Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Amen Brother!

Kelly
--- cncbump@... wrote:
> 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
>


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

 

 
Series of dumb questions from peanut gallery:[MJ] playing Devil's advocate for a mo... Why is being 'one with the beast' (read stirruped) in a lance charge so important?[MJ] It allows bracing, better control, improved "feel" for the horse via legs [important with lance and shield as the legs do the controlling]. All in all provides the feel of a safe and secure "seat" on the horse, instead of feeling perched on top with legs dangling, having to grip all the time. 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?  [MJ] yes but...with couched lance [only possible with high cantle/pommel on the saddle - more important in my view than the stirrup in development of lance charging shock tactics] the stirrup helps to keep the rider sat, they have (or can have - English school does not vis a vis American school) a much longer "seat", better stability, etc. And, a lance used by both mounted stirruped horsemen and stirrupless horsemen is still only used once, right?  (the lance breaks on impact)[MJ] No this technique is in the arm/wrist and involves extraction of lance - heavy medieval lances may well have effectively been used only once, however light lances were supposed to be used multile times. this part of ancer training was the part most difficult to teach recruits throughout 19thC. I am having a hard time seeing the 'stirrups help the lance' arguement.  I remain on the fence about 'stirrups in subsequent bounds'.[MJ] Stirrups undoubtedly "help" in providing a platform which allows the rider to "stand in the stirrups" this does assist in the use of downward slashing motions with a sword or similar. I am enjoying this 'arguement' though and learning a lot.  Keep up the educated counter-thrusts. [MJ] well I'm glad someones being entertained, now over on the right you will see a small cap, all donations kindly accepted  
 
All in all, although I can see and understand the changes in riding style that the stirrup developed, or encouraged or allowed to evolve, I don't think that in isolation they did anything miraculous. It takes new saddle, bit and weapon technology as well. More crucially it takes a cultural step forward to want to turn into the mounted knight of hard charging Frankish/Norman semi-myth. Stirrups if you remember had been around for quite a while before this, coming down from the step (and that's not to mention the vague memory I have of Skythian stirrups having been found in the caucusus) without a mass upheaval in mounted practice.

Cheers
Zippee
[UK]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

--- cuan@... wrote:
> 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?

> Perhaps you could have a point in the case of a
dismounted foe but what about against a well armored
mounted foe? Who has the best chance of remaining
mounted and who will most likely be blown off of his
horse? Being "one" with the horse certainly gives the
stirripped rider a definite advantage. Try to imagine
cataphracts or EHC verses Knights. I put my money on
the Knights for hitting harder with a lance!

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

Unless you skewer your opponent and then he's knocked
onto the ground while your still on your mount!
>
> I am having a hard time seeing the 'stirrups help
> the lance'
> arguement. I remain on the fence about 'stirrups in
> subsequent
> bounds'.

When was the last time you went bare back riding? Try
it sometime. Even a rookie has more control in a
stirrupped saddle!
>
> I am enjoying this 'arguement' though and learning a
> lot. Keep up the
> educated counter-thrusts.

Cheerio,

Kelly
>
>


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

--- "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
wrote:
> 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

Scott, This is old news. Everyone shouldknow that by
now. We're just flapping our Jaws!

Kelly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 06/26/2001 2:24:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
martin.jerred@... writes:

<< Saddles were in use and under development for millenia prior to this much
vaunted stirup hoo hah! >>

A saddle simply keeps you from riding forward or rearward. The only way to
keep oneself in a saddle without stirrups is to hang on for dear life.
Squeezing with legs is handy at a slow pace, but at a gallop (One would think
necessary for the smashing impact of the charge) one is bouncing up and down
as well as forward and rearward. The saddle is certainly necessary, but a
trooper in an English Saddle with Stirrups would do a far better job of
staying atop his mount at any speed above canter than a similar trooper with
a midieval high back saddle and no stirrups. The ideal is both.

Historically speaking, the wide acceptance and use of the stirrup coincides
with the shift in power between Cav and infantry. There must be a reason Cav
was not used as a shock weapon charging directly into infantry formations
during all of antiquity and then became just such a shock weapon,
coincidentally after certain improvements in horse tack. It may be
antecdotal evidence, but is far more easily supported than the contrary. I
no longer ask for consideration in this matter vis a' vis the rules, although
I think that this particular issue is as large a differential as Armor class,
but I do believe they are somehow lacking without more attempts at
differentiation.

