Stone/Bronze Age help

[bigdamnhero]

So I let myself get talked into writing & running a fantasy game at an upcoming convention. The campaign is set right on the cusp of the Bronze Age; that is, advanced societies have bronze, less advanced still have stone tools. Some magic, but pretty low-level. I've got some general ideas, but I'm having trouble fleshing things out. Partly because I haven't run fantasy in a long time; partly because I'm exhausted from other life events; but also partly because I've never done stone/bronze age fantasy. I know I'm on my own with the first two, but thought I'd see if you all could help me with the last one.

Has anyone here run/played in anything along these lines, and have anything you'd like to pass on? I'm less interested in stats and weapons and so forth, as this is for a d20 campaign. (And don't even get me started on how much I hate writing d20 stuff! :mad: ) I'm just looking for general ideas & advice to help me get my head in the right place.

Thanks in advance!

[McCoy]

Ever play Civilization?

Agriculture will be very important. Both your bronze and stone age peoples will have pottery. Advances in one area do not necessarly mean advancement in all areas. Would be intereting if the stone agers had domesticated horses, and the bronze agers hadn't.

[Lemurion]

I've got a book reference that might be helpful: Stonehenge: where Atlantis Died. Harry Harrison was one of the authors and it's a good novel for covering the interaction between the two levels of culture.

One thing to consider is that a character in full bronze panoply is effectively invulnerable to stone weapons.

[War Cry]

Ancient Greece is the first thing to spring into my mind when thinking broze age.

Agriculture is important, with herd animals and trading supplementing this.
Permanent structures amd settlements are now established - ie, city states and buildings of stone and timber. Governments are more oragnized, either along the lines of a monarchy, aristocracy, or other forms higher than "this is our chief, Bob, he knows how to follow the buffalo."

Bronze being the most advanced form of metal, it will have a significant impact on weapons, armor, and war in general. The largest blades are likely short swords and axes with heads about 3-6 inches across. Anything larger has a nasty tendency to bend or break. Helmets and breastplates of bronze will most likely be the toughest armor out there. Most will wear just leather, if any. The vast majority of fighting men will rely on a shield to keep them from harm. (There was a form of full plate armor, called "Dendra Panopoly", but it was so heavy and cumbersome that for the most part, it wasn't practical on the battlefield)

A lot of the broze age cultures relied on slavery to help and boost the economy. IIRC, it was estimated that about half of the ancient Greek population was composed of slaves. Corinth was the first city to mint coins, and they actually had banks and moneychangers.

The family unit in both the stone and broze age was very important. The head of the family made all of the important decisions - who married who, who did what, so on and so forth.

Of course, I'm basing all this on ancient Greece, and I'm sure other cultures have more to offer.

ICE produced a book "Mythic Greece", and it has a lot of useful info that may help you out - if you can find it.

[austenandrews]

Remember too that far-reaching commerce was not unknown. Just because a culture can't make bronze weapons doesn't mean it doesn't have access to bronze weapons.

[Kristopher]

Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but it's better than nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnelbeaker_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization

Each of those will have links, and those articles will have links, and...

[Lemurion]

Remember too that far-reaching commerce was not unknown. Just because a culture can't make bronze weapons doesn't mean it doesn't have access to bronze weapons.

That was one of the things in that novel I mentioned, it was about a resource war between Mediterranean states fought in what is now England. During our own bronze age, Mediterranean cultures had access to resources such as as British tin and Danish amber.

[Lemurion]

Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but it's better than nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnelbeaker_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization

Each of those will have links, and those articles will have links, and...

The thing is, as far as gaming settings go, the inaccuracy of wikipedia is irrelevant. It's a host of information that is generally close enough to correct that you can file the edges off it and use it in a fantasy setting with no trouble at all.

Grab each one of the cultures in those links, make up some names and bingo! you've got a culture for a game. No fuss, no muss.

[assault]

One thing to consider is that a character in full bronze panoply is effectively invulnerable to stone weapons.

Tell it to Goliath. ;)

In fact, this statement is not true at all. A club is a club. A sling stone is a sling stone. You wouldn't want to get in the way of either of them, even if you were wearing steel armour.

The main advantage of the Bronze users would be that the Stone users would probably have little armour of their own - but that doesn't rule out them having effective shields, and non-metallic armour.

As usual, of course, the side with the most troops would tend to win...

[Kortay Mirlor]

A bronze weapon is just about a shaped club after about the seventh or eighth *smack*. Bronze armor is heavy, hot, and expensive; elite troops get breastplate and greaves and that's all.

Stones are cheap, plentiful, and (some kinds) can be made sharp as hell.

Fact is, the fighters are about equally well equipped. Bronze age empires won out by being higher population, because bronze followed agriculture. Also, farmers are used to doing things on schedule, by "the book" and this was reinforced by imperial "bosses". So the bronze-using troops were better organized and better led. That, and that only, is why the Bronze Age empires beat the stuffing out of the Stone Agers.

[austenandrews]

Come on, now. They had them beat in style nine ways to Sunday.

[Kristopher]

Is bronze really that soft?

