Am I correct in assuming (because I see no mention of this in the rulebook) that there is no benefit to a knight who attacks with a weapon OTHER than the lance on the charge?

IE, a knight draws his blade and charges at a mounted saxon who's armed with an axe. The knight fights at normal weapon skill and uses his own damage statistic and not his horse's.

That is how I read it, and have played for years

That is my understanding as well.

Couched lance = use horse's damage statistic
Thrust with a spear from horseback = use your own damage statistic

There is the +5 advantage to attack for higher ground written into the rules for mounted.

Historically knights did charge with swords (lances were lost on the first charge, either breaking off or pushing deep into the foe). Special swords swords called "long swords" (in contrast to the "short sword" worn at a knight's hip) were developed to do it with, but any sword in a pinch could be used to charge with, unfortunately one could only charge another mounted man-at-arms because the swords were not long enough to charge footmen). In any case, when a sword was used to charge with it 's pommel was tucked into the armpit like a lance. Sword charges were most effective against already fleeing foes (warrior knights were seldom men of courtly chivalry, whom treated fighting as a game). Both lances and swords used in charges were very subject to beats with shields or even swords. PS the long swords were worn carried on the saddle not the knight, somewhat like the rifles everyone has seen in westerns. Long swords were still being used by the hussars of the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth during their period of greatness.

Going strictly by physics, the lance damage should vary whether or not the target is
1) charging right back at you,
2) staying still, or
3) riding away from you.

I can see cases 1) and 2) being similar due to the limitations of the grip/saddle and the lance, i.e. there is an upper limit how much energy/momentum you can impart onto your opponent, and of course it is more playable like that. In case 3), I think we used a ruling that you'd use the Spear skill and your own damage statistic, the argument being that if the two horses are moving roughly at the same speed, there is precious little momentum to impart by couching the lance. YMMV.

Oh, we also allowed charging with a normal spear (just couch it: use the Lance skill and the horse's damage), but you wouldn't get the extra +5 vs. no-lances, since it wasn't long enough for that bonus.

Historically knights did charge with swords.
<Snip>
In any case, when a sword was used to charge with it 's pommel was tucked into the armpit like a lance.


Do you have primary source text describing this, or a manuscript illumination of it?

Thank you gents!

Historically knights did charge with swords.
<Snip>
In any case, when a sword was used to charge with it 's pommel was tucked into the armpit like a lance.


Do you have primary source text describing this, or a manuscript illumination of it?


Yes, and the technique was still in use after the middle ages. The first recorded instance of it was in de Joinville
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Joinville Link to translated text at bottom It's been over 12 years since I has read de Joinville, so I'm being vague. Ewart Oakeshott also covers the subject in his 'Archaeology of weapons' - again I'll have to be vague because it was about seven years ago that the Elves stole my copy (damn their black souls, they also ate my copy of 'Sword in Anglo-Saxon England - it took me ten years to find a copy - lets make that a damn those elves to hell eternal with their obnoxious cleanings ;)). I know where a manuscript illustration from the middle ages is, but it's posted on another forum and it would take me a long time to find it (I'll try to post it here on the weak end).

Glancing over the translated Jean de Joinville text:

Part II, Chapter XIV, p. 154:

"...And truly, so the King told me, Lord Geoffrey protected him from the Saracens just as a good servant protects his master's cup from flies; for whenever the Saracens tried to get near him, Lord Geoffrey would take his sword, which he had placed between himself and the saddle-bow, and put it under his arm, and turn round and make a dash at them, and drive them away from the King..."

That is the only mention I could find of this technique, all the other mentions of charging with a sword were the more familiar hacking with a sword -kind.

I have to admit that this technique sounds odd to me. You lose a lot of reach and accuracy/avenues of attack, and you'd have to hold the sword very awkwardly, too.

Nor does the quote actually mention him making any contact with the Saracens with his 'sword-charge'. One could just as easily claim, from that quote alone, that he simply transferred his sword to carry it under his arm, so that he wouldn't drop it. Of course, supporting evidence like tapestries and other accounts, would make a difference.

There is the +5 advantage to attack for higher ground written into the rules for mounted.Which due to the crit factor is usually better than just more damage for trained knights. Something which I think fits better into the saga.

Historically knights did charge with swords (lances were lost on the first charge, either breaking off or pushing deep into the foe). Agreed, although I'd add a caveat. In the plate + shield era a lot of hits bounced and let you use the lance in several attempts, although if you hit something soft it would be lost.

