Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 10:20:25 AM

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 05:12:49 AM
The heavy European focus was introduced in RQ3 for the West while the Anglo-Celtic (it drew heavily on both) Sartarites are mostly a product of HeroWars/Quest sourcebooks, and is not the original imagery. Lunars looked as much Greek Empire of Alexander in RQ2 supplements, going Romanish in HW/Q.

Greek IS Western.  The original art in Runquest was Western centric.  Just look at the book cover art

Greek is also Mediterranean and Ancient as well as Western. Bronze Age Greece is part of the Near East with little if any direct lineage to Western Culture.

When most people say "Western centric" they mean Migration Era and Middle Ages as is the complaint about Sartarite no longer being Anglo-Saxon.

Yes, the original cover for RQ1 and RQ2 looks mostly like a Hopile crossed with Bronze Age warrior imagery, but on the whole, it owes more to the Bronze Age than Western Antiquity.

Let's look at some other covers.

Here are the front and back covers for Pavis: Threshold to Danger:




Both have a clear Bronze Age Near Eastern look.


Here is the front of Big Rubble:



While most of it is generic fantasy the lamellar army is of a style seen mostly in the Near East and further East.

Here are the player common knowledge books for both box sets:



The Big Rubble book is a monster without a lot of cultural knowledge, but the one for Pavis is clearly Near Eastern Bronze Age. It could be from the Book of Joshua or Gilgamesh and while the former is a huge influence on Western Culture is is not a product of it. The latter isn't even much of  an influence.

We could go on with pre-3rd Edition products but they were pretty much universally Bronze Age Near East with some trippy 70s art influences, see things like the art in Rune Lords.

If Chaosium is driving RQ art woke (ie, Indian mostly with some Japanese) why is that not reflected in HeroQuest items as well? While Hasbro drove them out of print in 2021, their art represented a different nature progression of Glorantha. The last items overlap in design with newer RQ materials but look nothing like them. I wish we'd stayed at the step right before that, art from The Guide to Glorantha.

I'm not particularly fond of much of it, although most covers are more in the trends from HeroQuest and lean heavily into Near Eastern influences with some good old-fashioned Victorian/Edwardian Orientalism (which is despised by the wokearati). Only the recent Cults of Runequest: The Prosopadia follows the whacked art trend, but I'm not surprised as art tied to myths and magic is where most of the weirdness is.

That art about a world of 1000 gods in multiple pantheons takes inspiration heavily from Hindu art is...something you could argue should have been present from the beginning.

The interior art is mostly bad more than woke.  Still, I can see over the course of 45 years how we got here.

If you have to insist current RQ art is woke then you're suffering from seeing something everywhere as much as the wokesters.

smh

If Chaosium tries to wokify Glorantha I think we'll see it in injecting transgenderism into the lore. There have been bits and hits about transformation of characters, especially female ones, who take other sex roles. The artificial beards female priests of Lhynkar Myh are required to wear are an example.

The big shot would be redefining Kallyr Starbrow as a transman so she could marry a Pure Horse Queen. Haven't seen it yet, but given the pronouns on 1920s characters sheets, I wouldn't be surprised.

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Greek is also Mediterranean and Ancient as well as Western.

Italy, France and Spain are also on the Med.  WTF does that have to do with NOT being Western?

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Yes, the original cover for RQ1 and RQ2 looks mostly like a Hopile crossed with Bronze Age warrior imagery, but on the whole, it owes more to the Bronze Age than Western Antiquity.

The "Bronze Age" is NOT a location.  A Hoplite is from the Western world.  I think you need to go back to Grammar School and finish what you missed.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 05:57:02 PM
If you're trying to make a historically accurate setting and then throw in a few magical elements, the sexual dimorphism is something that needs to be addressed.

Which is not the genre of tales were are talking about here, so we can move on.

Is not Pendragon and Paladin semi historical settings?

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM

Quote
Jeanne d'Arc was a teenage girl that filled the role of field commander and banner carrier.  I seriously doubt she ever did anything with any weapon other than wave her ceremonial sword.  She didn't have to and if she was in melee, she wasn't doing her job.

Now, I know why you think that you know more about Joan of Arc than those who actually meet her plus centuries of scholarly studies. I really do. But any serious discourse about a historical character must consider the first two things, not what you do want to believe.

I have read numerous contemporary reports and many writings by historians and not one has directly contradicted my view of what went down.  Many reports are flat out vague and modern historians are trying to fill the gaps.  All this and we are to assume that there's no political "bending of the facts" by people who could write for propaganda purposes.

