History, Mythology, Art and RPGs - Page 6

Galloglaich · 9th January 2009, 03:36 AM

Thanks man.

One of these days I am going to in fact tackle Ninjas for this thread ... thats going to be a tough one

Here is a bit more on the Thieves Cant I was actually kind of rushed when I posted that. The Thieves Cant in particular is really cool and fun to introduce into your game

Wiki

Thieves' cant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are several alleged Cant-to-English dictionaries online, here are a few examples:

The Thieves Guild - The Thieves Cant - Simple - Cant to English

Cool looking website for all things thievish for DnD actually

The Thieves Guild

Another even more extensive Cant dictionary

Canting Dictionary, letter A

Real or not, these are a lot of fun to browse through. Going through some of these terms gives you some ideas how rich the criminal underworld really was (if only in Elizabethan imagination) and how incredibly many specialist criminal jobs you could use in your campaign (many of these scream Adventure Hook) ... a few of my favorites:

ANGLERS, alias HOOKERS; petty Thieves, who have a Stick with a Hook at the End, wherewith they pluck Things out of Windows, Grates, &c. Make ready your Angling Stick; a Word of Command used by these petty Villains, to get ready the Stick with which they perform their Pranks, and as a Signal of a Prey in Sight. In the Day-time they beg from House to House, to spy best where to plant their Designs, which at Night they put in Execution.

KNIGHT of the Road, the chief Highwayman, best mounted and armed, the stoutest Fellow among them.

KIDLAYS, an Order of Rogues, who meeting a Youth with a Bundle or Parcel of Goods, wheedle him by fair Words, and whipping Six-pence into his Hand, to step on a short and sham Errand, in the mean Time run away with the Goods.

BARNACLES, the Irons worn in Goal by Felons. A Pair of Spectacles is also called Barnacles; as I saw the Cuffin Quire with his Nose Barnacled, making out the Cove's Dispatches, i.e. I saw the Justice of Peace with his Spectacles on making out his Mittimus.

PRAD LAY: the act of cutting the saddlebags of horses in order to steal their contents.

Galloglaich · 11th January 2009, 11:38 PM

The Knight and his Lance - Pt I of III

The fuzzy part you often see just under the business end of a lance is to soak up the blood so it doesn't make the whole thing too slippery to hold.

On another forum, someone asked "How would a lance be used in War?"

It's actually a pretty good question, and one tied closely to the history of the Knight. We all know the Lance was the principle weapon of the knight just like the javelin (pilum) was the principle weapon of the Roman Legionairre.

A Lance was any specialized thrusting spear for use from horseback. Thats all it means. It is a specialist weapon which evolved gradually from the more basic general-purpose spear, just like it's cousins the pike and the javelin. Like the pike and the javelin, the lance seeemed to be most effective when used en-masse, though in smaller groups. Knights were typically deployed in small units or squadrons that would repeatedly charge into and through (or sometimes around the edges of) an enemy formation, inexorably breaking it up like the blows of a battering ram.

Until Medieval times cavalry used spears or lances which would typically be held overhand, and often from horses that were running at slower gaits than a gallop. Using them couched to charge straight into enemy forces seems to have started around the 11th Century, coinciding with various improvements in horse harness, saddles, stirrups etc. which allowed a rider to remain on horseback through the heavy shock of collision.

the European knight emerged at or shortly after the battle of Hastings, the innovations of the couched lance and the new types of saddle refining the armored heavy cavalry warrior into a truly lethal killing machine.

So envision 20 armored guys charging in a pretty tight group, usually with armored horses, with lance points anywhere from 12'-18' out in front of them. This was very hard to stand against.

Not all heavy Cavalry of this type were knights, a knight (or reitter or chevalier or miles) meant a professional warrior of independent means, who essentially owned their own horses, armor, and weapons. There were always also a parallel type of warrior armed and equipped by a Lord, the latter sometimes called Sergeants or Men At arms, were preferred by some military leaders because they were more disciplined.

Lances broke or were dropped pretty quickly and heavy cavalry would wheel back to a support base to rearm with more lances. That was the job of a squire or some other less formal type of attendant. The number usually carried was three lances. Extra horses would also usually be available, in Medieval times heavy cavalry would usually have at least the very expensive warhorse used for fighting (a destrier or a courser or a palfrey) another horse for traveling, usually an ambler, and another horse or a mule or a burro for carrying baggage.

The (Very) Ancient origins of the Knight

Modern re-enactors conception of a Sassanid Cataphract

The origins of the knight seem to go further back than most people realize, at least to Parthian Cataphracts in the 3rd Century BC. The Romans developed t heir own version called Clibinari ("oven men" due to the heat of the armor) from the 2nd Century BC. These were feared and highly effective and remained an important part of the Roman military in the East until the fall of the Byzantine empire.

One roman observer described Iranian heavy cavalry thus:
"The Persians opposed us serried bands of mail-clad horsemen in such close order that the gleam of moving bodies covered with closely fitting plates of iron dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them, while the whole throng of horses was protected by coverings of leather."

If you didn't know better you would think this was a relief of a 13th Century European knight rather than a 4th Century Persian...

This is from a French reenactor group which seems to have excellent standards:
[Collectif de reconstitution de matériels de Terre Sainte au XIIe siècle] : La druzhina du Prince

The Norse / Slavic Rus Druhzina* of the 8th-12th Century fought both with lances in the Western European style and with bows in the Steppe / Hun / Mongol style simultaneously, which is interesting, as well as carrying maces and swords or sabers. They are the only example I know of who fought as both archers and heavy cavalry.

