I've got a quick question concerning the translation of a real-world weapon into TRoS terms.

The citizens of Helena (an interesting analog of Classical Greece) fight in close order (a phalanx, of sorts, I assume)with spears, short swords, and shields. As such, I would like to base their kit on historical references to the panoply of Greek Hoplites.

I'm all set with the hoplon (an oversized round shield - 8kg!), full helm, (linen, leather, or bronze) cuirass, bronze greaves, and short sword. My confusion/difficulty centers around the long thrusting spears the Hoplites wielded one-handed (either overhand or underhand, depending on which school of thought to subscribe to).

To continue, according to contemporary sources, the primary offensive weapon of the Greek hoplites (circa 5th century BCE) was a heavy thrusting spear that typically ranged from 7-9 feet in length. Unlike Homeric spears, it was designed to be a thrusting weapon, and was not thrown. Which is fortunate, because it strikes me that a weapon of that length would be heavy.

Anyway, on to the question. The standard long spear in TRoS fits this weapon nicely, except for the fact that it needs to be wielded with two hands...with the short spear, a meter or so shorter, offering a one- or two-handed grip. I know that it is my game, but is it appropriate to allow one-handed use of the long spear? Or does this fly in the face of common sense?

I'm interested in hearing your opinions.


Christopher Islaub

It sounds reasonable to me.

Make them Length:Long and damage ST+1 , as the difference between using a weapon 2 handed and 1 handed is only 1 damage. Voila! Instant hoplite spear! :-)

Yeah, and raise the DTN alot.

Good point. I had forgotten about that.

The DTN is already 8, so perhaps 9 or maybe 10, depending on your preference. Higher than 10, well....certainly possible. I can't imagine it's very easy to parry with a spear used in this fashion. Of course, I'm not the ARMA guy. :-)

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Yeah, and raise the DTN alot.

Of course, Greek tactics and armament were constantly evolving.

So if you go for a later time period, most troops might have a longer spear (12 ft.), a lighter shield, and lighter armor (quilted linen instead of stiff layered linen). (Circa 390 bce). Some would still have the 'Classic' panoply of equipment you've described. The spear is almost pike length, but not nearly as heavy and scary.

Here are my best guesses. Very IMHO.
12' Spear 1H V. Long ATN 8 DTN 10 St P damage
Quilted Linen Cuirass AV 1
Layered Linen Cuirass AV 2
Leather Cuirass AV 2
Bronze Cuirass AV 3
Bronze 'Corinthian' Helm AV 4 CP and Per Mod -2 (Classic helm)
Bronze 'Illyrian' Helm AV 3 CP and Per Mod -1 (open faced helm)

Do you consider Alexander and the Macedonians to be Greek? The 'sarissa' spear is about 15 ft long and used two handed. It's a true TRoS pike. The shield is maneuvered clumsily with one fore arm and a neck strap. The 'Thracian' helmet is equivalent to a Corinthian helmet. They would have layered linen armor and bronze greaves.

In TRoS, they would be scary Hellena hillbillies with odd accents. They have excellent cavalry, unusual for Hellena.

Thracian Shield (TN 7 or higher!) AV 6 CP Mod -1 Move -2
If one arm is devoted to its use, this shield is a normal round shield.

After that, Rome ruined everything for the Greeks.

Gene Ha

how does one handle people who held their spear with 2 hands, but who still had a shield on their arm?

Would it just offer passive defense when your in hand to hand?
Would it provide normal shield defense when being attacked by missiles while not in hand to hand?

Scott

I think I would treat it as a piece of armor covering the left arm and chest and possible more depending on the size.

NT

This is IMO likely not the right question. A pike like this is clearly not working on the same dynamic as two fighters dancing about with swords. I mean, can you really aim this weapon? Can you "duel" with it? I doubt it myself, its just that when its used in its appropriate context, and there are masses of you and masses at them, the duelling dyamic is not at play. You push, they push... debate rages as it exactly how/if that happens, precisely, but never mind.

IMO, duelling systems like TROS can't be smoothly translated into massed battle systems, because the dynamics of mass battles focuss greatly on the masses. A shield wall is not just getting a defensive bonus, its integrity as a line is much more important. IMO, mass battles especially those feauturing this very specialised and organised sort of behaviour need to be governed by rather different rules.

I would certainly agree with that point of view. I would guess that it would be pretty hard to hit someone with a pike in a one on one. Once you were inside it, it would be usless.

Mass combat tactics are not easily translated to small scale systems.

Actually, pikes were used in duelling as well. I forget the source, but I'll try to dig it up.

Jake

well here is a reference:
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XVIIPike.htm
but i don't know how long the "pike" this is referring to is, and that is an important quesion when talking about spears, long spears, and pikes. From the descriptions i might call these TROS Long spears (7-10), but from the last picture i might say TROS pike (14').