Special swords swords called "long swords" (in contrast to the "short sword" worn at a knight's hip) were developed to do it with, Disagreed. But I think it might be due to the ambiguity of the word "long sword" which differs over the eras.
Long sword usually refers to the Langes Schwert of Landsknechte fame and they were specifically designed for footmen.
On the Oakeshott classification which sword type are you talking about here?
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm
But almost none of those normally refered to as long swords were designed for couched charges, although that would be a side effect.
Instead, its the old story of forging tech, letting you move from cutting edges, to point edges. Countered by armor etc. Countered by longer and sharper weapons. Etc Etc.
Now this was already known in early roman eras and even earlier in south west asia. Like the cataphract development in Sarmatia.
Here is a nice tidbit of Sarmatian link to Arthur
http://www.naciente.com/essay114.htm
The old Parthians even had a longish sword with a sharper point to use in a cavalry charge, although stretched out from the hand, not couched.

but any sword in a pinch could be used to charge with, unfortunately one could only charge another mounted man-at-arms because the swords were not long enough to charge footmen).Agreed that you can charge with any sword. But the only versus mounted argument is flawed. One could even use Gladius or Seax length blades to fight footmen from horseback, charge them as well if you'd like. There are several mentions of this from antiquity onwards.
However what you might be refering to is if the footmen have weapons with a longish reach?

In any case, when a sword was used to charge with it 's pommel was tucked into the armpit like a lance.Nope. Most sword charges was done with the sword outstretched before you or swinging it. Using a sword in a couched charge would be the outlier exception, not some kind of common thing. The only time that would come into effect would be if you were looking for penetration over reach and accuracy, something you'd not ordinarily want.

Sword charges were most effective against already fleeing foes All weapons are. But this contradicts your under the armpit comment. If you are running down fleeing opponents then you wouldn't use the point at all since you risk losing your weapon and thus the pursuit, instead you'd use cutting motion. This is why we see the development of the cavalry sabre later on.

(warrior knights were seldom men of courtly chivalry, whom treated fighting as a game). Both lances and swords used in charges were very subject to beats with shields or even swords. Agreed.

PS the long swords were worn carried on the saddle not the knight, somewhat like the rifles everyone has seen in westerns. Almost any weapon was transfered from the person to the horse when mounted. Especially so with the advent of saddle and stirrups. This would be true even for viking sized swords. Its nothing which is special for long swords.
Looking at your westerns example, lots of "cowboys" transfered both their revolvers and their knifes to the horses saddle. Wearing them at the hip isn't as practical.

Long swords were still being used by the hussars of the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth during their period of greatness.Which long swords are you talking about here? If its the Koncerz of polish hussars then none of which you said above makes any sense in context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz
The Koncerz has nothing in common with the develpment of long swords. The Koncerz cannot be used under the armpit. The Koncerz is a stabbing, pointy weapon.
If its the Palazs then that would make even less sense.

Am I correct in assuming (because I see no mention of this in the rulebook) that there is no benefit to a knight who attacks with a weapon OTHER than the lance on the charge?

IE, a knight draws his blade and charges at a mounted saxon who's armed with an axe. The knight fights at normal weapon skill and uses his own damage statistic and not his horse's.


I haven't got my books to hand, but there is a rule somewhere that gives an extra D6 damage when using a sword in a charge. In some cases, this is better than horse damage.

and to return briefly to De Joinville, the slightly more reliable translation by M.R.B. Shaw, Penguin Classics, Pub 1963. renders this passage as,

"For every time the Saracens approached, he had taken his Spear, which he had placed between himself and his saddle-bow, and putting it to his shoulder had charged at them...."

If I recall correctly Fiore instructs to use the longsword couched under the arm, On Foot, in armoured combat.
But this is a foot combat technique, and for Later Plate armoured combat.
Talhoffer comes close, again on foot, in plate 43, but it is illustrating half-swording, not couching.

I haven't got my books to hand, but there is a rule somewhere that gives an extra D6 damage when using a sword in a charge. In some cases, this is better than horse damage.


Sorry for hopping back again, but can you perhaps narrow that “somewhere” down? I cannot remember having come across that rule in KAP5/5.1 (I just checked the combat and skill sections), nor in the GPC. (Back to you, De Joinville.)

Source: Ewart Oakeshott, The Archaeology of weapons, chapter seventeen.


