Bronze Age Setting

[Goober4473]

I'm planning to make a setting (and acompanying varient on the d20 system with entirely new classes, but that's not my point here), and I was wondering if anyone knew much about the weapons and armor available during the late bronze age to the beginning of the iron age. What D&D weapons would not be available? I assume the crossbow and longbow are out, but I'm not sure about say, the greatsword or bastard sword. Thoughts?

[13_CBS]

Longsword might be out, unless you're going to include certain "barbarian" tribes that liked to use that sort of thing. Greatswords, bastard swords, and any type of sword longer than a bastard sword would also be out.

Spears would be the weapon of the day. Longspears would be around too, and the occasional short sword. Exotic weapons would probably be out, especially silly things like spiked chains and ANY double weapons (except for maybe the quarterstaff). Asian-themed weapons (shuriken, kama, etc.) are out too.

Missile weapons...any bow longer than short are out. Composite short bows are around, however. Crossbows of any kind are out.

Armour...well, pretty much any armour except for the ___ plate armours will be around. That includes shields except for maybe the buckler...

[AslanCross]

I'm just taking this from the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide (which has a pretty comprehensive chart regarding weapon availability by era):
Greatswords and bastard swords wouldn't be around. The biggest sword you'd get would be the longsword. No polearms apart from spears and lances. Flails are uncommon. No light hammers, but warhammers and maces would be common. No crossbows or composite longbows. Composite shortbows would be around, however. None of the exotic weapons would be around. Everything else seems to be fair game.

[13_CBS]

Warhammers? :smallconfused: I don't recall those ever being around in the Bronze Age in Europe...

[[red][/red]]

Don't forget maces.

[Magnor Criol]

I'm no weapon history expert, but it seems likely that warhammers are very plausible weapons for a bronze age setting. I mean, how technologically difficult can it be to go "Hey, let's take this heavy block of mass and put it on the end of a stick so people can hit stuff with it"? Especially since it's not like ordinary hammers are unknown; they're used to make the weapons and armor we're talking about, among many and sundry other things.

For similar reasons, bucklers don't seem to be out of the question. "Hey, this large piece of wood, when I hold it on my arm, protects me. But it also gets in my way sometimes. It'd be cool if I could have a smaller piece of wood I could use to protect me but that wouldn't get in my way as much."

[13_CBS]

Hmm. In that case, the setting's armory will depend entirely upon how most wars were fought.

If folks fought using mostly phalanx formations or were busy countering them and normally had lighter armor, then a buckler would probably be implausible. This also means that, since spears are the weapons of the day, shorter 1 handed weapons take a back seat (which might explain why no one really bothered to stick a lump of metal on a stick and called it a warhammer; you would rarely get into hammering range, and if you did, a short dagger-like sword would serve you better).

If folks fought differently using bronze weapons, then bucklers could very well be plausible, especially if said people fought the way medieval and renaissance buckler and sword soldiers fought.

[Dode]

Plus, bronze is a difficult weapon to keep and maintain a sharp edge with. For that reason, most bronze swords were single-edged and quite heavy and thick: to smash the foe using pure bludgeoning force once the sword got dulled against the enemy's armor.

But then, D20 is a poor system to attempt a historic campaign under. I'd recommend a GURPS-based system if I were you

[snoopy13a]

Weaponry depends on the philosophy of the nation:

Also remember that lancers didn't exist due to the lack of stirrups. Cavalry had to either use bows, throw javelins, or fight from horseback with a sword. Charging with a lance would result in the horseman losing his seat from the impact.

1) The Ancient Greeks

They used bronze shields and (when the citizen could afford it) bronze chestplates and helmets. Their main weapons were a thrusting (not throwing) spear and a large bronze shield. They also carried short swords as a back-up.

The strategy was to charge into the enemy as a solid phalanx of about 8 ranks deep. Cohesion was very important as the shield would cover half of one's body and half of his neighbor on the left. Thus, every man was responsible for a fellow soldier's defence. The phalanx's goal was to crush into the enemy and essentially trample them. This would usually set up a pushing situation where both sides desperately tried to knock each other down.

