Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-01-2006, 04:10 PM   #1
Verjigorm
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
Default Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Ok, so here's a few of them, mainly influenced by my intention to run a mideval fantasy game set in the 11th and 12th centuries. These questions have cropped up due to my examination of the byzantines, and how to model their mounted soldiers, such as cataphracts. This mainly comes to deal with maille armor.

1) Mail and layering. The Mail Coif is a "helmet" in gurps. However, it is not "concealable as or under clothing", which restricts anyone wearing one to wearing a coif and a cloth cap. This is directly at odds with a vast body of evidence that demands the coif be worn under a skull cap, or even another helmet. I cite as the foremost of this: the Bayeuax tapestry.

The byzantine cavalry, especially in an elite, well equipped formation(suchs as the Scholae, Optimates or Excuborites) would wear a complete suit of chainmail(sometimes double maill!), and over that, wear a chestpiece of lamellar(Small plates joined together into a coat). This is either Lorica Segmenta type armor, or Scale. It's of note that having a suit of mail with a lorica segmenta gives one a DR 9 vs. impaling. It's also of note that a man with ST 13 and a longspear in bothhands has an impaling damage of 1d+3. A longspear used in both hands is the common weapon for the enemies a cavalryman in the byzantine army would face.

2) Weight. A byzantine cataphract would go into battle, wearing 86lbs of armor(105 if the hauberk is double-maille), carrying a kontos(longspear), thrusting broadsword, mace, light buckler, composite bow and a paltry 30 arrows has 22lbs more of arms. His horse will be covered in full, or partial chain/scale barding weighing 73lbs. Riding equipment will be another 42 lbs. If we assume a ST 11 cataphract, 170 is a decent weight for the rider. This totals 393lbs.

393 lbs is a heavy load for a cavalry horse(ST22) and a Heavy Warhorse(ST24). Most animals will nto willingly carry a weight greater than moderate encumberance. What should be done? It should be noted that the heavy cataphract, as compared to lighter, regular cavalry were slower, and charged at the trot, rather than canter or gallop. This would seem to work for the cataphracts, giving them a move of 2/5 with heavy warhorses, and 3/6 with cavalry horses.

Would this mean that the horses of most cavalry are just willing to carry heavier burdens than a normal horse?
Verjigorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 04:44 PM   #2
Easterner9504
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Go with what your research shows is right.

War horses were bred for size, the slightly later Western horses were massive and easily carried the weight, see photos, note hoof/leg size.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/horsetraining.php
__________________
Chard: The army doesn't like more than one disaster in a day.

Bromhead: Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast.
Easterner9504 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 04:45 PM   #3
smurf
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

ST 24 x 3 = 345lbs
ST 22 x 3 = 290lb

Maybe they did not take everything into battle and would have been equiped according to the battle's needs.

Your riders' weight maybe wrong, You are assuming that they are of 'todays' average height and weight. They may have been 2 or 4 inches shorter and weighed less.

You could argue that the horses were stronger, just a point or two should do it:

ST 25 x 3 = 375
ST 26 x 3 = 405

BTW are you not confusing this cavalry for the 6th century version, I know Byzantium stagnated for 100s of years but some things may have changed.
smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 04:46 PM   #4
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verjigorm
1) Mail and layering. The Mail Coif is a "helmet" in gurps. However, it is not "concealable as or under clothing", which restricts anyone wearing one to wearing a coif and a cloth cap. This is directly at odds with a vast body of evidence that demands the coif be worn under a skull cap, or even another helmet. I cite as the foremost of this: the Bayeuax tapestry.
A helmet is not clothing. Mail can explictly be layered under plate armor as per the layering armor rules.
Quote:
Would this mean that the horses of most cavalry are just willing to carry heavier burdens than a normal horse?
Or it means that the armor weights given in the Basic Set are way too heavy for their DRs.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 04:47 PM   #5
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

<deleted duplicate post>

Last edited by DanHoward; 07-01-2006 at 04:52 PM.
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 04:51 PM   #6
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verjigorm
1) Mail and layering. The Mail Coif is a "helmet" in gurps. However, it is not "concealable as or under clothing", which restricts anyone wearing one to wearing a coif and a cloth cap. This is directly at odds with a vast body of evidence that demands the coif be worn under a skull cap, or even another helmet. I cite as the foremost of this: the Bayeuax tapestry.
GURPS armour is dodgy. Change the rules.

Quote:
The byzantine cavalry, especially in an elite, well equipped formation(suchs as the Scholae, Optimates or Excuborites) would wear a complete suit of chainmail(sometimes double maill!), and over that, wear a chestpiece of lamellar(Small plates joined together into a coat). This is either Lorica Segmenta type armor, or Scale.
For some strange reason GURPS calls lamellar armour "steel laminate". Just rename it to lamellar.

