Stone/Bronze Age help

[Bismark]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

Bronze? Or Brass?

 

Bronze. I think brass would be much too expensive.

[LordGhee]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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. or about the same weight as a 15th century suit of full plate (like this puppy)

 

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

 

cheers, Mark

[Vestnik]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

getting an Egypt timeline toghter will post early fri morn

 

Lord Ghee

 

off to work

[assault]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

Yeah' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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

 

Lord Ghee

[Kristopher]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

On the other hand' date=' so did the Sumerians and the Indus River Valley people.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

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

[assault]

Re: Stone/Bronze Age help

 

Pick up Gestalt Bennie's amazing TESTAMENT book. Its d20 friendly' date=' and is AWESOME as a resource for the era. [/quote']

 

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?