[assault]

Come on, now. They had them beat in style nine ways to Sunday.

Tell it to the Aztecs.

OK, the Aztecs had a bit of bronze, but they mostly used stone... You certainly can't knock their dress sense, though.

Incidentally, agriculture and organised states were actually late stone age developments. So even here there isn't necessarily a massive discrepancy between the two.

Of course, "Bronze Age" covers a whole bunch of different societies, and thousands of years, in its own right. There was a wide difference between, say, Old Kingdom Egyptians, Mycenaean Greeks and northern European pre-Celtic fleabags, for example. Of these the Egyptians probably had the most organised state(s), but were by far the earliest.

[gojira]

Is bronze really that soft?

I don't think so, at least not properly made bronze. Don't forget that bronze was used on naval ships as cannon well into the.. well, at least the 19th century, if not even later. If cannon fire didn't deform it, I can see how a human arm could.

[Old Man]

I don't think it's soft so much as that it doesn't hold an edge worth a damn. That, and it's heavy.

[Cosmosemeritus]

Wow, that's a nifty campaign idea.

Some ideas that come to mind:
Village/river-dwelling people depend on agriculture. Many worshipped feminine fertility goddesses and some may have even been matriarchal societies.
Wandering peoples depend on herding. Many worshipped masculine gods that symbolized (or were symolized by) the male herd leaders of the animals they depended upon.
Neolithic herdspeople often invaded the sedentary agrarians, and within a few generations the new composite city-people would worship a divine couple, the bull-headed patriarch and his agrarian wife, or counter-point the river-wreathed queen goddess and her antlered protector-god.
The religions were shaped by their history and visa versa. Perhaps a society's smith-god was a century earlier the fire god of a wandering tribe who conquered a lowland village tribe after bronze (or even just copper) was introduced into their culture.

Something else to keep in mind. Concerning technology, copper was used before bronze and so copper impliments should probably play a role. Bronze may have even been discovered when tin bearing ore was accidently mixed into a mass being smelted for copper production. Also smelting such materials doesn't require much; a hot campfire can smelt copper from some ores. So metal use isn't necessarily restricted to the city-dwellers.


Total tangent:
Depending on the time period, bronze cannons were more predominant, both on ship and on land, than iron cannon because bronze could be cast. Iron casting techniques were generally crude, and with the exception of some iron cast guns made during the reign of Henry the VIII of England, iron cast guns didn't become common until the mid-nineteenth century.

On the comparison of metals:
Bronze has a tensile strength of 25-44 KPSI and a Brinell Hardness of 60-110 depending on the alloy and temper. Cast Iron has a tensile strength of 25-60 KPSI and a Brinell Hardness of ~150-300 varying for the same reasons. These numbers come from the American Society of Testing Materials.

Edit: (saw Old Man's post right after I posted.)

I don't think it's soft so much as that it doesn't hold an edge worth a damn. That, and it's heavy.
Precisely. The large difference in hardness means that iron will hold an edge much better than bronze, but the relatively small difference in tensile strength means that iron is only a little better at withstanding the pressures generated in a cannon. Bronze is also a little heavier, with a density of about 8.7-8.9 g/cc, vs. cast iron with a density of 6.8-7.8 g/cc.

[bigdamnhero]

Thanks everyone for the ideas! To give a little more background, this is a collaborative game world run at subsequent local cons, where the actions of the players directly shape the way the world develops. Tech progression hasn't exactly been linear, but most aspects of society are more stone than bronze age. Only a few races have even started building cities yet, agriculture is still somewhat experimental, and the concept of writing is only now becoming widespread. The secret of Bronze was sorta handed down as a gift from the gods (it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea) just a few generations ago, so bronze is still rather rare and expensive.

Anyone planning on attending Tacticon 2006 may want to skip the rest:
The basic plot so far centers on two neighboring races, who have traditionally been allies. But as their numbers have increased, they have increasingly come into conflict over resources. Many people on both sides have begun to feel the forest just isn't big enough for the both of them. Representatives from both races (the PCs) are meeting together to attempt to resolve the dispute. Meanwhile, another race that lives nearby has been whispering in ears on both sides and fanning the flames, hoping to start a war between the two that will leave both races weak and easier to push around. As the PCs talk, they will hopefully figure out that the third race is using them as pawns. Of course if that happens, the third race will try to kill off the PCs, knowing that each side would blame the other for the deaths.


Fact is, the fighters are about equally well equipped. Bronze age empires won out by being higher population, because bronze followed agriculture. Also, farmers are used to doing things on schedule, by "the book" and this was reinforced by imperial "bosses". So the bronze-using troops were better organized and better led. That, and that only, is why the Bronze Age empires beat the stuffing out of the Stone Agers.
I agree that the reasons Bronze Age societies won had more to do with other advances besides metalurgy. But I think you undersell the advantages of bronze. Bronze may not hold an edge very well, but I don't expect a stone knife would survive even one blow against a bronze shield or armour without shattering. After all, if bronze was no more effective than stone, why didn't all those bronze age socieites just equip their troops with stone weapons at 1/10th the cost of bronze?

