Timothy, can you explain a bit more what you mean?
What counts as a heavy lance? The word "lance" doesn't get its current menaning until the C17th. That being said, the Byzantine forces clearly have heavy cavalry armed with spears which they generally do not throw well before the game period. Their heavy cavalry can be argued back to about 300 BC, and the Iranian tribe they stole the idea from had them 2 centuries before that, although those were two handed weapons of huge length.
In the West, the counched lance becomes the primary weapon of cavalry in the C11th, earlier if you stand on one side of the Great Stirrup Controversy.
Plate and lances do not evolve together. Lances are in wide use in period, indeed, there are some couched lances in the Bauyeax Tapestry, which was woven about 1080.
In the real world, swords develop like this, basically:
- you have a basic sword for a knight, which we'll call an arming sword.
- people then make really long ones, mostly for two handed use, in the C14th and later. These get called "longswords" and so the original ones get called "short swords" in comparison.
- people later make thin little fencing type swords (rapiers and so on), and call the earlier styles of swords "broadswords" because the blades are wide in comparision to modern swords.
Gamers come along and go "My phallus is not going to be short! Give me a longsword! Or a broadsword!" and no-one ever says to them "Um, a longsword and a two handed sword are the same thing. A broadsword and a shortsword are the same thing. A shortsword is not a big knife. A shortsword is a later name for the basic sword everyone used before the 14th century. The Romans conquered the world with what would later be called "short swords". Excalibur is not a longsword. William Wallace's sword is a longsword, sure, but its a processional sword, or a sword meant to be used instead of a pike: you don't use it one handed.
And so, the idea that the typical guy has a longsword irks me no end. Why not just say he has a daiklave and be done with it, really?
1 Like
Ok Thanks!
Ok, given that as reality, how might one translate it into current game terms? For the period 1220 and earlier, should we just ditch what the game describes as Long Sword, Short Sword and Great Sword and simply have Sword? If so, what should it have for stats? I'm assuming either the current "Long Sword" or "Short Sword" is close.
I would go for
Arming sword
Hand and a half. generally used 2 handed, but could be used one handed with extreme fatigue or in some favourable circumstance (like using them to slash from a galloping horse like you would hit a polo ball with your hammer)
Longsword. used 2 handed only.
Hand and a half and longsword might be the same, actulaly.
Cheers,
Xavi
You could have 'Standard Sword' (with the current Short Sword stats) and 'Good Quality Sword' (with the current Long Sword stats). Depending on where your character is from, the exact type of sword might vary (straight, curved, one or two edged, length, various guards), but the stats stay the same, and depend more on the sword's quality than exact type (after all, Ars Magica is not about hacking people with swords).
As for the current Great Sword, I'd be inclined to keep it as is, with a note reminding people that it did not exist historically until a century or two later. But there is no reason why a two handed sword could not have been made in 1220 if the players don't mind deviating from the time line a bit.
No, the arming sword has a short hilt and a broad pommel for a very tight one handed grip. It has a broad, thin blade that is excellent for cutting but more flexible than is ideal for thrusting. It is very hard to penetrate mail with it. This is the knightly sidearm. It is longer than the gladius but gladius length blades would have been considered big daggers rather than swords at the time.
The hand and a half or bastard, or war sword has a longer hilt with a narrower pommel that can be gripped by the other hand for a two handed grip with both hands together. the blade may be slightly longer and heavier than an arming sword but not necessarily. In the two handed grip the weielder can hit much harder and cause injury through mail at the cost of some reach and maneuverability. As plate became more available the typical bastard sword got a narrower, thicker blade which was stiffer in the thrust to take advantage of gaps in the opponent's plate, especially when used half-sworded (the gauntleted 2nd hand grips down the blade rather than the pommel for precision and leverage), at the cost of cutting efficiency. The name bastard sword was because it was half way btween an arming sword and a long sword.
The long sword had a long hilt that allowed a wide two handed grip which provided lots of levereage and hence agility and power. The blade was long and often designed to support half-swording techniques. It needed two hands so it the wielder needed good armour.
I think we can say with decent certainty that the need for stirrups were greatly overstated.
If people just playing medieval for fun can easily learn to use a lance without stirrups, without loosing notable force then i think we can be very certain that the "pro´s" in real history could do it as well.
Ah... Hmmm, that actually causes me a good bit of problems with definitions... 
A broadsword is not the same as the shortsword. The latter being 10-30cm shorter than the former. Broadsword tends to refer to the "base type" arming sword while shortsword is just a shorter version of the same thing.
A longsword is a 1-handed sword that usually have the option of 2h use by having a longer grip. 10-30cm longer than the average 1h sword.