Do I think she was brave?  She had the fortitude to get into the middle of a place where grown men were actively trying to kill each other in order to lead.  That takes a lot of brass.  Do I think she was a good leader?  What we have that are decisions attributed to her, yes, she made the right military calls where they were needed.  Was she a warrior?  No, she wasn't.  Nothing supports that she actually engaged in combat directly.  Like I said before, the role she was filling she shouldn't have even if she was capable of it because it would have distracted her from leadership that she was supposed to be providing.  That said, there's no safe place on the battlefield so she would have been open to getting injured.

Now some modern "historians" that want to push a girl boss type narrative have created the image of her throwing down in melee.  It's not supported. 

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 08:12:29 PMCOMING ATTRACTIONS: We left with Grognard GM's face full of eggs. This is what will happen next.

- He will not desist (thus derailing what had become a very interesting thread). The fact that more I'm prone to listen to the Duke of Alençon and Ludovico Ariosto than to him will be irrelevant.

- He will accuse me AGAIN of being a myth-believer without bothering to even check the sources I gave to him (because he just knows the truth and I don't).

- If he checks the sources (I think that, again, they will not will even be mentioned but... who knows?) he will explain how they are not important facts of the matter - because even a cursory glance shows that they prove him wrong.

- He will still explain that a woman can't go around killing metric tons of things in a fantastic tale - because in the real world this just doesn't happen.

- The usual end game will be that I have to prove that the history of a specific genre of literature from 1400 up to recent times does actually exist. Not to mention that I will also have to prove that all the characters who met, wrote about, or were interrogated about Joan of Arc (sometimes during very serious trials), did exist and, for some inexplicable reason, concocted a tale where an upstart peasant girl was better than all of them.

I don't need to do anything, everyone sees you acting like a clown.

I can't verify or deny specific accounts without reading way more about Joan than I have any interest in. But then I've never said they didn't exist. What I contend is that, when dealing with history, there is a lot of lying, fraud, propaganda and simple confusion.

She was a powerful symbol at the time, intertwined in church, royal and diplomatic matters. The fact that you won't even consider that she may have been bigged up and exaggerated about, for a myriad of reasons, shows you to be the close minded one. Even enemies often have reasons to low smoke up peoples asses. "Yeah we lost, but it was because they had a magic genius warrior woman!"

Your entire argument is name dropping 700 year old sources, and insisting this makes you right. Firstly, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the consensus is not nearly as uniform as you put forward, but I'm not going to read the half dozen books I'd need to prove it. Secondly, every decent historian knows that sources are often bunk, for reasons ranging from ignorance to self serving behavior.

However, none of this is even needed. Because if I conceded every point you can link to an account, we'd still be left with you spinning shit about her artillery magic, and antiseptic foresight.

I guarantee I'm not the only one that reads your Joan fan page and cringes at "her making the troops bathe probably saved loads of them from wound infections. I mean no-one knew about bacteria, and she probably just wanted them to stop being smelly, but you never know..." or "artillery! Why would they say she was great at placing artillery? She probably had, like, a brain with amazing spacial awareness! To the point where she could even naturally calculate trajectories, despite being a peasant girl!"

Moms setting their kid up for a date don't oversell them as much as you.

PS - I am happy to stop, if it has become a derail. But you derailed as much as I did, and I'll notice at no point were you the bigger man that walked away. Let's see if you have the self control not to have the last word. 

Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 08:27:33 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Greek is also Mediterranean and Ancient as well as Western.

Italy, France and Spain are also on the Med.  WTF does that have to do with NOT being Western?

I'm scratching my head also. Maybe he has a hang-up that the world Western has too many Anglo-Saxon connotations? Help us out here, Herb.

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 08:52:01 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 05:57:02 PM
If you're trying to make a historically accurate setting and then throw in a few magical elements, the sexual dimorphism is something that needs to be addressed.

Which is not the genre of tales were are talking about here, so we can move on.

Is not Pendragon and Paladin semi historical settings?

Oh good, I'm not the only one struggling to keep up with his regular gear changes between historical and literary examples of warrior women.

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 08:52:01 PM
Do I think she was a good leader?  What we have that are decisions attributed to her, yes, she made the right military calls where they were needed.