During the latter part of the thirteenth century a type of blade whose chief purpose was to thrust had come into use. It was acutely pointed, and being made with a strong central rib and four-sided section (like the swords of the middle Bronze Age and the Roman cavalry swords of the type found in Nydam bog) was very stiff and rigid. Several swords of this kind exist which by their form could belong to the period, but unfortunately they could equally be of the period 1350-1400 (fig. 145). There is evidence enough that such swords were used in the thirteenth century; there are many in manuscript illustrations, ans one of our well-known English effigies shows one of them clearly. This is the figure of William Longespée....An episode related by the Sieur de Joinville which happened to him during the battle at Mansourah gives an instance of a sword whose function was to thrust. During the battle he got cut off from his companions in the street fighting; a Saracen charged at him with a lance from the side, and struck, “and hunched me over the neck of my horse, and held me, and held me so squeezed up that I could not draw my sword, which I had at my belt; so I contrived to draw the sword which was on my horse, and when he saw that I had my sword drawn he pulled away his lance and released me.” Then de Joinville turned his horse and rode against the Saracen, “using my sword in the manner of a lance” and killed him.

There are illustrations contemporary with the period when these memoirs were written (in 1309, in de Joinville's old age) showing knights knights charging with their swords held like lances, with the pommel tucked up against the shoulder.

I did say that I saw an illustration of it on another site. it looked like a photo of a tapestry with the knight in Milanese Gothic or Maximillian harness (I did not look at the armor carefully :-[)

Spoonist I'm wrong on the Polska Hussaria using it. Yes I was talking about the Husarska koncerz, which evolved from the medieval long sword, but was most likely used with extended arm. Ty for pointing that out.
In Middle English not German, the long sword was the sword I described. The" three points of arms" is from more than one Middle English source that I've read. Can't quote you a source as I don't remember where i read them. I had them recorded in my notes, but those darn cleaning elves through a few boxes of my notes away >:(

The extra 1d6 damage can be found in the Book of battles under Manoeuvres
"Charge"

Infantry vs.
Disordered
Horsemen: +1d6 bonus to
damage; +5/-5
modifier for
being mounted/
afoot

The extra 1d6 damage can be found in the Book of battles under Manoeuvres
"Charge"

Infantry vs.
Disordered
Horsemen: +1d6 bonus to
damage; +5/-5
modifier for
being mounted/
afoot


Yes its Book of Battle. In the section detailing the Melee round and 'When can I charge?"

"When using a weapon other than a lance during a charge, the knight gets a bonus of +1d6 damage."

Source: Ewart Oakeshott, The Archaeology of weapons, chapter seventeen.

During the latter part of the thirteenth century a type of blade whose chief purpose was to thrust had come into use. It was acutely pointed, and being made with a strong central rib and four-sided section (like the swords of the middle Bronze Age and the Roman cavalry swords of the type found in Nydam bog) was very stiff and rigid. Several swords of this kind exist which by their form could belong to the period, but unfortunately they could equally be of the period 1350-1400 (fig. 145). There is evidence enough that such swords were used in the thirteenth century; there are many in manuscript illustrations, ans one of our well-known English effigies shows one of them clearly. This is the figure of William Longespée....An episode related by the Sieur de Joinville which happened to him during the battle at Mansourah gives an instance of a sword whose function was to thrust. During the battle he got cut off from his companions in the street fighting; a Saracen charged at him with a lance from the side, and struck, “and hunched me over the neck of my horse, and held me, and held me so squeezed up that I could not draw my sword, which I had at my belt; so I contrived to draw the sword which was on my horse, and when he saw that I had my sword drawn he pulled away his lance and released me.” Then de Joinville turned his horse and rode against the Saracen, “using my sword in the manner of a lance” and killed him.What Oakeshott is explaining here is the development of the point with the better steel and forging techniques which I mentioned. He is not talking about what you claimed which was a long sword designed to be used in a couched horse charge, again that is the side effect.
Quoting myself:
"But almost none of those normally refered to as long swords were designed for couched charges, although that would be a side effect.
Instead, its the old story of forging tech, letting you move from cutting edges, to point edges. Countered by armor etc. Countered by longer and sharper weapons. Etc Etc.
Now this was already known in early roman eras and even earlier in south west asia. Like the cataphract development in Sarmatia."
"Nope. Most sword charges was done with the sword outstretched before you or swinging it. Using a sword in a couched charge would be the outlier exception, not some kind of common thing. The only time that would come into effect would be if you were looking for penetration over reach and accuracy, something you'd not ordinarily want."