Once an army broke or fled, things got ugly. The ancient Greeks also had light cavalry and light infantry (peltasts) whose job it was to kill retreating hoplites or try to cover retreats. Often times, the defeated army would suffer heavy casualites while the winning army would have very light casualites.

2) The Romans

The Romans didn't use thrusting spears, but rather short swords (called a gladius) and shields. They also carried javelins. Roman strategy was first to have their light troops (veilites) throw javelins at the opposing forces lines. Roman javelins were designed to break at the head to make it awkward to handle a shield that it hit.

After the light troops skirmished, the legionnaries would charge. Their strategy was to throw the javelins into the enemies' rank. They wanted to kill a couple of the front-line troops so gaps would appear (hopefully breaking up the front ranks of a phalanx). Then the Romans could fill the gaps and infight with their small thrusting swords.

3) The Persians

They believed in quantity over quality. They had hordes of lightly armed troops and didn't worry too much about casualities. An army of 5000 Greek hoplites was a match for an army of 10,000 Persians

4) The Parthians

They used horses and short bows. They would use hit and run tactics to great effect against heavy infanty.

Equipment:

Ancient Greek Style:

Heavy Infantry

Spear
Large Shield (or perhaps Tower Shield for game purposes)
Short Sword
Varying degrees of Bronze Armor depending on character's wealth
Fight in Phalanx

Light Infantry

Javelins
Sling or Short Bow
Little or no armor (probably leather for game purposes)
Short sword

Cavalry

Sword
Full Bronze Armor (Cavalry were the very rich)
Shield
Javelins


Roman Style:

Heavy Infantry:
Swort Shord
Heavy Armor
Two or Three Javelins
Tower Shield

Light Infantry
Javelins
Short Sword
Hide or Leather Armor

Cavarly
Same as Greek

Persian style

Infantry
Spear
Light Armor
Very Large numbers :smallbiggrin:

Cavalry
Same as Greek

Parthian style

Cavalry
Heavy Armor
Sword
Composite Short Bow

[Voyager_I]

Bucklers are in. Macedonian-style phalanxes either used bucklers or went without shields. Although the creators of Rome: Total War couldn't be bothered to do an entirely new set of animations for it, you can't effectively wield a 5 meter spear in one hand.

Also, Heavy Horses of any variety are probably out, depending on just how bronze you're getting.

[13_CBS]

Eh...bronze age Romans didn't really fight like that. The infantry were divided roughly into 3 sections: Hastati, Principes, and Triarii, with another group of Velites bringing in the skirmishing role.

In a nutshell, the Roman armies would do this:

1) Send in the Hastati, the "newbies" (notice that they were named after the Hasta, a type of Roman spear not too dissimilar from the hoplite spear).
2) If the Hastati don't work, send them back and bring in the Principes. Principes could continue to pressure the (usually) less organized enemy while providing cover for the Hastati to recover.
3) If THAT doesn't work, send in the elite Triarii. They'll do mostly what the Principes did, except better while the lesser troops, which withdrew to the back of the army, would rest and regroup. The Triarii fought more as a phalanx than the close combat heavy infantry like the Principes and the Hastati were.

Edit: To the above poster:

IIRC, Macedonians in a phalanx formation used fairly large shields strapped to the necks or arms. A buckler would actually hinder their spear use, since such shields require one to hold the buckler with a hand.

Bucklers are, by definition, shields that are gripped by the hand and NOT strapped to any part of the body.

[snoopy13a]

Eh...bronze age Romans didn't really fight like that. The infantry were divided roughly into 3 sections: Hastati, Principes, and Triarii, with another group of Velites bringing in the skirmishing role.

In a nutshell, the Roman armies would do this:

1) Send in the Hastati, the "newbies" (notice that they were named after the Hasta, a type of Roman spear not too dissimilar from the hoplite spear).
2) If the Hastati don't work, send them back and bring in the Principes. Principes could continue to pressure the (usually) less organized enemy while providing cover for the Hastati to recover.
3) If THAT doesn't work, send in the elite Triarii. They'll do mostly what the Principes did, except better while the lesser troops, which withdrew to the back of the army, would rest and regroup. The Triarii fought more as a phalanx than the close combat heavy infantry like the Principes and the Hastati were.