Judging by different historians than the ones cited by Reckall, her results in that department may have been mixed at best. Let me quote from the following article:
https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/8-joan-of-arc-myths-busted/

QuoteMyth: "She was a great military tactician"

The Truth: Joan, a naïve 17-year-old peasant girl, certainly showed immense bravery riding into battle alongside seasoned warriors, but she was no military genius. In fact, Joan's rash actions and reckless decisions proved more than once to be a dangerous addition to the French army. For example, upon approaching Orléans she insisted the English should be attacked from the north as that was where their greatest numbers lay. The commanders were so against this potentially disastrous strategy that they took the convoy on a different route without telling Joan. When the attack did happen, Joan was napping and nearly missed the entire battle. When the young warrior acted of her own accord and tried to attack the stronghold of Boulevart, she narrowly escaped disaster and had to be dragged off the field amid mass panic. After this she was asked to sit out on the assault the next day, a request she ignored.

Interestingly, the same article has this further note that might come as a surprise to some:

QuoteMyth: "Women didn't lead armies"

The Truth: The most unusual thing about Joan's command of an army is not her gender, but her social standing. It was common during the era for aristocratic women to command their family's forces in the absence of a brother or husband. And rather than going against the grain and breaking social norms, this was actually adhering to the feudal society in France at the time. Joan was granted command because of the religious society that believed anyone could receive a divine calling, and it should be listened to. It is highly unlikely that a legion of male soldiers would have followed her word if the inclusion of women in battle had not already been widely accepted at the time.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 08:55:10 PM
I don't need to do anything, everyone sees you acting like a clown.

Maybe. But it was not me that ignored every counter-argument in this debate.

Quote
What I contend is that, when dealing with history, there is a lot of lying, fraud, propaganda and simple confusion.

Like that Joan didn't do what they said she was able to do?

Quote
She was a powerful symbol at the time, intertwined in church, royal and diplomatic matters. The fact that you won't even consider that she may have been bigged up and exaggerated about, for a myriad of reasons, shows you to be the close minded one.

Actually, no. Joan was mentioned in this thread because it is about women who wore armor in battle. I said that she is a deeply misunderstood historical figure including for what she actually did on the battlefield. I felt no need to go off topic.

Quote
Even enemies often have reasons to low smoke up peoples asses. "Yeah we lost, but it was because they had a magic genius warrior woman!"

Yeah. Go to the King of England with this explanation as why Charles was just crowned in Reims

Quote
Your entire argument is name dropping 700 year old sources

Quoting written sources. I looked for people who met Joan in the XX Century but I didn't find anyone. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Quote
and insisting this makes you right.

That's the point that you are missing: I don't want to be "right", only to present historical facts. It's you who is wanting "to be right".

Quote
Firstly, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the consensus is not nearly as uniform as you put forward, but I'm not going to read the half dozen books I'd need to prove it.

So, your opinion comes from NO RESEARCH. Well, I already knew that 

Quote
Secondly, every decent historian knows that sources are often bunk, for reasons ranging from ignorance to self serving behavior.

This is why sources are evaluated. Nothing to see here.

Quote
However, none of this is even needed. Because if I conceded every point you can link to an account, we'd still be left with you spinning shit about her artillery magic, and antiseptic foresight.

I knew that you hadn't a clue about Joan of Arc, but I admit that not having a clue about what I actually wrote in this thread (i.e. about what you are answering to) is even more out there than I thought.

Quote
I guarantee I'm not the only one that reads your Joan fan page

You don't even read this thread, imagine my Joan fan page...

Quote
and cringes at "her making the troops bathe probably saved loads of them from wound infections. I mean no-one knew about bacteria, and she probably just wanted them to stop being smelly, but you never know..."

You never know "what"? Remember, their generals didn't know why the soldiers had to bathe. Joan never gave any explanation. Factually, this practice saved the lives of many soldiers, but it may have happened by chance - as I wrote. Maybe in her youth she had noticed how clean people were less prone to infections - but this is speculation.

Quote
or "artillery! Why would they say she was great at placing artillery?

Because she was? Again, a bunch of generals said "She was better than all of us". Why to make up something humiliating? And, BTW, when you missed that the battles were mapped and we can see that placement of the siege artillery improved after Joan arrived?

Quote
She probably had, like, a brain with amazing spacial awareness! To the point where she could even naturally calculate trajectories, despite being a peasant girl!"

Something that can happen, BTW.

Quote
PS - I am happy to stop, if it has become a derail. But you derailed as much as I did, and I'll notice at no point were you the bigger man that walked away.

You didn't notice a lot of things, I agree.

Quote
Let's see if you have the self control not to have the last word.

THE LORD BE PRAISED!

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 12, 2023, 09:35:38 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 08:52:01 PM
Do I think she was a good leader?  What we have that are decisions attributed to her, yes, she made the right military calls where they were needed.

