Romans, Normans and Saxons

[Matthew]

Serleran's thread about Weapons versus Armour modifiers in Castles & Crusades predictably wandered off on a 'historical reality' tangent, and rather than continue to derail that thread, I thought it would be better to give this its own thread. Since Castles & Crusades (arguably) tends to gravitate towards the grittier end of the fantasy spectrum, historical precedent has a more significant role in combat than in some other fantasy adventure games. That said, people have extremely variable ideas and perceptions of 'historical reality', and I am not just talking about the mythology of long bows, katana, or heavy cavalry.

A significant part of the problem is that there is no way to absolutely prove anything about how warfare was conducted in the past, there are just 'best fits' from the evidence that remains, and since not everyone agrees on the 'best fit' you end up with competing theories as much in academia as in the popular imagination. The impulse to 'generalise' also tends to skew things, as warfare was not only practiced differently over time, but in different locations at the same time. For instance, the common twelfth century practice of taking and ransoming prisoners in France was not at all common in Scandanavia.

Basically, the idea here is to discuss what possible interpretations of historical combat exist, and what rules you might consider implementing to suggest that reality in Castles & Crusades. In some ways this thread anticipates Mike's Castellan's Guide to Arms and Armour, but it should be understood that history is not a discipline with absolute answers, so where contradictions arise, it is most probably the result of a different interpretation of the extant evidence.

Anyway, so me and Zombiehands have got a couple of interesting debating points going...
Spears (or Pole Arms) and Bows were generally the primary battlefield weapons of any given army

What about the Romans? This question very much revolves around what happens during the course of a battle; how much of the fighting is actually hand to hand, and how much is maneouvering around and chucking stuff at each other? We know ancient and medieval battles lasted hours, but we don't know what those hours consisted of. The point in a spear or bow is to hit the enemy before they hit you, or to weaken and demoralise their lines so that a charge will cause them to break. A few minutes of hand to hand combat is likely all an individual soldier will be capable of on the battleline without becoming exhausted from the effort.

The Roman Army was itself a composite force in just about all periods of its history. Roughly one half of any given army would be made up of auxillaries, and the organisation and appearance of the Roman legionary differed over time. The 'classic' or imperial legionary, armoured in lorica segmentata, armed with a very short gladius and two pila, was an animal of the early principate and empire (say 31 BC to 180 AD). The evidence of Trajan's Column has led some historians (Adrian Goldsworthy, I think) to go so far as to suggest that the legionary did very little fighting by at least 70 AD, being instead primarily engaged in siege works.

The up and down of this is that "not their primary battlefield weapon" is not the same as "not their primary melee weapon". You wouldn't expect a Roman legionary to fight in melee with a pilum (though this was not unknown, Caesar narrates one occasion where pila were used like spears to fend off enemy cavalry), but nor should we be trapped in the 'legionary paradigm' where the only weapons a legionary has available are the javelin, short sword, and dagger (and maybe throwing dart). That's just the paper set up. The entire tenth legion was apparently mounted in Caesar's time!

Similarly, the Saxon shield wall was an interestingly varied structure. Whilst the Bayeux Tapestry is hardly incontravertable evidence, the Saxons can be seen there throwing axe, mace, and spear at the oncoming Norman cavalry, of whom only two or three figures have their lances couched rather than held over arm or being thrown. Most accounts of Hastings have the Normans making numerous attacks on the shield wall, but few depict knights actually charging home into the Saxon line; for one thing, even battle trained horses shy away from such things, but more importantly, it's just bad tactics. The actual aim of the attacks was to lure the Saxons out of their shield wall or disrupt it to suffiicient degree that the Normans could get in amongst them. Consequently, you have Norman Knights riding up to the shield wall, throwing a lance and turning back, whilst supported by archers.

What heavy Norman foot there was (which was probably formed of dismounted knights) would probably have fought much like their Roman predecessors, sword and shield, but committing them would have been a perilous action, since they couldn't escape at the same rate as the horse if beaten back; in the end, the retreat of combined horse and foot seems to have been the impetus for the Saxons to break their lines.
Two Handed Axes

These are thought to be the signature weapons of the eleventh century Anglo-Saxons, and the Dane Axe has longer roots than that. Depictions of Vikings typically include axe, spear, sword, and knife, though the axe is not necessarily of the two handed type. Whilst the two handed axe went out of fashion after Hastings as one of the most visible weapons of the warrior elite, axes of various types continue to be used in warfare, with Richard Coeur de Lion reputedly using one. Certainly, the axe is visible in the mid thirteenth century Maciejowski Bible:

...but more as a variation on a theme than as a weapon with a different purpose than a sword. As with Roman Soldiers, a Norman or Frankish Knight was expected to be conversant with more than his signature weapons.

As the period develops and the shield becomes increasingly small or is discarded altogether, the axe in various forms becomes a more common weapon amongst armoured knights on the battlefield.
Castles & Crusades

So, what has all this rambling got to do with how we play Castles & Crusades? Well, to a large extent that depends on the reader, what they accept as historically authentic, and what degree they want to see that reflected in their campaign setting. As Zombiehands has pointed out, the typical four to six character adventuring party may not get much out of this sort of information, unless they employ a number of Hirelings and Henchmen (or, have AD&D like followers and domains by Level Nine, in which case you may need a whole different rules system).

Perhaps, what this sort of information represents is grounding for your campaign world. Some knights will be pompous gits with no respect for the value of footmen on the battlefield, but if you don't want to play to that (rather insane) stereotype, then it is useful to have some idea of what the value of footmen actually is. Similarly, a fighter who knows what the advantages of a two handed axe actually might be, and what it could be like to fight in the shield wall, strikes me as more believable than one who only knows how to fight as an individual.

When it comes to portraying NPCs and Monsters this sort of authenticity can go a long way to presenting them in a believable way. Maybe the Orcs of Mal Drac are ill disciplined raiders, easily scattered by mounted horsemen, whilst the Orcs of Del Grad are well disciplined and form shield walls to resist such attacks. Perhaps they have mail clad great axe wielding Orc champions who rush forward from the shield wall to engage enemy horsemen who stray too close to cast their javelins.

Similarly, historical events can serve to inspire analogous stories of past victories. Perhaps the aging soldier Dragos Ironhand likes to recount his version of the blood charge on the plains of Raldrek. "We stood stoically upon the field, drawn up in our shield wall, enduring the barbs of the enemy for nearly two hours. Each time they rushed forward to deliver an attack, they became bolder, daring to come closer each time. That was their mistake, they thought we would always passively endure their attacks. At last they came too near, the horns were sounded, and a thousand voices replied. We rushed upon them and they broke, turned their backs and fled before the onslaught. A red day."

Even just as a resource for tweaking the rules, historical precedent can be a valuable resource. Always thought light maces should be throwable weapons? Well, the Bayeux Tapestry would seem to agree with you. You think two handed weapons got a raw deal compared to weapon and shield, well Dane Axes look pretty deadly, maybe give them +1 to hit. Why would a fighter ever bother carrying a dagger around (I suppose he coud throw it)? Well, take a look at the Maciejowski bible and see how they could be used...



