Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Stirrups and the Philosophy of Warrior

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Army Lists
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:05 pm    Post subject: Stirrups and the Philosophy of Warrior

This is an old post that along with a couple of others, I've stickied up here so that new folks, and old folks, can get an idea of the design philosophy that has gone into the Warrior army lists. Stirrups are a case study in this debate and typify our school of thought on these issues.

This message is not designed to change anyone's mind, so if you don't like our approach to Warrior, fine. And it's not designed to be a Spearpoint article "defending" what we're doing since, as we own the rules, we can screw them up to our heart's content if we're so inclined. It is designed to provide some background data as to why this particular debate (weapons and their mechanics in a game/simulation system) has emerged.

First, despite some of the changes that I inflicted on 7th when publishing 7.6 and the changes that have been included thus far for Warrior, FHE didn't feel that the rules needed massive structural change within the mechanics AND that ANY structural changes will be playtested at great length in order to make sure nothing doofy comes out of the "gee, this sounds like a great idea on paper" process. As some of the members of this list can tell you from the 7.5 to 7.6 experience, yes, many people said "you MUST do this or you're a stupid git" and lo and behold, the idea didn't work. As far as I'm concerned, something as significant as another weapon class and some construct regarding stirrups falls into the "playtest to death" category, even if I were convinced they were worth pursuing.

Second, let me provide some background on the entire school of thought about specific sub-groupings of weapons (the bow/composite bow issue) and stirrups. And let me also add that the stirrup issue IS a school of thought and a highly controversial one which means at this point in time, there is no "right" answer. So if someone prefers their interpretation, fine. Just don't tell me I *have* to follow it.

The whole "stirrup revolutionized western warfare" school of thought was first put forth by Lynn White Jr in his 1962 book "Medieval Technology and Social Change". His conclusions were first trashed in 1970 by Bernard S. Bachrach who demonstrated that White's conclusions were based on a flawed interpretation of the evidence in his invaluable article "Charles
Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup and Feudalism" Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, Vol.7 (1970) 49-75 (reprinted in Bachrach's Armies and Politics in the Early Medieval West--which you can get for a whopping $105 from amazon.com). According to Phil, White's interpretations have been repeatedly beaten up by experts over the years after Bachrach's first trashing but that White's book is still read and recommended by non-specialist academics and hence, the "debate" continues.

Over 30 years ago, Phil Barker did his own testing with the lance and sword on his own horse. He tested things three ways: using a modern saddle with stirrups, using a modern saddle without stirrups, and bareback. His conclusion pretty much jibed with 30 years of subsequent specialized academic research: stirrups are a convenience, nothing more.

Better yet, Ann Hyland (a fairly well known horse woman in her own right) has tested this same thesis using a reproduction Roman saddle. She (and Phil) have found that stirrups provide more security if cutting downward with a sword and if a lancer's horse stops suddenly on or before impact. Stirrups help you get onto a tall horse and when riding fast over obstacles. That's it. Nothing they, or many others, have found that suggest the stirrup is worth differentiating on the battlefield. If you subscribe to this school of thought (which as you all are now painfully aware of, I do), then the stirrup was a useful innovation that was worth having for a variety of little reasons, not simply because it gave some humoungous shock value to cav.

If you'd like to read up on Ms Hyland's work, search for her books at www.bibliofind.com. Again, no one needs to be convinced one way or the other but this does help explain why ancients rules authors have usually ignored the stirrup/non-stirrup issue over the years.

As for the composite bow, yes, it can store as much energy as a longbow and obviously is handier on horseback because it's shorter. However, everyone needs to remember that the actual power of any bow depends on the man pulling the bow and there is data from modern day testing that indicates a horse archer can't get as much "pull" from a bow as his "two-feet-on-the-ground" counterpart. Hence, any added benefit (if there in fact really is any) of the composite bow is lost because of the firing platform, therefore, no need to differentiate the weapon in the rules. Furthermore, there is also a relationship between the length of the bow and the effective length of the arrow. Because composite bow arrows are short and light, they're great at shooting long distances but their target effect goes to crap at anything other than short range (a "school of thought" that is actually outlined in the original 7th ed). Long bow arrows, for example, are long and heavy, they might not go "as far" as a theoretical composite bow shot, but their target effect is greater far out, one reason for the 120p effective range rule introduced in 7.6.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Army Lists All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group