As a side note, a bit of irony behind this is that much of my opinion,
seemingly contrary to yours, is based on my experiences in England playing
Polo during my tenure in public school. The sport was adopted as a training
exercise by the British Cav (at one time the greatest in the world), and one
thing you will not see is some one sitting in the saddle as they strike the
ball at any horse speed other than a dead stop.

Chris

 

 
--- cuan@flash.net wrote:> 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?   > Perhaps you could have a point in the case of adismounted foe but what about against a well armoredmounted foe? Who has the best chance of remainingmounted and who will most likely be blown off of hishorse? Being "one" with the horse certainly gives thestirripped rider a definite advantage. Try to imaginecataphracts or EHC verses Knights. I put my money onthe Knights for hitting harder with a lance![MJ] But this is only marginally a function of the stirrup. it is THE function of the saddle. > And, a lance used by both mounted stirruped horsemen> and stirrupless > horsemen is still only used once, right?  (the lance> breaks on impact)Unless you skewer your opponent and then he's knockedonto the ground while your still on your mount![MJ] No - see training manuals for how to keep the lance in hand, it's technique with wrist, but probably not with regard to the later heavy medieval jousting-style lance. > > I am having a hard time seeing the 'stirrups help> the lance' > arguement.  I remain on the fence about 'stirrups in> subsequent > bounds'. When was the last time you went bare back riding? Tryit sometime. Even a rookie has more control in astirrupped saddle![MJ] And when is having a stirrup mean that those without are riding bare back?
Saddles were in use and under development for millenia prior to this much vaunted stirup hoo hah! > > I am enjoying this 'arguement' though and learning a> lot.  Keep up the > educated counter-thrusts.                  Cheerio,                          Kelly > > __________________________________________________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.

 

<< Saddles were in use and under development for millenia prior to this muchvaunted stirup hoo hah! >>A saddle simply keeps you from riding forward or rearward.  The only way to keep oneself in a saddle without stirrups is to hang on for dear life.  Squeezing with legs is handy at a slow pace, but at a gallop (One would think necessary for the smashing impact of the charge) one is bouncing up and down as well as forward and rearward.  The saddle is certainly necessary, but a trooper in an English Saddle with Stirrups would do a far better job of staying atop his mount at any speed above canter than a similar trooper with a midieval high back saddle and no stirrups.  The ideal is both.[MJ] right so now you're saying all those Assyrian, hellenistic, Roman, et al cavalry were falling off their saddles all the time! Jeez have a look at roman saddle design, it has four high corner pommels that do give a very firm seat, riding at pace is not a problem. yes you have to grip with knees and this would imply that using weapon and shield would be easier with stirrups (easier does not mean impossible beforehand). the medieval saddle is designed to keep the rider in plae following impact with a tightly held couched lance - tourney style (and this is High Med - not Norman/Frankish) where otherwise the force of impact (you can quote Newton here if you like) would force the rider backwards off the horse.
Historically speaking, the wide acceptance and use of the stirrup coincides with the shift in power between Cav and infantry.  There must be a reason Cav was not used as a shock weapon charging directly into infantry formations during all of antiquity and then became just such a shock weapon, coincidentally after certain improvements in horse tack.  It may be antecdotal evidence, but is far more easily supported than the contrary.  I no longer ask for consideration in this matter vis a' vis the rules, although I think that this particular issue is as large a differential as Armor class, but I do believe they are somehow lacking without more attempts at differentiation.[MJ] Was cavalry ever used as a shock weapon in this way? [riding into things] Normans at Hastings certainly didn't - and they had stirrups and were the advocates of this new form of tactic. The dominance of the mounted warrior was one of manouvre and the necessity to meet steppe based cavalry forces with like. As a side note, a bit of irony behind this is that much of my opinion, seemingly contrary to yours,  is based on my experiences in England playing Polo during my tenure in public school.  The sport was adopted as a training exercise by the British Cav (at one time the greatest in the world), and one thing you will not see is some one sitting in the saddle as they strike the ball at any horse speed other than a dead stop.Chris[MJ] adopted from the Afghans and other high steppe nomads, yes. And why would they not hit the ball at speed then? I'm assuming you were playing with stirrups?
 

