Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

By the way, we had a tournament this past weekend and noticed that the way
the JLS is written, it now gets a second rank, even if the bonus for JLS
does not apply. Is this a typo, or is it more of the arms race?

>I'll let Jon reply to that one *technically* but I have no recollection of us
wanting to change it. Too bad since my Galatians always dread meeting
Tibetans:):)

Scott
List Ho

That
> doesn't change the fact that lacking stirrups is actually better
for earlier
> forms of mounted combat. things changed, yes...it is
perceptual/subjective
> as to whether the result is quantifiably "better".
>
> Martin

I have to ask under what circumstances having no stirrups could be
beneficial in a battle ? If I missed something earlier, my
appologies.

I'd guess you don't need an x. Just downgrade the Byzantines to
Jls. They obviously didn't "perform" as shock lancers if this was
because they didn't have the elan of the Franks or because they
didn't have spurs doesn't matter. Warrior typing is now performance
based. I'd also suggest that many jls armed have to move into the
shock, or lancer category ?

-- In WarriorRules@y..., kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Chris,
> Anna Commena in the Alexiad wrote that the
> Frankish/Norman cav were so irresistable in their
> charge against Byzantine cavalry not because of
> stirrups (the Byzantines also had this invention) but
> because of the fact that the "Franks" used spurs! How
> would this be handled as an "x" rule?
> Kelly Wilkinson
>
>
>
> --- cncbump@a... wrote:
> > Martin,
> >
> > Interesting, I don't know if the original game was
> > designed as a game that
> > could cover a milenium, or rather, as I was sold on
> > it as a game of what
> > if's. What if Saladin had met Caesar. LC and LI
> > were demonstratably
> > different between the late middle ages and the
> > armies of antiquity. But I am
> > one of the Kooks who thinks that stirrups
> > dramatically changed mounted
> > warfare and really made the Cav charge something to
> > be feared. These
> > arguments were all made months ago, perhaps if I
> > understand Jon C. correctly,
> > even years ago. The rules could be significantly
> > more complex, but at some
> > point one starts to attain the old days of Empire
> > with a whole book of charts
> > and modifiers. One of the games strengths is its
> > "elegant simplicity".
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
> http://buzz.yahoo.com/

[Kelly Wilkinson]

As an equestrian, I would find it most difficult to
stay in the saddle with a couched lance and the impact
that entails without stirups. Most of you probably
didn't know that 'ole Kel is an accomplished
equestrian! I guarantee that Lancers with stirrups and
spurs will be able to "spur on" their mounts to make a
more devasting conclusion to their impact than riders
who do not have the benefit of the former. Let me add
that it is spurs that really can get a horse
"motivated" to put that little extra effort in for
that impetus that the Normans used to roll over their
stirup equipped Byzantine enemies during Anna
Commena's time frame. She noted that the Spur was
without a doubt the invention that made the Franks so
effective!

Kelly Wilkinson
--- deothoric@... wrote:
> That
> > doesn't change the fact that lacking stirrups is
> actually better
> for earlier
> > forms of mounted combat. things changed, yes...it
> is
> perceptual/subjective
> > as to whether the result is quantifiably "better".
> >
> > Martin
>
> I have to ask under what circumstances having no
> stirrups could be
> beneficial in a battle ? If I missed something
> earlier, my
> appologies.
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Greg Regets]

You don't really have to change the Byzantines. The Franks would be HK, and
would do the dirty to the Byzantine cav already ...