The rise of heavy cavalry in Western Europe

Charlemagnes conquest and brief unification of Continental Europe was achieved largely through the use of armored heavy cavalry. These were not yet considered knights however (though they were kind of made into knights retroactively in Medieval ballads many centuries later).

There was also a paraellel development of heavy cavalry in the West. Rather famously Sassanian (Iranian) heavy cavalry were garrissoned in Britain which some speculate, on rather thin evidence, may have influenced Romano-Celtic war leader Artorius (aka King Arthur) and his war bands.

More well documented is the link between heavy cavalry and the elite members of Celtic and later Germanic tribes, the latter forming something called a "Commitatus" of elite warriors who would act as the personal bodyguard of a chieftain. There is also Alexanders the Greats elite companion cavalry though that was before real stirrups or fighting saddles so nobody knows how they really fought exactly.

The first documented major use of heavy cavalry by European barbarians was the famous battle of Adrianople in 378 AD, in which Visigoth cavalry, having equipped themselves with Roman armor and horses during an uprising, successfully overran the previously all-but-invincible Roman infantry and killed Emperor Valens.

From that point on in Europe cavalry very gradually began to get the upper hand over infantry during the Migration Period (i.e. "The Dark Ages"), which coincided with a very gradual shift from tribal forms of social organization toward a more Roman type of feudal system called Latifundia, in which the common tribesmen were obligated to remain on their land and ultimately became tenant farmers or serfs. The decline of the free tribal warrior coincided with the decline in the quality and importance of infantry in the European battlefield, and the rise of the knight. The last really effective infantry in the Early Middle Ages were probably the Vikings, and their power was broken at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 AD.

After the Battle of Hastings the knight as a new form of cavalry capable of wiping out almost any opposition. While the original Eastern Cataphract hadn't changed in 700 years, the new European Knight was evolving rapidly. By the end of the 11th Century European mail armor was beginning to creep toward cap-a-pied (head to foot) protection, new weapons were being developed (like two-handed swords) along with new saddles and horse harness, and special breeds of warhorses. The system of charging into battle in tight squadrons or 'battles', was beginning to coalesce into a fine tuned killing process.

Knights proved to be essentially unstoppable shock troops. In this battles during this period (roughly 1066-1300) in open terrain even a very small number of knights routinely rout much larger armies. There are many accounts where as few as 200 or 300 knights smashed infantry or light-cavalry forces numbering in the thousands.

During the early Crusades European knights (and other heavy cavalry) proved to be a major shock to the Turks, Arabs, and Byzantines. This terrifying new threat simply could not be faced in direct combat. The only way to deal with them was to feign retreat, shoot arrows at the horses from a distance and keep far away. But this wasn't always possible strategically depending on the type of battle which was being fought, sometimes you simply had to come to grips to win the day.

*(little trivia the word Druzhina made it's way into modern Russian and was the inspiration for the term "Drouges" in the film A Clockwork Orange

Galloglaich · 13th January 2009, 04:44 AM

Mondays Mercenaries

Todays group is one of the first major mercenary companies to gain significant notoriety in Europe, the Catalan Grand Company, founded in 1302. They are still well known in Greece and in Spain, but if you live in the USA, Australia or the UK chances are you have never heard of them. They were one of the more colorful mercenary bands in history and would make fine background material for almost any fantasy RpG campaign

The Catalan Company achieved fame and success far beyond that of most Mercenaries wildest dreams. Consisting primarily of Almogavars, Catalan soldiers from the Pyrennes Mountains between Spain and France, they were lightly armed but hardened in the battles of the Reconquista. They achieved a reputation sufficient to sell their swords, and were led by a remarkable figure, the redoubtable Mercenary Captain Roger De Flor

Roger was quite a character. Starting his career as a sailor on a Templar galley, he soon rose to command the vessel and lead it into combat against the formidable navy of the Ottoman Turks. Accused of thievery and apostasy for shaking down some Lords who were escaping the siege of Cyprus, he fled to Sicily where he was promptly granted an Admiralty by the King and rejoined the war against the Turks. After the war Roger was given command of a company of Almogavars, and went with them to the East to offer their services to the Byzantine Emperor in his increasingly desperate struggle against the Ottomans. Roger apparently hit it off pretty well with his Greek patron, and was promptly married to a Byzantine princess, made a duke and put in charge of the Byzantine Army and the Fleet.

Roger and the Catalan Company proved no slouches at their jobs, and defeated the Ottoman army, pushing them back to the borders of Armenia and Persia, and lifting a major siege. But the agreed upon fee was never paid by the crafty Byzantines, leading to a nasty dispute and ultimately Rogers assassination at their hands. But that wasn't the end of the Catalan Company who were infuriated by Rogers murder. They challenged the Emperor to a duel, but his only response was to kill their emissaries and order the massacre of all Catalans in the Byzantine Empire. So in retaliation the Catalan Company went on a rampage against the Byzantines called the "Catalan Revenge" that proved wildly successful, leading to their capture of Athens and Thebes and ultimately conquest of all of Greece, which they then held as their own independent province until 1390, for almost a century!

Many of the amazing adventures of the Catalan grand company were recorded in a Chronicle by Ramon Muntaner The Chronicle survives today, in fact thanks to the rather incredible power of the internet you can read a translation of it right here:

http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/muntaner_goodenough.pdf

Hows that for history in your hands?