Edit: To the above poster:

IIRC, Macedonians in a phalanx formation used fairly large shields strapped to the necks or arms. A buckler would actually hinder their spear use, since such shields require one to hold the buckler with a hand.

Bucklers are, by definition, shields that are gripped by the hand and NOT strapped to any part of the body.

You're right about the early Roman army. My example was more of the classical legion approach with its tactics against a phalanx opponent.

The Macedonians of Alexander the Great's time used much longer spears (around 15 feet I think) and significally smaller shields (I think they were strapped to the arm) then the traditional Greek hoplites. I suppose that they were more pikemen then hoplites. They also were better trained with the spear. The Greek hoplites didn't train much (except for the Spartans) but their tactics were simple and effective so training wasn't that important.

[Matthew]

You guys are completely way off base. The Bronze Age ends something like circa 1000 BC. Rome wasn't even founded and the Greeks were nothing like described above.

[Jack Zander]

Well... yes but I think they care only about the weaponry. The classical age still used the same materials for weapons as the bronze age did (for the most part).

[Satyr]

With the exception of iron instead of bronze, right? And therefore very different abilities of tools. I'm not sure that it is possible to build chainmail out of bronze or brass. And there are very little sources about fighting tatctics. I would recommend reading the Illiad. Even if it's not completely reliable, it's still one of the greatest books ever and you can always argument that you play in a Homerian setting.

Nw, what does the Illiad tell about weapons and armory? First, there are several exceptional weapons described. The Breastplate of Aganemnon (with a scarring Medusa face on it, iIrc), the shield of the Telamonian Ajax (made out of the skins of seven bulls), the helmet of Odysseus (made out of boar tusks) and lastly, the bow of Heracles (Heracles isn't among the mortals anymore, but his bow with the poiseoned arrows lives on). These are great items praisworthy armaments.
Several dekorated armors are described as well, but mostly that their wearers are killed by a hero and their bodies are plundered.
We also learn that there are chariots instead of cavalry, and are manned by two person: A fighter, who use the chjariot as a platform, and a charioteer.
Spears are the weapon of choice. They are expensive enough to be plundered when possible, but they aren't made for eternity - they break, they get lost, they are thrown against the enemy. It seems that weapons breaks regularly, and it's good to have a supply of them.

We also learn that there are no siege engines, obviously.

[Matthew]

Well... yes but I think they care only about the weaponry. The classical age still used the same materials for weapons as the bronze age did (for the most part).

Er, no. Iron Age social organisation, military organisation, military practice, armour and weapon technology is not the same as that of the Bronze Age. In the Iron Age they used both iron and bronze; generally speaking, iron was used for weapons and armour, but bronze was still used in some cases (as in the case of Hoplite Armour or Chinese Halberds), but bronze declined heavily in use. In the Bronze Age they used Bronze for weapons and armour.

[raygungothic]

Whose Bronze Age? Mycenaean Greece? Shang dynasty China? Hallstatt B Europe? New Kingdom Egypt? Any of these (or many more) could be fantastic, but they're all pretty different. Sounds like you might need to hit the library before campaigning.

In northern Europe, the later Bronze Age has long, leaf-bladed slashing swords; in the early part of the Hallstatt period (which spans the bronze-iron transition), bronze swords were used alongside iron ones that completely imitated the bronze blades' shape. That could provide an interesting origin for all those "hero with the magic sword" stories if one man has the only iron sword for a hundred miles... Interesting culture too.

(lovely, lovely picture here
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=3475
of an early European iron sword completely imitating bronze blades' shape...)

[13_CBS]

Huh...looks like I need to hit the books again.

Who knew that the Greek-Persian wars were actually in the Iron Age? Hmm...

[TempusCCK]

The Persian-Greek Wars are generally considered to be in the "Classical Period."

We do know that neither the Greeks nor Perisans used Iron weaponry, but iron had been developed a long time ago and was quite useful in battle.

Greek hoplites used primarily the spear, in correlation with with large bronze shields. The advantage of a bronze shield over an iron shield of similar size is that an iron shield would probably be much, much heavier. Not that they needed it agains the Persians anyway, shortbows and wicker shields were no match for bronze shield.

