Steve Jackson Games Forums - Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)

- GURPS (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

- - Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=17425)

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

The 'hat' technique derives, IIRC, from the tendency from a wooden shield to fall apart when battered hard enough, leaving only the metal boss to which the handgrip was attatched - techniques were developed to defend yourself with only the boss (since the shield could come apart when it wasn't convenient to replace it) and then, as these things do, it became taught as a technique in its own right. I may be wrong, but that's the way I've heard it.

And I think GURPS lamellar ('scale mail') was known as lorica squamata by the Latins. Lorica Segmenta was the 'banded mail' of longer, horizontal strips.
For reference I think they called chainmail lorica hamata, but I can't recall the name of the leather breastplate thing...

As for leaving equipment in camp ... you would tend to leave your support gear behind in the care of your camp followers, sick and wounded. The armour and weapons you were issued (or obliged to muster with) are what is known these days as CEFO ... the stuff you need with you to be able to fight.
So yes, that is a lot of weight to be lugging about - just be thankfull they're not D&D weapons that weigh twice as they should do.

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Dan has written several Pyramid articles for 3e on realistic armour weights and DRs. Search the archives for "chainmail" and "scale and lamellar" or check here http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/login...e.html?id=2565 for the lamellar article if you don't have a subscription.

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

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?

I’ve heard that these Calvary units were so heavy that they moved at the same rate as infantry. There houses being at heavy encumbrance seems appropriate. Maybe the heavy warhorse should have a perk letting it work at greater then medium encumbrance without problems.

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:

Originally Posted by seano1

You've been misinformed. The whole point of cavalry was to outmanoeuvre infantry units. The only thing you have to do to create realism is to make armour weights historically accurate. You don't have to invent stronger horses.

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Could be just misremembering details. Cavalry units do move about the same speed as infantry units on a strategic scale. However, I believe GURPS 3e also winds up with somewhat low ST scores for large creatures.

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

I think you mean that the speed is similar for long distance marching, but in tactical situations heavy cavalry can 'sprint' at great speed to manuver around the enemy, yes?

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kale

I think you mean that the speed is similar for long distance marching, but in tactical situations heavy cavalry can 'sprint' at great speed to manuver around the enemy, yes?

Yes (or can, at least, move significantly faster than infantry; it's hardly blazing speed).

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Cataphracts weren't really meant to out manouvere infantry though ... they were assault units meant to add the weight of the horse to a charge directly into infantry. This would also tend to mean a fairly slow pace for most of the battle, broken briefly by a relatively slow charge.
Other, more lightly equipped types of cavalry were used for manouver and for pursuit, picket and scouting there were always horse archers and the like.

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Of course cataphracts were faster than infantry units. Even after infantry had dropped their shields and weapons and ran away the cataphracts could still catch up and dispatch them. People are confusing what was actually meant by "heavy cavalry". It had little to do with the gear worn by the soldier and horse and a lot to do with how they were employed. Any unit that focused on "shock" tactics were considered "heavy" regardless of what gear they were using.

Re: Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

Dan, I could give you a kiss for that one.

A summerian with a thrusting spear, large shield and a bunch of buddies standing beside him is a heavy infantryman. He's just got crappier gear(damn that TL1-2!).

But cataphracts do seem to be scarcely faster than infantry in most cases. I don't think 2/5 or 3/6 are bad representations of the cataphracts' movement. Notably, Cataphracts would also be supported by lighter cavalrymen(lighter in the sense of lacking barding, and possibly weaing ligher armor), who operate as Cursores("runners") and serve to chase down fleeing infantrymen as the cataphracts would be harder pressed to chase'em down.