On chivalry and cavalry
Dec. 8th, 2010 10:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
king_pellinorA small piece I put together on the ferry today concerning Fools and Heroes - cross posted from the main forums.
To be honest, I think it was prompted by looking for Christmas present ideas on the Get Dressed For Battle website, seeing a nice pair of brass spurs, and wondering whether they'd fit my character :-)
It has come to my notice in a number of years playing a knight that horses have a relatively small role in FnH military matters. I've been musing on this lately, and I'd like to set out my thoughts for consideration.
Ithron is, as we all know, loosely based on mediaeval England, with some bits being quite early (Axirian legions), some rather later (guild structures, complex plate armours), and some from legend and literature (most of the adventures). However, although we have knights in shining armour we don't have prancing warhorses.
Some would suggest that Ithronian knights do indeed have horses, it's just that due to physrepping problems they're rarely seen on adventure. This is of course an absurd proposition which merits no further consideration.
One better theory is that military forces are largely modelled on Axirian troops, who are in turn based on Roman legions who are famously composed of infantry. You could extend this to less civilised areas of Arda by saying that non-Axirian forces are more Saxon/Viking in nature - again, largely infantry.
However, the infantry-heavy side of both Romans and Saxons is rather overplayed. The Romans used infantry as the main body of their regular forces, but the nobility liked to be cavalry, and they used auxiliary cavalry extensively even in Republican days. In later years they of course went over to regular cavalry more and more - basically, in the real world there is no substitute for heavy shock cavalry, even if in some battle you want infantry as the core of your army. The Saxons used horses for transport between battles, even if they fought on foot. So we should be seeing horses, or at least references to horses, around a lot more.
However, this ignores the nature of Ardan warfare. Rather than facing a body of spearmen, archers and cavalry, as in the real world, any sizeable force of troops is likely to be faced with at least a number of spellcasters among the enemy, and quite possibly monsters, demons and undead. A small group travelling is even more likely to meet monsters or spellcasters in the woods.
What is the likely effect on a cavalry charge of one or two low-level enemy spellcasters? Given the lack of resists most knights and other warriors, "Obey me and turn right" is quite possibly going to have a devastating effect on the front line. "Fear me" on a horse would be even worse - the fleeing animal would probably inspire others to panic, if they're still standing after it suddenly tries to turn about at the gallop. Major undead and demons just don't bear thinking about.
A similar situation arises with small groups. If you're happily cantering through the woods skewering goblins on your lance, then having a shaman turn up and freeze your horse is likely to have somewhat catastrophic consequences.
But bluntly, sitting on a horse in Ithron is basically offering any spellcaster you care to name an irresistable chance to bugger you up completely.
Even transport is fraught with danger. If you decide to walk somewhere with your gear on a packhorse, then one fear spell can rob you of your camping kit, food, spare weapons, and anything else you left on it. No wonder we walk to Bristol Fests carrying everything in the kitchen sink. The only half-way safe way to use a horse for transport (unless you're sure the countryside is completely free of danger) is to fasten it firmly to a big cart, so it can't run far or fast and you have half a chance of recovering your goods. This is rather well supported by the evidence - any number of lost merchant wagons have been found by adventurers over the years.
So it appears that the horse can only be used in safe conditions, or when somewhat hobbled. No military force can therefore include cavalry as part of their order of battle (still less chariotry - imagine a mass fear as Boudicca's famed scythe chariots prepare to charge...). Knights march and fight on foot like anyone else, though this does perhaps explain why squires are included in front-line forces.
But this leaves us with a minor problem - knights are notoriously chivalrous, but "Chivalry" in English derives from the French "Chevallerie" - it's almost the same word as "cavalry", and has horses in it. Why should Ithronian knights name their code of conduct after an animal they have nothing to do with?
The answer, of course, is that Ithronian derives "Chivalry" not from the despised Guiadonese, language of a people who have famously contributed no culture that isn't found in the bottom of a wine barrel, but from the Axirian. Given the thuggish and unrefined nature of the average Axirian legionary, who would nonetheless claim to be "civil" (Axirian "civilus" - polite, gentlemanly, or for legionaries perhaps just "housetrained" is the right term) it's no wonder that the gallant knights of Ithron proclaimed themselves to be "civiler" compared to Axirians. This naturally gives us "civilerous" as the word to describe these gentlemen; and after a good few hundred years of wearing the edges of the word down we end up with the much more elegant "chivalrous", which rolls far more smoothly off the tongue.