Macedonian armies, under Alexander the Great, used the same system of Phalanx as the Greeks (He was actually educated in Athens, and picked up alot of Greek traits there) with the exception of the use of the longspear, a 15 to 20 foot spear.

Men at the front of the phalanx would kneel, holding their shields before them, another line behind them, would hold their shields slightly higher, another line might be behind them higher still, and behind those lines, a man would one end of the longspear into the ground and step on it, it would then be layed across the shoulders of the kneeling man in the front, poking out from his shield, this way, you had a good 10 to 15 feet of spear sticking out from the front of your phalanx. This could devastate a calvary charge.

[Matthew]

The Persian-Greek Wars are generally considered to be in the "Classical Period."

We do know that neither the Greeks nor Perisans used Iron weaponry, but iron had been developed a long time ago and was quite useful in battle.

Eh? Source please. The Illiad talks about iron weaponry, as far as I am aware you are wrong about this.


Greek hoplites used primarily the spear, in correlation with with large bronze shields. The advantage of a bronze shield over an iron shield of similar size is that an iron shield would probably be much, much heavier. Not that they needed it agains the Persians anyway, shortbows and wicker shields were no match for bronze shield.

Do be aware that Bronze Shields are not made of bronze. They are wood covered in bronze.


Macedonian armies, under Alexander the Great, used the same system of Phalanx as the Greeks (He was actually educated in Athens, and picked up alot of Greek traits there) with the exception of the use of the longspear, a 15 to 20 foot spear.

The Foot Companions were actually very differently organised from the Greek Phalanx. They did, however, use the same tactics until developing the Pike Phalanx.


Men at the front of the phalanx would kneel, holding their shields before them, another line behind them, would hold their shields slightly higher, another line might be behind them higher still, and behind those lines, a man would one end of the longspear into the ground and step on it, it would then be layed across the shoulders of the kneeling man in the front, poking out from his shield, this way, you had a good 10 to 15 feet of spear sticking out from the front of your phalanx. This could devastate a calvary charge.
Source for this, please?

[Satyr]

The Illiad talks about iron weaponry, as far as I am aware you are wrong about this.

That comes as a surprise for me; I haven't read the original, but as far as I know, iron weaponry is not explicitly mentioned, but either ore or bronze. Where did you find iron?

[Mr. Friendly]

Although it is, well, wikipedia, there are links to many sources throughout.

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

[Matthew]

That comes as a surprise for me; I haven't read the original, but as far as I know, iron weaponry is not explicitly mentioned, but either ore or bronze. Where did you find iron?

It's been a while since I read it, so I would have to do some research. The Illiad is an anachronism, in that it decribes a bronze age war, but often in contemporary terms. Occasionally, spear heads or swords are described as being of iron, I think, but as I say, it was a while ago that I was reading about it. The World of Odysseus by M. I. Finley does a good job of identifying the anachronisms, but it's a fairly old publication.

[Telonius]

Remember, too, that wer'e talking about maybe three or four genuine civilizations. They were the ones capable of anything approaching tactics. The vast majority of the population of planet earth would be in the club/spear/pointy stick stage. Their general tactics would be:

1. Wait till they fall asleep.*
2. Hit them in the head.
3. [censored]
4. Take their stuff.

*Run away if target is not asleep at any time during the process.

[Matthew]

Somebody already did some of the work for me: Bronze Age Combat & The Iron Gate Thread (http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/bn/board/print?board.id=U1001&message.id=3629&format=one)

Ah, looks like I could have been misinformed/misremembered as to its use for weapons; Andrew Lang argues in his book, Homer and his Age (http://books.google.com/books?id=Y9YZfn4jCt8C&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=illiad+iron&source=web&ots=8OY8H5IawN&sig=2GiaKcitQr1CPFhWyPC0Db7l7b8#PPP1,M1), that whilst iron is evident in the Iliad, it mainly appears as metal for tools. There are only a couple of occasions where it is described as being used for a knife and an arrow head. I could have sworn there were more, but there you go.

[Satyr]

@ Matthew: Thanks. I've found the quotes.
I'm a bit surprised, though.