[assault]

Only a few races have even started building cities yet, agriculture is still somewhat experimental,

Historically, agriculture preceeded cities by thousands of years.


Bronze may not hold an edge very well, but I don't expect a stone knife would survive even one blow against a bronze shield or armour without shattering. After all, if bronze was no more effective than stone, why didn't all those bronze age socieites just equip their troops with stone weapons at 1/10th the cost of bronze?

"Bronze" shields rarely had more than a thin layer of bronze. It was simply too heavy.

Stone knives aren't primary fighting weapons. Think clubs, spears, bows and slings. Bronze armour would obviously be useful against the last three of those, but not necessarily all that much compared to non-metal forms of armour.

As usual, bigger armies would tend to beat smaller ones.

As for why should a society prefer to use bronze rather than stone: they didn't. The transition tended to be gradual, and often through an intermediate "Copper Age". To put it simply, the differences were marginal, and only built up over time. When Bronze Age and Stone Age societies met, the former were usually the more highly organised societies, and would tend to win out. Then again, it's quite likely that "Stone Age barbarians" beat up various Copper and Bronze age societies on occasions.

I would suggest studying Pre-Dynastic and early Old Kingdom Egypt, and their neighbouring societies in order to get a feel for the interaction of these factors. While you are at it, do the same for the Sumerians and their neighbours. Advanced students could consider the Indus Valley, China, and so on...

You might want to consider economics as a military factor, too, rather than immediate battlefield utility. Add in levels of social organisation: how big is the community you are drawing your army from?, and so on, and you get a view of technological change that is sadly less heroic, but actually more realistic than a simplistic "Bronze weapons are better than Stone weapons" picture.

Incidentally: the (Stone Age) Australian Aborigines were able to succesfully contain the European invaders of their country for several decades. Apparently, flintlock muskets aren't superior to fire-hardened spears as a weapon for fighting in the bush. Eventually, they were defeated by disease, not by military action.

[Markdoc]

"Bronze" shields rarely had more than a thin layer of bronze. It was simply too heavy.

Actually, that's not the case. Even the bronze skin of a hoplon is amazingly heavy and we have shields (admittedly, not as large) in the national museum here which are solid bronze. I have seen the actual items up clse and hefted exact reproductions. They are astoundingly heavy, but apparently used in battle. A heavy club would still work but any stone-tipped missile weapon would be totaly useless against them - and against the hoplon, even bronze-tipped arrows were not very effective, as witness the many accounts of missile troops being run down by hoplites or being unable to shift them.


I would suggest studying Pre-Dynastic and early Old Kingdom Egypt, and their neighbouring societies in order to get a feel for the interaction of these factors. While you are at it, do the same for the Sumerians and their neighbours. Advanced students could consider the Indus Valley, China, and so on...

I would agree with your general assessment that economic aspects of culture are as important/more important than weapon-making technology. But in an early era where armies were often relatively small, it can still be important: the Hallstadt culture and (in particular) the La Tene culture show how a relatively small group armed with improved military technology, apparently came to dominate existing cultures, who were, if we read the remains correctly, more numerous.


Incidentally: the (Stone Age) Australian Aborigines were able to succesfully contain the European invaders of their country for several decades. Apparently, flintlock muskets aren't superior to fire-hardened spears as a weapon for fighting in the bush. Eventually, they were defeated by disease, not by military action.

This, I think is wrong. I can't think of a single instance where Australian aboriginals were able to successfuly repel (or even significantly delay) European incursions (still less for decades) - indeed, there are reports of settlers hunting them with dogs for sport and for "pest eradication" as though they were foxes.

The Tasmanian aborigines did organise resistance against the encroaching settlers from 1826-31 (the only instance I am aware of). It only hastened their destruction. Henry Melville reported, “This murderous warfare, in the course of a few years destroyed thousands of aborigines, whilst only a few score of the European population were sacrificed” - there are numerous eyewitness accounts a one or two settlers armed with forearms killing literally dozens of Tasmanians. The estimated 4-5000 Tasmanians were - quite literally - exterminated in the course of about a decade. Disease finished them off, but it was warfare (or more accurately, massacre) that drove them to the brink.

This is not say that it *couldn't* have happened, under some circumstances. I'm just saying that it didn't happen - in this case the settlers not only had superior weapons but also resources, numbers and leadership, so the outcome was preordained.

cheers, Mark

[assault]

This, I think is wrong. I can't think of a single instance where Australian aboriginals were able to successfuly repel (or even significantly delay) European incursions (still less for decades) - indeed, there are reports of settlers hunting them with dogs for sport and for "pest eradication" as though they were foxes.

OK, this is a long story...

Try: http://www.dreamtime.net.au/indigenous/timeline2.cfm for some details.

The whole history is a lot more complex, and, of course, is contested. There are whole schools of history dedicated to the notion that Aboriginal resistance essentially didn't happen at all.

The "official" version of why the earliest colonialists took so long to cross the Blue Mountains and move beyond what is more or less now Sydney has to do with geographic impediments. Aboriginal resistance wasn't, apparently, a factor.

Tell it to Pemulwuy.