Anna Comnena stated that the biggest difference between Frankish
horse and Byzantine horse was the "straight legged" riding position
of the Franks. this is also apparent in the many illustrations of
the period (Bayeux Tap. for instance). The trick when charging lance
against lance seems to have been to get your impact in first. This
means, when all else has been done (longest possible lance), standing
in the stirrups and leaning forward. This also has the effect of the
impact transfering to the body at a better angle then the 90 degrees
sitting up gives us. Couching the lance, as opposed to holding it
two handed overhead, also moves the pressure point closer to the
center of mass. The impact passes through the torso to the legs,
which are braced and the weight of the horse is added to the mass
apparent at the lance head. Add to this that western horses were
headed up toward 1 ton in weight and you have the source of the
massive impact the complete knight package provides.

In comparison, the light lancers or fencing lancers as I've heard
them called, would better be classed with the javelin and light spear
types.

Somebody in the thread quoted DBM knights as lancers. This isn't
really the case, Ostrogoths, Charlemagne and even Lydian horse
getting the accolade. The emphasis in those rules being on role
which these troops and their enemies perceived for them. The reverse
is also true, with lancers often falling into the cavalry class,
Byzantine being an obvious example. I find it a more historically
accurate method than employed in Warrior, since troops tend to be
used historically whereas Byzantine EHC L, B, sh with a support rank
will charge Normans with a will in Warrior, unless I'm misreading
badly I'm probably the archetypal "potential Warrior" waiting to
be lured back from DBM. I gave up ancients when 7th first arrived
and displaced my beloved 6th. I tried 5 or 6 games of 7.6 and was
unimpressed. I still prefer unit based rules and the manouver
thereof but it'll take a fine balanced set to catch my attention !

Derek "awaiting perfection" Hannan

- In WarriorRules@y..., "Martin Jerred" <martin.jerred@c...> wrote:
>
> << Saddles were in use and under development for millenia prior
to this
> much
> vaunted stirup hoo hah! >>
>
> A saddle simply keeps you from riding forward or rearward. The
only way
> to
> keep oneself in a saddle without stirrups is to hang on for dear
life.
> Squeezing with legs is handy at a slow pace, but at a gallop (One
would
> think
> necessary for the smashing impact of the charge) one is bouncing
up and
> down
> as well as forward and rearward. The saddle is certainly
necessary, but a
> trooper in an English Saddle with Stirrups would do a far better
job of
> staying atop his mount at any speed above canter than a similar
trooper
> with
> a midieval high back saddle and no stirrups. The ideal is both.
> [MJ] right so now you're saying all those Assyrian, hellenistic,
Roman, et
> al cavalry were falling off their saddles all the time! Jeez have a
look at
> roman saddle design, it has four high corner pommels that do give a
very
> firm seat, riding at pace is not a problem. yes you have to grip
with knees
> and this would imply that using weapon and shield would be easier
with
> stirrups (easier does not mean impossible beforehand). the medieval
saddle
> is designed to keep the rider in plae following impact with a
tightly held
> couched lance - tourney style (and this is High Med - not
Norman/Frankish)
> where otherwise the force of impact (you can quote Newton here if
you like)
> would force the rider backwards off the horse.
>
> Historically speaking, the wide acceptance and use of the stirrup
> coincides
> with the shift in power between Cav and infantry. There must be
a reason
> Cav
> was not used as a shock weapon charging directly into infantry
formations
> during all of antiquity and then became just such a shock weapon,
> coincidentally after certain improvements in horse tack. It may
be
> antecdotal evidence, but is far more easily supported than the
contrary.
> I
> no longer ask for consideration in this matter vis a' vis the
rules,
> although
> I think that this particular issue is as large a differential as
Armor
> class,
> but I do believe they are somehow lacking without more attempts at
> differentiation.
> [MJ] Was cavalry ever used as a shock weapon in this way? [riding
into
> things] Normans at Hastings certainly didn't - and they had
stirrups and
> were the advocates of this new form of tactic. The dominance of the
mounted
> warrior was one of manouvre and the necessity to meet steppe based
cavalry
> forces with like.
> As a side note, a bit of irony behind this is that much of my
opinion,
> seemingly contrary to yours, is based on my experiences in
England
> playing
> Polo during my tenure in public school. The sport was adopted as
a
> training
> exercise by the British Cav (at one time the greatest in the
world), and
> one
> thing you will not see is some one sitting in the saddle as they
strike
> the
> ball at any horse speed other than a dead stop.
>
> Chris
>
> [MJ] adopted from the Afghans and other high steppe nomads, yes.
And why
> would they not hit the ball at speed then? I'm assuming you were
playing
> with stirrups?