@ Telonius: Greek tactics were not very advanced. Meeting on a flat plain, charge at other, look who had heavier losses, nogitiate. Next year, repeat. The different ciry-states where in an almost constant state of war (not all of them all the time, but the general peace of the panhellenistic games was important enough to be mentioned again and again and again...). The only way to make this bearable was by strongly ritualising the wars to one bloody skirmish and stop it afterwards to negotiate. But that is classical/helenistic Greece. I fear I do not know that much about the archaic times.

[urkthegurk]

I guess i matters what level of realism and what level of fantasy you are aiming for in your game. And also what system you are using. D&D needs a fantastic element, magic, supernatural sources, to be a balanced system. If you have those things, then is magic in the 'Bronze' age too? What spells will be availible? IS it actually set in historic earth? "Iron age" is the default for D&D, but it is hardly earthly in it's conventions towards gender, race, and warfare, etc.
Re-creation of hoplite tactics would make for a rather dull D&D campaign, unless it became a war game. Luckily, there is ample precedent for individual heroes acting alone that were able to influence the world, both by defeating enemy armies single-handidly, and by fighting monsters. Fighting monsters requires a whole different set of weapns: Who wants to get close enough to stab them with a sword? The spear would remain the weapon of choice.
Also, magic provides a conveniant way to avoid hoplite formations. Who wants to group armies that close together when someone on the other team can cast Fireball?
Should be exciting. Let me know how it goes.

[bosssmiley]

Hey OP, you *need* to see this. Sean K. Reynolds "New Argonauts (http://www.seankreynolds.com/skrg/products/002TNA/)" - Greek hero myth d20. About 2 generations (50 years or so) before "The Iliad" IIRC.

[Matthew]

Good resource that, but surprisingly lacking in armament discussion.

[Trog]

I am preparing a campaign setting in the Bronze Age as well, as it turns out. :smallcool:

After doing a bit of research I had found out the following, which has influenced me in my campaign, perhaps it will help yours.

First of all, iron production followed bronze production, yes, but the KEY thing you have to take into account is the availability of the raw materials. Bronze required copper and tin. Sources for these metals were few and far between but it was easy to forge. Iron, on the other hand, is much more readily found.. but requires a much hotter fire to forge it, and thus, more advanced forges. Once iron could be forged that's not the end of it either... you have to take into consideration what KIND of iron is produced... what quality. The easiest iron to make is cast iron. This is NOT weapons-grade material. It was used for making utensils and the like. In fact well made bronze weapons could break poorly made iron ones. As iron began to be used more widely it starting appearing in the edges of bronze weapons to increase the edge's sharpness and durability. Once the technique of forging iron weapons, and later steel, was achieved it was finally possible to equip large armies with armor and weapons due to the abundance of iron to be found. So set up your world's metal resources and you can develop the differing technology levels from there.

As for weapons available at the time, bronze weapons exceeding 30 cm in length were not structurally sound. More important is probably armor availability. Full plate and the like were not practical nor invented back then, etc., etc.

[Kiero]

If you're genuninely going with Bronze Age, there's something else to consider: no big horses. There's a reason the chariot was popular; no one had bred horses big enough to carry an armoured man about the place.

[Goober4473]

I guess i matters what level of realism and what level of fantasy you are aiming for in your game. And also what system you are using. D&D needs a fantastic element, magic, supernatural sources, to be a balanced system. If you have those things, then is magic in the 'Bronze' age too? What spells will be availible? IS it actually set in historic earth? "Iron age" is the default for D&D, but it is hardly earthly in it's conventions towards gender, race, and warfare, etc.

This will definately be a fantasy world, but not classic D&D (which is actually Middle Ages, which is after the iron age and has steel and stirrups). That's what I'm trying to get away from. I'm tired of elves and dwarves and wizards and rogue and castles and dragons. Good stuff, but I'm looking for something new. There's magic, but not in the standard ways of D&D: no spells per day or spell/power points, and no investing points either, 'cause Incarnum did that already.

Basically, I'm just using Bronze Age technology, but not as much society. There will likely be a beginning greek-like civilization, a bunch of tibal societies, and some primitives.

