Re: Re: Fazzur Wallenstein, horse breeds

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:12:57 +0000 (GMT)

> You keep arguing that the Sartarites and Tarshites have only access to
> mountain ponies. I don't share that impression.

Nor do I. I don't know much about horses, but I do know mountains,  I know Sartar, and I've read things by people who I trust to have done their research and got it at least half-right.

The trouble is, the mountains around here are described in heroic terms, and we get the impression of Alps or steeper. They're not. As Donald and I realised when doing the research for "Widow's Tale", the Stormwalks are only about ten miles across. Snowdonia with slightly harsher weather would be a fairer comparison. That's still mountainous enough to get legends (just look at Welsh history/mythology!), but it isn't all that extreme, and we know the valleys are rich and fertile.

One of the first adult Rosemary Sutcliff novels I ever read was "Sword at Sunset". Arthur as he might have been in history, not the Mallory version, and she does her research. She had Arthur's strength being his cavalry: and, once he'd imported some breeding stock, his stud farms being in the valleys around the Snowdon massif.

We know of one major tech difference between most cavalry of that historical RL period and that in Glorantha. Glorantha has the stirrup in common use. That makes a cavalry charge with "lances" vastly more effective. There's been a few writeups of Arthur that suggest that was his secret, too: ideas imported by Sarmatians who'd retired from the Roman army into Britain. He wouldn't have the resources for the heavy horse armour, but stirrups and decent horses, yes.

Now take another series of novels to look at: the recent (ish) Boudicca ones. Ignore the magic and mythology. Look at what it depicts Celtic warriors as being like. For one thing, remember that these were the people the Romans hired as cavalry... they were all-rounders. They often fought on foot, true, possibly more often than on horseback, but they expected to be able to dismount and re-mount at the gallop, fight from their horses, all the "I'm a hero" tricks. They're not heavy cavalry, they're not "regular" troops in any sense, but a cavalry charge from them is a shock that you don't want to face.

None of these horses, on any side, will be as big as what we're used to today, true, but I don't see anythg like such a sharp distinction as is being suggested. As Joerg says, we have the Dundealos, we have other horse-specialist tribes, we have a long-standing connection with the Grazers. Sure, ponies may well still be around, but the warriors won't be riding them. Scouts, yes, warriors no. You've got the option of both, you pick what's appropriate for the job.

Think about the use of chariots, too. If the horses were too small to ride, the Sartarites would still be using chariots for more than ritual use. They're not.       

Powered by hypermail