Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Martin Jerred" <martin.jerred@c...> wrote:
> In a message dated 06/25/2001 4:33:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> martin.jerred@c... writes:
>
<SNIP>
> [MJ] True, however this only helps if you are chopping down, etc.
it
> remains true that for general stabbing methods of combat with long
poky things this is just not the case.
> [MJ] Yes if you think in terms of counched lance shock charges,
this is
> not the role of earlier heavy cavalry, at least not in the same
format. That could not as consequently was not done prior to the
stirrup. This is all moot as the rules are in place, but the rules
do not change what is.[MJ] was surely?
>
>
> Chris
Since we ended up in the modern tense, I have dispute that having no
stirrups can be considered better than having stirrups under any
combat circumstances. When the stirrup came into use it was adopted
almost universally, by horse archer, boar spear users, mace wielders,
curraisiers on huge horses and lancers on ponies. Even dismounting
dragoons with bolt action rifles used stirrups. Are you saying these
people were all stupid for a thousand years ? If you are citing the
ability to turn around in the saddle easier (which I don't believe
for a moment it is), I'd like to hear of some texts that say it.
Compare them with the many beautifully illustrated military manuals
for sabre drills. Garde a droite au recule, or somesuch :D

That said, I think Warrior/7th already has more than enough minutae;
changes to troop types would innevitably lead to manouver rules
changes, shooting factor changes etc., to achieve a balance again.

I'd suggest getting the contact rules complete would be a more
fruitful pursuit.

cheers

 

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Martin Jerred" <martin.jerred@c...> wrote:>   In a message dated 06/25/2001 4:33:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,>   martin.jerred@c... writes:> <SNIP>>   [MJ] True, however this only helps if you are chopping down, etc. it> remains true that for general stabbing methods of combat with long poky things this is just not the case.>   [MJ] Yes if you think in terms of counched lance shock charges, this is> not the role of earlier heavy cavalry, at least not in the same format.   That could not  as consequently was not done prior to the stirrup.  This is all moot as the  rules are in place, but the rules do not change what is.[MJ]  was surely?> > >   ChrisSince we ended up in the modern tense, I have dispute that having no stirrups can be considered better than having stirrups under any combat circumstances.  When the stirrup came into use it was adopted almost universally, by horse archer, boar spear users, mace wielders, curraisiers on huge horses and lancers on ponies. Even dismounting dragoons with bolt action rifles used stirrups.  [MJ] they are a convenience, and generally assist riding - this is not disputed, so their adoption is hardly surprising - especially in a culture that insisits on traditional pose when riding, etc.
 Are you saying these people were all stupid for a thousand years ?  [MJ] I never said anyone was or is stupid!
 If you are citing the ability to turn around in the saddle easier (which I don't believe for a moment it is), I'd like to hear of some texts that say it.  Compare them with the many beautifully illustrated military manuals for sabre drills. Garde a droite au recule, or somesuch [MJ] Unfortunately we are highly unlikely to dig up an ancient manuscript extolling the virtues of riding without stirrups vis a vis riding with when the device in question is not yet in general use, ce la vie.
 
My point is soley that it would be wrong to penalise early cavalry for the absense of the stirrup, as it is a universal thing and when modern re-enactment has demonstrated that the stirrup does not actually benefit the fighting style of JLS armed riders to any great extent (some offering the counter argument that it actually hindered). Whether you wish to believe is of course your prerogative.
[MJ] that said, there is no need to incorporate the "stirrup" via factors or rules as the change in fighting style it is purported to have led to ( here we are of course playing chicken and egg) is represented via the rules for charging L and Sh type "Norman" cavalry. [This is much the same distinction DBM makes as well, Cv and Kn in their case]. That said, I think Warrior/7th already has more than enough minutae; changes to troop types would innevitably lead to manouver rules changes, shooting factor changes etc., to achieve a balance again.[MJ] I agree...I've merely tried to put a case as to why, in the face of requests for them. I'd suggest getting the contact rules complete would be a more fruitful pursuit.[MJ] many, many things would be a more fruitful exercise  cheers[MJ] 
Cheers
Zippee
[UK]