PS: Another interesting story. In 1945, the population of the Japanese occupied sections of Bougainville rebelled. While they had managed to steal a certain number of Japanese rifles, and had been provided with more by the Australians, a lot of their fighters were using bows and other traditional weapons, plus the occasional steel axe or machete. The Japanese sent out punitive expeditions. They didn't come back...

Apparently, marching along tracks through mountainous jungles and swamps tends to leave you vulnerable to people who know the area...

[Lemurion]

I know it's been a while since I posted it, but I am going to stand with my original statement about bronze age vs. stone age warriors, with two clarifications.

The first is that I was considering hand to hand combat, and the second that full bronze panoply means (in case anyone doesn't know) the full armor of the Greek Hoplite.

Just consider Thermopylae; and then realize most of the stone age troops would be even less well equipped than the Persians.

[Old Man]

Actually, that's not the case. Even the bronze skin of a hoplon is amazingly heavy and we have shields (admittedly, not as large) in the national museum here which are solid bronze. I have seen the actual items up clse and hefted exact reproductions. They are astoundingly heavy, but apparently used in battle. A heavy club would still work but any stone-tipped missile weapon would be totaly useless against them - and against the hoplon, even bronze-tipped arrows were not very effective, as witness the many accounts of missile troops being run down by hoplites or being unable to shift them.


Does that kind of [neato] information translate well into d20?

[Dale A. Ward]

Actually, that's not the case. Even the bronze skin of a hoplon is amazingly heavy and we have shields (admittedly, not as large) in the national museum here which are solid bronze. I have seen the actual items up clse and hefted exact reproductions. They are astoundingly heavy, but apparently used in battle. A heavy club would still work but any stone-tipped missile weapon would be totaly useless against them - and against the hoplon, even bronze-tipped arrows were not very effective, as witness the many accounts of missile troops being run down by hoplites or being unable to shift them.
You have to remember the cultural differences between the Ancient Greeks and Modern Man. The majority of the Ancient Greeks hefted that heavy shield on a daily basis...

whereas, for most of us modern folk, the heaviest thing we lift regularly is our chubby butts out of the easy chair.

:p

[Old Man]

I beg to differ. It's an office chair.

[McCoy]

I don't think so, at least not properly made bronze. Don't forget that bronze was used on naval ships as cannon well into the.. well, at least the 19th century, if not even later. If cannon fire didn't deform it, I can see how a human arm could.
Bronze? Or Brass?

[Bismark]

Stone Age peoples may well have access to advanced leatherworking technology - which can lead to amazingly resilient shields, for instance [an example being the lamt shields of the African Tibesti Mountain tribespeople, where the leather is hardened by being soaked in milk for long periods]. Also, not all stone is created equal - the Aztecs and most of their neighbours had access to obsidian (which holds an amazingly sharp edge) -the Purempecha (aka Tarascans] who lived to the north-west may not have had such easy access, and edged their maquahuitls with copper.

Also, sheet bronze body armour is not terribly efficient (it tends to be rather thin and flimsy, to keep the weight under control) - bronze scale/lamellar armour is better at stopping piercing attacks such as thrown javelins, for instance. It makes much better helmet material as the metal can be made thicker without weight being too much of a problem.

Some 'bronze' is not exactly what we would call 'bronze' - some Qin [aka Ch'in] Chinese bronze was alloyed with chromium and apparently held a very sharp edge, whereas later, Roman bronze was metallurgically more like brass.

As mentioned in earlier posts, terrain can really help - note that aboriginal tribespeople mainly equipped with nothing better than blowguns [apart from a few modern weapons - allegedly - supplied from Australia via Papua] are still giving the Indonesians trouble in that province which is the western half of the same island as Papua New Guinea.

[Old Man]

Bronze? Or Brass?

Bronze. I think brass would be much too expensive.

[LordGhee]

the Apache had a leather Armour that was multiples layer glued together with sand in the glue. It was a hard leather and recreations could not be pierced by stone tipped arrows. Once they met gun armed folks the leather stop being used. Only about five sites have had pieces, and it is a signature item for early apaches. Can you see it Aztecs in the north wilderness hear of a tribe of giants that cannot be cut.

Lord Ghee.

[Markdoc]

The "official" version of why the earliest colonialists took so long to cross the Blue Mountains and move beyond what is more or less now Sydney has to do with geographic impediments. Aboriginal resistance wasn't, apparently, a factor.

Tell it to Pemulwuy.

Heh - I wasn't saying there *wasn't* resistance - we know there was (although historians quibble over how much, where, how long, etc)

I cited the Tasmanian war because it was the largest (and as far as I know, only organised) resistance, amounting to a full-fledged guerilla war. Trouble is, sharpened wood and stones versus firearms ended in a rapid, decisive and absolute victory for the gun-owners, with the few surviving aborigines carted off to die on Flinders Island. Contrast that to events over the ditch, where the Maori were able to battle the British to a truce - because they *also* had guns. They still lost the war, but they were able to salvage something out of it. So it was the idea that the aborigines were able to hold the settlers off (even for a little while) that I was objecting to, not the idea that they tried.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

You have to remember the cultural differences between the Ancient Greeks and Modern Man. The majority of the Ancient Greeks hefted that heavy shield on a daily basis...

