http://tavern.elric.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=27
Though I'm not sure getting a bunch of typical gamers to strip off and oil themselves is a good idea... Unless it was for charity!
> You military types out there: what's the chances of a
> military unit that relies on Big Shields and close
> formation also discouraging the use of armour?
Ummm, varies from exceedingly high to moderately low. There's no hard and fast answer on this, and it kind of depends on which analogues you might wish to look at, and thence apply/modify to use in Glorantha.
First off, depending on cultural fighting practices, the shield would often be the first item of armour warriors (be they amateur or professional) would seek to possess. As a form of active defence (rather than more passive mail), it is more readily controlled in your favour, and more easily and cheaply made.
So on a social level, it may be quite common for more warriors (particularly the rank and file) to possess a shield alone than shield and armour, with armour appearing as a symbol of prestige, focus or wealth. The Orlanthi fyrd could be one such culture. Next step, especially in many medieval and dark ages western cultures, would be the helm.
Shields can, of course, be a hindrance versus certain weapons, as the Macedonians found at Pydna, or many found against the larger Germanic axes.
Based on the rather large caveat of 'artistic convention', which is the scourge of arms & armour studies the world over, Greek hoplites and pseudo-phalangites increasingly abandoned the use of the metal cuirass over the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Linen, leather or a complete lack of armour became the common staple of armies of the Peloponnesian and later wars.
As a large element of hoplite and phalangite warfare centred on cohesion and unit-focused momentum, over armouring oneself under the hot Greek sun actually put you at a disadvantage in the unseemly scrum that generally developed. A weakening of bodily strength and exacerbated dehydration are dangers that can erode the capability of the phalanx.
The Hoplon protected both yourself and the man to your left, and the Greeks were 'trained' to use butt-spikes and the smaller xiphos swords to their advantage, and to cripple opponents around the foot, thigh, ligament, arm and neck areas; circumventing bell cuirasses would be one the reasons for this, and against such a focus on impairment rather than outright killing, the cuirass became more of a hindrance.
> Would the standard Orlanti "shield wall" ever be
> organised enough for Shield Push to be a relevant
> game, or are they always looser formation?
Whilst I'd suggest that there is a smaller focus towards an overall, cohesive mass working to disrupt and weaken the enemy formation, there are common principles involved in an Orlanthi shield wall (be it fyrd or thane).
A greater strength and morale in numbers, a confidence in acting in concert with your brother warriors either side; the recognisation that you protect the warrior on your left aswell as your self; and that keeping together and acting with a sense for your compatriots rather than as an individual brings less chance of mutilation and death.
The greater presence of heavier, slashing weapons that can be used above the Orlanthi shield wall leads to a shield front that might not be less cohesive, but that certainly has lower momentum. This may work against the Orlanthi shield push dynamic, but in the less trained and less heavily armed fyrd I'd certainly say there's potential [which is not to say that a wall of weapon thanes wouldn't use such a tactic, but that they would be aware, and more able to benefit from, other options].
Cheerio,
Stu.
Powered by hypermail