There is a lot of fun to be had from mundane historical 'facts and theories', though we should all be wary of coming down too hard on the 'this is absolutely true' side of things. Anyway just some thoughts to stir things up a bit.
Useful Websites
Roman Army Talk
Roman Military Equipment
Hurstwic
Regia Anglorum
Some Interesting Articles

Philip Rance, 'The Fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: the Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics?'

Fernando Quesada Sanz, 'Not so different: individual fighting techniques and battle tactics of Roman and Iberian armies within the framework of warfare in the Hellenistic Age.'
John W. Eadie, 'The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry,' The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2. (1967), pp. 161-173.
Philip Sabin, 'The Face of Roman Battle', The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 90. (2000), pp. 1-17.
John France, 'Recent Writing on Medieval Warfare: From the Fall of Rome to c. 1300' The Journal of Military History, Vol. 65, No. 2. (Apr., 2001), pp. 441-473.
David Nicolle, 'Medieval Warfare: The Unfriendly Interface,' The Journal of Military History, Vol. 63, No. 3. (Jul., 1999), pp. 579-599.
Michael Prestwich, 'Miles in Armis Strenuus: The Knight at War' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 5. (1995), pp. 201-220.
Jean Scammell, 'The Formation of the English Social Structure: Freedom, Knights, and Gentry, 1066-1300' Speculum, Vol. 68, No. 3. (Jul., 1993), pp. 591-618.
Sally Harvey, 'The Knight and the Knight's Fee in England,' Past and Present, No. 49. (Nov., 1970), pp. 3-43.
J. O. Prestwich, 'The Military Household of the Norman Kings' The English Historical Review, Vol. 96, No. 378. (Jan., 1981), pp. 1-35.
Clifford J. Rogers, 'The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years' War' The Journal of Military History, Vol. 57, No. 2. (Apr., 1993), pp. 241-278.
John Gillingham, 'Thegns and Knights in Eleventh-Century England: Who Was Then the Gentleman?', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 5. (1995), pp. 129-153.
Kathryn Faulkner, 'The Transformation of Knighthood in Early Thirteenth-Century England,' The English Historical Review, Vol. 111, No. 440. (Feb., 1996), pp. 1-23.
Monika Otter, '1066: The Moment of Transition in Two Narratives of the Norman Conquest' Speculum, Vol. 74, No. 3. (Jul., 1999), pp. 565-586.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[zombiehands]

A significant part of the problem is that there is no way to absolutely prove anything about how warfare was conducted in the past, there are just 'best fits' from the evidence that remains, and since not everyone agrees on the 'best fit' you end up with competing theories as much in academia as in the popular imagination. The impulse to 'generalise' also tends to skew things, as warfare was not only practiced differently over time, but in different locations at the same time.

I was just think to myself, that if one agrees with the above quote, and I do, there is not much point of discussion. Or at least historical fact in general. There is always going to be disagreement with historians. I dont want just waste time with argument like how much fighting did the Roman Legionere really do. Since there is evidence on both side of the argument (after all someone conquered the known world vs stories of the victors tend to make the victors more heroic).

Maybe a more productive line of discussion would be to suggest scenarios and how if you believe/agree with them how it might be implemented in C&C. For example if you believe that Shakespeare citing that one mounted Knight was worth 100 footman. What effect should this have on the rules. I am not sure how fun this would be though.

Or perhaps we would better spend our time look at the most outrageous claims (like above or longbow could pierce platemail) to find some middle ground or realistic center. Then compare how C&C rules reflect this. Although that would put us youre back to the first paragraph.

I will take a stab at the second option

The common Spears (particularly spears with shield) were clearly the most common weapon throughout darkages. They clearly had advantages in shield walls and as hurled weapon. Advantages in melee are debatable. But evidence suggests that swords and axes were superior in open order melee. The strongest evidence I see of this is the cost of the sword. If a spear was as good (or at least comparable) why would anyone spend so much money on one.

Anyhow, here is my thought maybe C&C should have 3 classes of weapons. Missile, shock, and melee. Shock weapons would have stats that make them very good in the beginning of combat but less once melee is joined. Perhaps bonuses to hit or damage that reverse after an event.

My definitions

"common" spear - a spear light enough to be thrown and used in one hand.

[Go0gleplex]

Ummm....actually, longbow can pierce plate with a straight on shot. (emperically proven) Does so even more effectively when using pile arrows. (real early version of sabot)

Point of fact, most bladed or pointed weapons can go through plate. The plate merely limited how badly the guy wearing it was hurt. (ie, disarmed, literally, vs gashed pretty durn good) Hence the development of fluting in armor which further limited the depth of penetration made by bladed weapons (didn't do so much for piercing though). (also emperically proven)

(goes back to the closet)
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Matthew]

zombiehands wrote:
I was just think to myself, that if one agrees with the above quote, and I do, there is not much point of discussion. Or at least historical fact in general. There is always going to be disagreement with historians. I dont want just waste time with argument like how much fighting did the Roman Legionere really do. Since there is evidence on both side of the argument (after all someone conquered the known world vs stories of the victors tend to make the victors more heroic).

Well, I have some fairly definite views on the ancient and medieval practice of war; the knowledge that there will always be a dissenting voice I actually find quite comforting, as it prompts us to examine the evidence more closely and see if our views might be changed. The volume and credibility of the voice can be more of a problem, of course.

zombiehands wrote:
Maybe a more productive line of discussion would be to suggest scenarios and how if you believe/agree with them how it might be implemented in C&C. For example if you believe that Shakespeare citing that one mounted Knight was worth 100 footman. What effect should this have on the rules. I am not sure how fun this would be though.

Indeed, and this is the setting up of goals for yourself. First you establish for yourself what is 'authentic' and then you determine the level at which you want to implement atht authenticity. Personally, I would not support Shakespeare's assertion at face value, but I might certainly say I could get one hundred times the ransom of a foot soldier for a knight!

zombiehands wrote:
Or perhaps we would better spend our time look at the most outrageous claims (like above or longbow could pierce platemail) to find some middle ground or realistic center. Then compare how C&C rules reflect this. Although that would put us youre back to the first paragraph.

Yes, this is the 'credibility and volume' issue. Whilst you and I may be able to agree between ourselves that the effectiveness of the long bow is often exaggerated and thus line ourselves up with a significant segment of academia, we need not worry that there is dissent, unless the dissent is itself convincing enough to alter the rules we decide upon for our own games. If other folks want more powerful long bows, then they should be free to create rules to reflect the reality they imagine (and we are all imagining our own realities).

zombiehands wrote:
I will take a stab at the second option

The common Spears (particularly spears with shield) were clearly the most common weapon throughout darkages. They clearly had advantages in shield walls and as hurled weapon. Advantages in melee are debatable. But evidence suggests that swords and axes were superior in open order melee. The strongest evidence I see of this is the cost of the sword. If a spear was as good (or at least comparable) why would anyone spend so much money on one.