Greg

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Well, I guess that the Irrg. "A" thing gives the
Normans their advantage for charging harder than most
of their contemporaries. But on the other hand,what
about the rest of the Eurpean Knights that fall under
the Byzantine term "Franks" that Anna mentions?
Kelly
--- deothoric@... wrote:
> I'd guess you don't need an x. Just downgrade the
> Byzantines to
> Jls. They obviously didn't "perform" as shock
> lancers if this was
> because they didn't have the elan of the Franks or
> because they
> didn't have spurs doesn't matter. Warrior typing is
> now performance
> based. I'd also suggest that many jls armed have to
> move into the
> shock, or lancer category ?
>
> -- In WarriorRules@y..., kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Chris,
> > Anna Commena in the Alexiad wrote that the
> > Frankish/Norman cav were so irresistable in their
> > charge against Byzantine cavalry not because of
> > stirrups (the Byzantines also had this invention)
> but
> > because of the fact that the "Franks" used spurs!
> How
> > would this be handled as an "x" rule?
> > Kelly Wilkinson
> >
> >
> >
> > --- cncbump@a... wrote:
> > > Martin,
> > >
> > > Interesting, I don't know if the original game
> was
> > > designed as a game that
> > > could cover a milenium, or rather, as I was sold
> on
> > > it as a game of what
> > > if's. What if Saladin had met Caesar. LC and
> LI
> > > were demonstratably
> > > different between the late middle ages and the
> > > armies of antiquity. But I am
> > > one of the Kooks who thinks that stirrups
> > > dramatically changed mounted
> > > warfare and really made the Cav charge something
> to
> > > be feared. These
> > > arguments were all made months ago, perhaps if I
> > > understand Jon C. correctly,
> > > even years ago. The rules could be
> significantly
> > > more complex, but at some
> > > point one starts to attain the old days of
> Empire
> > > with a whole book of charts
> > > and modifiers. One of the games strengths is
> its
> > > "elegant simplicity".
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and
> more.
> > http://buzz.yahoo.com/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

 

 
That> doesn't change the fact that lacking stirrups is actually better for earlier> forms of mounted combat. things changed, yes...it is perceptual/subjective> as to whether the result is quantifiably "better".> >   MartinI have to ask under what circumstances having no stirrups could be beneficial in a battle ?  If I missed something earlier, my appologies.[MJ] the short answer is that in all round javelin/sword fighting the added manouverability of not having a "seat" as stirrups impose is advantageous. The saddle construction (ie Roman saddles with 4 corner pommels) provides a different "seat" to a more modern saddle. This is actually more suited to the combat as conducted at the time. Stirrups and medieval saddle (high cantle/pommel) is a later development, with stirrups and changed use of the spear to lance - different needs, different equipment. Question [as always] is which drives which and which is the chicken and which the egg.
hop that make sense

Cheers
Zippee
[UK] 

 

 
As an equestrian, I would find it most difficult tostay in the saddle with a couched lance and the impactthat entails without stirups. [MJ] I refer you to my post of a few seconds ago - the posit was not regarding "lancers" but that lack of stirrups DO NOT disadvatage earlier combat techniques, therefore the stirrup is a red herring in measuring performance as it is already calculated into the shift from JLS to L, or skirmish/fight to charge/shock.
 Most of you probablydidn't know that 'ole Kel is an accomplishedequestrian! I guarantee that Lancers with stirrups andspurs will be able to "spur on" their mounts to make amore devasting conclusion to their impact than riderswho do not have the benefit of the former. Let me addthat it is spurs that really can get a horse"motivated" to put that little extra effort in forthat impetus that the Normans used to roll over theirstirup equipped Byzantine enemies during AnnaCommena's time frame. She noted that the Spur waswithout a doubt the invention that made the Franks soeffective!                       Kelly Wilkinson--- deothoric@hotmail.com wrote:> That> > doesn't change the fact that lacking stirrups is> actually better > for earlier> > forms of mounted combat. things changed, yes...it> is > perceptual/subjective> > as to whether the result is quantifiably "better".> > > >   Martin> > I have to ask under what circumstances having no> stirrups could be > beneficial in a battle ?  If I missed something> earlier, my > appologies.> > __________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mailhttp://personal.mail.yahoo.com/To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

And what about that nasty invention called spurs?

