We're gonna have to rethink the TLs

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Still leaves us with Parthians, Sassanids and Armenians having armoured cataphracts using lances as shock weapons at what GURPS calls TL2.

But their armour was less solid.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

But their armour was less solid.

Shrug. Call them "TL2, advanced in weapons and armor." That's why we have that concept: a lot of historical cases don't fit the official progression. A bunch of guys on horseback is nothing; the Maya and the Babylonians had arithmetic with place notation, which GURPS puts at TL3 or 4.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by D10

I see your examples as cults that have used high TL skills such as memetics and propaganda and etc.. to thrive and survive in todays crazy religion bonanza.

A real TL8 development would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

No taxation without representation was a well known example of propaganda and distraction allowing the creation of the U.S. even though citizens of the colonies were technically paying less than those of England at the time.

When not talking about the listeners religion, most agree that many such beliefs started out as (un)intentional memetics.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

But their armour was less solid.

Than what?

Certainly not any cavalry we encounter before the 11th century, so not for two-thirds of what GURPS calls TL3.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Shrug. Call them "TL2, advanced in weapons and armor." That's why we have that concept: a lot of historical cases don't fit the official progression. A bunch of guys on horseback is nothing; the Maya and the Babylonians had arithmetic with place notation, which GURPS puts at TL3 or 4.

I think a just as large example is the first Australians, stone age but with good boats regardless of the exact arguable distances required to sail there.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Shrug. Call them "TL2, advanced in weapons and armor." That's why we have that concept: a lot of historical cases don't fit the official progression.

The point is, rather, that the official progression which has 600 AD as marking some sort of technological advance over the Classical world, is not representive of reality. The Classical world of Rome, Greece and the Hellenic port cities of the Eastern Med was ahead of Germanic Northern Europe in most areas of technology.

We can point out differences, but it's really hard to justify higher Starting Wealth for characters in Northern Europe from the 7th to the 10th century than for characters in the Hellenic world between the 4th century BCE to the 4th century CE, at least.

And there aren't all that many pieces of adventuring equipment where the Germanic warrior is ahead, either. As for scientists, doctors and engineers, there is no comparison.

At best, 600 AD is when the backward nations of Northern Europe achieved TL3, which had been achieved long ago elsewhere.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Than what?

Certainly not any cavalry we encounter before the 11th century, so not for two-thirds of what GURPS calls TL3.

Well yes. The first four centuries of after the fall of the Western Roman Empire are no great shakes in Europe.

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Well yes. The first four centuries of after the fall of the Western Roman Empire are no great shakes in Europe.

This is true. That period was essentially dominated by the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Caliphates of the Middle East.

I've actually had to point those out to someone who insisted that the period of 600 to 1000 AD (the so-called Dark Ages) "didn't happen". (The guy looked at me and said "who?". *facepalm*) Sadly, an all too common result of "World History" classes teaching a horribly Western-Eurocentric curriculum after Alexander's time.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Anders

I believe DanHoward said that Charlemagne's cavalry weren't required to wear armor. I would say that heavy cavalry involves using lances as shock weapons.

The term has nothing to do with their equipment - it is related to their role. A naked man with a spear and shield standing in a shieldwall is classed as "heavy infantry". A knight in full plate who acts as a skirmisher is classed as "light cavalry".

Carolingan churches and monasteries stored arms and armour. They were forbidden to issue them to anyone but a direct vassal without permission. Most cavalry had no armour. There is a letter instructing an abbot called Fulrad to raise troops and meet at Stassfurt on June 17. The horsemen are to be equipped with "shield and spear, long-sword and short-sword, bow, quivers and arrows." No mention of armour.

The Capitulare missorum says that only vassals with property to the value of twelve or more mansi were required to have armour.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Carolingan churches and monasteries stored arms and armour. They were forbidden to issue them to anyone but a direct vassal without permission. Most cavalry had no armour. There is a letter instructing an abbot called Fulrad to raise troops and meet at Stassfurt on June 17. The horsemen are to be equipped with "shield and spear, long-sword and short-sword, bow, quivers and arrows." No mention of armour.

According to Swedish landskapslaws (11th-12 century), a fighting man should have a helmet but that's the only armor that's required.