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 06/26/2001 6:08:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
deothoric@... writes:

<< MJ] right so now you're saying all those Assyrian, hellenistic,
Roman, et
> al cavalry were falling off their saddles all the time! Jeez have a
look at

NO I am not, I am saying that the reason that the Cav of the day did not go
charging headlong into opponents is that to do so would have un-seated them.
The reason we see images of even SHC thrusting with Kontos or lance overhead
is that they did not charge headlong into opponents. Anyone would find it
very, very difficult to move at faster than a slow trot and have both hands
overhead ready to strike your enemy. Consequently we can deduce it was'nt
done. If you look at all the battles of antiquity, you see the cav on the
flanks chasing each other off. Successful battle plans saw your cav
returning to the field to strike the enemy in the rear, but I cannot find
example of fine Roman Saddle design or other prior to the stirrup providing
enough support and firm seating so as to inspire charging frontally into
enemy foot formations. Prior to the stirrup the Cav charge didn't really
exist. Both sides presumably moved to contact at speeds at which they could
maintain continuity and stable seating upon their mounts.
> roman saddle design, it has four high corner pommels that do give a
very
> firm seat, riding at pace is not a problem. yes you have to grip
with knees
> and this would imply that using weapon and shield would be easier
with
> stirrups (easier does not mean impossible beforehand). the medieval
saddle
> is designed to keep the rider in plae following impact with a
tightly held
> couched lance - tourney style (and this is High Med - not
Norman/Frankish)

Yes, I know, Only used this as an extreme example of a saddle that would
offer the most in support and secure seating, not as an actual example.

> where otherwise the force of impact (you can quote Newton here if
you like)
> would force the rider backwards off the horse. >>

>
> 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.

Earlier in this thread someone commented that no major changes in the
basic technology of war took place during this time, and that Alexander's
Macedonians might have fared well against William's Normans.

I think Alexander would have fared badly, but to understand why you have
to look for "technology" in the right place. The operative phrase above is
"full weight of the beast".

What had changed dramatically between the time of Alexander and the time
of William was horse breeding. Breeding takes time, literally generations.
But by the Middle Ages the Western Europeans had produced what the Greeks
or Romans would have regarded as a truly massive beast. Don't think of a
knight's charger as an every day riding horse. A true destrier was the
size and stock of a Clydesdale. Horses of B.C. Europe were puny by
comparison, little more than oversized ponies.

The Osprey Men-at-arms series gives a nice visual of this. There's one of
the books, I forget the title ("Enemies of Rome" or some such thing), that
depicts a Roman soldier riding down a barbarian. The Roman horse is small,
hardly taller than the man, giving the Roman little advantage of height or
weight. This is an accurate depiction, and I aplaud someone at Osprey for
getting it right. Now compare this with any of the Osprey books from the
Middle Ages series that depict a charging knight. The difference in horse
size is obvious, and significant.

We tend to think the purpose of the horse was to deliver the rider to
battle. In fact -- at least with knights -- this is backwards. The purpose
of the knight is to deliver the horse's mass to the enemy. The entire
system of couched lance, high-backed saddle, and rigid stirrup was
designed to create a rigid line that would transfer the horse's
massXvelocity (force) to the point of the lance. This is just basic
mechanics from our high school physics class.

A couple of points people have not commented on:

No one has commented on the difference between rigid and soft stirrup. Of
course a horse is more easily controlled and handled by a stirrupped
rider; hence the almost universal adoption of the stirrup. But a soft
leather stirrup gives the rider more "feel", and hence more control. The
rigid steel stirrup of medieval Europe thus gives up some control. Why?
Because you need a rigid stirrup to be part of that rigid force
transferrance system. Lots of people had the stirrup. The rigid stirrup
was a European innovation that made sense only given the size of the horse
and the style of warfare.