Yeah, I figured: muscular little bastiches, the lot of them. That's kind of the point really - saying "it was too heavy" doesn't really figure. The shields (and armour) were astoundingly heavy - but they used them anyway.

As an aside, what most people haven't figured out is that most real-life bronze armour is not significantly less protective than iron. You'd have to be Hercules to drive a blade through a typical hoplite's cuirass. The real point is to get that level of protection, the armour had to be thick (and it was - just look at the suckers) which means it was as heavy as all hell. With iron you could get the same level of protection, or even slightly more, for a great deal less weight. Same with steel - as the quality got better, the armour got *thinner*.

If maxing protection out was the point, you wouldn't have seen that (and in jousting armour where maxing protection out was the point, you *didn't* see that). They already had PGP - what they were trying to do as metallurgy was improved was make it more user-friendly.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

On the topic, here's a nice pic of a reconstruction of the Dendra panopoly, which is as accurate as possible: it apparently weighs 55 pounds.http://www.larp.com/hoplite/Walpole.jpg or about the same weight as a 15th century suit of full plate (like this puppy)http://www.wassonartistry.com/images/armor/late15thcent/IMG_0192.JPG

No question about who'd win a fight....

cheers, Mark

[Vestnik]

I would suggest studying Pre-Dynastic and early Old Kingdom Egypt, and their neighbouring societies in order to get a feel for the interaction of these factors. While you are at it, do the same for the Sumerians and their neighbours. Advanced students could consider the Indus Valley, China, and so on...

Didn't the Egyptians get their ass-whupping ability from the invention of the chariot?

[LordGhee]

getting an Egypt timeline toghter will post early fri morn

Lord Ghee

off to work

[assault]

Didn't the Egyptians get their ass-whupping ability from the invention of the chariot?

They didn't adopt the Chariot until the start of the New Kingdom. Before that they relied on massed infantry (which they kept on using even when they had chariots, of course).

Basically, they used organisation, discipline and numbers against poorly organised tribal levies.

[assault]

The first is that I was considering hand to hand combat, and the second that full bronze panoply means (in case anyone doesn't know) the full armor of the Greek Hoplite.

Just consider Thermopylae; and then realize most of the stone age troops would be even less well equipped than the Persians.

Limiting the question to hand to hand combat certainly makes a difference!

For example, the correct response to your Thermopylae example would be to cite one of the numerous cases where hoplites were defeated by light troops - but obviously the latter didn't do it by closing with the hoplites!

Staying away from the armoured Bronze Age guys and shooting/throwing things at them until they fall over would be a more viable option for the Stone Agers. Of course the answer to that in turn is for the Bronze Agers to field bowmen, chariots and/or cavalry. So the Stone Agers try to stick to fighting in hills and forests, forcing the Bronze Agers to develop tactics to deal with that and, and, and...

After a while the Stone Agers will catch up with the Bronze Agers technologically anyway.

[Old Man]

Yeah, I figured: muscular little bastiches, the lot of them. That's kind of the point really - saying "it was too heavy" doesn't really figure. The shields (and armour) were astoundingly heavy - but they used them anyway.

It occurs to me that if you are using tight formation tactics, you can get away with much heavier armor since your movement will be limited anyway. Instead of having to swing that heavy shield around to block incoming strikes, you could more or less just hold it in front of you and attack over it.

Only thing is, that doesn't fit with what evidence I've seen for ancient Greek weapon-and-shield technique. It really seems to have been a lot more dynamic.

[Markdoc]

It occurs to me that if you are using tight formation tactics, you can get away with much heavier armor since your movement will be limited anyway. Instead of having to swing that heavy shield around to block incoming strikes, you could more or less just hold it in front of you and attack over it.

Only thing is, that doesn't fit with what evidence I've seen for ancient Greek weapon-and-shield technique. It really seems to have been a lot more dynamic.

Well, initially it was dynamic - but then, the armour got heavier over time and the fighting became more "massed ranks". But that still meant plenty of activity - at Platea the hoplites did a half mile charge in full gear at the run and still had energy to fight at the end.

Up north here we have equally heavy, impractical looking shields and as far as we can tell, they never advanced much past the "run at each other in huge masses" style of fighting, so that would also require plenty of wild swinging.

In both cases, I go for the "muscly little bastiches" option myself.

cheers, Mark

[LordGhee]

Warfare in Egypt.
500,000 years ago og discovered stick stick.
100,000 years ago son of og discovered stone on stick stick better.
20,000 years ago bow discovered used for hunting and war.
12,000 years ago shield used to fend of sticking sticks.

3,500 years hunters use simple bow and long spears. The hand weapons are maces.
3100 the Scrpoion King mace head shows the king with a mace. Anther tablet shows the king with mace and a long club (looks like a base ball bat).
3000 BCE- On the Namur palette shows Pharaoh Namur with a mace striking his enemies prostrate before him. The amazing thing is that shown is pharaoh’s sandal carrier which pharaoh is not using for they are only for holy places.

