Building Dark Ages Warriors

[Yorunkun]

(Cross-posted from rpg.net)

Could you please give me some pointers on how to build effective melee fighters for a GURPS Basic campaign set in an analog to the British Dark Ages?

The idea is to have a small band of mercenary warriors, with some variety of arms, armour and fighting-styles. There will be scouting, ambushes and raiding as well as the occasional battle against groups of similarly equipped men.

Characters will be built on 100 points, with up to 50 points in disads; no cinematic advantages or super-powers, no anachronistic gear. At least one third of all points will have to be reserved for non-combat skills.

I have some experience with GURPS, but would be grateful for suggestions for arms/weapons skills and armour as well as insights on how to best utilize unarmed combat maneuvers, slams and shoving etc.

[Miles]

Most of your warriors will have spears. Some will have axes or clubs. Swords are restricted to the nobility, although your mercenaries should be able to get horses. Armor will be mostly leather and mail. Archery will be common enough, although the days of the fabled British Yeoman archer are far off.

As a rule, think of peasant conscripts as having skill 10, veterans as skill 12, and exceptional warriors as skill 14.

If your soldiers are professional mercenaries, they will have Soldier/TL3 as their main non-combat professional skill.

If you have Martial Arts, you can draw lots of inspiration from styles like Sword And Shield Fighting, Foot Archery, Combat Wrestling, Viking Spear Fighting, and either or both of Armatura Eqestris or Knightly Mounted Combat (Early Medieval)

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Miles

Most of your warriors will have spears. Some will have axes or clubs. Swords are restricted to the nobility, although your mercenaries should be able to get horses. Armor will be mostly leather and mail. Archery will be common enough, although the days of the fabled British Yeoman archer are far off.

I found nothing in my research of 8th century Britain that suggested swords were restricted to nobility. I did find lots of "viking" swords and pattern-welded swords, and swords tended to be treated as something special. They were often passed from father to son and had stories around them, so the "Named possession" perk and a few minor "enchantments through deeds or age" wouldn't be out of the question, if your setting can have a little folk magic in it. Swords as Signature Gear would certainly be fitting.

You also don't see a lot of mounted combat then. You see nobles riding to battle on horseback, dismounting, and thereafter fighting on foot, but this is starting to change with the rise of Charlemagne, but I doubt that has much impact on British culture at that time.

I do agree with mail being the primary armor, and spears being the weapon of choice. And note that I'm no scholar, just a guy who likes to read.

[Danukian]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I found nothing in my research of 8th century Britain that suggested swords were restricted to nobility.

I think he meant it as restricted by cost, not law - as in "only the wealthy nobles could afford a sword" not "only nobles were allowed to carry a sword".

[Verjigorm]

I'm still not sold on the lack of swords. For many of the dark ages societies, your social standing is basically: Thrall(Bondsman/Slave/Unfree), Freeman, and Warrior.

The difference between Freemen and Warriors isn't very distinct: Warriros appear to simply be Free Men who have shown the courage and skill to be accepted into the band of a Warlord or King, while Freeman tend to farm and herd more. A Warrior isn't going to do most of those things, and is going to spend most of his time as part of the retinue of a king. They are those who are held in highest esteem and fight in the front ranks.

Warriors will be 100-150 CP, likely have some sort of mail, a sword, a shield, a spear and/or bow. Their income comes from gifts from their lord and loot from the battlefield. Maybe 10-25% of the combat force, but they are the most dangerous things out there to face.

[Phantasm]

Weapon skills would likely be Bow, Broadsword or Shortsword, and Shield. Depending on how prevalent you want plate armor or combat-worthy axes, Axe/Mace may substitute for Broadsword or Shortsword. Unarmed skills would likely be Boxing or Brawling, and Wrestling. These skills should be in the 12 to 14 range. As they're supposed to be mercs, I'd give them Soldier at 10 to 12; their leader should have Tactics at 12 as well.

Non-combat skills would best be served as Survival (either Woodlands or Plains, although Swampland is also viable in some areas of England, I believe), Area Knowledge (England or county/shire), and possibly Boating (Sail or Unpowered) if they live near the coast.