Quote:
It's of note that having a suit of mail with a lorica segmenta gives one a DR 9 vs. impaling. It's also of note that a man with ST 13 and a longspear in bothhands has an impaling damage of 1d+3. A longspear used in both hands is the common weapon for the enemies a cavalryman in the byzantine army would face.
DR 9 would be the minimum IMO. The chances of thrusting a lance through a combination of mail and lamellar would be practically nil. Comnena recounts an anecdote where Alexios is hit virtually simultaneously by two Frankish lancers. The impact knocked him partially out of the saddle and then back in again. He was unharmed after the incident. Even mail by itself offers excellent protection against lances. Usamah describes one incident in which he charged what he thought was an unarmoured Frank and hit him so hard with his lance that the man dropped his helmet and shield. A rip in his surcoat revealed a hauberk underneath and he sat unharmed in his saddle waiting for his servant to retrieve the dropped gear. It should be remembered that jousting at this time was done with sharpened lances and the only armour worn was mail. It was expected to withstand many many impacts before needing repair.

Quote:
2) Weight. A byzantine cataphract would go into battle, wearing 86lbs of armor(105 if the hauberk is double-maille), carrying a kontos(longspear), thrusting broadsword, mace, light buckler, composite bow and a paltry 30 arrows has 22lbs more of arms. His horse will be covered in full, or partial chain/scale barding weighing 73lbs. Riding equipment will be another 42 lbs. If we assume a ST 11 cataphract, 170 is a decent weight for the rider. This totals 393lbs.
GURPS armour weights are dodgy. Reducing all types by 25-50%, while keeping the same DRs would not be unrealistic.

There have been quite a few threads on this subject already if you use the search function.

Last edited by DanHoward; 07-01-2006 at 04:57 PM.
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 05:10 PM   #7
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Easterner9504
Go with what your research shows is right.

War horses were bred for size, the slightly later Western horses were massive and easily carried the weight, see photos, note hoof/leg size.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/horsetraining.php
Warhorses were bred for speed, intelligence and endurance. The largest destriers were rarely over 16 hands. The closest modern equivalant might be a hunter or endurance horse. Today's huge draft horses have nothing to do with medieval warhorses. They were bred much later when roads improved for pulling carriages.

A 14 hand horse would have no problems bearing the weight of a fully armoured knight. The best book on the subject is Andrew Ayton's "Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and the English Aristocracy under Edward III"
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 07:59 PM   #8
Verjigorm
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Next: The Net of Spears, alternatively known as a Shield. Viking warriors sometimes referred to their shields as "net of spears", and there have been theories suggested that some preferred to use rimless shields, on the idea that a blade would become lodged within the shield, and then be wrenched away.

Would it be within reason to create a technique, regarding the use of the shield in such a way? I'm thinking a manuever similar parrying a natural attack, and dealing damage with it. Perhaps after a successful block, the defender may attempt a shield roll at a penelty(perhaps -4?), and then disarm his opponent.

In addition, has anyone a credible source on this, and the origins of a german dueling weapon know as a "hat". No, not like you wear on your head. This weapon is suppousedly a metal boss that one holds i nthe hand, similar to the central boss man shields possess. There are suppousedly spikes or somesuch, to allow for improved disarming.

Thanks in advance, and thanks for your earlier help.
Verjigorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 08:01 PM   #9
Harleson S. Quinn
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

If I were preparing to run a true-to-life campaign, facing such issues, I'd simply refer to the building materials for HP, PD, and DR, such as they are in the book, layer accordingly and create some custom kits.
While the armor was heavy, it's pretty well documented from dig-sites that there were rarely soldiers equipped with more than 80-110 pounds actually in the battles. Most other equipment was quite popularly kept in camp.
For instance, reference to Tsung Tsu's Art of War, which quotes approximately, "Scouts should note that pots hanging from tent posts and fires burning out mean maneuvers directly into battle are commencing." Camps were kept and guarded in the day simply for storing the equipment that wasn't to be directly in use at that time.

Don't be too afraid to stray from the books a bit. They are more guidelines with assumptions for basic campaigns. Follow your best intuition and see where it'll lead. Trial campaigns and house rule systems are constantly developed just for such things...

Humbly,
Harley Quinn
Harleson S. Quinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2006, 07:35 AM   #10
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Would it be within reason to create a technique, regarding the use of the shield in such a way? I'm thinking a manuever similar parrying a natural attack, and dealing damage with it. Perhaps after a successful block, the defender may attempt a shield roll at a penelty(perhaps -4?), and then disarm his opponent.

Thanks in advance, and thanks for your earlier help.
Just allow Disarming technique (p. B230) to default to Shield; if you hit it with a -4 penalty, allow it to be bought up to Skill instead of Skill+5 like other disarms.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cabaret chicks on ice, low-tech

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.