I'll be using some ideas from Star Wars Saga Edition, as well as some stuff I've heard about 4th Edition, like talents in place of set special abilities, and lots of bonus feats, so classes will be more generic. The 7 classes I have so far are:

Diviner: They use spirit magic. They have Powers and Accesses. In order to use a power, it must be placed into an Access, and then depending on which one it is in, it acts differantly. One access may give minor powers constantly, while another would be more powerful, but powers would be expended when used in it. Resting for a few minutes should allow them to restore and move Powers into other Accesses.

Fortune Hunter: Rogue, thief, scout, adventurer. Lots of skills, evasive abilities, and mobility.

Martial Adept: Learns mystical combat abilities. Similar to Tome of battle stuff, or just like paladins or rangers, depending on your talent choices.

Martial Artist: They know how to fight, usually in a specific way, but sometimes more generalized, weather armed or unarmed.

Mimic: They can copy other people's abilities after seeing them, and shapeshift into creatures. Shifting will have multiple levels which must be progressed through in order to fully transform into a creature. The mimic must copy certain types of abilities to progress, and could mix and match depending on the combination of copying they go through.

Shaman: They are the standard spellcasters of the world, using elemental and nature magic. They may cast any spell they know any number of times, but have a limited number of enhancements, refreshed by resting a short time, that can bolster their spells. Increased range, damage, duration, etc. are all valid choices. In addition, they may tap the land they inhabit to gain further power depending on the terrain type. This may be done only a limited amount (probably once per day) per piece of land per shaman. The land only gives so much, and shamans know not to be greedy.

Sorcerer: They use darker magics and hidden knowledge to cast rituals, which like shaman spells, may be used at will, but a limited number of times may be combined together to have greater effect.

[random11]

When considering weapons, I'm not how it applies on the D&D laws, but the first thing you should do is to reduce all the metal weapon, armor and shield quality to "low".
No bows other then a short bow, no big horses, no lances and no sophisticated weapons (mace can be just a hunk of metal, but a flail requires you to create a chain, which makes it more complex).


You need to be very careful with this type of campaign, in the D&D rules as they are fighters are not as strong. reduce the quality of the weapons and you shift the balance even more.

[Dervag]

When considering weapons, I'm not how it applies on the D&D laws, but the first thing you should do is to reduce all the metal weapon, armor and shield quality to "low".
No bows other then a short bow, no big horses, no lances and no sophisticated weapons (mace can be just a hunk of metal, but a flail requires you to create a chain, which makes it more complex).I was under the impression that Bronze Agers used flails all the time as agricultural implements. The flails may have used cords instead of chains, or they may have been better than you or I think at making chains in the Bronze Age. I don't know.


You need to be very careful with this type of campaign, in the D&D rules as they are fighters are not as strong. reduce the quality of the weapons and you shift the balance even more.Well, there's no obvious reason why bronze weapons can't be enchanted, so they aren't going to be quite as weak as all that, but it is a problem.


If you're genuninely going with Bronze Age, there's something else to consider: no big horses. There's a reason the chariot was popular; no one had bred horses big enough to carry an armoured man about the place.Right. Except maybe the Trojans. If you believe the Iliad. Which maybe you shouldn't. Oh, and probably some of the barbarian tribes that more or less flattened Bronze Age Mediterranean civilization circa 1200 BC.

[Ossian]

As for weapons, just set the standard metal to be the "+0"

D&D is iron age, so all iron weapons are +0, and steel (almost the equivalent of saying mastercrafted) are +1 to hit. No damage modifications.

Your setting is bronze age, so all bronze weapons are +0, since 90% of armed people are going to have them. IF iron is even available (on a scale that can have a tangible effect on your world) you may consider to draw this line between flexible, sturdier and light iron and the somewhat more brittle and heavier bronze.

That is, bronze weapons are +1 to damage (massive swings that crush more than cut) and Iron weapons are +1 to hit (they allow for quicker skirmish maneuvers when facing a bronze weapon armed perspon). Perhaps you can add a +1 to all SUNDER attacks when it's Iron Vs Bronze (whoever sunders, the iron still gets the +1 either to resist or to cut) and lower the HP and Hardness of bronze weapons of 1 or 2 points.