I think that is a very reasonable assessment. In my view this is one area where AD&D 1e made some good design choices. The major advantage of a spear is that it gives the wielder good reach, and the first blow at the point of contact. Its disadvantage is that once a combatant is within that reach, the spear becomes a very poor choice of weapons. To some extent this is the same principle by which the short sword may have an advantage over the long sword. An aggressive combatant will force the wielder of the longer weapon to give ground or fight at a disadvantage. Almost certainly, to my mind, this is the reason you would want to be carrying a sword, axe or mace as a 'secondary' weapon, and the same reason why you would want a dagger.

zombiehands wrote:
Anyhow, here is my thought maybe C&C should have 3 classes of weapons. Missile, shock, and melee. Shock weapons would have stats that make them very good in the beginning of combat but less once melee is joined. Perhaps bonuses to hit or damage that reverse after an event.

That's an interesting idea. Personally, I go for something along the lines of the length and space values in AD&D, but that still makes the spear as good as a short sword in straight up melee (except for in the case of tied initiative). At the minute I am toying with minimum initiative values, where a Short Sword would have a minimum lower than a Long Sword, which would be lower than a Great Sword, but Spears I am undecided about.

Go0gleplex wrote:
Ummm....actually, longbow can pierce plate with a straight on shot. (emperically proven) Does so even more effectively when using pile arrows. (real early version of sabot)

Point of fact, most bladed or pointed weapons can go through plate. The plate merely limited how badly the guy wearing it was hurt. (ie, disarmed, literally, vs gashed pretty durn good) Hence the development of fluting in armor which further limited the depth of penetration made by bladed weapons (didn't do so much for piercing though). (also emperically proven)

Unfortunately, whilst some people may have claimed to have 'proven it' their results are always open to question, usually on the grounds of not knowing what the quality of the armour versus the arrow head might be, or the typical strength of the bow (it is a very typical merry go round, and worse with mail). That said, I think the implication here was not that arrows can never penetrate plate, but that they go through with less frequency than some suggest. Certainly, at very close range a direct shot will (more likely than not) penetrate plate, but it would be a brave long bowman indeed who confronted a body of charging plate clad footmen or horsemen at that range.
A particular Bug Bear of mine is the Pole Arm as a 'tin opener', as though warhammers, axes, and picks were invented to deal with plate, yet the same principles apply to mail, which the vast majority of the armoured members of an army would be wearing in any case! Not to mention you want to capture the guys in plate!
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[zombiehands]

Unfortunately, whilst some people may have claimed to have 'proven it' their results are always open to question, usually on the grounds of not knowing what the quality of the armour versus the arrow head might be, or the typical strength of the bow (it is a vees ry typical merry go round, and worse with mail). That said, I think the implication here was not that arrows can never penetrate plate, but that they go through with less frequency than some suggest. Certainly, at very close range a direct shot will (more likely than not) penetrate plate, but it would be a brave long bowman indeed who confronted a body of charging plate clad footmen or horsemen at that range.

Yes your right, I meant it to mean longbow could not reliably penetrate armor many people believe that an arrow was instant death. The museum of leeds mad a video of Longbow vs plate and found it could pierce at 20m but would not necessarily be deadly. Iguess I should choose my words more carefully http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AObzFd4 ... re=related

Man it took me 1hr to find that video on this lousy lap top . . . It just not made for big handed people

[zombiehands]

Its strange that when I played 1e AD&D I thought it was so unrealsitic, so I switched to GURPS for years, then 3e to get away from the complexity of GURPS, now I am switching back to 1e or C&C for more realistic combat!!

[Keolander]

Uh, sorry but The University of Reading School of Construction Management and Engineering professor Dr. Alan Williams published a finding that showed that a longbow could NOT penetrate plate armour. There has been a reconstruction of the Battle of Agincourt that showed it was not the Archers of Henry's army that defeated the French knights (as people thought for a long time) but the manner in which the French arranged their army as well as the actual battlefield itself. The Archers killed the unarmoured mounts of the knights, not the plate armoured soldiers.
Here is a .pdf that shows the University of Reading study.
_________________
Lord Lamorek Steelguard, Baron of Calx Mons Montis - The Castles & Crusades Society

[DangerDwarf]

Yes, but casualty reports from many a battle has indeed proven that elven longbows can penetrate plate armor, even with acute deadliness.

[zombiehands]

That is the PDF i was trying to find! Thanks for the link. Clearly though the video shows that a long bow could pierce a breast plate. Although it did not look like a mortal (or least not a quick death) for the wearer.

I really did not mean that it could not possibly pierce I meant that they were not armor piercing . I consider AP weapons to mean more likely to pierce than not. Examples might pole-axes, picks, hammers.

I could not find the arcticle but I know it is out there somewhere, a research looking in to mail str found that it could not me pierced by period bows, but thrown spears could albiet at short range.

The role of bows was auxillary through most of the classic and mideval times (again there are exceptions) due to its inability to defeat hvy infantry.

One final thought RMC video says the armor was mid-grade steel. Still I hold that AP longbows is far over stated

[Go0gleplex]

That may be, after all the force of the arrow when it strikes is dependent upon range and angle. But the statement was that it was impossible for an arrow to penetrate plate armor, which, all due respect to said professor, is erroneous.

I've seen a hand crafted yew longbow (made per historical drawings) drive a likewise constructed oak arrow with a cold iron tip through 2mm of 304 stainless steel fluted plate armor at 100 feet. The advantage of growing up around a guy who made fighting quality replica armor and period replica weapons for a living. Pull on the bow was about 130# or so. The pile arrow was invented for exactly the reason stated, to make sure a shot that did penetrate armor would reliably "hurt" the target.

Pole arms aren't can openers...they were to take out the mount and/or pull the armored nit riding it off so that the guys with the axes and pick hammers could finish him off. There was a great series (Conquest) on TV hosted by the guy who played the technomage Gideon that covered a lot of this stuff as well.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[dachda]

zombiehands wrote:
Unfortunately, whilst some people may have claimed to have 'proven it' their results are always open to question, usually on the grounds of not knowing what the quality of the armour versus the arrow head might be, or the typical strength of the bow (it is a vees ry typical merry go round, and worse with mail). That said, I think the implication here was not that arrows can never penetrate plate, but that they go through with less frequency than some suggest. Certainly, at very close range a direct shot will (more likely than not) penetrate plate, but it would be a brave long bowman indeed who confronted a body of charging plate clad footmen or horsemen at that range.

Yes your right, I meant it to mean longbow could not reliably penetrate armor many people believe that an arrow was instant death. The museum of leeds mad a video of Longbow vs plate and found it could pierce at 20m but would not necessarily be deadly. Iguess I should choose my words more carefully http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AObzFd4 ... re=related

Man it took me 1hr to find that video on this lousy lap top . . . It just not made for big handed people

I think you meant this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZu ... re=related

to show how/if an arrow can penetrate plate mail.

The one you linked is equally interesting but shows how quick a fully plate mailed knight could get back on his feet if knocked on his back. The whole turtle on his back thing is shown to be silly.