There are illustrations contemporary with the period when these memoirs were written (in 1309, in de Joinville's old age) showing knights knights charging with their swords held like lances, with the pommel tucked up against the shoulder.
I did say that I saw an illustration of it on another site. it looked like a photo of a tapestry with the knight in Milanese Gothic or Maximillian harness (I did not look at the armor carefully :-[)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PXHZsmAyWCM/T28NquE28OI/AAAAAAAALOs/h_hnD6O8Hzk/s1600/milanese_gothic_armour_c1450.jpg
With those types of armour it makes sense both on foot and on horse.
But that is not the design nor the function of the sword, but rather that of the armour. Look at the image and you will see that the shoulders differ, they do that so you could place your weapon there for support & penetration. But that was for any weapon, it could even be such swords as the XVa type in the chart I linked to in the last post. Which is much shorter but with greater penetration potential. Sometimes you'd even use a kidney dagger placed in the shoulder support against more stationary opponents. (Think a wrestling type slam dunk kind of deal).
So not at all designed for a couched charge with the weapon under the armpit.

Spoonist I'm wrong on the Polska Hussaria using it. Yes I was talking about the Husarska koncerz, which evolved from the medieval long sword, but was most likely used with extended arm. Ty for pointing that out.
In Middle English not German, the long sword was the sword I described. No worries ;D but, again the Koncerz was not evolved from the medieval long sword of Middle England. It is derived from south western asian design, ie modern Turkey, Iran, Iraq etc. Note the difference between koncerz wegierski and koncerz turecki. Its only with the nationalisticly inclined ::) that they look west instead of east when interpreting archeological finds.

The" three points of arms" is from more than one Middle English source that I've read. This I must have missed completely. Three points of arms? I have only heard that in context with medals etc, please elaborate. Is it a reference to lance+sword+dagger?

Can't quote you a source as I don't remember where i read them. I had them recorded in my notes, but those darn cleaning elves through a few boxes of my notes away >:(Never trust the fairie folk, they move in strange ways for strange purposes.
:o

So not at all designed for a couched charge with the weapon under the armpit.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In that Milanese armor, the left should and elbow are greatly more or less replacing the shield. On the right side, you can see the furniture for a lance rest, and significantly less armor around the arm pit, so the armor was clearly designed for couching a lance under the arm.

The extra 1d6 damage can be found in the Book of battles under Manoeuvres
"Charge"

Infantry vs.
Disordered
Horsemen: +1d6 bonus to
damage; +5/-5
modifier for
being mounted/
afoot


Respectfully, Vasious, I don't think this is quite accurate. In reading page 39 of the Book of Battle II the liner notes (red text) list modifiers for a mounted lance charge, and then a separate list of modifiers for a charge with another weapon. The second instance only lists the typical +5/-5 modifier for mounted vs. foot

So not at all designed for a couched charge with the weapon under the armpit.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In that Milanese armor, the left should and elbow are greatly more or less replacing the shield. On the right side, you can see the furniture for a lance rest, and significantly less armor around the arm pit, so the armor was clearly designed for couching a lance under the arm.
Ah, you are right I wasn't clear there. Let me rephrase;
So the middle english long sword was not designed for a couched charge with the weapon under the armpit, that use is just a side effect of the guard and the quality of blade + point. Instead it is the design of the armour that drives this outlier use.

The extra 1d6 damage can be found in the Book of battles under Manoeuvres
"Charge"

Infantry vs.
Disordered
Horsemen: +1d6 bonus to
damage; +5/-5
modifier for
being mounted/
afoot


Respectfully, Vasious, I don't think this is quite accurate. In reading page 39 of the Book of Battle II the liner notes (red text) list modifiers for a mounted lance charge, and then a separate list of modifiers for a charge with another weapon. The second instance only lists the typical +5/-5 modifier for mounted vs. foot


Oh I was only referencing where someone asked they had seen a +1d6 damage from non lance charges.

In the case I was quoting if was Footmen charging disorganised horsemen - the footmen get the extra +1d6 damage but still have the +5/-5 of Mounted vs non mounted. Atleast that is my reading of it.
So to the question of is there any benefit to charging without a lance - Yes for you Footmen in battle charging other footmen or disorganised horsemen.
As to on horse there seems to be no benefit. Page 22 Has the summary of this "Review of the Charge"

Quote from: Snaggle
There are illustrations contemporary with the period when these memoirs were written (in 1309, in de Joinville's old age) showing knights knights charging with their swords held like lances, with the pommel tucked up against the shoulder.
I did say that I saw an illustration of it on another site. it looked like a photo of a tapestry with the knight in Milanese Gothic or Maximillian harness (I did not look at the armor carefully )