No one has commented on the distinction between Spanish knights on the one
hand, and French/English knights on the other hand. The Spanish were
arguably the most gifted horsemen on the continent, a proud heritage they
carry on even today. Spanish knights, however, play a relatively small
part in warfare of the period. The reasons are many and complex, but one
reason is this: Spain had a separate breeding program from the Frankish
breeding program that spawned the stock for both French and English
knights. In the Spanish horses, the trait that produced real size, a
horse suitable for a destrier, was carried by a recessive gene, whereas in
the Frankish gene pool it was carried by a dominant gene. The consequence
was that the Spanish had to raise roughly three times as many horses to
get an equal number of destriers to what Frankish horses produced. Thus
being a Spanish knight was more expensive, and there were fewer of them.
What Spain did have was an abundance of smaller horses, hence the Spanish
reliance on light cavalry, the Jinete. The Spanish no doubt could have
imported the Frankish breeding program at some point, but given that the
main Spanish foe was the Moor, the Spanish were probably satisfied with
the style of warfare that evolved in Iberia.

Anyway. That's a long-winded way of saying that size does matter, and that
the whole point of lance-saddle-stirrup is to make size matter more.

Of course based on this view, I can't see calling any cavalry before
perhaps 900 AD lance-armed cavalry, but I don't worry about it too much.
WRG, and now Warrior, has always been more a game than a simulation. As
long as we have an interesting, playable game with a hint of realistic
flavor, I'm satisfied.


Mark


Mark Stone || strider@... || http://digitalpilgrim.com
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 

 
Anna Comnena stated that the biggest difference between Frankish horse and Byzantine horse was the "straight legged" riding position of the Franks.  this is also apparent in the many illustrations of the period (Bayeux Tap. for instance).  The trick when charging lance against lance seems to have been to get your impact in first.  This means, when all else has been done (longest possible lance), standing in the stirrups and leaning forward.  This also has the effect of the impact transfering to the body at a better angle then the 90 degrees sitting up gives us.  Couching the lance, as opposed to holding it two handed overhead, also moves the pressure point closer to the center of mass. The impact passes through the torso to the legs, which are braced and the weight of the horse is added to the mass apparent at the lance head.  Add to this that western horses were headed up toward 1 ton in  weight and you have the source of the massive impact the complete knight package provides.[MJ] none of which I have an argument with. In comparison, the light lancers or fencing lancers as I've heard them called, would better be classed with the javelin and light spear types.[MJ] possibly, depends on "role" - skirmishing lancers [prodromoi eg] would be best placed amongst the LC, things are not as straightforward as the equipment would seem to imply. Somebody in the thread quoted DBM knights as lancers.[MJ] Me - to highlight the fact that two different heavy cavalry methodologies are generally accepted and that there was therefore no need to further improve the lancer.
This isn't really the case, Ostrogoths, Charlemagne and even Lydian horse getting the accolade.  [MJ] Agreed, the role is seen as "heavy aggressive charging cvalry"
The emphasis in those rules being on role which these troops and their enemies perceived for them.  The reverse is also true, with lancers often falling into the cavalry class, Byzantine being an obvious example.[MJ] Ah this is mostly because of the bow [something in 7th about except for L  with B equipped front ranks etc]   [MJ]  I find it a more historically accurate method than employed in Warrior, since troops tend to be used historically whereas Byzantine EHC L, B, sh with a support rank  will charge Normans with a will in Warrior, unless I'm misreading badly   [MJ] i also have my concerns
I'm probably the archetypal "potential Warrior" waiting to be lured back from DBM. [MJ] I'll join that club
I gave up ancients when 7th first arrived and displaced my beloved 6th.[MJ] I whent into recession when 7th stopped being supported
   I tried 5 or 6 games of 7.6 and was unimpressed.  I still prefer unit based rules and the manouver thereof but it'll take a fine balanced set to catch my attention ![MJ] yep, I still think it is the waver testing and ftigue orientation that sets 7th aside, this much more than endless equipment debates over classification is what is important [co-incidently it is also what IMO is most missing from DBM] Derek "awaiting perfection"  HannanI'd give you her address, but I'm selfish  

 

