth the time, rather than being largely navel-gazing, since something beautiful may be born to the world from it, unlike a discussion about stirrups where the answer is: "There can be stirrups if you(r GM) want(s) them."

Exactly. It's much like the differences in complexity between something like Elric! and RQ3. Some people will prefer general hit points and armor, others would rather have hit locations and pieces of armor. Some like 10% crticals, other like 5% and 20% chance of specials.  And that's all okay.  YGMV.

It is how some flame wars appear to be justified but others viewed as a waste of time that  amuses me, since there is no consensus. If we avoid topics because someone else might consider them not worth it, then nobody will even post anything. 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2019 at 7:10 PM, Atgxtg said:

The thing I find so funny is that no one wants to have another 30 page debate about Stirrups in Glorantha have not problems with a longer thread about Swords in Genertela, where people debate even more details. Saddle minute isn't esoteric enough?

But Sword in Genertela has such pretty pictures ...

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm speaking from the following three points of experience:

a. I'm a lifelong military historian and game geek

b. When I was on active duty in the US Army, I served in Germany and traveled a lot. I hit every museum I could get to, including [but not limited to] the Royal Armories in London and Edinburgh, the Oslo Ship Burial Museum, the Roskilde Ship Museum, etc. Admittedly I was not looking at the displays with a student or scholar's eye, but my later interests in 'practical history' bring many of these visits to mind.

c. A medieval reenactor [and fighter] in the SCA specializing in pre-1200 history.

I'm certain that professional archeologists or historians might find some discrepancies with my thoughts here,  but my opinions are also influenced by 30 some-odd years of wading through game rules and applying all this knowledge to the game table.

There is a lot of parsing of rules in most games regarding spears.

Let's get a few things clear about spears. The spear is the 3rd weapon invented by Man... after Stick or Rock and Sharpened Stick or Rock, Rock-Tied-To-Stick followed very quickly. Spear is just a variation of Rock-Tied-To-Stick.... short stick plus rock = dagger, medium stick plus heavier rock = club [or axe if sharpened], and then came Long-Stick-Tied-To-Sharp-Rock. And the Great Arms Race was born....

Other than the length of the shaft, there are very few physical differences in spears. Therefore, the issue is with the technique used to wield it.

Let's get some parameters here:

-A 'javelin' is a light spear designed for hunting or armor piercing. The shaft is usually a light, often soft wood in order to get the desired range. Length is between 3 and 5 feet [1 to 1.5m].

-The generic 'spear' is designed to be a general use weapon, adequate for throwing but sturdy enough for melee. Its shaft is constructed out of denser, sturdier woods for durability, and the length averages about man-height or 6 feet [roughly 2m].

-A 'longspear' is constructed much the same as its shorter sibling. It is designed strictly for melee as a 'stand-off' weapon to keep enemies out of close combat range. Its length is about 8 up to 10 feet [roughly 3m].

-A 'pike' is the ultimate spear weapon, with a very heavy shaft and a length of up to 18 ft [roughly 5.5m].

Any one of these weapons [save the javelin] can be used as a lance from horseback. What matters is the technique you're using while mounted. There are only two techniques to using a spear on a mount. The first is the overhand thrust, where you ride close to your target and stab downward at him. This technique is often depicted in pre-Renaissance artwork from Sumerian bas-reliefs to the Bayeux Tapestry.

The second technique is the couched lance or 'jousting' technique. This is the technique of Middle Ages and, slightly modified, of the Byzantine kataphraktoi. It is the shock technique of a massed cavalry charging with lances lowered. [kataphraktoi used two hands and a small shield while European knights used a one handed couch with a much larger shield].

I know from personal experience that it is actually easier to hit your target overhand. With your downward stabbing motion, you can account for the movement of the target and your own mount easier. However you surrender the impetus of the 1000 lbs [450kg]. mount moving at 15 mph [20km]. You hit, but without the huge force your mount offers.

The couched lance hits with all that force, but you have to hit within a much smaller aiming radius... less than a third of the target point of the overhand stab.

