Slitherine

I have just finished reading up on chariot runners and was wondering how they would be treated in FOG. My understanding is that they were:

• Usually foreigners
• Shock troops
• Fast moving compared to other infantry
• Able to over power enemy chariots through numbers and aggressive attacking

At first look they seem to me to fit into neither into MF (suffer at impact from mount, i.e. chariots) or HF (fail the ‘fast moving’ requirement) impact foot superior.

This was a vexed question which caused the list writing team some heartache. In fact there is very little evidence for the method of functioning of chariot runners. Such evidence as there is has often been over-interpreted - conclusions usually amounting to guesswork. There is certainly insufficient evidence to support the assertions you list above.

Moreover, it seems likely (from the available evidence) that chariot runners were an integral part of the Near Eastern chariot system and not a special NKE thing. Hence we have elected to represent them as part of the effect of the chariot bases and not separately.

As far as I'm aware all we know about chariot runners is that they existed among most Near Eastern armies.
Presumably they existed for a reson, so chariots with them would be at an advantage.

I think that's about all one can say about them from historical evidence.
I've no idea where you get all this detail about them being foreigners or shock troops.

Drews "The End of the Bronze Age" or something inspired by it possibly?

rbodleyscott wrote:This was a vexed question which caused the list writing team some heartache. In fact there is very little evidence for the method of functioning of chariot runners. Such evidence as there is has often been over-interpreted - conclusions usually amounting to guesswork. There is certainly insufficient evidence to support the assertions you list above.

Moreover, it seems likely (from the available evidence) that chariot runners were an integral part of the Near Eastern chariot system and not a special NKE thing. Hence we have elected to represent them as part of the effect of the chariot bases and not separately.

OK, cool answer.

But what about the chariotry of the british isles? Did their light chariots have chariot runners? If not, are they notably different in-game to reflect that lack? Or do we have "light chariots are light chariots", and the biblical chariots with runners are represented in-game the same as the british chariots without runners?

Note please that I'm not making any value judgements here. I don't yet know enough about the game for that. Just asking how this is handled.

possum wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:This was a vexed question which caused the list writing team some heartache. In fact there is very little evidence for the method of functioning of chariot runners. Such evidence as there is has often been over-interpreted - conclusions usually amounting to guesswork. There is certainly insufficient evidence to support the assertions you list above.

Moreover, it seems likely (from the available evidence) that chariot runners were an integral part of the Near Eastern chariot system and not a special NKE thing. Hence we have elected to represent them as part of the effect of the chariot bases and not separately.

OK, cool answer.

But what about the chariotry of the british isles? Did their light chariots have chariot runners? If not, are they notably different in-game to reflect that lack? Or do we have "light chariots are light chariots", and the biblical chariots with runners are represented in-game the same as the british chariots without runners?

The "Near-Eastern chariot system" chariots referred to are the 2-horse 2-crew Light Chariots with bow armed crew. These are substantially more effective under the rules than light spear armed chariots such as Ancient British. They are mostly graded Superior, with dodgy Sumero/Akkadian proto-chariots and Elamite archer platform carts being graded as Average - making a substantial difference to in-game performance. Chinese chariots seem to have been heavier from the start, so are treated as Heavy Chariots.

There may possibly be a few exceptions who won't be perfectly modelled but not enough or well documented enough to justify unnecessarily complicating the rules. Particularly as we really don't know how much effect chariot runners had in any case. And as Near-Eastern chariots never fought Ancient British chariots anyway, the distinction is largely irrelevant. Even Ancient British chariots are documented as putting the frighteners on Roman infantry. (Though that might just be Caesarian propaganda).

If there is any remaining issue with relative efficacy, one can simply assume that any chariots without chariot runners have more chariots per base!

---------------

By the way, if it is of any interest, the "Art" referred to in your signature is not "Art" in the modern sense, but "The art" as in "The art of medicine".

Richard,

Excellent answer, quite satisfactory, thank you for your patience with my nitpicking. I should perhaps have waited until I had a copy of STE clutched eagerly in my grubby little paws before asking

I must say the Biblical period is probably my prime interest in the pre-gunpowder era.

And about that quote from the Father of Medicine, YES!

You are the first person I have ever had pick out that important fact. I first encountered that quote in (of all effing things) a surfing magazine, circa 1974. I have thought about it at length, and long ago came to the conclusion that the "art" referred to is indeed the art of medicine.

On the other hand, when you're fidgeting through an opera you hate, and your GF leans over to whisper "what's wrong?" in that tone that means, "this better be really good or you're sleeping alone tonight...", I think the old Doc would forgive you for whispering in her ear, "Ars longa, vita brevis..."

Not that latin is exactly the language of romance, (pun intended), but it helps to reassure them you're not a complete neanderthal.