<< MJ] right so now you're saying all those Assyrian, hellenistic, Roman, et> al cavalry were falling off their saddles all the time! Jeez have a look atNO I am not, [MJ] Ok bad day at work yesterday, apologies for tone.
 I am saying that the reason that the Cav of the day did not go charging headlong into opponents is that to do so would have un-seated them.  The reason we see images of even SHC thrusting with Kontos or lance overhead is that they did not charge headlong into opponents.  Anyone would find it very, very difficult to move at faster than a slow trot and have both hands overhead ready to strike your enemy.  Consequently we can deduce it was'nt done.  If you look at all the battles of antiquity, you see the cav on the flanks chasing each other off.  Successful battle plans saw your cav returning to the field to strike the enemy in the rear, but I cannot find example of fine Roman Saddle design or other prior to the stirrup providing enough support and firm seating so as to inspire charging frontally into enemy foot formations. [MJ] What was Alexander doing?
Why would Arrian write of deployment methods against cataphracts doing precisely this?
  Prior to the stirrup the Cav charge didn't really exist. [MJ] I'll accept that it was different...but how much this is developmental, linked to various [minor] tech changes and how much cultural, I don't think any of us will know for sure. Subjective opinion yes...fact no. And I suspect that we are really talking mostly about cav v inf. Cav v cav being an all else equal in any event.
  Both sides presumably moved to contact at speeds at which they could maintain continuity and stable seating upon their mounts.[MJ] TBH much early cavalry tactical doctrine seems to based around the missile, aiming [no pun intended] to disrupt enemy formations and then have the mobility to pounce on any that falter. This is very different in concept to a "shock charge". I remain unconvinced that we really understand what we mean by "shock charge" for cavalry anyway. IMO it is mostly a method of imparting vast intimidation by hurtling straight at you, hoping for wavering and disruption this way [as opposed to missile use] - with unfortunate consequences if the enemy don't oblige [much medieval inf did so oblige, it wasn't considered worthwhile in Europe]. As someone who has faced [mock] Norman charges on Senlac ridge, I will personally vouch for the intimidation factor! It is worth considering that in later periods [with arguably even better horse=control technology] cavalry were not expected to charge frontally into formations

Cheers
Zippee
[UK]

 

Earlier in this thread someone commented that no major changes in thebasic technology of war took place during this time, and that Alexander'sMacedonians might have fared well against William's Normans.I think Alexander would have fared badly, but to understand why you haveto look for "technology" in the right place. The operative phrase above is"full weight of the beast".What had changed dramatically between the time of Alexander and the timeof William was horse breeding. Breeding takes time, literally generations.But by the Middle Ages the Western Europeans had produced what the Greeksor Romans would have regarded as a truly massive beast. Don't think of aknight's charger as an every day riding horse. A true destrier was thesize and stock of a Clydesdale. Horses of B.C. Europe were puny bycomparison, little more than oversized ponies.[MJ] very good and important point. But again only relevant in non-historical match-upsThe Osprey Men-at-arms series gives a nice visual of this. There's one ofthe books, I forget the title ("Enemies of Rome" or some such thing), thatdepicts a Roman soldier riding down a barbarian. The Roman horse is small,hardly taller than the man, giving the Roman little advantage of height orweight. This is an accurate depiction, and I aplaud someone at Osprey forgetting it right. Now compare this with any of the Osprey books from theMiddle Ages series that depict a charging knight. The difference in horsesize is obvious, and significant.We tend to think the purpose of the horse was to deliver the rider tobattle. In fact -- at least with knights -- this is backwards. The purposeof the knight is to deliver the horse's mass to the enemy. [MJ] i'm not sure you'd get many knights to agree with this philosophy, but I know what you mean
 The entiresystem of couched lance, high-backed saddle, and rigid stirrup wasdesigned to create a rigid line that would transfer the horse'smassXvelocity (force) to the point of the lance. This is just basicmechanics from our high school physics class.Anyway. That's a long-winded way of saying that size does matter, and thatthe whole point of lance-saddle-stirrup is to make size matter more.Of course based on this view, I can't see calling any cavalry beforeperhaps 900 AD lance-armed cavalry, but I don't worry about it too much.[MJ] Point being, however that you have to distionguish between lance armed and non-lance armed prior to this [or any other] date. problems and contentions over particulars of equipment, such as the stirrup, only matter when one is complaining that Normans should be classed better than Macedonians. The rply here is that historical evidence whent out the window when you decided to play Norman v Macedonian, don't complain that your better tech isn't represented in game rules in such instances. And the corollary is that "in period" it [the stirrup eg] doesn't matter.WRG, and now Warrior, has always been more a game than a simulation. Aslong as we have an interesting, playable game with a hint of realisticflavor, I'm satisfied.MarkMark Stone   ||   strider@linux.com   ||   http://digitalpilgrim.com"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothingleft to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."                                               -Antoine de Saint-ExuperyTo 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]

Derek,
Have you had a chance to check out Terry Gore's
Medieval Warfare? It is a fine set and worth a second
look if you have the time.