G.

Some Links:

Catalan Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roger de Flor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Almogavars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some people dressed up as Almogavars in modern Cataloinia where they remain popular figures :

Galloglaich · 13th January 2009, 08:54 PM

The Knight and His Lance, Part II of III

From 1066-1302 this guy was the last word on pretty much everything.

For a while European knights basically were all but unstoppable both at home and abroad, the Crusader kingdoms expanded, the tide of the reconquista began to turn in Spain, and the Feudal system was spread inexorably across Christian Europe as the old tribal communities were disarmed and made into peasants. All this was achieved without using much in the way of tactics in many cases, because the heavy cavalry was so powerful it was almost impossible to cope with. In this period, the knight was the dominant military force arguably in the world.

Riding high- a 12th century knight astride a destrier, a specialized warhorse bred for charging

The high-water mark came toward the end of the 13th century. By this time the Arabs had developed suitable techniques to cope with the European heavy cavalry, still largely by avoiding pitched battles and using their advantage in speed and mounted archers for hit and run attacks with missiles. Clever European war-leaders such as Richard Lionheart counteracted this effectively though by mixing large numbers of fast light cavalry (Turkopoles) and heavy Crossbow infantry in with his ranks of knights, but the initial imbalance had been addressed.

It was new weapons like this Flemish Godendag in the hands of a cobbler or a weaver or a blacksmith which put the breaks on the knightly party

But it was the commoners of Europe who really put the breaks on knightly power, far earlier than most people realize. There were three major battles in the beginning of the 14th Century in particular which changed the equilibrium. Not coincidentally these took place in the hinterlands of Civilized Europe where the old tribal systems had not completely broken down and the common people remained armed: in the marshy lowlands of Holland at The Battle of Golden Spurs in 1302, in the moors of Scotland at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, and perhaps most decisively in the high Alps of Switzerland at the Battle of Morgarten in 1315.

Increasingly professional European infantry were a thorn in the Knights side which could never quite be 'Lanced'

The check on the power of the knight resulted from new weapons and tactics that were invented by urban burghers and wild rural tribesmen, New weapons such as the Flemish Godendag and the Swiss Halberd, combined with innovative massed infantry tactics made it possible to finally withstand the knightly charge, and this was a major turning point in European history, heralding the rise of the independent city-states, trading leagues and regional republics which were to form a counterbalance to the feudal monarchies and became a major part of the European landscape from that point onward.

But it was not the end of the knight, it only meant that the knight had to use his lance with a bit more caution and planning. New heavy cavalry tactics and kit kept being invented and countered by new infantry tactics and kit. Knights equipped themselves with head to toe plate armor and even firearms, whereas commoners invented or rediscovered weapons such as the Swiss pike and the pistol and the flail, pioneered by the Hussites of Bohemia in the 15th century. European infantry and cavalry evolved in parallel, sometimes in direct competition, but proved a highly effective combination when facing the armies of other nations. For the first time since the decline of Rome, combined arms warfare was being practiced in Europe.

Late 15th Century German Reitter / Demi-Lancer... by the time fully articulated plate armor arrived, guns and cannon were already a reality on the battlefield and heydey of the knight had already passed, but he was still a formidable adversary and a major part of almost every European army.

But heavy cavalry remained a potent force on the battlefield and continued to evolve, a warrior you could recognize as a knight remained an important role on the battlefield well through the gunpowder era and all the way into the 17th Century, in which the last hurraugh was arguably the Polish Winged Hussars who proved so wildly successful they are credited with the explosive expansion of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and numerous critical defeats of the Ottoman Empire including breaking the siege of Vienna.

The 'wings' were probably for protection against lassos, though nobody knows for sure. The Hussars success hinged around new tactics allowing them to spread out to dodge cannonfire until the last minute when they would form up into the charge.

The Ottoman Turks were no slouches and had formidable heavy cavalry of their own, as can be seen clearly by this sinister looking Turkish armor from the 16th Century

You can make out a spear apparently thrown by a Norman knight in this photo of the Bayeux Tapestry

Lances and their accessories
The Lance remained a potent weapon even up to the dawn of the 1st World War. Shorter spears used by heavy cavalry would sometimes also be used overhand to attack either side or even thrown from within the press. And of course there was always light cavalry, everything from demi-lancers who would fight armored but on unarmored horses, to light cavalry which was unarmored and relied principally on javelins. Later incarnations included pistol reitters who were armored as knights but specialized in using pistols and armored crossbow cavalry such as used by the Swiss.

The Lance was a weapon with a finite lifespan in battle and limited utility in close combat, it was a shock weapon used for the initial attack, and extremely effective in breaking formations and enemy morale (and killing people) but it's nature meant that the sidearm was critically important which is why the sword and the saber were so closely associated with heavy cavalry.

In the brutal aftermath after the initial phase of the battle, the sidearm was critical

Other popular sidearms included axes, war hammers and light maces the latter particularly in the East along the steppes. These maces would usually have a thong for weapon retention (always a big deal for cavalry, this also defines most of the principle aspects of the saber from the shape of the blade to the canted grip IMO) were also thrown.

Quote:

Sidebar: The Lasso

An important counter weapon used heavily on the steppes by light cavalry against heavy cavalry was the lasso. The Mongols specialized in this and used it successfully at the battle of Liegnitz in Poland against Teutonic knights and the other military orders. I believe it was the reason for the wings on the Polish winged hussars.