Great post Matthew!! Love all the great weblinks.
_________________
Sir Dachda McKinty,

Margrave and Knight of Portlandia
Castles & Crusades Society

[Matthew]

zombiehands wrote:
Yes your right, I meant it to mean longbow could not reliably penetrate armor many people believe that an arrow was instant death. The museum of leeds mad a video of Longbow vs plate and found it could pierce at 20m but would not necessarily be deadly. Iguess I should choose my words more carefully http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AObzFd4 ... re=related

Man it took me 1hr to find that video on this lousy lap top . . . It just not made for big handed people

Heh, that was actually a very good show. Usually television history is very poor, but Mike Loades is very reliable, and the complete lack of 'narrator voice' puts him in good stead. The results of Weapons that made britain can be found archived here: Weapons That Made Britain.

zombiehands wrote:
Its strange that when I played 1e AD&D I thought it was so unrealsitic, so I switched to GURPS for years, then 3e to get away from the complexity of GURPS, now I am switching back to 1e or C&C for more realistic combat!!

Heh, heh. That is what I like about abstract and 'light' rule sets. They have the luxuary of leaving much of the realism up to the imagination, which frees them from the constraints of precise narration and the labour of detailed (and not necessarily authentic) resolution.

Keolander wrote:
Uh, sorry but The University of Reading School of Construction Management and Engineering professor Dr. Alan Williams published a finding that showed that a longbow could NOT penetrate plate armour. There has been a reconstruction of the Battle of Agincourt that showed it was not the Archers of Henry's army that defeated the French knights (as people thought for a long time) but the manner in which the French arranged their army as well as the actual battlefield itself. The Archers killed the unarmoured mounts of the knights, not the plate armoured soldiers.
Here is a .pdf that shows the University of Reading study.

Yeah, I have to admit I am not particularly convinced by the 'it was raining and stuff' explanation. However, Williams' contention I think refers to distance shooting, rather than direct and close range attack. As you say, it is also quite likely that both the organisation of the French army and the vulnerability of their mounts contributed significantly to their defeat at Agincourt. Certainly, it was not a withering hail of arrows mowing down the nobility. However, it is also worth bearing in mind that only the wealthiest members of the host would have been armoured in plate.

zombiehands wrote:
T

hat is the PDF i was trying to find! Thanks for the link. Clearly though the video shows that a long bow could pierce a breast plate. Although it did not look like a mortal (or least not a quick death) for the wearer.

I could not find the arcticle but I know it is out there somewhere, a research looking in to mail str found that it could not me pierced by period bows, but thrown spears could albiet at short range.

As with most results, I have seen it argued back and forth about a dozen different ways. The test Mike Loades did was based on the force exerted by a 'champion Bowman with a very heavy war bow. About the only thing we can say with any confidence is that people who could afford armour bought it and wore it, and bows with a greater pull are more effective than those with a lesser pull.

Go0gleplex wrote:
I've seen a hand crafted yew longbow (made per historical drawings) drive a likewise constructed oak arrow with a cold iron tip through 2mm of 304 stainless steel fluted plate armor at 100 feet. The advantage of growing up around a guy who made fighting quality replica armor and period replica weapons for a living. Pull on the bow was about 130# or so. The pile arrow was invented for exactly the reason stated, to make sure a shot that did penetrate armor would reliably "hurt" the target.

The odd thing about the 'pile Arrow' is that it would be similarly effective against mail. Why wait until the invention of plate to invent it? Part of the answer has to do with how arrow heads interact with composite armour. They not only have to go through mail, but through fabric as well. One theory about how pile arrows were countered is that it was the impetus for wearing padding over mail.

It's all theoretical, though; believe me, people have been shooting arrows at armour and drawing conclusions for decades now, and nobody is any nearer to agreeing about anything. One test shows one thing, another shows the reverse.

Go0gleplex wrote:
Pole arms aren't can openers...they were to take out the mount and/or pull the armored nit riding it off so that the guys with the axes and pick hammers could finish him off. There was a great series (Conquest) on TV hosted by the guy who played the technomage Gideon that covered a lot of this stuff as well.

Yeah, Conquest wasn't a bad show at all, and it showed how even spears could penetrate plate with a good solid blow. Thing is, you generally don't want to finish off the guy in plate, you want to disable him and ransom him off. Still, there's no doubt that Pole Arms were effective weapons built to puncture, crush and chop.

dachda wrote:
Great post Matthew!! Love all the great weblinks.

You might also be interested in De Re Militari, an excellent resource for the medieval military enthusiast. Not only does it host translations of primary sources, but many important articles, especially of note are those written by John Gillingham. Another useful site with which people are probably familiar is ARMA, which takes a more hands on approach to medieval combat. On the other hand, if you like looking at swords or perhaps aspire to one day own a quality reproduction, I would recommend Albion Swords.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[zombiehands]

Weapons:

Right now I am thinking of making weapons have a AP stat, Length Stat, melee (speed + versatility), and damage. I am thinking of varing them between 1-4. The numbers will give a conditional advantage.

AP

AP 1, would give no advantage (example sword)

AP 2, would give a +1 vs leather (ex axe)

AP 3, would give a +1 vs mail or leather (ex mace)

AP 4, +1 vs armored targets (ex pick)

Length

A character who is not flanked gets a +1 (or per point) if his weapon is longer than his oppenents. and possibly -1 (or per point) once he is flanked by someone with a weapon

1 example dagger

2 arming sword, ax, mace

3 spear, "great" weapons

4 pole-arms pikes

Melee factor

A flanked character gets a +1 if the weapon melee factor is higher.

1: pike, 4 length pole arms, spear 1 h

2: "great weapos", Axe, Mace

3: Arming sword, spear 2-handed, 2-h swords

4: dagger, staff, short sword, hand axe.

damage

1 dagger, staff, club

2 mace, pick, 1-h spear

3 sword, axe, 2-h spear

4 2-h sword, axe, most pole-arms

1-h weapons get +str damage bonus

1-h used 2-h get +1 damage bonus

2-h weapons get x2 str damage bonus

to balance bonues I am thinking of increasing

On to Armor:

If my goal for weapons was to make each weapon feel different, and reflect the "real" advantages of the weapon, I would want to do someting similar for armor.

Similar to dividing weapons into 3 broad groups (melee, shock, missile). Armor groups might be flexible and rigid.

Flexible Armor:

Advanatges: more breathable. Easier to fit to another.

Disadvantage: More encumbering (per wieght) since the wieght is carried on shoulders.

rigid armor

Advantage: blow's energy is dispersed over a larger area thus better protection.

Disadvantage: surface does not allow good ventalation. Weaker joints.

[Matthew]

zombiehands wrote:
AP 1, would give no advantage (example sword)

AP 2, would give a +1 vs leather (ex axe)

AP 3, would give a +1 vs mail or leather (ex mace)

AP 4, +1 vs armored targets (ex pick)

I have to say I am not all that convinced of the old 'blunt weapons are best against mail' proposition. The main problem I have with it is that whilst a sword or axe may fail to reach the flesh, they're still doing 'impact' damage, perhaps even more significant impact damage given that the force is concentrated on a potentially smaller area. Then there is the possibility of a "thrust", which I would imagine to be rather effective against mail.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[zombiehands]

Of course some swords and axes were longer and/or heavier and would have a greater energy than the mace. Ultimately I am assuming comperable size.

The raw energy of the blow would be greater with a mace than sword, however an axe and a mace would be similar due to the center of mass being similar.