Kelly
--- Martin Jerred <martin.jerred@...> wrote:
>
>
> As an equestrian, I would find it most difficult
> to
> stay in the saddle with a couched lance and the
> impact
> that entails without stirups.
> [MJ] I refer you to my post of a few seconds ago -
> the posit was not
> regarding "lancers" but that lack of stirrups DO NOT
> disadvatage earlier
> combat techniques, therefore the stirrup is a red
> herring in measuring
> performance as it is already calculated into the
> shift from JLS to L, or
> skirmish/fight to charge/shock.
> Most of you probably
> didn't know that 'ole Kel is an accomplished
> equestrian! I guarantee that Lancers with stirrups
> and
> spurs will be able to "spur on" their mounts to
> make a
> more devasting conclusion to their impact than
> riders
> who do not have the benefit of the former. Let me
> add
> that it is spurs that really can get a horse
> "motivated" to put that little extra effort in for
> that impetus that the Normans used to roll over
> their
> stirup equipped Byzantine enemies during Anna
> Commena's time frame. She noted that the Spur was
> without a doubt the invention that made the Franks
> so
> effective!
>
> Kelly Wilkinson
> --- deothoric@... wrote:
> > That
> > > doesn't change the fact that lacking stirrups
> is
> > actually better
> > for earlier
> > > forms of mounted combat. things changed,
> yes...it
> > is
> > perceptual/subjective
> > > as to whether the result is quantifiably
> "better".
> > >
> > > Martin
> >
> > I have to ask under what circumstances having no
> > stirrups could be
> > beneficial in a battle ? If I missed something
> > earlier, my
> > appologies.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 06/25/2001 4:33:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
martin.jerred@... writes:

<<
The stirrup and spur and their effect on mounted warfare was in changing
the concept of the role from one of mounted skirmish/fight to one of
charge/shock - this difference has already been calculated in, nothing more
is required. nd it is a moot point whether the development of the
stirrup/spur/high cantle saddle created the tactical change or vice versa.

The performance role of the troop type is the defining thing, this is
partly a function of equipment, but is also a function of intent, tactics,
culture, choice, tradition, training, and what works. Do not over-emphasize
one element over the others.
>>
The flaw with this line of thought is it places the Companions and all
successor lance armed cav as well as countless others prior to the invention
of the stirrup in the same category and effectiveness in riding down steady
troops as the Normans or their heirs. I agree that spurs are of questionable
value and likely a red herring in that the Byzantines needed an excuse for
losing and had nothing else to blame. Historically not the same. I
understand what the rules are trying to do and have given up this argument
some time ago, as it is only a source of contention (rather akin to politics
or religion). But there is no question that the stirrup changed mounted
warfare. They provide the rider with the ability to stand in the saddle
after first contact and that difference alone, from a physics point of view,
is easily demostrated by trying to chop a log while seated and doing the same
while standing.

Stirrups allowed the rider to become part of the same machine as the horse
and hence apply the full weight of the beast into the charge. 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.

Chris

 

And what about that nasty invention called spurs?                         Kelly[MJ] What about it? It's a control device and imparts impetus to an animal - there are many other control devices that influence horsemanship - improved bridles and bits, multi-reins, snaffles, etc.,etc. Do we reclassify troops everytime a piece of tac changes?
My infantry have new improved steel-capped boots = +1 in combat?
There is a limit on what can be incorporated in a set of rules, do we change armour classifications for those wearing long cloaks as opposed to short cloaks, because long cloaks provide better defense?
 
The stirrup and spur and their effect on mounted warfare was in changing the concept of the role from one of mounted skirmish/fight to one of charge/shock - this difference has already been calculated in, nothing more is required. nd it is a moot point whether the development of the stirrup/spur/high cantle saddle created the tactical change or vice versa.
 
The performance role of the troop type is the defining thing, this is partly a function of equipment, but is also a function of intent, tactics, culture, choice, tradition, training, and what works. Do not over-emphasize one element over the others.
[MJ] incidently IIRC (and I'm almost convinced I do) spurs have been found far earlier than this period

Cheers
Zippee
[UK] --- Martin Jerred <martin.jerred@cwc.ac.uk> wrote:> > >   As an equestrian, I would find it most difficult> to>   stay in the saddle with a couched lance and the> impact>   that entails without stirups.>   [MJ] I refer you to my post of a few seconds ago -> the posit was not> regarding "lancers" but that lack of stirrups DO NOT> disadvatage earlier> combat techniques, therefore the stirrup is a red> herring in measuring> performance as it is already calculated into the> shift from JLS to L, or> skirmish/fight to charge/shock.>    Most of you probably>   didn't know that 'ole Kel is an accomplished>   equestrian! I guarantee that Lancers with stirrups> and>   spurs will be able to "spur on" their mounts to> make a>   more devasting conclusion to their impact than> riders>   who do not have the benefit of the former. Let me> add>   that it is spurs that really can get a horse>   "motivated" to put that little extra effort in for>   that impetus that the Normans used to roll over> their>   stirup equipped Byzantine enemies during Anna>   Commena's time frame. She noted that the Spur was>   without a doubt the invention that made the Franks> so>   effective!> >                          Kelly Wilkinson>   --- deothoric@hotmail.com wrote:>   > That>   > > doesn't change the fact that lacking stirrups> is>   > actually better>   > for earlier>   > > forms of mounted combat. things changed,> yes...it>   > is>   > perceptual/subjective>   > > as to whether the result is quantifiably> "better".>   > >>   > >   Martin>   >>   > I have to ask under what circumstances having no>   > stirrups could be>   > beneficial in a battle ?  If I missed something>   > earlier, my>   > appologies.>   >>   >> > >   __________________________________________________>   Do You Yahoo!?>   Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail>   http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/> > >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor> > > >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:>   WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com> > > >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!> Terms of Service.> > __________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mailhttp://personal.mail.yahoo.com/To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[scott holder]