Some links:

Cataphract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clibanarii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Demi-lancer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry
Druzhina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some re-enactor groups:

Galeries - Fief et Chevalerie

Jack7 · 14th January 2009, 02:07 AM

Not only is this good and valuable historical and Role Play gaming research, it's also extremely interesting general research.

You're doing a top-notch job.

EroGaki · 14th January 2009, 04:49 AM

Wow. This thread has to be the most awesome and informative thing I've ever seen on EN World. Keep up the good work!

Aus_Snow · 14th January 2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack7

Not only is this good and valuable historical and Role Play gaming research, it's also extremely interesting general research.

You're doing a top-notch job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EroGaki

Wow. This thread has to be the most awesome and informative thing I've ever seen on EN World. Keep up the good work!

Uh huh. What these guys said.

Galloglaich · 14th January 2009, 07:11 AM

Thanks I'm delighted that y'all like the thread. I hope some of it is useful for peoples campaigns, character backgrounds or game design efforts. I'm going to try to tie some of this stuff back directly into DnD in my next post (part III of the Knight / Lance blog) Please chime in if you have any questions or anything to add...

G.

Galloglaich · 15th January 2009, 07:03 PM

The Knight and his Lance part III of III
I'm somewhat limited for time so I'm actually going to subdivide part III of this into two parts...

A Thirteenth Century Knight in 3.5 DnD
As popular as the idea is, the Knight is not a common archetype in most RPG games I've played. One rarely encounters anything even vaguely like a real historical Knight as either players or NPCs, though there is the Paladin class and various Doom Knights and etc. prestige classes of course. But these mostly have to do with various magical and quasi-magical abilities, I have rarely seen anyone fighting on horseback or use lances in my (of course very limited) gaming experience in 25 years or so. Just for fun I'd like to see how a somewhat historical knight might work out, perhaps for a lower-magic / lower fantasy type campaign.

Standard 3.5 does give us some room to work with, so lets see what we can come up with.

This should be an entry level knight, so I'll make him 4th level. A knight has to has a significant amount of training and will usually spend some time fighting as a squire before achieving knighthood, so I figure thats around minimum for a knight. I'll give him slightly above average stats, 13s across the board. He'll also have an average amount of Hit Points for his level, 29.

Looking at the Lance in 3.5 it doesn't look very impressive initially. Only 1d8 Damage, no armor piercing ability since that doesn't really exist in 3.5, no reach to hit bonus but it is a reach weapon which is good, gets x3 damage on crits, and best of all gets double damage in a charge which is very good 2-16 damage is pretty tough in DnD.

A 13th century knight wouldn't have plate armor since it wasn't invented yet, so he'll have to settle for "chainmail" which isn't as good armor in DnD as it was in real life, but it's decent protection. Of course he'll have a shield and an arming sword as a sidearm (longsword in DnD).

Needles to say our knight would have a warhorse. The warhorse itself would have some kind of barding, but since this is an entry level knight I'll limit that to padded armor.

Our knight will have some of the very few skills allowed for a fighter, but the only really important one here will be Ride. I think at 4th level he'd be limited to 4 skill ranks? Somebody can correct me on that if I'm wrong (those skills rules are a bit too byzantine for me...) anyway Riding skill 4. +1 for his dex bonus for a +5 on all ride skill checks.

Feats are where it can start getting interesting. I'll give my knight Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge, Ride by Attack, Weapon Focus: Lance, Weapon Specialization: Lance, and just for fun, Improved Initiative.

His Lance gets x2 damage in a charge which is good. With the Spirited Charge feat that becomes x3 damage which is even better. The Lance is also a reach weapon too which means the Knight can attack most Large sized or smaller creatures without being in range for a counterattack, which is potentially interesting. This works even better with the Ride By Attack Feat which allows them to move (charge), attack, then move again. If I’m reading that correctly it makes the Knight very dangerous indeed.

His warhorse only has a quilted / padded barding, for a total AC of 15. But with the Mounted Combat feat the Knight can also make Ride Skill Checks to avoid their mount being hit by an enemy attack. Considering these factors and that a Warhorse is pretty tough anyway (30 HP average) it should be able to hold it’s own in a fight.

So here is our knight now:

4th Level Fighter
Str 13 +1
Int 13 +1
Wis 13 +1
Dex 13 +1
Con 13 +1
Cha 13 +1

AC: 17 (Chainmail +5, Shield +1, +1 Dex)
HP: 29
Bab: 4
Init: +5
Lance: + 6 TH (4 Bab +1 Str +1 WF) D 1-8+3 (3d8+3 when charging) 6-27 / 15 damage average
Skills: Ride 4
Feats: Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge, Ride by Attack, Weapon Focus: Lance, Weapon Specialization: Lance, Improved Initiative

This is a pretty tough hombre. Especially if we put our knight in a small formation or 'battle' with two other knights which would be the bare minimum you would see on the battlefield. Now we have 3 guys wheeling riding in formation, capable of hitting enemies for 6-27 damage with reach attacks then taking off on their warhorses with their base speed of 50', and wheeling back around to attack again. Against any target with a relatively low AC they could be expected to do around 40 HP of damage per round, and be pretty hard to attack without reach weapon or missile weapons. Pretty dangerous opponent.

Not a bad start in fact. The only real weakness here is the vulnerability to Magic all fighters have in DnD, and a relatively poor chance of hitting targets (only +6). But perhaps it could be enhanced a bit with some house rules.