ST is probably best around 12, same with DX and HT. As you're saying 100/-50, there's not much room there for stats higher than 12 to be viable; if you can afford it, and if the GM allows, Striking ST is useful for more damage.

Fit and Outdoorsman are probably your best advantages. Languages would likely be Saxon English, Scottish, Welsh, Norman French, or Danish, depending on where you were located.

Disads... Duty or Sense of Duty to the merc company is probably viable. Code of Honor (Soldier's) is also likely; CoH (Chivalry) would be an ideal for the knights of the era, not the mercs, although quite a number of "mere fighters" were as noble as, if not more noble than, any knight.

Gear would likely be a mail shirt or hauberk, a regular bow or longbow, possibly made of yew, a medium shield made of wood with an iron boss in the center, and a sword of some kind, either a shortsword, a thrusting broadsword or a thrusting bastard sword (longswords could be used as well, but were likely rare for the average mercenary, being the weapon of the knight). That's not counting the sundries in his pack or his boots.

Note that the weapons, especially the sword, are likely to start out as Cheap versions, rather than good- or even fine-quality gear.

[DanHoward]

Armor will be mostly leather and mail

In Britain and Western Europe in general, armour was mainly mail and layered cloth. Leather was more common further east.

[chrisd]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

Non-combat skills would best be served as Survival (either Woodlands or Plains, although Swampland is also viable in some areas of England, I believe), Area Knowledge (England or county/shire), and possibly Boating (Sail or Unpowered) if they live near the coast.

England, Counties and Shire's don't exist yet, you'd be looking at Area Knowledge (British Kingdoms), survival (Swamp) for those living in the fens and survival (mountains) is viable as well.

Chris D-W

[Beoferret]

I'm not a scholar of the period, but I've done some reading on my own (for what that's worth!) I'd concur with previous posters in regard to available weapons: overwhelmingly spears, axes, and long knives for the hoi polloi (stats for the long knife are in Low-Tech - basically it's mid-way between a large knife and a shortsword, if you don't have that book, though I'd recommend looking over a copy if not immediately buying it if you can.) Swords were not legally restricted to any particular class of folks, though they were expensive - status symbols as much as weapons. Clubs wouldn't be out of the question either, even for throwing (if I remember right, there's imagery on the Bayeaux Tapestry of Saxons throwing knobbed clubs at those pesky Normans.)

Armor: Clearly mail was the primary metal armor for warriors at the time, but was there also any use of scale in Britain? Didn't the Merovingians use some scale armor for their guys? And as a total nit-picky point, Dan, why would oxen have tougher hides than cattle, when oxen are simply any cattle (boy or girl, so to speak) that are used for draft power? As a result of extensive working (vs. pampered dairy moo-moos)?

Background skills? I'd assume that everyone, aside from nobles, would have had some basic background skills in something, whether farming, fishing, smithing, etc. Look online for an unpublished sourcebook called Historical Folks. (I think I got the name right on that). It'll give you ideas. Not that your players will need to sink more than a handful of points into background skills anyhow.

I like that you're trying for a 100 pt. start-up. Kinda like starting them off at "1st level" or what not. It's been kinda bugging me for awhile that 4th ed. has bumped the assumed starting build for characters up to 150 pts, but I admit to liking gritty, low-level type play.

Once you're done, would you be willing to post the characters that were built for this campaign?

And Dan, by any chance are you putting in entries for dark ages/early medieval period warriors in your Low Tech: armor loadouts supplement? (Though perhaps discussion of this deserves a different thread.)

[ULFGARD]

Originally Posted by Beoferret

I like that you're trying for a 100 pt. start-up. Kinda like starting them off at "1st level" or what not. It's been kinda bugging me for awhile that 4th ed. has bumped the assumed starting build for characters up to 150 pts, but I admit to liking gritty, low-level type play.

I thought that 150 was the new 100. Basically due to the increase in the cost of DX and IQ at lower levels combined with the lack of 1/2 point skills... My old 100 point Ranger/jack of all trades would easily cost 150 points if directly translated.