As for armors, just double the weight and have it affect the load. Mind you, fullplates and other tin-man of Oz stuff should have been rare.

O.

[Kiero]

Right. Except maybe the Trojans. If you believe the Iliad. Which maybe you shouldn't.

Exactly. It's hardly a historical source.


Oh, and probably some of the barbarian tribes that more or less flattened Bronze Age Mediterranean civilization circa 1200 BC.

And what evidence do we have that they had big horses?

No stirrups either, so no couched lances and the like.

[Matthew]

Stirrups were probably not really a big deal, but they have the same sort of mythology ascribed to them as the Long Bow. What is generally argued now is that they were an improvement, not a revolution. Early medieval horses actually weren't that big either, as far as can be determined.

The Great Stirrup Controversy (http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/texts/strpcont.html)
The Stirrup Controversy (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/sloan.html)

[Goober4473]

D&D is iron age

D&D is the Middle Ages. Most weapons are assumed to be steel. Iron would be lower quality. I'm planning to make Bronze weapons the standard, but probably make the standard do lower damage due to being hard to keep sharp, and have lower hardness/hp. As for fighter/spellcaster balance, I'm making entirely new classes, so... I can balance whatever I want.

Iron would likely be a special material with higher hardness/hp, and there will probably be weird special metals like meteor rock.

Arms and Equipment tells me longbows are available in the Bronze Age, but not composite. I may be getting this wrong, but does that assume that a D&D "longbow" is not a Biritsh longbow that effectively removed the heavily armored knight from the battlefield?

[Satyr]

Arms and Equipment tells me longbows are available in the Bronze Age, but not composite. I may be getting this wrong, but does that assume that a D&D "longbow" is not a Biritsh longbow that effectively removed the heavily armored knight from the battlefield?

Since D&D doesn't work with different strengths of bows, the best way to interpret shortbow and longbow is " a bow with a low force" and "a bow with a high force".

And longbows removing knights is a legend. Arrows were highly ineffective against full plate armor.

[Matthew]

It just means a Bow that is Long. The English/Welsh Long Bow wasn't particularly responsible for the removal of the armoured knight from the battlefield, as far as can be determined. It was a good weapon, though.

There are a few directions you could argue this in, but a D&D Long Bow essentially represents whatever you want it to. I have heard it argued that the English/Welsh Long Bow could be thought to be a Composite Bow, because of the properties of the wood used. Of course, the fact that a D&D Long Bow is usable whilst mounted suggests a different concept.

You could argue that the Welsh/English Long Bow is best represented by the D&D Great Bow, if you wanted, but when it comes down to it, it's the strength of the user that makes these Bows effective, which means you really want to distinguish between Bows that require Strength Ratings to use.

Honestly, I'm not all that convinced that Composite Bows didn't exist in the Bronze Age. I'm pretty sure that the Iliad mentions Bows constructed of wood and horn.

I use the following approximation:

Short Bow - Stave = 4' or less
Long Bow - Stave = 4-6'
Great Bow - Stave = 6'+

[Kiero]

And longbows removing knights is a legend. Arrows were highly ineffective against full plate armor.

Of course by the time "full plate armour" appeared, the longbow had disappeared. It was supposed to give a modicum of protection against a musket ball.

On the other hand a bodkin point would shear through mail, which was the common armour protecting a man-at-arms during battles like Agincourt and Crecy. Though the elements certainly had their role to play in immobilising armoured knights and allowing unarmoured archers to massacre them.

[Matthew]

It was certainly more effective than less powerful bows, but I'm not sure how much evidence there really is that mail was ineffectual. I would be willing to bet that a direct shot at close range would penetrate, but I would be willing to bet that of a number of bows, the only caveat being that a Long Bow's 'close range' is going to be longer than a Short Bow's 'close range'.

One thing I have heard suggested about the the bodkin point (wish I could remember where, probably SwordForum or MyArmoury) is that it would go through mail better than a standard arrow, but not quite as well through the padding underneath, which would help explain its appearance as mail and plate became more common on the battlefield.