Next: How to improve on this basic template

Pat · 16th January 2009, 08:59 PM

Very nice.

Max skill rank for a 4th level character is actually 7 (level +3, which explains why characters get quadruple skill points at 1st level). Ability scores of 13 across the board isn't slightly above average in 3.5; it's exceptional (15 points higher than the standard NPC using point buy, and 5 points higher than even the standard PC). You might want to consider the standard (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) or elite (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) arrays. The aristocrat or expert NPC classes might also be worth a look. Help against magic (good Will saves), have more skill points and good class skills, and in the case of the aristocrat higher starting wealth.

I'd also be inclined to tone down the knight. After all, if you start with a vanilla baseline, there's more room to customize unusual knights and make them really stand out. NPC classes, fewer feats (only Ride-by Attack and Mounted Combat are probably required for a knight to feel like a knight), lower level (2nd level is still exceptional), standard array instead of the elite array, etc. Save all those feats that make them combat monsters (specialization, Spirited Charge, etc) for the special ones.

But all that's purely from a game standpoint, so please disregard it if you don't think it fits your vision.

Also, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the quality of the weapons of the typical knight (masterwork, in D&D), and more on their non-combat capabilities (represented by skills and feats; they weren't just fighting machines, were they?).

maddman75 · 16th January 2009, 10:37 PM

It would seem obvious to me, especially with the comments about the knight needing to establish himself, that the Knight should be a prestige class. Require riding feats and some skills, the PrC should be mostly fighter-like only with a narrower feat selection and more skill points for those courtly skills.

Galloglaich · 17th January 2009, 01:23 AM

You both have a point, and it is indeed tempting to make a new class for the knight isn't it? In fact I agree the Aristocrat is the logical starting point (with a few changes I'll get into shortly). But my initial goal was to try to make a knight out of an ordinary DnD fighter so we could see what that looked like.

I don't think 4th level is too high to achieve basic knighthood, though you could probably get away with a second or third level fighter, slightly higher for an Aristocrat. I think you would need to have spirited charge, ride by attack and mounted combat feats at a minimum though, as well as a few ranks of ride skill and enough money to afford armor and a warhorse (which isn't too much in the DnD economy), as well as martial weapon, armor and shield proficiency.

The third or fourth level fighter does jibe historically because a knight (reitter, cavallier, caballero et al., usually listed as 'Lances' in medieval records) was typically considered the equivalent of 10 - 30 common infantry soldiers. This is repeated in records of hundreds of battles and wars, for example when listing the contributions of a given town or lord to an army, 100-200 'lances' may be listed alongside 3,000 4,000 infantry. The typical ratio was around that ballpark, though of course it varied a lot and there were various types of specialist infantry who were also elite soldiers (genoese crossbowmen, swiss halberdiers etc.) you can get an idea what I mean by looking at some of the Osprey books on knights from different periods or on various medieval battles, or by looking at more serious academic analysis of medieval warfare like Hans Delbruck. I'll recommend a couple of references at the end of the post.

But before we start looking at how to remake a knightly class or whether to make it a standard player class or a prestige class, I'd like to try to answer your question on weapons and also open up the issue of warhorses a bit, because these are two ways a knight can be customized in interesting ways.

In real life a knights mount was of critical importance. It was more valuable in some cases than his armor. A strong horse might improve your damage from a lance strike for instance, an agile one improve the odds of that ride skill check to avoid hits, a fast one obviously allows you to catch fleeing enemies or most important of all, ride away from the battlefield yourself should the day not go your way, which always was one of the principle advantages of being in the cavalry as opposed to the infantry.

Here are a few of the most famous types of knightly mounts:

Destrier

The Destrier was the muscle car drag racer of the medieval battlefield. Built for strength, courage and agility, this beast delivered the strait ahead power and acceleration that made it perfect for jousting. Destiers were so expensive though and so specialized that they tended to be owned by wealthy Lords who could usually also afford other mounts for other purposes.

Destrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palfrey

from the wiki:
Palfrey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

A well-bred palfrey could equal a destrier in price. It was popular with nobles and highly-ranked knights for riding, hunting and ceremonial use. Ambling was a desirable trait in a Palfrey, as the smooth gait allowed the rider to cover long distances quickly in relative comfort.

Courser

From the wiki:

Quote:

Coursers were the preferred horse for hard battle as they were light, fast and strong.[63] They were valuable, but not as costly as the destrier.[42] They were also used frequently for hunting.[68] A courser is a swift and strong horse, frequently used during the Middle Ages as a warhorse. It was ridden by knights and men-at-arms.

Coursers are commonly believed to be named for their running gait,[1] (from Old French cours, 'to run'.[2]). However, the word possibly derived from the Italian corsiero, meaning 'battle horse'.[3]
Coursers in warfare

The courser was more common than the destrier,[4] and preferred for hard battle as they were light, fast and strong.[1] They were valuable horses, but less expensive than the highly-prized destrier.[5] Another horse commonly ridden during war was the rouncey, which was an all-purpose horse.

Coursers were also used occasionally for hunting.[3]

Note all these references to hunting, a common passtime for members of the knightly class. Any knight class in DnD should have access to most of the skills that a hunter would have. Worth thinking about.