The impact point would be smaller on flanged, studded, or spiked mace. A ball type mace might have a smaller impact too depending on the weave of the mail, because it the amount of rings impacting not the blade edge. An axe with a narrow head would be similar to mace though. So maybe ther is reason to include a piercing axe

As far as the thrust, I think that would be pretty debatable. I think the point configuration would be pretty important. An estoc type blade would be more effetive but viking swords and early middle age swords tended to have a weak point. Many claim (and I know there are test out there) that mail could turn a thrust (although not a 2-h thrust) pretty reliably. the sagas call mail the "net of spears" beause of its resistance to thrust giving altittle more support. I think too if you take out of consideration it piercing right through then it is going to be less effective (lower energy)

While it might not be true for a mace. Thinking about some blunt weapons would not be any better then a sword. Staves and clubs jump to mind as they would be lighter then a sword (of the same length) although they might be faster (i.e. corking a bat).

So I guess I agree with you about blunt weapons but not maces (or at least 3 out of 4 of the most popular designs)

[Matthew]

Another element to consider is the deadliness of a mace compared to a sword or spear. I would imagine that a quick kill with a mace pretty much necessitates aiming for the head (or possibly throat), which is usually protected by a helmet if mail is worn, whilst a sword or spear thrust to the heart or other vital area should prove deadly. Hard to guess though, really, I imagine a flanged mace blow to other areas of the body could kill (or at least stun or prove disabling), but I think the reliability of such blows is lower.

The increasingly tapered blades of the middle ages suggests that there was a similar increase in emphasis on the thrust, which may remind us of the contemporary interest in Vegetius' famous writings. As you say, though, this is a similar sort of area as 'long bow versus mail/plate', with contrary opinions variously interpreting the evidence and results of experimental archaeology.

The tests I have seen conducted for spears (and mind, these were television tests, Blood of the Vikings, I think it might have been) showed that a solid blow would go through mail fairly reliably, much to the chagrin of the manufacturer of the mail. As with most such tests, the conditions are open to question, but given that swords and spears were the most popular weapons on the mail armoured medieval battlefield, I am inclined to think that they were also the most effective.

That's not to say that I don't think body armour was capable of reducing deadly blows to less deadly ones, of course. One possible theory is that the rising popularity of the mace and hammer was partly because they were less likely to suffer damage than a blade versus plate.

As an aside, ARMA have some informal tests that look pretty fearsome: Sword versus Mail, and you might find this Grosse Messer video entertaining (well, the entire Cold Steel series of videos, really).
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[zombiehands]

That is not the video I saw, the one I saw had a few sample of mail manufactured in differnet ways. The one was hardend after connecting the rings (similar to real manufactue during 900's) while the other were not. The hardened mail stopped arrow sword and 1-h spear thrust.

I think making the sword non-ap does not make it ineffective. I think its effectiveness will come to its melee factor, and superior damage to a warhammer or mace. Over all swords and spears are superior to a hammer or mace considering most foes don't wear armor. (like the middle ages)

As far as killing with one blow, I am sure that a mace could do that to the body (after all people are killed by baseballs), but like ap I think a sword or axe is probably more likely. Although most roleplayers underestimate the effect of blunt trama. I went to school with a guy who was kicked by a cow. He got up after a few minutes tried to laugh it off, went home and died after dinner. (but not instantly). But a mace has a greater density that would allow for bone splintering. Blows to the rib and hips would be devestaing.

I was considering making all one handed weapons do the same damage, because any could kill with one hit. I think the video you posted it brought me around to my orginal reasoning (much like your post)

[Matthew]

zombiehands wrote:
That is not the video I saw, the one I saw had a few sample of mail manufactured in differnet ways. The one was hardend after connecting the rings (similar to real manufactue during 900's) while the other were not. The hardened mail stopped arrow sword and 1-h spear thrust.

Yeah, the one I saw used two different types of mail, one thought to be less historically accurate and the other more (MyArmoury has long discussions on mail types that I have considerable trouble deciphering). They were using a machine as with Mike Loades' test to accurately judge the force involved, much to the surprise of the mail expert, the spear went through both types of mail, though the first more easily than the last. Seriously, though, it's not really that surprising, if mail rendered men invulnerable to spears we'd have seen a distinct drop off with regards to their use on the battlefield.

zombiehands wrote:
I think making the sword non-ap does not make it ineffective. I think its effectiveness will come to its melee factor, and superior damage to a warhammer or mace. Over all swords and spears are superior to a hammer or mace considering most foes don't wear armor. (like the middle ages)

Sure, and if mail clad knights regularly used maces to combat one another in preference to swords I would agree, but it doesn't really matter since the evidence is inconclusive. As long as the starting assumption is "maces are more effective against mail clad men than swords, but swords are better against unarmoured men" then I think this rule does a good job of suggesting that.

zombiehands wrote:
As far as killing with one blow, I am sure that a mace could do that to the body (after all people are killed by baseballs), but like ap I think a sword or axe is probably more likely. Although most roleplayers underestimate the effect of blunt trama. I went to school with a guy who was kicked by a cow. He got up after a few minutes tried to laugh it off, went home and died after dinner. (but not instantly). But a mace has a greater density that would allow for bone splintering. Blows to the rib and hips would be devestaing.

Absolutely, the modern imagination seems to often underestimate the vulnerability of the human body and the force that a hand weapon is capable of delivering. Watching some of the 'test' videos (especially the ARMA ones) I have always found very sobering.

zombiehands wrote:
I was considering making all one handed weapons do the same damage, because any could kill with one hit. I think the video you posted it brought me around to my orginal reasoning (much like your post)

Right you are. Not sure if you have seen this before, but it might be worth a look for inspiration: The Riddle of Steel - Huscarl Axe.

[Edit] Swanning about on the internet a bit, I turned up this unofficial study: Effectiveness of Mail. I can think of a fair few other sources he's missed, and by his own admission this is hardly a complete study, but it is a good example of how the arguments run back and forth.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[zombiehands]

As far as spears, I think they perhaps have the biggest difference when use in 1 or 2 hands of any weapon that I have fooled around with. A spear feels almost clumsy in one hand. It is also diffcult to get your wieght behind it. 2-handed its fast and very powerful.

With hafted weapons you get more control and power, although it seemed to me it was not as great a difference as it was with the spear.

I think my 2-handed spears should have AP 3 (mail and lower). As high or higher melee rating then a sword but a lower damage. they kll with one stab , but they don't knock off heads and arms.

[Matthew]

Yeah, I can believe that of spears, though I understand that the 'overarm' technique (which we see most commonly depicted) is supposed to allow for greater power than underarm.

I think, using your designations, AP 3 would be a good idea for spears wielded with both hands.

By comparison, the way I currently run things is:

Spear (one handed) +0 to hit, 1d6 damage

Spear (two handed) +1 to hit, 1d8+1 damage

Mail (Heavy Armour) -1 damage

Plate (Very Heavy Armour) -2 damage

If you haven't already seen it, my Alternative Weapons Table lists the other values I use, some discussion of which can be found in the Excising the Weapons & Armor Descriptions from Castles & Crusades thread.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Luther]

Quote:
I was considering making all one handed weapons do the same damage, because any could kill with one hit. I think the video you posted it brought me around to my orginal reasoning (much like your post)

This is the way that WFRP does it, all hand weapons are the same, and it works well. Weapon's choice at the single hand weapon level becomes more of a style issue. They even go one further and all Great Weapons are the same (they do Impact Damage, allowing you to roll twice and take the higher for damage).