Warfare in pre-Dynastic Egypt seem to be of long range spear throwing until one side fled and where following up and bashed on the head with a mace. The warriors are all pictured using the same type of weapons and since the Scorpion King liked kilts then we all wear kilts. Thereby setting a fashion trend for 2000 years. The Egyptians being a conservative people that if it worked why fix it, in any way, no we do not do that (as in anything new).

(note a Doctor stated the easiest way to kill some one is to bash their head.)

The mace was used for a thousand years as the man side arm, and still had such an impact of power that it is used still a symbol of authority.

Then around 2,700 BCE some Joe got a clue and put a leather helmet on his head. I personally think that this helmet was a big basket covered in leather, which on the paintings gave the warrior a bushy look.

This stopped the fun, no more bashing until.

About 2500BCE the army imported the long handled epsilon (used first in Mesopotamia 3000 BCE ) ax and the warriors started to carry a large rectangle shield. Better to cleave the helmeted head and block those pesky spears. No armour up to this point other than helmets.

This is a time of civil war that leads to the middle kingdom period.

About 2200 the Pharaohs notice that they have neighbors. One set is a number of cities of southern Palestine invalidated by the people of the bow. (of Esau fame.) After burning one of two cities that in order to get real busy with looting and slave taking, they realize that they would have to adopt the bow in order to counter it. So equipped they raid and raid for over 200 years and depopulate the area.
The Palestinian are armed with bows, the sickle sword, which the Egyptians did notice and the short spear and duckbill ax, which they did not notice.
Pharaoh likes the sickle sword so much he is pictured carrying it in battle, as are the officers. A weapon of nobility. The word smiting is taken from the bible from the Egyptian into Hebrew the word meaning to strike with the sickle sword. Such was it impact in battle that we still have it’s impact.

Warfare is still Pharaoh says ”get some men together and get loot ect”
So it is the ending of the middle Kingdom period in Egypt about 2000 BCE.

More in a few days (here come the Hyskos).

Lord ghee.

[Vondy]

Bronze. I think brass would be much too expensive.

According to my copy of A Sea of Words, brass was used for some canons during the Napoleanic Wars, though iron was by far more common. It was, however, a common material for long 9-pound "chase guns" in the Royal Navy at that time, and for some cannonades.

[LordGhee]

Iron was cheaper but heavier, it was used for fortress guns and most naval guns.

Lord Ghee

[Kristopher]

Iron was cheaper but heavier, it was used for fortress guns and most naval guns.

Lord Ghee

Someone upthread said that iron was lighter for the same strength.

[assault]

Warfare in Egypt.

A little simplistic, but the account holds up better than I initially suspected it would.


3100 the Scrpoion King mace head shows the king with a mace.

Yes, that's that "Scorpion King". I'd never paid any attention to him before, and therefore didn't associate him with the bad movie character until I started rereading about all this stuff yesterday.


The Egyptians being a conservative people that if it worked why fix it, in any way, no we do not do that (as in anything new).

The Egyptians also invented pretty much everything that could be called "civilisation". The Third and Fourth Dynasty periods, in particular, saw massive and rapid development of all kinds of stuff. Most obviously, of course, Pyramids!

A lot of their "conservatism" seems to be related to later periods of stagnation, and was, in any case, no greater than that exhibited by most other peoples.


About 2200 the Pharaohs notice that they have neighbors. One set is a number of cities of southern Palestine invalidated by the people of the bow. (of Esau fame.) After burning one of two cities that in order to get real busy with looting and slave taking, they realize that they would have to adopt the bow in order to counter it.

While this period does seem to feature the first recorded large scale military expeditions, there are pictures of bowmen in battle-reliefs on buildings associated with the Pyramids, that is, Fourth Dynasty.

The bow was very early.

Most of Egypt's earlier external conflicts would have been with Nubians in the South, Libyans in the West, and probably the odd Bedouin group in the East. Plus, of course, internal conflicts.

Few of these groups would have much metal, if any.

[LordGhee]

From Napoleon's Campainns in Miniature by Bruce Quarrie

Iron 12 lbr : weight 34 cwt - cost 25 pounds sterling
Bronze 12lbr : wieght 9cwt - cost 67 pounds sterling

this data taken form British period sources.

now the author at times will not understand that a garrison 12 lber is longer than a field gun ect so his data need to be look at.
Danerous Dan is a metalurgist and I will ask him the science of it.

Note during the siege of rhodes in 300BCE a general show up with an Iron brestplate. The other general and leader marvel at it's weight and the fact that no ballista could penatrate it.

Lord Ghee

Lord Ghee.

[LordGhee]

it been a couple of years since I did my reseach. the Eygptian for 2000 years (4000 to 2000) where very kind and seamed to keep thier figthing among themselves.

arrow point seam to be stone untill next article.

spear points are made of copper early 3000BCE,

dagger show up in reliefs but not in any great way

the best example of how middle kingdom probaly fought is the first battle in shaka zulu. warriors with long spears shields and maces.

infact Shaka reinvented the revolution in fighting that is going to take place in the next article.