There were also more exotic regional breeds, just to cite a couple:

Irish Hobbie

From the wiki
Irish Hobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The Hobby was a lightweight horse, about 13 to 14 hands, developed in Ireland from Spanish or Libyan (Barb) bloodstock. This type of quick and agile horse was popular for skirmishing, and was often ridden by light cavalry known as Hobelars. Hobbies were used successfully by both sides during the Wars of Scottish Independence, with Edward I of England trying to gain advantage by preventing Irish exports of the horses to Scotland. Robert Bruce employed the hobby for his guerilla warfare and mounted raids, covering 60 to 70 miles a day.[71

Irish Hobbies were ridden by special type of Irish Knight called Hobilars who were also famously used in Scotland by Robert the Bruce.

The hobby is also of course the inspiration for the famous toy hobby horse. It is sadly extinct now, I won't get into why.

Jennet

Jennet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The barb was one of the sources of at least one military breed in Spain, the Jennet. Jennets were small horses, first bred in Spain from Barb and Arabian bloodstock. Their quiet and dependable nature, as well as size, made them popular as riding horses for ladies; however, they were also used as cavalry horses by the Spanish.

So ok enough for now. I think it's interesting to think a bit about how a different type of horse could potentially contribute to a different fighting style, and different regional variations of knights from different parts of Europe. I'll leave you guys with that for now since I have to go for a while but I'll revisit this soon and follow up about the weapons, the knights social status and ultimately take a stab at how to make a new knight class.

G.

Pat · 17th January 2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galloglaich

The third or fourth level fighter does jibe historically because a knight (reitter, cavallier, caballero et al., usually listed as 'Lances' in medieval records) was typically considered the equivalent of 10 - 30 common infantry soldiers. This is repeated in records of hundreds of battles and wars, for example when listing the contributions of a given town or lord to an army, 100-200 'lances' may be listed alongside 3,000 4,000 infantry. The typical ratio was around that ballpark, though of course it varied a lot and there were various types of specialist infantry who were also elite soldiers (genoese crossbowmen, swiss halberdiers etc.) you can get an idea what I mean by looking at some of the Osprey books on knights from different periods or on various medieval battles, or by looking at more serious academic analysis of medieval warfare like Hans Delbruck. I'll recommend a couple of references at the end of the post.

Even a 2nd or 3rd level character can achieve that against standard peasant levies or even professional infantry. Details:

Spoiler:

A group of 2nd or 3rd level knights attacking in a tight formation to minimize their exposure to multiple attacks will mow through their opponents (opponents who use reach weapons that allow multiple ranks to attack will significantly shift the balance in the other direction, as will knights who get surrounded or attack on their own).

Sorry, no more sidetracks.

And I'd love to see good print references. I've picked up a few on arms and armor based on recommendations at the Arador Library, but I'm not an expert and it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Galloglaich · 17th January 2009, 08:59 PM

Hey I don't have a lot of time but I just wanted to pop in here, and say thanks for crunching the numbers, that's some good stuff!

I think maybe we need to also explore the idea of what the infantry was all about in this period as well in order to determine the context of our knight so we can figure out what class and level to start for our baseline.

In the meantime, here are a couple of links:

There are many Ren-faire type groups who do jousting, but here is a group in Norway which does actual historical European martial arts from horseback - taking it to another level. Their fighting is based on lichtenauer tradition i gather, primarily Talhoffer who has a lot of horseback combat (including some really elegant disarms I've seen done in demonstrations)

Frilansene - Batallie

Now, per your request, some written sources.

For kind of an entry level I like the Osprey books. These are kind of the clift notes version of medieval history, they are criticized sometimes by academics for having a few mistakes but I find their level of accuracy overall is very good, and the presentation is usually excellent. They always have a detailed and (usually) historically correct overview of kit (i.e. weapons and armor etc.) always including examples from the archeological record, as well as (usually) good illustrations from guys like Angus McBride, and various timelines and records of battles etc. with all your stats.

Most importantly they are a very quick and easy entry into getting an basic idea about this kind of stuff. They vary in quality of course, here are a few I have really liked so far (in no particular order):

Knight of Outramer 1187-1344
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-Outremer-AD-1187-1344-Warrior/dp/1855325551/ref=pd_sim_b_4"]Amazon.com: Knight of Outremer AD 1187-1344 (Warrior): David Nicolle, Christa Hook: Books[/ame]

The Swiss at war 1300-1500 (this one was a real eye-opener)
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Swiss-War-1300-1500-Men-At-Arms-94/dp/0850453348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221970&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Swiss at War 1300-1500 (Men-At-Arms Series, 94): Douglas Miller, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]

German Medieval Armies 1000-1300 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/German-Medieval-Armies-1000-1300-Men-at-Arms/dp/1855326574/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b"]Amazon.com: German Medieval Armies 1000-1300 (Men-at-Arms): Christopher Gravett, Graham Turner: Books[/ame]

Landsknecht Soldier
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Landsknecht-Soldier-1486-1560-Warrior-Richards/dp/1841762431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221068&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: Landsknecht Soldier 1486-1560 (Warrior): John Richards, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]

Teutonic Knight 1190-1500
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Teutonic-Knight-1190-1561-David-Nicolle/dp/1846030757/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Amazon.com: Teutonic Knight: 1190-1561 (Warrior): David Nicolle, Graham Turner: Books[/ame]

The Hussite Wars 1419-1436
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Hussite-Wars-1419-36-Men-at-Arms/dp/1841766658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232222018&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Hussite Wars 1419-36 (Men-at-Arms): Stephen Turnbull, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]