Scott

Jake Norwood wrote: Actually, pikes were used in duelling as well. I forget the source, but I'll try to dig it up.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Actually, pikes were used in duelling as well. I forget the source, but I'll try to dig it up.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Actually, pikes were used in duelling as well. I forget the source, but I'll try to dig it up.

contracycle wrote:
Note: I understand the pike duelling argument to still be a battlefield one; i.e. that the two sides ditch momentum until theres a long line of "pike duels". Either way, whe di grassi refers to "single combat", IMO this is very unlikely to be one individual against one other in isolation. In a mass, its hard to flank the pike wielder.

Hmm, I'm not sure that its a safe assumption that a fencing master only writes about duelling; most pupils would have serious prospects of appearing on the battle field, I would think. Indeed the section on the two handed sword speaks directly of multiple opponents. I don't think I've ever heard of duels with the partisan either, come to think of it.

I know this has been hashed out before, but I'll repeat a comment I made before. It is very dangerous to rely on the use of terms written at different times to mean the same thing as they mean to us.

There was a period in time where a long piece of wood with a point on the end was called a spear. There were short spears, there were long spears, there were various specialized spears that were commonly off the cuff called spears by people of the day.

Then came the age of musket and pike. At this period a long piece of wood with a point on the end was called a pike. Why didn't they simply call it a spear? Don't really know...they called it a pike. There were short pikes, there were long pikes, there vere various specialized pikes that were commonly off the cuff called pikes by people of the day (see also "boarding pike" which was typically only 6-8' long yet still called a pike).

Then came 18th-19th century. The 18th-19th century is the age of taxonomy. Everything has to be classified. The classifications have to have specific definitions so that a trained person can take an unclassified thing, refer its features to the definitions and put a tag on it for the museum. Animals were classified, Plants were classified, People were classified, and Weapons were classified. Weapons that hadn't been in common use for centuries were being classified by acadamians who invented their own definitions based on features that seemed important to them. During this period the term Pike took a single solitary meaning referring only to those very long weapons typically used in massed formations that we know and love today. Since Greek Hoplites used similiar long pointy weapons, the hoplites were obviously armed with Pikes. I bet if you'd asked a warrior from an earlier age what weapon the men on the vase were armed with he'd have said "a really long spear".

Point. There are references in numerous dueling manuals to using pikes. I believe Silver also refers to them. To our modern post-taxonomy ears we assume they must be referring to 14' long pointy things. In reality...I don't know that anyone knows for sure WHAT weapon they were referring to by the term pike. I've seen a few pictures (from Silver I believe) showing the hand position on what is obviously a pole weapon of some kind. But the weapon extends off frame and there is no indication of how long it is. (i.e. how far off frame it goes).

Therefor, references to "there are pikes referred to in duelling books by the masters" is of dubious utility since they could be referring to just about anything, and not necessarily to what we think of by the word.

Either way, whe di grassi refers to "single combat", IMO this is very unlikely to be one individual against one other in isolation. In a mass, its hard to flank the pike wielder.

For the record, Anthony is working on interperetation and translation of DiGrassi for the ARMA right now.

Jake

ps Anthony- Correct me if I'm off.

Jake Norwood wrote: For the record, Anthony is working on interperetation and translation of DiGrassi for the ARMA right now.

Jake

ps Anthony- Correct me if I'm off.

Anthony I wrote:
Di Grassi is talking about using a pike to fight a one-on-one duel, he is not describing how to use it on the battlefield.

contracycle wrote:

Anthony I wrote:
Di Grassi is talking about using a pike to fight a one-on-one duel, he is not describing how to use it on the battlefield.

On what basis?

Thanks for the explanantion, I appreciate the time. But unfortunately those extracts give me my core argument; DiGrassi acknowledged that he is not describing its use in war, which would seem to imply to me that the manner of its use in war is not governed by the same dynamic as the duelling context.

What I expect will happen, if the present rules are just iterated X thousand times for massed battle, is that you will end up with too high a casualty rate to be plausible, over too short a time.

contracycle wrote: Thanks for the explanantion, I appreciate the time. But unfortunately those extracts give me my core argument; DiGrassi acknowledged that he is not describing its use in war, which would seem to imply to me that the manner of its use in war is not governed by the same dynamic as the duelling context.

What I expect will happen, if the present rules are just iterated X thousand times for massed battle, is that you will end up with too high a casualty rate to be plausible, over too short a time.

Ironically, it was a discussion on how to do just that (Tactical and Strategic combat on a different scale but with a similiar resolution mechanic) that got me thinking about Social combat... :)