I think the concept of giving weapons 'Qualities,' as in WFRP, instead of trying to niggle the damage and speed individually, is a much better way to handle individualizing weapons and armour. You can mix and match to create a variety of weapons. Some examples adapted from WFRP for C&C:

Reach 1-3 (ex. Spears): The weapon is long. It automatically has Reach (see PHB pg 115) on any weapon with no Reach or a Reach less than this weapon.

Impact (ex. Great Weapons): Roll damage twice, take the greater result.

Piercing (ex. Military Pick): -1 to AC based on armour.

Pummeling (ex. Maces): You may Strike to Stun by making a called shot to the head. Victim takes 1 point of damage and must make a CON check or be stunned for one round.

Tiring (ex. Flails): Cause Impact Damage on the first round only.

Defensive (ex. Parrying Dagger, Hook Sword): If used in the off-hand and not used to strike, this weapon may give an AC Bonus of +1 (plus any magical bonuses).

Those are just off the top of my head.

[Matthew]

The problem with the "qualities" approach is that you're then looking at balancing the various weapons using what are often unrelated abilities, which is to say you end up designing a fairly extensive system that needs to be learned and remembered. A simple "quality", such as the parrying dagger one you outline above, can have unforseen consequences; unless you do something about the shield to make it more attractive, then the parrying dagger suddenly looks like a more attractive option (which is fine if that's the result you want).

To be clear, I find the idea of "qualities" very appealing, but I have yet to see it well implemented in something like C&C where level, armour class, hit points, and to hit bonuses are such controlling factors in combat (a quite different situation to WHFRP, in my opinion). Something like the "stun" effect of a mace would work well in some contexts, but make no sense in others (I have used such an approach before, and my experience of it was that it is better to let players come up with their own innovations than prescribe them through weapon choices).
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[serleran]

Weapon / Armor Qualities

I like the idea, too...

[zombiehands]

Matthew wrote:
Yeah, I can believe that of spears, though I understand that the 'overarm' technique (which we see most commonly depicted) is supposed to allow for greater power than underarm.

I think, using your designations, AP 3 would be a good idea for spears wielded with both hands.

By comparison, the way I currently run things is:

Spear (one handed) +0 to hit, 1d6 damage

Spear (two handed) +1 to hit, 1d8+1 damage

Mail (Heavy Armour) -1 damage

Plate (Very Heavy Armour) -2 damage

If you haven't already seen it, my Alternative Weapons Table lists the other values I use, some discussion of which can be found in the Excising the Weapons & Armor Descriptions from Castles & Crusades thread.

Yes I saw your table and have blatenly ripped stuff off from it
How do you implement the numbers though? Particularly space and parry. Under space are you saying that that the user need that many free squares around them?

Do you have a similar file for armor?

Are you using an initative system like AD&D 1e?

[Matthew]

zombiehands wrote:
Yes I saw your table and have blatenly ripped stuff off from it

Good, good.

zombiehands wrote:
How do you implement the numbers though? Particularly space and parry. Under space are you saying that that the user need that many free squares around them?

I use the space numeration as a guideline for when to apply penalties in limited space environments. The idea is that group of soldiers armed with long swords and shields need more space to fight effectively than a group with short swords and shields. If this requirement is ignored for some reason, then a penalty is applied (usually ranging from -2 to -6). Additionally, there may be a chance of injuring a comrade if the situation warrants. An example might be fighting in a passage less than 3 ft wide; a character using a short sword might have no penalties, whilst a character with a long sword might get -2 to hit and a character with a great sword -4 to hit, depending on the circumstances. A character being grappled might have no penalties with a dagger, -2 to hit with a short sword, etc... The nature of the weapon and its length may also play a role. No hard rules on that front, just relative values.

The number associated with Parry is a slightly different story; as with the space value, the number is relative, but it is also tied to a definite rule that we use, which allows characters to substitute attacks to make a parry, block, or dodge (a concept taken from AD&D 2e CFHB and the WHFRP 1e Companion). A character using a shield gets one free block per round, and missile attacks cannot be parried, only blocked or dodged.

A parry, block or dodge replaces armour class against the attack it is declared and is calculated as follows:

Parry = 10 + Bonus to Hit + Attribute + Weapon's Parry Value

Block = 10 + Bonus to Hit + Attribute + Shield's Block Value*

Dodge = 10 + Level + Dexterity + Class Adjustment

* Small Shield +2, Large Shield +4,

Alternatively, the game master could use 1d20 in place of '10' (which is how we originally did it, treating it like a kind of saving throw).

So, for example...

Quote:
Merena (Level 1 Fighter)
Attributes: Strength 14, Dexterity 15, Constitution 13, Intelligence 12, Wisdom 12, Charisma 10,
Possessions: Helmet, Mail Armour, Two Handed Sword

Armour Class: 16 [10 + Mail (5) + Dexterity (1)]

Block: n/a

Dodge: 12 [10 + Level (1) + Dexterity (1)]

Parry: 16 [10 + Bonus to Hit (1) + Strength (1) or Dexterity (1) + Two Handed Weapon (1) + Great Sword Parry Value (3)]

Probably looks more complicated than it really is; in practice the stat block just reads: AC 16/-/12/16.

Quote:
Aldros (Level 2 Fighter)
Attributes: Strength 16, Dexterity 13, Constitution 12, Intelligence 12, Wisdom 11, Charisma 13,
Possessions: Helmet, Mail Armour, Large Shield, Long Sword,

Armour Class: 18 [10 + Mail (5) + Large Shield (2) + Dexterity (1)]

Block: 20 [10 + Bonus to Hit (2) + Strength (2) + Large Shield Block Value (4)]

Dodge: 13 [10 + Level (2) + Dexterity (1)]

Parry: 18 [10 + Bonus to Hit (2) + Strength (2) + Long Sword Parry Value (2)]

Quote:
Talos (Level 1 Thief)
Attributes: Strength 12, Dexterity 15, Constitution 10, Intelligence 14, Wisdom 9, Charisma 12,
Possessions: Leather Armour, Short Sword,

Armour Class: 13 [10 + Leather (2) + Dexterity (1)]

Block: n/a

Dodge: 16 [10 + Level (1) + Dexterity (1) + Thief Class Bonus (4)]

Parry: 13 [10 + Bonus to Hit (1) + Dexterity (1) + Short Sword Parry Value (1)]

Anything that looks odd above (such as a Large Shield granting +2 AC or a Level 1 Thief having a +1 Bonus to Hit) is probably a house rule. As characters go up in levels, their defences get better, but on a scale similar to likely AC advancement (in my opinion). A Level 20 Fighter with Strength and Dexterity 18, and a Long Sword +5 is looking at a Parry of 40 (that is if you allow AC to exceed 30). Assuming that the same character had Full Plate +5 (AD&D version) and Large Shield +5, he would have an AC of 34/42/33/40. Not that I give out such treasures (or play at such levels).
Obviously, this sort of system is not for everyone; its design mandate is to reduce the importance of armour and magic junk as a primary means of defence in favour of character level. There are much simpler alternatives that don't scale with level (such as sacrificing an attack to add the Parry/Block value to normal AC versus one enemy attack), but the above is the one I currently favour, bearing in mind we rarely play above Level Nine and I am stingy with magic and money.

zombiehands wrote:
Do you have a similar file for armor?