Medieval Russian Armies 1250-1500
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Russian-Armies-1250-Men-At-Arms/dp/1841762342/ref=pd_sim_b_4"]Amazon.com: Medieval Russian Armies 1250 - 1500 (Men-At-Arms): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]

French Medieval Armies 1000-1300 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/French-Medieval-Armies-1000-1300-Men-at-Arms/dp/1855321270/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Amazon.com: French Medieval Armies 1000-1300 (Men-at-Arms): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]

Viking Hersir 793 - 1066 AD
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Viking-Hersir-793-1066-AD-Warrior/dp/1855323184/ref=pd_sim_b_6"]Amazon.com: Viking Hersir 793-1066 AD (Warrior): Mark Harrison, Gerry Embleton: Books[/ame]

The Normans
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Normans-Elite-David-Nicolle/dp/0850457297/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_2"]Amazon.com: The Normans (Elite): David Nicolle, Angus Mcbride: Books[/ame]

In about the mid-range, you have popular historians. One of my favorites is Ewart Oakeshott, the remarkable amateur sword collector who totally revolutionized our understanding of what Medieval swords were actually like, gave us the Oakeshott Typology and indirectly led to the rediscovery of European Martial Arts. He is most famous for his books on swords (which I'll be blogging about later in this thread) but he also did some nice little books on knights, two in particular relavent to this topic:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-His-Horse-Ewart-Oakeshott/dp/0802312977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232220692&sr=8-1"]A Knight and his Horse[/ame] is a particularly good reference for this subject as is [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Knight-His-Armor-Ewart-Oakeshott/dp/0802313299/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c"] A knight and his armor [/ame]

For more serious academic stuff...

The ultimate reference on the martial arts of this period is still Sydney Anglo's superb [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Arts-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0300083521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221462&sr=1-1"]The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe [/ame] which is an excellent overview of all the various Fechtbuchs and the close up view they give us on individual combat, judicial combat and duels in this period.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Arts-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0300083521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232221462&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe: Sydney Anglo: Books[/ame]

For warfare on a more strategic / operational level, I like Hans Delbruck as a general source on Medieval combat. Delbruck wrote about 100 years ago and some people now dispute some of his figures on the number of combatants in various famous battles, but most of his analysis still stands. This is a pretty heavy read mind you, 700 something pages, but vastly better written than most academic works I've read, it's very clear minded well structured analysis really helped me put the overall picture of what medieval combat was like into perspective. I've never read his other two books (Classical and early modern era respectively) but I'd like
to.

Anyway this is the one I read:

Medieval Warfare: History of the Art of War, Volume III

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warfare-History-Art-War/dp/0803265859/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232220799&sr=1-2"]Amazon.com: Medieval Warfare: History of the Art of War, Volume III (History of the Art of War, Vol 3): Hans Delbruck, Walter J. Renfroe Jr.: Books[/ame]

Anyway, that's a start. I'll fill in a few more later as I think of them.

G.

Galloglaich · 17th January 2009, 10:51 PM

Ok I'm done with my chores so a bit more delving on the situation of our knight:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat

Spoiler:

A group of 2nd or 3rd level knights attacking in a tight formation to minimize their exposure to multiple attacks will mow through their opponents (opponents who use reach weapons that allow multiple ranks to attack will significantly shift the balance in the other direction, as will knights who get surrounded or attack on their own).

Sorry, no more sidetracks.

[/sblock]

Ok so, some quibbles:

1) I don't think a 1st level commoner is really accurate for a militia.

2) I definitely don't think a knight would be a Warrior class in most cultures, an Aristocrat is a good fit as I said before but a couple of levels of Fighter is likely if they are meant to actually be knights in more than name (title) only.

First on point One (please forgive another long winded digression here..):
While I know this complicates matters a bit more than most people will bother with in their campaigns, for purposes here of the context of the Knight, depending on the region and the specific time you are depicting in your campaign, and whether it is an urban or rural militia, realistically in 3.5 rules a Militia soldier would be a multiclassed character.

Spoiler:

Typical rural militia might be a 1st-3rd level commoner (depending on age) and a 1st level warrior, wheras in a city or certain specific rural areas (like Switzerland) you might have a multiclassed character who is a 1st or 2nd level commoner or expert, and a 1st or 2nd level fighter. The latter in particular would be fairly well equipped, again depending on the region and the time period, probably with something like mail hauberk, a helmet and a shield, a spear or a crossbow, as well as a sidearm like a sword, a hammer, an axe or a mace (more on these in a later post).

I guess all this depends a lot on the philosophy of your game and where and when you set it of course.

On Point Two
Because they effectively were specialized killers trained in many cases from early youth, I think a combatant knight would be a Fighter, though I guess you could make an argument for their being a Warrior since they didn't typically have a lot of discipline in this period.

Knight was both a title and a military rank, the former going back to Roman times with the Equestrian ("Equites") rank of junior nobility. As in Roman times, someone might frequently have the social rank of 'Knight' (or chevalier, reitter, caballero etc.) but not actually be a fighter at all, or perhaps be only nominally a fighter who would go to battle only when they had to. These would be covered by the Aristocrat Class. The actual serious fighting knight though was a professional lifelong occupation, very much done with constant formal training and tests of mettle on both the battlefield and the tournaments (and it's worth noting, tournaments in this period 1100-1300 AD were really rough affairs, more like small controlled wars, in which people usually died and men's fortunes were won or lost as they were captured and held ransom in the course of bloody pitched battles)

Anyway I don't mind the seques at all I think they are interesting and fun to talk about, so by all means lets continue this discussion about what class and level a knight should be, the militias etc. we can just keep the lengthy digressions in the sblocks and meanwhile move on into the ideas of how to customize knights a bit further from the basic template.

