[MUD-Dev2] Class names

[Travis Casey]

On Apr 14, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Lloyd wrote:
> --- Ricky C <ricky28269 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm listing classes, and I'm having trouble with the following:
>>
>> What would be a good name for a class of characters that
>> primarily use polearms? FYI, a polearm (or pole weapon) is a weapon  
>> that
>> is generally a long pole with a metal point or other destructive  
>> shape
>> on the end. Common examples are pikes, halberds, and spears.  
>> Wikipedia
>> has an article; look up 'pole weapon'.

How about Partisan?  It's both the name of a particular pole weapon,  
and a generic military term for "irregular" troops, such as levies and  
the like -- who in the medieval period, were often armed with pole  
weapons.

>> Also, is there a better name than "ranger" for an user of
>> 'ranged' weapons? Something about the word 'ranger' just doesn't seem
>> right, but of course 'archer' is not descriptive enough (as much as I
>> like it) because it includes other weapons (such as throwing weapons)
>> that are not considered arching.

Hordes of the Things uses "shooters".  I personally wouldn't use  
"ranger" because it carries too many other overtones -- being good in  
the wilderness, etc.  Christopher's suggestion of "marksman" is  
probably the best generic term.

> True polearms of the type you describe were historically used by only
> one type of combatant - Soldiers.

I'm not sure how you're defining "soldiers" -- the peasant levies who  
were armed with polearms certainly weren't anything we'd describe as  
"soldiers" today, having little to no formal training.  In the late  
medieval period, there were mercenaries and regular armies that used  
polearms, but they certainly weren't the only ones to do so.

> Spears and pikes are really very poor weapons for an individual  
> fighter
> - You really only get on chance to hit with them before an onnonent
> closes the distance and gets inside your striking range. Thus, they
> really only work when used by groups of soldiers, preferably in  
> several
> ranks. In this configuration, a wall of blades or points can be  
> created,
> preventing opponenets from closing and striking the pikemen.

This is true of long spears and pikes, but not of short spears, nor of  
other shorter polearms, such as halberds or the English bill.  The  
shorter polearm techniques are very similar to those used for a  
quarterstaff, enough so that the late medieval and Renaissance fight  
masters who we have surviving works from encourage learning the  
quarterstaff as a prerequisite to learning those sorts of polearms.

The references I've seen that deal with sword vs. short polearm agree  
that with a moderately-trained swordsman vs. a moderately-trained  
polearm user, the swordsman will likely lose, as the polearm has a  
great advantage in reach and can strike very strong blows, which will  
be extremely hard to parry or block with a sword.  Getting past the  
polearm is more difficult than it would seem, since the polearm user  
can also use the shaft to push and to defend -- and can change to a  
half-staff grip if you do manage to close in.

So, why weren't polearms used all the time?  Quite simply, they're big  
and inconvenient to carry around.  For personal defense, it's much  
easier to carry a scabbarded sword at one's side, leaving both hands  
free.  Further, since pole weapons were traditionally used by  
peasants, while swords were traditionally used by the nobility (who  
had the time to practice to become highly skilled, and the money to  
afford swords), the sword was considered a higher-class weapon -- and  
therefore became the preferred self-defense weapon of the minor  
nobility and rich merchants who were the "gentlemen" of the  
Renaissance period.

> Don't confuse the generic term "spear", though. Polearm spears are  
> quite
> different from those used by Roman soldiers two millenia ago, by
> Assyrian hunting parties or by Native American scouts. These spears  
> are
> much, much lighter and were balanced for throwing as well as close
> combat like a modern javellin. In particular, the spears used by the
> Roman footsoldiers (pilums) were designed with soft long iron points
> that would bend upon impact with enemies shields, rendering then
> useless.

Yep.  Short spears not quite in the javelin size range were also used  
along with shields by many Viking and Greek warriors.  They were light  
enough to use one-handed with the shield to fight one-on-one, but also  
big enough that one could take the option to use them two-handed when  
needed.

--
Travis Casey
efindel at gmail.com
Reality is vastly overrated.