Lord ghee

[assault]

the best example of how middle kingdom probaly fought is the first battle in shaka zulu. warriors with long spears shields and maces.

Yes, that's a good analogy.

Just add a whole bunch of bows to the picture.

[Kristopher]

The Egyptians also invented pretty much everything that could be called "civilisation".

On the other hand, so did the Sumerians and the Indus River Valley people.

[assault]

On the other hand, so did the Sumerians and the Indus River Valley people.

And the Chinese, and various lesser known folks.

My point, however, was that the notion of "Egyptian conservatism" is dubious, to put it mildly. It could as easily be applied to the communities that didn't create a civilisation from scratch, and continued to wallow in the Stone Age for another thousand or so years. Like most of Europe, for starters.

[input.jack]

Not to be a poop, but returning to the thread topic.....

Pick up Gestalt Bennie's amazing TESTAMENT book. Its d20 friendly, and is AWESOME as a resource for the era. Even if you dont want to use the cultures of the area, the information on technology and civilizations alone is worth the price. (I got it a while back and I was -totally- blown over by it) :)

[L. Marcus]

. . . GURPS Low-Tech is pretty good, though it obviously doesn't cover d20 . . . :) Can easily be used for Hero, though.

[assault]

Pick up Gestalt Bennie's amazing TESTAMENT book. Its d20 friendly, and is AWESOME as a resource for the era.

Totally. I haven't seen it, but it seems to be exactly right.

There is a thread on these boards which includes some thoughts on converting the system to Hero. It's back away, so you will have to search for it, but it's way cool.

Personally, I would set up my own Bronze/Stone Age setting, in order to separate things from peoples' sensitivities, but that's no enormous drama.

"Here are the Good Guys. Here are the Bad Guys. There are nomads here, and a bunch of barbarian hillbillies here. Oh, and These Guys Here used to oppress you, but are actually now kind of allies of yours."

And not an Elf in sight.

The trouble is: where does the Barbarian PC come from?

[bigdamnhero]

The trouble is: where does the Barbarian PC come from?
By definition, any village other than mine. :)

Thanks for all the great input, folks. I haven't had much time to respond as I'm madly scrambling to finish writing three scenarios by next Friday. :eek: But I have been reading them, and have gotten some great ideas here, as always. I'll let you all know how it turns out.

[assault]

I wrote:
The trouble is: where does the Barbarian PC come from?
bigdamnhero replied:
By definition, any village other than mine. :)
This is correct, but we both missed the obvious answer:

The Barbarian PC is a Cimmerian!

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

[Markdoc]

Someone upthread said that iron was lighter for the same strength.

It is. The earliest cannons were known of were made of wood (no, I'm *not* kidding) and iron. Iron's lighter and harder but also more brittle. It was harder to cast (early iron cannons were made of metal slats heat-welded together). Trouble is, being more brittle, they had a tendency to blow up (this was countered by adding banding or making the walls of the barrel thicker, but that made them even heavier.)

Hence bronze. Heavier, but easier to cast and bore out, and since it was readier to deform, slightly less prone to going off like a giant bomb.

cheers, Mark

[Kristopher]

It is. The earliest cannons were known of were made of wood (no, I'm *not* kidding) and iron.

I actually knew about the wood.

IIRC, the Chinese had some kind of gunpowder-based weapon made out of bamboo.

[bigdamnhero]

IIRC, the Chinese had some kind of gunpowder-based weapon made out of bamboo.
No, that was Captain Jim Kirk. :winkgrin:

[Lezentauw]

I actually knew about the wood.

IIRC, the Chinese had some kind of gunpowder-based weapon made out of bamboo.

I believe you are correct. They had a makeshift barrel on top of a stick, the problem with these "guns" is that they were very unaccurate. They fired these from the hip, and the bamboo did not necessarily grow perfectly straight.

[Vondy]

I saw photos of a chinese "hand canon" from the latter part of their bronze age that would have been held in the hand, and had no mounting according to the site (a Chinese Covernment "you should love China" site). It had a lot of fancy bass relief stuff on it for grip, but I'm still not sure how you were supposed to hold onto it.

[Cancer]

Early bronze and iron metallurgy is a fascinating subject all to itself. I've read the suggestion that at first bronze was an unrecognized accident ... there are some limited sites where copper ores and tin ores are found near each other, and the resulting metal was superior to more pure copper.

Smelting iron takes a lot more heat/fuel than smelting copper, and the properties of the resulting metal again depend on impurities, which result from the local ore, fluxes, and fuels used. Meteoritic iron (which is far superior to early smelted metal) was known to all cultures long before they could produce iron themselves, and is a "natural" source for "magic" weapons.

The evolution of cannon is a Renaissance topic, fascinating but separate. John Guilmartin's books (Gunpowder and Galleys and Galleys and Galleons) make a strong case that naval tactics & strategy evolution was in part driven by the technological evolution of cannon-making.

[Vondy]

Early bronze and iron metallurgy is a fascinating subject all to itself. I've read the suggestion that at first bronze was an unrecognized accident ... there are some limited sites where copper ores and tin ores are found near each other, and the resulting metal was superior to more pure copper.