[MCerberus]

Just a note here - the horse was generally less armored than the rider, which requires extremely expensive armor for the beast as well or your knights still get killed. The most effective armor would be Byzantine cataphract armor(protected the chest of the horse and hung out in front leaving what would now be called a crumple zone), and that wasn't really in use in western Europe. Combine that with high rate of fire and very professional troops, the longbow really did hurt cavalry.

[Kiero]

It was certainly more effective than less powerful bows, but I'm not sure how much evidence there really is that mail was ineffectual. I would be willing to bet that a direct shot at close range would penetrate, but I would be willing to bet that of a number of bows, the only caveat being that a Long Bow's 'close range' is going to be longer than a Short Bow's 'close range'.

One thing I have heard suggested about the the bodkin point (wish I could remember where, probably SwordForum or MyArmoury) is that it would go through mail better than a standard arrow, but not quite as well through the padding underneath, which would help explain its appearance as mail and plate became more common on the battlefield.

True enough. In any case, I'm sure a close-range shot from a bow, even without penetrating plate would hurt like hell. Just from the concussive impact alone.

[Satyr]

According to the Medieval Warfare seminar I took courses in, a better chainmail hauberk offered great protection against arrows, but not against crossvow bolts, which lead, together with the price increase of manpower due to the Black Death epidemies, to the technology shift from chainmail to plate armor...
I know that this doesn't proof anything, but this at least what is the school of thought on our fabulous university right now.

As far as I know, the Welsh Longbow is in questions of internet hype and mythological power only second to the allmighty katana.


So, to get back to topic: I would treat composite bows in the same league like iron weapüons: they aren't yet the standart equipment and they are certainly remarkably more expensive, nut they are not unheard of. Both the small Ajax (not the Telamonian, the other one... I don't knbow how he is called in English...) and Odysseus' bow were most likely composite bows.

[alexi]

not to get off topic in the wrong direction but:

Of course by the time "full plate armour" appeared, the longbow had disappeared. It was supposed to give a modicum of protection against a musket ball.

Long bows were used up thru the Elizabethan age, and the last recorded use of the long bow by the English in War (discluding that nut in WWI) was in the English Civil War. I also belive that the long bow was used against the English in The rebellion of 1745, but on that note I could be wrong.

[alexi]

oh and:

a better chainmail hauberk offered great protection against arrows,
if mail was worn over padding it was apparently less usefull against arrows then when padding was worn over mail.

[MCerberus]

oh and:
if mail was worn over padding it was apparently less usefull against arrows then when padding was worn over mail.

I can see the science behind that, but try fighting in that getup. :smallamused:

Also while we're on the subject of composite bows in low-tech settings, if you allow longbows, no composite ones. Also the sling and various thrown weapons would be seeing a lot more action than in the standard setting.

[Kiero]

not to get off topic in the wrong direction but:


Long bows were used up thru the Elizabethan age, and the last recorded use of the long bow by the English in War (discluding that nut in WWI) was in the English Civil War. I also belive that the long bow was used against the English in The rebellion of 1745, but on that note I could be wrong.

A handful of guys using them isn't the same as entire units outfitted with them, as you had earlier. The longbow was part of a two-century long craze, which petered out eventually.

Slings are a good mention, as is the javelin and spears more generally.

[Matthew]

if mail was worn over padding it was apparently less usefull against arrows then when padding was worn over mail.

It's actually not clear what the reason was for that change. It may have just been stylistic. I think that mail was still worn over something in that situation, though. If we go back to bodkin arrows versus ordinary arrows, it may well be that padding worn over mail protected better against armour piercing weapons than mail over armour. As with so much in this sort of discourse, though, the evidence is lacking.

I do recall hearing that during the Third Crusade, an Arabic source reported that the crusaders wore padding over mail over padding, which was proof against the Muslim arrows, but that was second hand information, I would have to track the source down again.

[Kiero]

It would have to be double-padding, because mail against skin is not pleasant.

[alexi]

A handful of guys using them isn't the same as entire units outfitted with them, as you had earlier. The longbow was part of a two-century long craze, which petered out eventually.

take a look at the wreck of the Mary Rose...