Yes, but it isn't quite ready for public consumption yet.

zombiehands wrote:
Are you using an initative system like AD&D 1e?

We tend to chop and change over time. At the moment we're settled on using the 2e default method (each side rolls 1d10, lowest acts first, implied simultaneous movement), but the weapon speed represents the lowest number a character can attack on with that weapon [i.e. even if Merena's side rolled a "1" for initiative, her initiative would effectively be "3" if she attacked with her great sword]. We do the same for casting time, and have a couple of other house rules to govern specific exceptions (such as charging).
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Luther]

You know, I'm not trying to be disrespectful of anyone's ideas or anything, but anytime I see a list of rules like some of those above, I start to fall asleep or my brain starts to hurt. My intentions are always more along the lines of KISS. If I have to start overhauling the entire book, I tend to find another book that does what I'm looking for. I never played 2e precisely for tha sheer amount of 'rulery' that dominated it.

It does make me appreciate the brilliance of the SEIGE system, though. Whereas you guys are houseruling left and right, and that's great if you like crunch because the system is really capable of accepting almost any level of that you'd like, it is also easily capable of handling the 'on the fly' sorts of rulings that an experienced GM can bring to a table.

Almost everything you guys have brought up increase the realism of the game tenfold, but it's so easy for me to call it as it happens without set rules.

If a PC sets a spear against an Orc charge, if he's a fighter, he can do it and strikes first using the Reach rule on pg.115 as an inspiration (other classes might have to make an attribute check to set it properly first). Likewise if an orc with a spear is fighting a PC with a Pike, logic again dictates that the same rule applies.

Party fighting in a 3' wide corridor with a low ceiling? Let's see... only thrusting weapons get full damage (everything else does half damage, or one point depending on the weapon) and people fighting with spears can attack from behind an ally in front of them, but the person in front takes all the hits and damage from the enemy.

Player using a greatsword two handed and 'sweeping' his enemies? He can split his attack bonus between multiple opponents but needs a 5 foot space between him and and his targets to gain the momentum. Also, any allies in range get hit as well.

I pulled those examples right out of my backside with about a minutes thought total. The difference between the way you do it and I do it: 'I'll take the Lite Road and you take the Crunch Road and I'll finish the combat before ya...'

[Matthew]

All entirely possible without the SIEGE system; make up a rule and assign a probability and you are done. The idea here is to discuss potential rules that suggest historical authenticity ahead of time. As I said, the above is not intended for folks who don't want such complications in their system; in fact, it's not designed for anyone's game except my own.

I will resist making the obvious joke about arses and rules.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[zombiehands]

Matthew

I came at it another approach after I found some second editions stuff I wrote up and influance form this thread and your chart. (sorry for the desciption of the weapons, it was a carry over. still a work in progress)

Hafted- Weapons of this type consists of a haft 1 to 5 feet long and a weighted head. They rely on heavy impacts that are better than most weapons at punching through armor or just crush the wearer beneath. They come in three lengths. Short hafted weapons are generally 1-2 feet long balanced for throwing. Long hafted weapons are generally 2 to 4 feet in length. They gain +1 to hit armored foes, their length also makes two handed strikes effective (shift up one die). Great hafted are generally 3 to 5 feet long and sport a heavier head than long weapons. They are excellent at piercing armor and gain +2 to hit armored foes. They are four groups of hafted weapons maces (crushing damage), picks (piercing damage), axes (cutting damage), and hammer (piercing or crushing damage). Damage: axe or mace 1d6/1d8/1d12 pick or hammer 1d4+1/1d6+1/1d10+1

Blades- Weapons if this type consists of a metal blade (1 to 5 feet in length) and a short handle. Generally they are fast and versatile in combat. All bladed weapons are considered to have the advantage of length over most similar sized weapons (not spears, lances, or pole-arms). Carried on waist or back mounted scabbards they are faster to draw than other weapons and can be ready as part of attack action (as opposed to as part of a move action).

There are four groups of blades: Swords (cutting or piercing damage), falchions (cutting damage), Estocs (piercing damage), and Rapiers (piercing damage). Swords, including scimitars, come in three lengths each has advantages. Short swords excel at fighting in close quarters and attack during grappling at no penalty. The Long swords length, cutting, and thrusting edge make them excellent from a mount and gain +1 to hit from horseback. Literally every part of a Great sword is a deadly; pummel strikes allow them to inflict any type of wound. Their length and weight give them a +1 to hit an armored foe. Falchions are blade heavy weapons that include weapons like the falcatta even though they gain force from an inwardly curved blade. They also come in three lengths. Falchion lack the advantages of swords, however they inflict greater damage. Great do gain +1 to hit against armored foes. Rapiers come in two lengths (short and long). They too lack the abilities sword but their speed and balance gives them the length advantage over similar lengthen blades other blades and they allow for quick thrusts that allow attacks at foes 2 squares away. Estocs are also thrusting blades, but are heavier and thicker in cross section for penetrating armor and gain +1 to hit against armored foes. Estocs come in one length long and do gain long swords mounted advantage.

Long swords, falchions , and estocs can be modified to with a longer handle that makes two handed use more effective (+1 damage)

Damage: Swords (1d6/1d8/1d12), Estoc 1d8, Rapiers 1d6+1, Falchions (2d3/2d4/2d6)

Spears- This weapon consist of a long shaft with a sharp point attached to the end. All spears can be set to receive a charge, provide the wielder does not move. Spears have length advantage against any weapon other than pole-arms and lances. Short spears are about as long as the wielder is tall and are well balanced for throwing (and include javelins). If used two-handed they shift one die for damage (to d8), however this does not affect the set damage. long spears are about 1.5 times the height of the wielder long. They can be thrown although less effectively than the short spear. When used two handed they shift two dice for damage (to d10). They can be used to attack foes up to 2 squares away. Great spears are longer still and require two hands, they can be used to attack foes 2 or 3 squares away (but not adjacent). Damage: Short 1d6 or 2d6 when set, long 1d6 or 2d8 when set, great 1d10 or 2d10 when set. When thrown short and long spears do 1d8 damage. Spears do piercing damage

Pole arms-These weapons combine the attributes of hafted weapons with spears. Like spears they have length advantage over other any weapon but spears or lances. They are all two handed and come lengths short and long and are the same length of similar sized spears. Short pole arms are quite quick and are short enough to inflict heavy blows and recover. They are excellent at piercing armor and gain +2 to hit armored foes. Long pole arms are much slower but can attack foes from up to 2 squares away. They gain +1 to hit armored foes. All pole arms do piercing damage and additional type. Halberds, Glaives, Bills, and Guisarmes do cutting damage, Lucerne hammers and pole-axes do blunt. Damage Short 1d10+1, long 1d10.