Kelly Wilkinson
--- deothoric@... wrote:
> Anna Comnena stated that the biggest difference
> between Frankish
> horse and Byzantine horse was the "straight legged"
> riding position
> of the Franks. this is also apparent in the many
> illustrations of
> the period (Bayeux Tap. for instance). The trick
> when charging lance
> against lance seems to have been to get your impact
> in first. This
> means, when all else has been done (longest possible
> lance), standing
> in the stirrups and leaning forward. This also has
> the effect of the
> impact transfering to the body at a better angle
> then the 90 degrees
> sitting up gives us. Couching the lance, as opposed
> to holding it
> two handed overhead, also moves the pressure point
> closer to the
> center of mass. The impact passes through the torso
> to the legs,
> which are braced and the weight of the horse is
> added to the mass
> apparent at the lance head. Add to this that
> western horses were
> headed up toward 1 ton in weight and you have the
> source of the
> massive impact the complete knight package provides.
>
> In comparison, the light lancers or fencing lancers
> as I've heard
> them called, would better be classed with the
> javelin and light spear
> types.
>
> Somebody in the thread quoted DBM knights as
> lancers. This isn't
> really the case, Ostrogoths, Charlemagne and even
> Lydian horse
> getting the accolade. The emphasis in those rules
> being on role
> which these troops and their enemies perceived for
> them. The reverse
> is also true, with lancers often falling into the
> cavalry class,
> Byzantine being an obvious example. I find it a
> more historically
> accurate method than employed in Warrior, since
> troops tend to be
> used historically whereas Byzantine EHC L, B, sh
> with a support rank
> will charge Normans with a will in Warrior, unless
> I'm misreading
> badly I'm probably the archetypal "potential
> Warrior" waiting to
> be lured back from DBM. I gave up ancients when 7th
> first arrived
> and displaced my beloved 6th. I tried 5 or 6 games
> of 7.6 and was
> unimpressed. I still prefer unit based rules and
> the manouver
> thereof but it'll take a fine balanced set to catch
> my attention !
>
> Derek "awaiting perfection" Hannan
>
> - In WarriorRules@y..., "Martin Jerred"
> <martin.jerred@c...> wrote:
> >
> > << Saddles were in use and under development for
> millenia prior
> to this
> > much
> > vaunted stirup hoo hah! >>
> >
> > A saddle simply keeps you from riding forward or
> rearward. The
> only way
> > to
> > keep oneself in a saddle without stirrups is to
> hang on for dear
> life.
> > Squeezing with legs is handy at a slow pace, but
> at a gallop (One
> would
> > think
> > necessary for the smashing impact of the charge)
> one is bouncing
> up and
> > down
> > as well as forward and rearward. The saddle is
> certainly
> necessary, but a
> > trooper in an English Saddle with Stirrups would
> do a far better
> job of
> > staying atop his mount at any speed above canter
> than a similar
> trooper
> > with
> > a midieval high back saddle and no stirrups.
> The ideal is both.
> > [MJ] right so now you're saying all those
> Assyrian, hellenistic,
> Roman, et
> > al cavalry were falling off their saddles all the
> time! Jeez have a
> look at
> > roman saddle design, it has four high corner
> pommels that do give a
> very
> > firm seat, riding at pace is not a problem. yes
> you have to grip
> with knees
> > and this would imply that using weapon and shield
> would be easier
> with
> > stirrups (easier does not mean impossible
> beforehand). the medieval
> saddle
> > is designed to keep the rider in plae following
> impact with a
> tightly held
> > couched lance - tourney style (and this is High
> Med - not
> Norman/Frankish)
> > where otherwise the force of impact (you can quote
> Newton here if
> you like)
> > would force the rider backwards off the horse.
> >
> > Historically speaking, the wide acceptance and
> use of the stirrup
> > coincides
> > with the shift in power between Cav and
> infantry. There must be
> a reason
> > Cav
> > was not used as a shock weapon charging directly
> into infantry
> formations
> > during all of antiquity and then became just
> such a shock weapon,
> > coincidentally after certain improvements in
> horse tack. It may
> be
> > antecdotal evidence, but is far more easily
> supported than the
> contrary.
> > I
> > no longer ask for consideration in this matter
> vis a' vis the
> rules,
> > although
> > I think that this particular issue is as large a
> differential as
> Armor
> > class,
> > but I do believe they are somehow lacking
> without more attempts at
> > differentiation.
> > [MJ] Was cavalry ever used as a shock weapon in
> this way? [riding
> into
> > things] Normans at Hastings certainly didn't - and
> they had
> stirrups and
> > were the advocates of this new form of tactic. The
> dominance of the
> mounted
> > warrior was one of manouvre and the necessity to
> meet steppe based
> cavalry
> > forces with like.
> > As a side note, a bit of irony behind this is
> that much of my
> opinion,
> > seemingly contrary to yours, is based on my
> experiences in
> England
> > playing
> > Polo during my tenure in public school. The
> sport was adopted as
> a
> > training
> > exercise by the British Cav (at one time the
> greatest in the
> world), and
> > one
> > thing you will not see is some one sitting in
> the saddle as they
> strike
> > the
> > ball at any horse speed other than a dead stop.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > [MJ] adopted from the Afghans and other high
> steppe nomads, yes.
> And why
>
=== message truncated ===