Stirrups allowed the rider to become part of the same machine as the horse
and hence apply the full weight of the beast into the charge. 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.

>I wrote a veritable tome last year (or earlier this year, I forget) on why
*I* and many others discount the stirrup as something we need to factor into
the game. Go back and hunt thru previous postings to read it.

In a message dated 06/25/2001 4:33:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, martin.jerred@cwc.ac.uk writes:<<    The stirrup and spur and their effect on mounted warfare was in changingthe concept of the role from one of mounted skirmish/fight to one ofcharge/shock - this difference has already been calculated in, nothing moreis required. nd it is a moot point whether the development of thestirrup/spur/high cantle saddle created the tactical change or vice versa.   The performance role of the troop type is the defining thing, this ispartly a function of equipment, but is also a function of intent, tactics,culture, choice, tradition, training, and what works. Do not over-emphasizeone element over the others.  >>The flaw with this line of thought is it places the Companions and all successor lance armed cav as well as countless others prior to the invention of the stirrup in the same category and effectiveness in riding down steady troops as the Normans or their heirs. [MJ] Effectively, yes it does. But as Hellenistic xystophoroi will not be facing [historically] Norman or later troops it is irrelevant, the distinction still stands and is made by the effect of the weapon type. Note also that shields are not available either.
 
I agree that what this argument does is question the validity of how we think about those earlier "lance" armed heavy/shock cavalry such s xystophoroi, Sarmatians, Cataphracts et al. That they used their "lance" two handed is clearly documented (and thus lack shield) but "how" this functioned precisely, is and will probably remain a slight mystery. they clearly seem to have had more of a "shock" role than JLS cavalry, and I think the current rulings do reflect this, whether they do so adequatly is moot - I don't know and I doubt anyone else truly does either.
  I agree that spurs are of questionable value and likely a red herring in that the Byzantines needed an excuse for losing and had nothing else to blame.  Historically not the same.  I understand what the rules are trying to do and have given up this argument some time ago, as it is only a source of contention (rather akin to politics or religion).  But there is no question that the stirrup changed mounted warfare.  [MJ] I have not stated otherwise
 They provide the rider with the ability to stand in the saddle after first contact and that difference alone, from a physics point of view, is easily demostrated by trying to chop a log while seated and doing the same while standing.[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. Stirrups allowed the rider to become part of the same machine as the horse and hence apply the full weight of the beast into the charge. [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?  ChrisTo unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Patrick Byrne]

Series of dumb questions from peanut gallery:

Why is being 'one with the beast' (read stirruped) in a lance charge
so important?

Isn't a lance on impact from a mounted charger with-out stirrups just
as deadly as from one with stirrups? I mean the lance in both cases
kills or knocks-out the target, right?

And, a lance used by both mounted stirruped horsemen and stirrupless
horsemen is still only used once, right? (the lance breaks on impact)

I am having a hard time seeing the 'stirrups help the lance'
arguement. I remain on the fence about 'stirrups in subsequent
bounds'.

I am enjoying this 'arguement' though and learning a lot. Keep up the
educated counter-thrusts.

[scott holder]

Just to refresh everybody's memory: stirrups will have no, repeat no, impact
on anything in Warrior. Please go back and find my missive on the subject.

I don't want to dissuade philisophical discussion over ancient/medieval stuff,
I just don't wanna create the wrong impression that any of the 4H will be
listening with an ear to change anything regarding the stirrup's impact on
warfare.

Scott
List Ho