Smelting iron takes a lot more heat/fuel than smelting copper, and the properties of the resulting metal again depend on impurities, which result from the local ore, fluxes, and fuels used. Meteoritic iron (which is far superior to early smelted metal) was known to all cultures long before they could produce iron themselves, and is a "natural" source for "magic" weapons.


I've been reading up on this off and on over the past several years, and it appears that most bronze age cultures knew how to work iron well before moving into their respective iron ages, as evidenced by the fact that iron was worth 8 times as much as gold by weight in Egypt at various points. It boils down to: is it the knowledge, or the actual use, that defines the transition point? Another question is, why didn't they work it more, which evinces all manner of competing theories. We also see references in the book of Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings to the iron weapons and implements where, really, the text shouldn't have bothered to mention the particuliar material at all. In other words, the material was considered significant because between 1200-900 BCE in the Middle East, bronze was still the dominant metal.

[Old Man]

I saw photos of a chinese "hand canon" from the latter part of their bronze age that would have been held in the hand, and had no mounting according to the site (a Chinese Covernment "you should love China" site). It had a lot of fancy bass relief stuff on it for grip, but I'm still not sure how you were supposed to hold onto it.

"Lieutenant! Where's that slave I ordered?"

"Right here, sir."

"Excellent! Here slave, hold this."

"Uh... what is it?"

"No questions or I'll have you flogged! Now brace it against your chest and keep it pointed at the enemy while I light this."

[Kristopher]

I've been reading up on this off and on over the past several years, and it appears that most bronze age cultures knew how to work iron well before moving into their respective iron ages, as evidenced by the fact that iron was worth 8 times as much as gold by weight in Egypt at various points. It boils down to: is it the knowledge, or the actual use, that defines the transition point? Another question is, why didn't they work it more, which evinces all manner of competing theories. We also see references in the book of Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings to the iron weapons and implements where, really, the text shouldn't have bothered to mention the particuliar material at all. In other words, the material was considered significant because between 1200-900 CE in the Middle East, bronze was still the dominant metal.

CE or BCE?

[Vondy]

CE or BCE?

Book of Judges, etc? BCE. Will Edit.

[Kortay Mirlor]

One more reason early cannons were bronze --- people were already casting big ol' things in bronze that were roughly the right size and shape.

Of course, I mean bells. Think not? Look at a pic or an early bombard! Almost as wide as long (or tall from another POV), and about as big as a middle-size church bell.

Just adapt the techniques, and your all set. ;)

[Old Man]

That would be damn cool, howitzers that rang out the target's death knell as they fired...

[Cancer]

That connection has been pointed out before: that Christian Europe got a leg up in cannon technology because of the bellmakers. One of the things bemoaned by Islamic writers of the period about Christian cities was the cacophony of churchbells, suggesting by contrast that the Islamic countries lacked the industry of casting large and strong bronze objects. Of course, because the Turks paid well, they got Christian artisans to make guns for them, but it wasn't a native industry.

Early cannon were wrought iron, made like barrels, of iron bars like barrel staves, wrapped by iron hoops. These weren't very good. Bronze cannon (a direct extension of bellmaking) came next. Controlling the metallurgy of iron was more complex, and good, reliable cast iron cannon originally came from northern Europe in the early 1600s, IIRC Sweden first followed quickly and more successfully by England.

[Kristopher]

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50097

Bump, mainly to get anyone who might want to contribute on a newer thread to look at it. :D

[gojira]

I didn't read the whole thread, but just thinking quickly:

No stirrups. Assyrians ride with out them (I think). Chariots are very imporant as calvary.

Think American Indian if you want a socially sophisticated stone age culture (the AmerIndian had no metal, no wheel). Don't forget the Aztec and the Incas who were also stone age, even though they had sophiticated counting systems.

Like the Aztecs and the Incas, more cultures than just Egypt built pyrimids.

Seafaring, wind power are present (I think), but navigation and weather prediction are a big problem. Not many people means few options if you get lost.

Because of small and disperse populations, attitudes may be different between modern culture and ancient. There's much more land available so property may not be a big deal (although very fertile land like the Nile valley will be jealously defended).

And few people means less help available, so hospitality is very important. I think Homer says in the Odessey that the worst crime is a host who betrays his guests, or vice versa. Not offering hospitality to those in need is a death sentence.

[Vestnik]

And few people means less help available, so hospitality is very important. I think Homer says in the Odessey that the worst crime is a host who betrays his guests, or vice versa. Not offering hospitality to those in need is a death sentence.


Unless of course they think that you are dead and decide to hit on your wife. In which case you are honor-bound to KILL 'EM ALL!!!!!

[assault]

Seafaring, wind power are present (I think), but navigation and weather prediction are a big problem.

On the other hand, stone age seafarers were able to settle the Pacific, and maintain regular trade routes.


Because of small and disperse populations, attitudes may be different between modern culture and ancient. There's much more land available so property may not be a big deal (although very fertile land like the Nile valley will be jealously defended).

I would say that the situation would generally be more a case of loosely defined and overlapping borders between particular territories. This would often still be the case in the Bronze age, even in relatively well organised societies.