Well, I've got a bit of a complaint to make on some models. I am hoping some of you will agree. (and i hope this is the right place to post it).

With the Galadhrim Knights on horses, the ones with swords are carrying a glaive. WTF? That is a bad sword to carry when on a horse don't you think? It has a short blade but to make matters worse it has a really long handle. It looks pretty bad and is impractical for a mounted soldier. Anyone else agree?

Here a pic of them. The one that stands out to me is the one bottom right.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Cus ... 45x319.jpg

I more or less agree, I personally think having any kind of sword on horseback is impractical (unless you've lost your lance). I think they look a little large to be carried and wielded one-handed. So yes, I pretty much agree

_________________
Flying is the practice of trying to crash into the ground and missing.

You seem to have forgotten that it is an Elven Blade, and so would be able to used both one or two-handed.

_________________
Available for commission painting, PM me if you're interested.

Well, in the pic he appears to be holding it one-handed. Besides, I haven't picked up my SBG book in 2 months, I hardly remember that rule now that you mention it...

I still think they went too much for 'cool' and too little for 'practical'. At least they didn't give them tower shields

_________________
Flying is the practice of trying to crash into the ground and missing.

the one in the middle seems to be holding out, waiting for an orc to get in the way as he rides by.

I also think being immortal is a cheat. but oh well

_________________
[url=http://one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=50&p=298502#p298502]Corsair's WIP Thread - 03 Dec 12 Update[/url]

Anduril Blade of Kings said:
Really? Tell that to the Cossacks, the Mongols, the Hussars, in fact, every cavalry force from any culture that possessed the metalwork skills to make swords. Yes, they had lances, bows, and later on, pistols and carbines, but they held on to swords into the 20th century, because they can be used from horseback or on foot. Sabres or similar were the ultimate form of horsemans sword (curved blade - hmmmmm). The elven swords of the 'glaive' variety appear to us mere mortals to be slightly unfavorable for common horseback use, thought the Hadhafang pattern would be very useable (the sword used by Elrond and Arwen, and of the same type used by Haldir).

I very strongly advise looking up some historical references, even Wikipedia, before making sweeping comments. LotR is fantasy, but the Professor (oh yes, he was a cavalry horse trainer and he used swords on horseback!) wrote on the basis of what he knew from experience, and when the films were made, PJ benefitted from having John Howe, a sword-fighting re-enactment fan, plus New Zealands premier swordmaker available to design and advise on what was practical, based on personal and historical experience.

I am an occasional horserider, and a more frequent user of swords, axes and bows. I have not been able to put the two activities together as either:
a) the police will come looking for me, or
b) the men in white coats will come looking for me, or
c) all of them will come looking for me
so I have not been able to try for myself the pleasures of flailing about with pointy metal things while galloping across the landscape at speed. But I know it can be done...

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

Also Josh, you may have noticed in the film that the Rohirrim and Gondorian cavalry charges at Minas Tirith both involved riders with swords. Not only that, but at the Battle of the Morannon, Aragorn was on a horse and drew Anduril (Blade of Kings ). You will note that he had no lance, as he preferred a sword. In fact, many knights did. Of course, Dorth has already gone into detail there, so just follow his advice and check the facts.
Of course, the Elven swords do look bulky on horseback, but then again, they're Elves. They would be extremely well trained swordsmen and riders, and would be more than capable of wielding the former on the latter.

_________________
"Mustard the Rohirrim! We've got to ketchup with those Uruk-fries before they capture the Hornburger!"

a normal (medival) european sword is pretty heavy and somewhat hard to master on a horse, but if you have the japanse variant(the katana) is light and it's easier to hit something.

my source of knowledge: a programm called deadliest weapon (on discovery channel). they had a kantana on a horse and they even cut a grape in half! (and i like japanese weapons:3)

on the other hand, those weapons of the galadhrim: they've got a cuttinghalf and a holdinghalf(dont know what they are called but im sure that you know what i mean). and with a normal weapon they're the holdingpiece is 1/10 of the cuttingpiece. but with these galadhrim weapons the proportion is 1/1 and that looks kinda silly

Put that way, it does look ridiculous. That does not make it unwieldy, however: just more ways to hold it.

_________________
"Mustard the Rohirrim! We've got to ketchup with those Uruk-fries before they capture the Hornburger!"

You all seem to have not read the latter half of my sentence.

I wrote:


I was speaking more of the common soldier than those gallant heroes we all know. And I was influenced in my statement by numerous Eyewitness books (Not the most grown-up, but certainly some of the most reliable books.) Where it says, quote:
Lances were the preferred weapons of any mounted horsemen. A sword was an impractical weapon unless you lost your lance. A lance has much more power behind it and could punch through plate, half plate, or any other kind of armor with ease on the charge. However, once the rider dismounted, the sword was drawn.

However, that aside, I have looked on wikipedia and other places about weapons. I'm a weapon obsessist. I gave it some thought, and here's my personal reasons why I think a lance is more practical on the charge.