So the way I adjudicate all this at the game table is this:

It is actually somewhat difficult for the average Orlanthi clansman to learn the couched lance. Much like the Yelm /Yelmalio 'Kushile Horse Archery', the couched Lance requires specific training. That training is assumed in the Heavy Cavalry prior experience or the appropriate Praxian background [Bison, High Llama, and Rhino Peoples primarily -- I would seriously recommend against trying Couched Lance while riding an Ostrich..... 😮 ], AND the primary weapon of Lance. Without that prior experience, getting access to the training is tougher. First you have to find a trainer, and in Glorantha that is always complicated. Even within your own clan you'd have a hard time getting your clan sage /lawspeaker to train you in the secrets of Lhankor Mhy without being an initiate. Now try learning a warfare technique from a foreign group with a different cult....

Training requires a minimum Ride of 50% and a full Gloranthan Season of training from a Weapon Master with both Lance and Ride at better than 90%. Yes, that makes it a major source of income from certain Waha and Storm Bull cultists in Prax and Elmal cultists or Sun Dome Templar cavalry masters elsewhere. Neither the nomadic Sable tribes nor the Impala people practice the couched lance. This is due to the small size of the mount in case of the former, and the leaping gait of the impala in the latter [along with the nature of the tribe -- the Impala People eshew armor and prefer horse archery]. Lunar heavy cavalry DO practice the couched lance, both on sables and horses; the grain-fed sables of the Empire are larger but less agile than their Pentan or Praxian counterparts.

Resolving mounted combat works like this at my table:

-Mounted spear attacks are assumed to be overhand unless the attacker declares differently before the beginning of the round.

-Fighting with any weapon while mounted incurs a -25% penalty to attack ratings.

-If attacking a target on the ground, apply +10 the Hit Location Table, modified by target SIZ

-Attack does the rider's Damage Modifier

If the attack is a declared couched lance attack the procedure modified as follows:

-The base attack percentage is the *lower* of either the attacker's Lance Attack or Ride score.

-You must use the Charge action with minimum charge distance [20 meters /65 feet].

-The rider may direct a war-trained mount to Charge OR Trample, NOT both.

-Damage is the spear's damage rating plus the mount's damage modifier.

Edited by svensson
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're neglecting the Kontos and xyston, weapons from an earlier period than you've mostly alluded to, and wielded in ways other than overarm and couched. And the light lances of the Napoleonic era which could be used single-handedly underarm.

Using the lance two-handed probably required at least as much training as learning to use it couched, and, given stirrups, would probably be an obsolete approach.

Using the lance underarm wouldn't be any harder, maybe even easier than using it overarm. I'd've thought that 'systematic' training would cover both uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kontos and xyston are just longspears or pikes used while horseback. There is no functional difference in construction between a sarissa and a xyston, except perhaps length. What matters is that they are used while mounted by a trained rider. A medieval combat lance [NOT a jousting spear a' la 'A Knight's Tale'; those are sporting implements, not combat tools] is made of hardwood and iron or steel. The shaft is 10' to 12' long and the head is usually fitted by a socket instead of a riveted tang. The spearhead is usually leaf shaped, although some have been found with a pyramidal square point [this is usually dated post-1300 or so when coats of plates were prevalent]. And these characteristics are exactly the same as the long spear of the same period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, svensson said:

The kontos and xyston are just longspears or pikes used while horseback. There is no functional difference in construction between a sarissa and a xyston, except perhaps length. What matters is that they are used while mounted by a trained rider. A medieval combat lance [NOT a jousting spear a' la 'A Knight's Tale'; those are sporting implements, not combat tools] is made of hardwood and iron or steel. The shaft is 10' to 12' long and the head is usually fitted by a socket instead of a riveted tang. The spearhead is usually leaf shaped, although some have been found with a pyramidal square point [this is usually dated post-1300 or so when coats of plates were prevalent]. And these characteristics are exactly the same as the long spear of the same period.

Longspears or pikes used two-handed while a-horse. There is no functional difference between a Dory, a Sarissa, a Xyston and a medieval combat lance. But the Companions of Alexander and the Achaemenid Persian Kataphraktoi never couched their lances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, womble said:

Longspears or pikes used two-handed while a-horse. There is no functional difference between a Dory, a Sarissa, a Xyston and a medieval combat lance. But the Companions of Alexander and the Achaemenid Persian Kataphraktoi never couched their lances.