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PXHZsmAyWCM/T28NquE28OI/AAAAAAAALOs/h_hnD6O8Hzk/s1600/milanese_gothic_armour_c1450.jpg
With those types of armour it makes sense both on foot and on horse.
But that is not the design nor the function of the sword, but rather that of the armour. Look at the image and you will see that the shoulders differ, they do that so you could place your weapon there for support & penetration. But that was for any weapon, it could even be such swords as the XVa type in the chart I linked to in the last post. Which is much shorter but with greater penetration potential. Sometimes you'd even use a kidney dagger placed in the shoulder support against more stationary opponents. (Think a wrestling type slam dunk kind of deal).
So not at all designed for a couched charge with the weapon under the armpit.

I give you a quote from Oakeshott showing an accurate claim that these swords came into existence during the late 13th century and were in use during the 14th century. You then link to a photo of Gothic harness with a barbute (the helmet type for lurkers). A poor argument, as Gothic armor was invented circa 1430 in Milan and did not become commonplace in England until c. 1450 And bring up Oateshott's type XVa link to non-commerical classification system http://www.oakeshott.org/Typo.html. I think you're confusing type XVa with type XV, which appeared during the reign of King Henry V late in the hundred years war. The long sword or sword carried on the saddle, fits into more than one of Oakeshott's types, for the lurkers it was the diamond [cross] section sword that Oakeshott described in my quote, but also blades of hexagonal and even octagonal section that had no edges and were designed only to foin (thrust) with.

The long swords came into existence about the same time the swords of war did and represented a counter to these much longer and purely smithing (cutting) swords, rather than an adjustment to plate armor (which did not exist). There was no improvement in steel or forging techniques. A new design does not imply a new technique. The long swords were designed to be charged with like a lance, as I've demonstrated against your claim that swords were always used with out stretched arms during charges. I did not make the claim that was the only thing they were used for. The only "plate armour" they were used against when they came into existence was the pot helm, which was of composite construction (making it inferior to true plate). Yes, shorting does make both swords and lances more accurate and better able to go through armor.

Quote from: Snaggle
Spoonist I'm wrong on the Polska Hussaria using it. Yes I was talking about the Husarska koncerz, which evolved from the medieval long sword, but was most likely used with extended arm. Ty for pointing that out.
In Middle English not German, the long sword was the sword I described.



No worries but, again the Koncerz was not evolved from the medieval long sword of Middle England. It is derived from south western asian design, ie modern Turkey, Iran, Iraq etc. Note the difference between koncerz wegierski and koncerz turecki. Its only with the nationalisticly inclined that they look west instead of east when interpreting archeological finds.

What the koncerz was evolved from is a type question we've been specifically asked to avoid at this forum, so I'm not replying to you. We're suppose to be limited to England in the Middle ages. Hoptology ( a term invented by Richard Burton for the study of arms and armor) first came into existence in England during the 19th century and England has remained the premier center of hoptology even today. Hoptology, like any other discipline has factions. The Victorians tended to invent terms with no historical basis and confusing both the public and other hoptologists, there was a major reaction to them of which Oakeshott was apart of that wanted to apply to the items the real names they were called by when they were in use - thus allowing one to read and understand primary sources. Against the "true name hoptologists" there was also a neo-Victorian faction, which like the Victorians likes to form fictional names and lump the relics into Pan-european or even pan- global baskets rather than calling them what they were called by their users and the area they were used in. Unfortunately you're a Neo-victorian and I'm a true namer. Lol, you even use the Victorians name up name "kidney dagger" for a "bullock knife", made up because they were so prudish and shocked by the term "bullock", to each his own (AKA your Glorantha may vary ;)).

The extra 1d6 damage can be found in the Book of battles under Manoeuvres
"Charge"

This has been corrected in the new edition, which states
(emphasis mine)

Review of the Charge
Horsemen armed with a lance get a +5 to
Lance skill when charging. If the lance charge
is successful, use the horse’s Damage.
Knights with other melee weapons can participate
in the charge, and they do get the
Charge bonus to their weapon skill (granted
by the hurtling ton of horse and man), but
do not use their horse’s Damage, or benefit
from the other advantages of the lance.
Charge does not grant a bonus to the rider’s
Damage.
If Defenders bear great spears, halberds
or similarly long-reaching weapon the
Charge Bonus still applies, and so does the
normal combat bonus of +5 for mounted
versus foot troops. However, the spearmen
do not suffer the normal -5 disadvantage of
foot versus mounted.
See King Arthur Pendragon 5.1, p. 120-121
for more.