Better yet:
bjorn.foxtail.nu/typer.htm
Svärd (enhandssvärd), basically a broadsword, 1h sword, arming sword etc
Ridsvärd, "riding sword", longer and thinner and meant more for personal protection than warfare
Långsvärd, "longsword"
Slagsvärd, dont remember the correct translation, but direct translation is "strike sword", 2 handed and unmounted use only, longer than longsword and yet still also larger crossection (possibly what is noted as Greatsword in the RAW)
Bastardsvärd, "bastard sword/hand and a half sword"(surprise?) similar size as longsword but with a grip easier to use with either 1 or 2h.
Tvåhandssvärd, "twohanded sword", about twice as long as a broadsword
doesn't this alternatively translate as "battlesword"?
But yeah, what we're running into, is partially that to people who used them (for war), most of these designs were "a sword" or at most "a sword, about ye long".
Most of the formality of what words describe what weapon is grafted on later.
But we can agree that the yard long, one handed sword that was the must have accessory of any self respecting knight was neither a long-sword nor clearly superior to every other one handed weapon and most two handed weapons in combat.
Also that the lance used from horseback was clearly the most powerful personal weapon of its time.
So, suggested house rules/ errata:
The "long sword" shall be called the sword or arming sword and the damage reduced to +5
When used mounted the lance has the same game statistics as a long spear plus all the advantages of mounted combat however on a critical hit it becomes lodged in the target and if the horse is too close pressed to maneuver then it becomes impractical to wield. A mounted charge counts as an offensive exertion but the horse takes the fatigue.
"Slag" can translate to "(a) battle" or "strike"/"punch"/"hit"/"blow", or "cuff", or "moment", or "apoplexy", or "list(as in lopsidedness)"...
The swordtype is made to penetrate armour, so the origin would probably be something like ~"strike through sword"... Ie. any direct translation variation probably isnt relevant or correct.
most of these designs were "a sword" or at most "a sword, about ye long"
Add to that what type of crossection it has, degree of curveing and wether its for stabbing, cutting or slashing and you probably have someone that understands what it is.
As the side i linked says, many swords DID get special names, a few of which survived, some survived as names for similar or very different weapons(like the side mentions how Swedish "värja" originally just meant "weapon" while today its meaning is pretty much a "rapier") and the rest was lost. And then the issue with same names used for different things in different areas...
Overall, just make up a basic description for any RPG weapon you want to use and stick it to a name you think is proper. It´s simply too hard to be REALLY correct all the time in this area.
Certainly was one of the most powerful personal weapons.
There´s good reason for "lancers" to become a standard type of cavalry later on, one that survived for many hundreds of years, and still managed to be effective.
Or you simply ADD the "arming sword" or "broadsword", since there IS also a historical "longsword".
Well it certainly seems to need some form of "fix".
The historical longsword is a two handed weapon - the greatsword in the statistics. There may be a place for the bastard sword that can be used with either skill but is not quite as good in either role.
Delving into my ancient mind...IIRC:
"The impact of a Heavy lance, had five times the penetrating power of a high velocity bullet" (smokeless round of today, not black powder)
This is what caused the plate armors to have angles. This caused the lance to glance off, instead of running out the back of the armor. That is where the skill came in....hit the plate correctly, dead knight.
Off the top, I would say that the Heavy Lance should do at least three times the damage of a sword.
Remember too, that swords didn't usually cut through armor, they bashed it in. Lances DID cut/punch through...
This is why the 'hammers' had pick ends on them: to punch through armor.
Does someone have a house ruled weapon and armor table? Armor values aren't good either.
or battle sword, as in a sword used for military actions, as opposed to less expected and prepared fighting, where the opponent is less likely to be wearing armor - otherwise we agree.
Most of these would be atleast partially determined by context: when and where you are, and what smith you're talking to, but indeed.
Our house rules simply deleted all the statistics for weapons except damage. All weapons are initiative attack and defense 0. Damage for small weapons is +0. +3 for light weapons like one handed spears. +6 for any hand weapons and light 2 handed weapons and, fionally, +9 for heavy weapons used 2 handed. Armor gives +3 +6 and +9 protection for the whole suit. A shield adds +3 to armor value. That is it. In our opinion the result is much more consistent than with the current tables and we do not have people number crunching and deciding to equip all the grogs in the covenant with maces because they are better weapons than swords and axes.
Special rules are that
- longshaft weapons have a load of 0,
- a staff counts as a shield in close combat
- longshaft weapons can be used to gain exertion bonus if you are charged without you having to spend fatigue
- 2 handed longshaft weapons negate the high ground bonus of cavalry.
A sword is a sword.
Cheers,
Xavi
Uh? How come?
I did like the reach bits of Ars4, spears got pretty useless once you got inside people's guard. At that point, drop it, pull a dagger and brawl.
Spears were load 0 because we fancied seeing spears, since it was an extremely copmmon weapon. Ruleswise there is no reason at all for a warrior to use a spear in Ars. We gave it load 0 to make it a weapon you could carry around without incurring in load penalties. Suddenly it was a much mor epopular weapon for all those grogs that are not ubber-strong. Justify it as a walking aid and there you go.
Cheers,
Xavi