For a little more insight into the origins of European Medieval militias check out these articles on some early medieval tribal and urban assemblies: the Slavic Veche, the Norse Leidang and the Ting, and the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veche

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)

http://www.regia.org/warfare/fyrd2.htm

G.

EDIT: Note in the Wiki on the Norse Lidang it mentions that records from the 12th - 13th century show that militia were under obligation to report with the following gear: helmet, mail hauberk, shield, spear and sword

Galloglaich · 18th January 2009, 09:18 AM

Ok so lets continue to try to create some rules for our specialized warhorses.

3.5 OGL SRD I am looking at right now lists three types: a heavy and a light warhorse, and a war pony.

SRD - Animals

The Heavy Warhorse costs 400 gp, 4 HD, Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17, Base Speed 50', attacks with the Hoof for +6 TH and 1d6+4 Damage

The Light Warhorse costs 150 gp, 3 HD, Str 16, Dex 13, Con 17, Base Speed 60', attacks with the Hoof for +4 TH and 1d4+3 Damage

The War Pony costs 100 gp but I can't find any stats for it.

I figure this Warhorse is a decent start, but it doesn't sound like any of the ones I listed above. It's certainly not as expensive as full plate armor at 1,500 GP, wheras a Destrier historically could have been more. I think we need a better warhorse worth a lot more money.

So lets make the standard Heavy Warhorse and Light Warhorse our basic template, and we can build from there for our more exotic 'Deluxe' types: the Destrier, the Palfrey, the Courser, the Jennet and the Hobbie.

The first change from the standard Warhorse template is going to be about acceleration. If you have ever seen a joust at a Ren Faire or even on TV, you will be struck by how fast a trained jousting horse can accelerate to charging speed - they are fast out the gate, much like a trained racehorse. So all of our 'Deluxe' warhorses can move to charge speed as a free action, and confers a +1 initiative bonus to their rider.

Another thing a really quality WarHorse seems to have been able to do historically, is deliver it's strength into your attacks, particularly with a spear or a lance.

To model this, I'm going to say all our 'deluxe' Warhorses confer their own strength bonus into the To Hit and Damage rolls for any attack made by a rider during a charge. Now that is a warhorse! It also makes it more valuable to have a stronger horse.

Furthermore, Warhorses were agile and could be made by their riders to perform all kinds of tricky moves, for example when Robert the Bruce so famously split the head of Henry De Bohun, he avoided Henry's lance thrust by spurring his horse into a sideward leap.

Our 'Deluxe' class warhorse can allow a rider who has the Mounted Combat feat to use a Ride skill check to negate a hit to his or herself and not just on the mount. Why not? If it works for the mount why not for the rider? And I'm so crazy I'll even let you throw the Horses Dex bonus into your roll if it's higher than your own. Crazier yet, let the rider optionally do the same for a reflex saving throw once per round too.

I don't think this is any more radical than a flaming sword or a lightning bolt spell personally, and it confers real power to a knight without having to rely on magic items or buffing spells. You can decide if you think these are viable or balanced or not for yourself. I'll use them in my campaign and let you know how they work out

A warhorse was a very valuable commodity in real life, these two little improvements make our 'deluxe' warhorses equally valuable in standard 3.5 DnD.

So Destrier a Palfrey or a Courser costs 100 Gp per point of Strength plus 100 Gp per point of Dexterity

A Hobbie or a Jennet costs 50 Gp per point of Strength plus 100 Gp per point of Dexterity.

Finally, we know lances did break in combat frequently, especially on good hits, so lets make lances break any time the rider rolls a natural 20, whether it ends up being a critical hit or not.

Maybe some of these options could spice up a knight in your campaign, whether he was a 4th level Aristocrat, a 3rd level Warrior or a 2nd Level fighter

G.

Lord Zack · 18th January 2009, 05:21 PM

There's something important to consider here. The guys you're talking about in this thread would be what sixth level at most? That's not necessarily a bad thing. But at high levels characters aught to start looking more like Beowulf, Cu Chulainn, and Heracles.

Galloglaich · 18th January 2009, 06:47 PM

Yes but keep in mind, that is only one way of playing - maybe the way the rules tend to push you in 3.5 / 3.75, but not everybody wants or needs to play godlike characters. Quite a few people play DnD low-magic / low fantasy and enjoy playing something similar to one of the real-life heros from the OP in this thread, like a Xenophon, a Musashi or a Roger de Flor whose actual historical adventures were more gripping and dramatic than 90% of RPG games anyone has ever played. People who play for example using E6 rules would probably find an enhanced 6th level knight fun to play and more than powerful enough for their game.

But that said, this is just a template for a basic entry level knight, most of the knights and other warriors listed in the OP were probably more than 6th level, even if they didn't have 200 hit points. They clearly had skills and abilities that were beyond those of ordinary men and women.

I'm planning to get into a few more things which might enhance knights for higher levels as well, especially in areas they are very vulnerable like dealing with Magic. Just getting started here

And as with the three famous individuals you mentioened as the levels go higher more mythological elements can be introduced...

G.