Knives: The shortest of weapons, they can be used in close combat without penalty. Carried in scabbards they are faster to draw than other weapons and can be ready as part of attack action (as opposed to as part of a move action). They are divided into three groups: daggers, kukris, and katars. Daggers do 1d4 piercing or cutting damage, and may be thrown. Kurkis do 1d3+1 cutting damage, and Katars do 1d3+1 piercing damage. Neither can be thrown effectively.

Flails:

Sticks: (clubs and staff)

Explanation of terms:

Length: Longer weapons come into play during a charge. The longer weapon strikes first. If there is a tie the chargers attack lands first. Generally spear, pole-arms, and lances are considered than other weapons despite their length category. Other than that length is determined by short < long < great with Knives are considered they shortest weapons.

Non-(spears, pole-arms, and lances) can be used in close combat at -2.

Armored: Armored foes include humans, demi-humans, and humanoid who wear armor. The DM can also include monster if they wish on a case by case basis.

Damage type: all weapons do max damage on a critical, damage type adds an additional affect.

Blunt: stuns the target for one round then they can make a save vs. con to become un-stunned.

Piercing: adds an additional die of damage

Cutting: causes the target to bleed 1 hp per round they may make a save next round to stop the bleeding or they must spend a full round bandaging or be magically healed.

Claws: knocks foe down.

Bite: grapples foe.

[Matthew]

Looks good to me; here are my observations and questions:
1) The +1 or +2 versus armoured foes effectively means that armours that provide +1 or +2 AC are no protection; in the case of Picks or Short Pole Arms versus Padded Armour, it's actually worse to be wearing armour [i.e. +2 to hit versus +1 AC]. I find that a bit disconcerting, not least because textile armours are supposed to be quite good at resisting armour piercing weapons, but I can live with it.

2) One reason to allow short weapons to scale up when used "two handed" is to represent the advantage of having a hand free (rather than literally on the haft of the weapon); another thing to consider is how this relates to short folk like Halflings.

3) I don't know if I would allow Great Swords to inflict their full damage as part of a pummeling attack; it does kind of make them the 'king' of Great Weapons.

4) Not sure whether allowing Short Swords to strike before Short Hafted Weapons and without penalties in a grapple is too much (or takes away too much from daggers/knives), but I guess the fact that they cannot be easily thrown offsets that. I think Short Swords are one of the weakest entries on my table, one step above Light Picks (being cut and thrust weapons). Something for me to think about, anyway.

5) Here's an interesting historical tid bit; if I remember rightly, Xenephon actually recommended the Falcata (Makhaira or Kopis) for horsemen over the straight bladed Xiphos. Since a Xiphos is essentially a Short Sword, it's no big deal, but I thought I would mention it as a point of interest.

6) I take it you are not allowing 'normal' long swords and falchions to gain any advantage from two handed use (or having a hand free); is there any disadvantage to elongating the handle? I should mention that there are depictions of medieval combatants single handed swords with two hands; I'll see if I can dig one up and you can judge for yourself.

I don't know if you can see the guy in the second image who has slung his shield to deliver a mighty two handed blow with his sword. Other images show knights using their free hand to grab an opponent to more easily deliver a killing blow, but I guess that falls more into grapple territory.

There are more convincing depictions, but I am having trouble finding them...

7) I toyed with having spears move up a damage die with each iteration, but eventually rejected it, so I can understand the impulse to make a Great Spear 1d10; on the subject of throwing 'long spears', I usually treat that as throwing any other weapon not designed for throwing.

8) I think the idea of distinguishing between Short and Long Pole Arms is excellent; I might have to steal that, or a variation on it.

9) Can knives and daggers be used without penalty in a grapple? I suppose they can, but just to be certain...

10) One idea I hear for flails a lot is the "they ignore shields" porperty; not sure what I think of that, but it is a possibility to bear in min, I think.

11) Am I to understand that long swords and great swords can be used equally effectively in close combat? Also, can you expand a little on 'close combat'? Are daggers and short weapons similarly penalised at some sort of 'normal' combat range?

12) Not a fan of critical hits myself (though we used to use them, and trid loads of different variations). I take it the additional piercing damage die is not maximised? You may want to consider armour in the application of bleeding and stuns (perhaps adding AC to the saving throw). I think we robbed an idea out of Baldur's Gate for a while, where helmets protected against critical hits (and later protected somewhat).
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[zombiehands]

First off, great comments I really appreciate your time and pictures.

1 Good point, I agree. Tight weaves were really good against piercing weapon. I recall reading about the crusades and they described foot men in padded armor being hit with many arrows but only taking minor damage. Another anecdote (I dont recall reading but hearing) was the Mongols wore silk shirts under their armor that could stop arrows; however the Khan could not get them to keep them in good repair and their effectiveness.

I both these, part of the weaves effectiveness is due to the rotation of a projectile. Which would be absent in a hand weapon, so perhaps I could live with the being worse in padded armor than unarmored by imagining the armor slowing you down.

2 Really when you use any 2-handed weapon youre not fighting with your hands full all the time. Little people hmm, it might be too much of a cop out to say short people treat short weapons like Medium people treat long.

3 Again I agree, but they did have some pretty aggressive pummel strikes when grabbing the blade and swing overhead. I guess that you could argue the same for slashing verse thrusting though. But then it gets GURPS like. Which is only ever good if you are playing GURPS! 

5 that is interesting. I grew up riding and I can see how a shorter cutting weapon might be better than a shorter thrusting particularly pre-stirrup.

6 Yeah in real life there is an advantage to using really any weapon 2-handed like you represented in your table. Some weapons will get more advantage then others though like spears. The pics you attached have me reconsidering this belief though.

Making the hilt longer must have allowed for more power or at least greater control so I am going with some weapons the gain was minimal. As far as a disadvantage I can imagine the extended hilt could interfere with some wrist movement and throw balance off a bit. I was toying with the idea of removing the mounted bonus, but that seems to me I am just game mechanic fixing then reality based fix. Right now it is just going to affect cost. More thought is needed

7 Yeah I am changing the max die to 1d8 again. So pole arms can be 1d10 people tend to thrust more than strike with them

8 thanks

9 yes

10 Yup I am using that, but flails got me thinking still. There is a big difference in the use of a mace & chain and the flail of the two handed varity. 2-handed flails sported a much shorter chain and short staff for a head rather than the mace head. I think I was really into grouping weapons be length and appearance, I think that breaks down with flails. Right now I am think 1-handed flails (mace & chains) get +1 vs armor and +1 vs shield, while 2-handed flails will just get +2 vs armor. Small flails would be nunchaku and get no advantage. I am also considering making them do 2d3/2d4/2d6 damage.

11 realistically great swords would be more effective in close combat due to the ability to choke up on the blade and beat people back like a staff. But right now I am considering non-short weapon to be -4 and damage. Here is a quick summary

Dagger or short sword: no penalty

Short weapons: -2 to hit

Long or great weapon: -4 to hit damage or +1 punch damage

Spears, pole arms and staffs: -4 to hit damage

12I have robbed that too. I am not a huge fan of crits either but my players love them. My oldest group members always want to bring back rolemasters table. To which I say do you really want to get paralyzed by a bale of hay throw by troll AGAIN.