By 'couched' I intend to say 'braced their bodies into the saddle using stirrups and held the spear tightly to the body while inducing the mount to full charge'. The number of hands holding it is immaterial to the force delivered on impact. Both the Achmaemenid /Byzantine technique and the Western European technique [pre-1400 or so] were both designed to do the same thing: deliver the weight of the fast moving heavy mount onto the target as efficiently as possible. The one- or two-handed techniques between the two had more to do with mount control [always the single most important thing to any cavalryman] than weapon handling.

And I think another point could be brought out in this... From what I've read, kataphraktoi were trained from their young adult years after they joined that unit of Byzantium's Tagmata, whereas a European knight was trained from the time he was 6 year old. Yes, much of a knight's training had to do with the social aspects of knighthood, but until the Renaissance a knight was first, foremost and always a warrior first and servant of the Crown second. This compares to the strictly military function of a cataphract serving with his thema.

Something else occurs to me as well: I don't know one way or the other, but is controlling the mount while wielding the longer spear of the Byzantine heavy cavalryman easier than the European version?

Edited by svensson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2019 at 10:01 PM, Atgxtg said:

LOL! So if we had pictures, we be fine. Now I get it!

Oh, you want pictures? These were drawn to illustrate a section on horse armor, but you can see some saddles.

[This was drawn about three months ago, and I'd like to redraw it, but there's no time.]

horse barding small.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Puckohue said:

Do you allow a (Lance) charge AND a butt attack?

Good question.

With a mount trained to fight [a warhorse or destrier for example], yes. For a riding or cavalry trained mount, no.

I have a couple of reasons for this ruling:

1. Most quadrupeds have an instinctive urge to bypass an object in their way rather than run through it. This is one reason why mounts require just as much training as their riders do. I'm a Civil War reenactor in the western US and my association has several cavalry units. It takes a minimum of two years for a horse to get onto an active battlefield with musketry going off, sunlight glinting off of metal, the concussive impact of cannon fire on sensitive noses and ears, and spectator noise and motion etc. In many ways, we're actually more careful with horse safety than we are with the safety of people. And if you've ever seen a horse's veterinary bill, you'd know why :). Horses are an expensive hobby.

2. Some animals will butt as an attack [bison, sables, and rhinos being the two big examples] in response to a perceived threat, but most of the time this is instinctive. For a mount to direct its attack at the rider's bidding requires war training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2019 at 12:32 PM, svensson said:

By 'couched' I intend to say 'braced their bodies into the saddle using stirrups and held the spear tightly to the body while inducing the mount to full charge'.

Except Cataphaacti probably didn't have stirrups to brace with, but instead relied upon a "four pommel" saddle. Apparently it wasn't as good as stirrups and the knights saddle but was good enough to do the job.

On 3/2/2019 at 12:32 PM, svensson said:

 

 

The number of hands holding it is immaterial to the force delivered on impact. Both the Achmaemenid /Byzantine technique and the Western European technique [pre-1400 or so] were both designed to do the same thing: deliver the weight of the fast moving heavy mount onto the target as efficiently as possible. The one- or two-handed techniques between the two had more to do with mount control [always the single most important thing to any cavalryman] than weapon handling.

And I think another point could be brought out in this... From what I've read, kataphraktoi were trained from their young adult years after they joined that unit of Byzantium's Tagmata, whereas a European knight was trained from the time he was 6 year old. Yes, much of a knight's training had to do with the social aspects of knighthood, but until the Renaissance a knight was first, foremost and always a warrior first and servant of the Crown second. This compares to the strictly military function of a cataphract serving with his thema.

Knight training didn't really start until 14-15 though. That's when they became squires are focused on the martial aspects of knighthood. 

On 3/2/2019 at 12:32 PM, svensson said:

Something else occurs to me as well: I don't know one way or the other, but is controlling the mount while wielding the longer spear of the Byzantine heavy cavalryman easier than the European version?

No, probably not. The mount was controlled with the legs in a charge. The longer spear might have helped the rider to maintain his balance, but maybe not. 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, svensson said:

For a mount to direct its attack at the rider's bidding requires war training.

Yes, but as an example, the RQ:G pregenerated character Vasana rides "a trained cavalry bison". Surely that means war trained?

Another example would be Tusk Riders, where the description in the Glorantha Bestiary says that "Their steeds fight along with them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Byzantines picked up the stirrup from their Blue Turkish opponents about 700AD or so. It's reasonable to presume that it became part of their saddlery at that point.