1) Much more power. A charging knight with a lance was next to unstoppable. He had the full power of his body weight and the horse's charge focused on a very sharp, hard metal point--typically directed with intent to harm.
2) Required less metal than a sword, which is very useful for those cultures low on metal
3) Greater reach

And, in the first place, I said that it was my personal opinion that swords were impractical. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, just state my personal opinion.

I'm sorry, but I also think my post was reacted to a little strongly, especially by Dorthonion. I don't think it's a sweeping comment, I merely stated my opinion. If you all disagree, that's fine with me. And you both pointed out things that are mostly, if not completely true. However, I feel this has become less a discussion and more me being told I am wrong--even if I am, in fact, wrong.

Captain Ingold wrote:


While the first two comments are true, I doubt Aragorn would have had much training with a lance as a ranger, so I don't know if it was preference as much as practicality.

Edit:
Oh gosh, I just realized how stupid I was sounding. I've been assuming that you both misunderstood me, but looking back at my post I just realized I never said what I meant to say. My original statement was supposed to be that a sword was an impractical weapon for a horseman as compared to the lance--since the lance has all the advantage on horseback. Oops

_________________
Flying is the practice of trying to crash into the ground and missing.

Actually, a lance is good for only the initial charge. After that, the cavalry is involved in closer quarters and must rely on hand weapons.
With the use of more powerful and penetrating missle weapons (ie. Long bow then gunpowder), the lance became an outmoded weapon and mounted units eventually used less armor, too. The cuirass and lance saw a decreasing use through history and by the napoleonic era it was more for show than function.
The lance was used even as late as WWII, but to little affect by desperate units.
Also, to use a lance required great training and only Knights could afford that, not common soldiers. That makes it a weapon for elite troups, especially in the middle ages.

Okay, I have a little argument to that. I forget which peoples used this, however there was a tactic invented by a very brilliant general that made the lance much more effective on the charge.

1) They formed lines eight horsemen wide and any number long. Of course, they charged. The first line would crash into the enemy, do their damage, and then do a circle and go the back of the line. By the time they were halfway there, the second line would already be crashing into the enemy. Then they too would go to the back. In this way, they would never run out of room or space to charge and could indefinitely pummel the enemy.

As for the lance requiring great training, I don't see that. The Rohirrim were herders and farmers when not at war, so I don't think they had a huge amount of training.

_________________
Flying is the practice of trying to crash into the ground and missing.

PJ may have had good reliable and accurate sword fighting in the movie, but that is irrelevant here considering that there were no elven knights on horses with two handed glaives in the movie.


*to everyone*

my initial point is that it seems an odd weapon to have on horseback. Considering people riding on horses generally need to have one hand holding the reins, the great long handle of the sword would probably be a disadvantage to the rider, and it looks awkward.

Awkward though it may look, any other weapon would require an equal or greater number of hands. During the Ride of the Rohirrim, there were some horsemen using bows as they charged: don't those require 2 hands? A sword is actually the least awkward horseback weapon, as it has the most mobility.

Horses generally stop running in a fray, and the riders are free to fight each other hand-to-hand on horseback. Granted a lance is more powerful in a charge, but that tends to be the shortest part of the combat, unless charging poorly armed peasants.

_________________
"Mustard the Rohirrim! We've got to ketchup with those Uruk-fries before they capture the Hornburger!"

Captain Ingold wrote:


Or a raggedy-tag band of orcs

_________________
Flying is the practice of trying to crash into the ground and missing.

I'm going by the generic Medieval side of it. Yes, I'll include Orcs, or Haradrim, Goblins, Dunlendings, Spiders, Hobbits, and other nasty critters in there.

_________________
"Mustard the Rohirrim! We've got to ketchup with those Uruk-fries before they capture the Hornburger!"

As someone who has done horse riding, I think holding onto the reins is usually a good idea. Especially when you are blocking attacks. Being able to have some control over the steering of the horse is pretty important, especially during a fight.
When you think about it, what would you be better off with when fighting an a horse. A one handed or two handed sword?

samoht, I shall answer your comment with one by Haldir_Strikes:

_________________
"Mustard the Rohirrim! We've got to ketchup with those Uruk-fries before they capture the Hornburger!"

I was refering to real soldiers not fictional ones. Cavalry was very costly for any army and only wealthy nobles could afford armor and a mount in the middle ages, especially. To use such weapons on horseback as a lance (Rohirrim used spears not lances) takes training and farmers never made good soldiers in history. They were too busy feeding the nobles. Even the Huns were dedicated warriors and their horsemenship was outstanding because they trained in the saddle constently.
Now in LOTR, anything is possbile because it is imaginary. I believe that the Rohirrim would probably have had a standing army anyway that would be the cadre for their defenses. The farmer would be the conscript in times of dire need, just like in historical examples. I'm sure Tolkien took this into account when he developed his story.
The scene Helms deep is a good example of the plight of Rohan when part of their forces were riding to the north with Eomer and they were left with farmers to defend the keep.

That thought did come across me but still, on a horse? That short little blade, being wielded from such a height? Even if it can be used one handed it still seems to be a bad choice for a cavalry sword. Surely you'll agree with in saying that.