Well, that all seems to fit rather neatly. QED.
To be honest, I think it was prompted by looking for Christmas present ideas on the Get Dressed For Battle website, seeing a nice pair of brass spurs, and wondering whether they'd fit my character :-)
It has come to my notice in a number of years playing a knight that horses have a relatively small role in FnH military matters. I've been musing on this lately, and I'd like to set out my thoughts for consideration.
Ithron is, as we all know, loosely based on mediaeval England, with some bits being quite early (Axirian legions), some rather later (guild structures, complex plate armours), and some from legend and literature (most of the adventures). However, although we have knights in shining armour we don't have prancing warhorses.
Some would suggest that Ithronian knights do indeed have horses, it's just that due to physrepping problems they're rarely seen on adventure. This is of course an absurd proposition which merits no further consideration.
One better theory is that military forces are largely modelled on Axirian troops, who are in turn based on Roman legions who are famously composed of infantry. You could extend this to less civilised areas of Arda by saying that non-Axirian forces are more Saxon/Viking in nature - again, largely infantry.
However, the infantry-heavy side of both Romans and Saxons is rather overplayed. The Romans used infantry as the main body of their regular forces, but the nobility liked to be cavalry, and they used auxiliary cavalry extensively even in Republican days. In later years they of course went over to regular cavalry more and more - basically, in the real world there is no substitute for heavy shock cavalry, even if in some battle you want infantry as the core of your army. The Saxons used horses for transport between battles, even if they fought on foot. So we should be seeing horses, or at least references to horses, around a lot more.
However, this ignores the nature of Ardan warfare. Rather than facing a body of spearmen, archers and cavalry, as in the real world, any sizeable force of troops is likely to be faced with at least a number of spellcasters among the enemy, and quite possibly monsters, demons and undead. A small group travelling is even more likely to meet monsters or spellcasters in the woods.
What is the likely effect on a cavalry charge of one or two low-level enemy spellcasters? Given the lack of resists most knights and other warriors, "Obey me and turn right" is quite possibly going to have a devastating effect on the front line. "Fear me" on a horse would be even worse - the fleeing animal would probably inspire others to panic, if they're still standing after it suddenly tries to turn about at the gallop. Major undead and demons just don't bear thinking about.
A similar situation arises with small groups. If you're happily cantering through the woods skewering goblins on your lance, then having a shaman turn up and freeze your horse is likely to have somewhat catastrophic consequences.
But bluntly, sitting on a horse in Ithron is basically offering any spellcaster you care to name an irresistable chance to bugger you up completely.
Even transport is fraught with danger. If you decide to walk somewhere with your gear on a packhorse, then one fear spell can rob you of your camping kit, food, spare weapons, and anything else you left on it. No wonder we walk to Bristol Fests carrying everything in the kitchen sink. The only half-way safe way to use a horse for transport (unless you're sure the countryside is completely free of danger) is to fasten it firmly to a big cart, so it can't run far or fast and you have half a chance of recovering your goods. This is rather well supported by the evidence - any number of lost merchant wagons have been found by adventurers over the years.
So it appears that the horse can only be used in safe conditions, or when somewhat hobbled. No military force can therefore include cavalry as part of their order of battle (still less chariotry - imagine a mass fear as Boudicca's famed scythe chariots prepare to charge...). Knights march and fight on foot like anyone else, though this does perhaps explain why squires are included in front-line forces.
But this leaves us with a minor problem - knights are notoriously chivalrous, but "Chivalry" in English derives from the French "Chevallerie" - it's almost the same word as "cavalry", and has horses in it. Why should Ithronian knights name their code of conduct after an animal they have nothing to do with?
The answer, of course, is that Ithronian derives "Chivalry" not from the despised Guiadonese, language of a people who have famously contributed no culture that isn't found in the bottom of a wine barrel, but from the Axirian. Given the thuggish and unrefined nature of the average Axirian legionary, who would nonetheless claim to be "civil" (Axirian "civilus" - polite, gentlemanly, or for legionaries perhaps just "housetrained" is the right term) it's no wonder that the gallant knights of Ithron proclaimed themselves to be "civiler" compared to Axirians. This naturally gives us "civilerous" as the word to describe these gentlemen; and after a good few hundred years of wearing the edges of the word down we end up with the much more elegant "chivalrous", which rolls far more smoothly off the tongue.
Well, that all seems to fit rather neatly. QED.