A boy was fostered into a house as a page at between 6 and 8. He began physical development at that point. He'd begin his horsemanship training at about 10, and begin learning weapons when he was made a squire at about 12 with hunting weapons [bows, spear, dagger] and 14-15 for knightly weapons. The Egyptian mamluks had a similar training regimen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Puckohue said:

Yes, but as an example, the RQ:G pregenerated character Vasana rides "a trained cavalry bison". Surely that means war trained?

Another example would be Tusk Riders, where the description in the Glorantha Bestiary says that "Their steeds fight along with them."

In RQ2, or 'Classic RQ', mounts had 4 training standards: untrained, riding, cavalry, and war-trained. An untrained animal was unbroken and would not accept a rider. A riding animal would take a rider, but you'd need to make Ride checks every round in combat or you'd lose control and the mount would hare off on its own whim. A cavalry mount was used to rough feeding, hard trail use, and desensitized to battle. It wouldn't attack, but it's a stable platform to fight from. A war trained mount would attack at the rider's command.

So if it were my table with the pre-gen NPCs, Vasana's bison would be 'cavalry-trained', Harmast's zebras would be riding trained, and Vishi's High Llama would probably be war-trained.

See the character descriptions in RQG and the discussion on mounted combat in RQG pg. 219.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, svensson said:

In RQ2, or 'Classic RQ', mounts had 4 training standards: untrained, riding, cavalry, and war-trained. An untrained animal was unbroken and would not accept a rider. A riding animal would take a rider, but you'd need to make Ride checks every round in combat or you'd lose control and the mount would hare off on its own whim. A cavalry mount was used to rough feeding, hard trail use, and desensitized to battle. It wouldn't attack, but it's a stable platform to fight from. A war trained mount would attack at the rider's command.

So if it were my table with the pre-gen NPCs, Vasana's bison would be 'cavalry-trained', Harmast's zebras would be riding trained, and Vishi's High Llama would probably be war-trained.

See the character descriptions in RQG and the discussion on mounted combat in RQG pg. 219.

That's exactly how I'd see them, too. And the Tuskers of the half-trolls would pretty uniformly be war-trained mounts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2019 at 12:32 PM, womble said:

... And the Tuskers of the half-trolls would pretty uniformly be war-trained mounts.

Or just bad-tempered swine.

Even normal pigs can be horribly dangerous.  What other critter has a special critter-killing weapon with a crossbar (w-a-y out at the pointy end) so it won't just walk itself up the weapon that impaled it, and murder you before it dies?

As long as they will go where directed -- even on the midst of battle -- I don't think they need any further "war training".

(OTOH, "war-trained" would be the general rules category)

Edited by g33k

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2019 at 11:48 AM, Julian Lord said:
On 3/3/2019 at 6:17 PM, Atgxtg said:

Hurray! We're in the running. 5 Lunars on the one with horns to win!

(surreptitiously brings a pair of stirrups to the race event)

(and pays the stable hand to cut all the others' saddles)

Cheers

... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2019 at 8:51 PM, svensson said:

In RQ2, or 'Classic RQ', mounts had 4 training standards: untrained, riding, cavalry, and war-trained. An untrained animal was unbroken and would not accept a rider. A riding animal would take a rider, but you'd need to make Ride checks every round in combat or you'd lose control and the mount would hare off on its own whim. A cavalry mount was used to rough feeding, hard trail use, and desensitized to battle. It wouldn't attack, but it's a stable platform to fight from. A war trained mount would attack at the rider's command.

RQG has only riding, cavalry and war-trained, with same description than RQ2. The fourth category is labeled 'meat'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kloster said:

RQG has only riding, cavalry and war-trained, with same description than RQ2. The fourth category is labeled 'meat'.

Which would be 'untrained' right? :)

I'm reminded of that line in the old John Wayne movie 'The Cowboys'....

Youngster: "Nice horse. What's his name?"

Old Cowboy: "You never name something you might have to eat, kid...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, svensson said:

Which would be 'untrained' right? :)

I'm reminded of that line in the old John Wayne movie 'The Cowboys'....

Youngster: "Nice horse. What's his name?"

Old Cowboy: "You never name something you might have to eat, kid...."

Not really. You could mount the (RQ2) untrained but had to roll for riding every round just to stay on your mount. As far as I understand, you can't even ride the (RQG) meat category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...