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

--- cncbump@... wrote:
> In a message dated 06/26/2001 6:08:33 PM Pacific
> Daylight Time,
> deothoric@... writes:
>
> << MJ] right so now you're saying all those
> Assyrian, hellenistic,
> Roman, et
> > al cavalry were falling off their saddles all the
> time! Jeez have a
> look at
>
> NO I am not, I am saying that the reason that the
> Cav of the day did not go
> charging headlong into opponents is that to do so
> would have un-seated them.
> The reason we see images of even SHC thrusting with
> Kontos or lance overhead
> is that they did not charge headlong into opponents.


Chris, According to Bezalel Bar-Kochva the author of
The Seleucid Army describing the battle of Magnesia,
". . . The Agema and chatphracts confronted the left
Roman legion, and a head-on charge sounds reasonable
since the cataphracts were well enough equipped to
overcome the legion from the front." I'm sure that
anyone could easily find instances of Cavalry charging
headlong into enemy troops. Perhaps this only proves
your point, but somehow I think with the wedge
formation that was used my Hellenistic and other
cavalry is meant for nothing but a balls to the walls
charge just before contact for maximum penitration.


> Anyone would find it
> very, very difficult to move at faster than a slow
> trot and have both hands
> overhead ready to strike your enemy. Consequently
> we can deduce it was'nt
> done. If you look at all the battles of antiquity,
> you see the cav on the
> flanks chasing each other off. Successful battle
> plans saw your cav
> returning to the field to strike the enemy in the
> rear, but I cannot find
> example of fine Roman Saddle design or other prior
> to the stirrup providing
> enough support and firm seating so as to inspire
> charging frontally into
> enemy foot formations. Prior to the stirrup the Cav
> charge didn't really
> exist.

As for stability, I also recall reading years ago how
horse tribes would have their children ride
bareback(as lame as this may sound)on sheep to
strengthen the legs of the young riders. Perhaps this
gave these people a bit more control and support for
them to remain mounted by strengthening the muscles in
their legs.



Both sides presumably moved to contact at
> speeds at which they could
> maintain continuity and stable seating upon their
> mounts.
> > roman saddle design, it has four high corner
> pommels that do give a
> very
> > firm seat, riding at pace is not a problem. yes
> you have to grip
> with knees
> > and this would imply that using weapon and shield
> would be easier
> with
> > stirrups (easier does not mean impossible
> beforehand). the medieval
> saddle
> > is designed to keep the rider in plae following
> impact with a
> tightly held
> > couched lance - tourney style (and this is High
> Med - not
> Norman/Frankish)
>
> Yes, I know, Only used this as an extreme example of
> a saddle that would
> offer the most in support and secure seating, not as
> an actual example.
>
> > where otherwise the force of impact (you can
> quote Newton here if
> you like)
> > would force the rider backwards off the horse. >>
>


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