Judging by different historians than the ones cited by Reckall, her results in that department may have been mixed at best. Let me quote from the following article:
https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/8-joan-of-arc-myths-busted/

QuoteMyth: "She was a great military tactician"

The Truth: Joan, a naïve 17-year-old peasant girl, certainly showed immense bravery riding into battle alongside seasoned warriors, but she was no military genius. In fact, Joan's rash actions and reckless decisions proved more than once to be a dangerous addition to the French army. For example, upon approaching Orléans she insisted the English should be attacked from the north as that was where their greatest numbers lay. The commanders were so against this potentially disastrous strategy that they took the convoy on a different route without telling Joan. When the attack did happen, Joan was napping and nearly missed the entire battle. When the young warrior acted of her own accord and tried to attack the stronghold of Boulevart, she narrowly escaped disaster and had to be dragged off the field amid mass panic. After this she was asked to sit out on the assault the next day, a request she ignored.

Interestingly, the same article has this further note that might come as a surprise to some:

QuoteMyth: "Women didn't lead armies"

The Truth: The most unusual thing about Joan's command of an army is not her gender, but her social standing. It was common during the era for aristocratic women to command their family's forces in the absence of a brother or husband. And rather than going against the grain and breaking social norms, this was actually adhering to the feudal society in France at the time. Joan was granted command because of the religious society that believed anyone could receive a divine calling, and it should be listened to. It is highly unlikely that a legion of male soldiers would have followed her word if the inclusion of women in battle had not already been widely accepted at the time.

I'm sorry, you've got to find out how many books Reckall has read, then read one more, otherwise you're not prepared to do research. You didn't even mention the names of old dead people that wrote down that she wasn't that great, how can he take you seriously?

She had a brain that could calculate the trajectories of siege engines without even being trained in mathematics, physics, or siege craft, you know. She MAY have only had her soldiers bathe for general appearance, but he will never rule out the possibility that she somehow discovered germ theory centuries early. MAY, wonderful word that.

Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 08:27:33 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Greek is also Mediterranean and Ancient as well as Western.

Italy, France and Spain are also on the Med.  WTF does that have to do with NOT being Western?

Yes, their Bronze Ages are not part of the West either. They were also not part of the Near East/Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age.

Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 08:30:36 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Yes, the original cover for RQ1 and RQ2 looks mostly like a Hopile crossed with Bronze Age warrior imagery, but on the whole, it owes more to the Bronze Age than Western Antiquity.

The "Bronze Age" is NOT a location.  A Hoplite is from the Western world.  I think you need to go back to Grammar School and finish what you missed.

A hoplite is a type of soldier from several parts of the world in the Bronze Age who only continues into the Iron Age in Greece and Anatolia.

The Near Eastern Bronze Age is as much a unified cultural space as The West. They overlap in geography but not in culture. There is only one culture left with strong continuity from its Bronze Age geographic predecessor, China. Egypt did so as well until the coming of Islam. India might qualify but that's more tenuous.

You need to learn more history of the world than you got from the First Edition DMG.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 12, 2023, 09:35:38 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 08:52:01 PM
Do I think she was a good leader?  What we have that are decisions attributed to her, yes, she made the right military calls where they were needed.

Judging by different historians than the ones cited by Reckall, her results in that department may have been mixed at best. Let me quote from the following article:
https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/8-joan-of-arc-myths-busted/

QuoteMyth: "She was a great military tactician"

The Truth: Joan, a naïve 17-year-old peasant girl, certainly showed immense bravery riding into battle alongside seasoned warriors, but she was no military genius. In fact, Joan's rash actions and reckless decisions proved more than once to be a dangerous addition to the French army. For example, upon approaching Orléans she insisted the English should be attacked from the north as that was where their greatest numbers lay. The commanders were so against this potentially disastrous strategy that they took the convoy on a different route without telling Joan. When the attack did happen, Joan was napping and nearly missed the entire battle. When the young warrior acted of her own accord and tried to attack the stronghold of Boulevart, she narrowly escaped disaster and had to be dragged off the field amid mass panic. After this she was asked to sit out on the assault the next day, a request she ignored.

I can see how this page with The Truth gives no sources. It is also a mess that overlaps different events.

The French leader of the stand-off at Orleans was The Bastard of Orleans (long story). He didn't like at all Joan's attitude of "coming to cleanse the temple from the merchants" - and of course Joan didn't care - so there was no sympathy between the two (Joan, generally speaking, insulted, derided and pophetized doom every time people didn't agree with her up stat).

Joan wanted to attack at once, while The Bastard decided to wait for reinforcements - that he got. Meanwhile, Joan had done a tour of all the English positions, sometimes with her generals (Alençon, interestingly, commented that "she just knew how to get close and yet stay outside the range of the English weapons").

And then, after some days came the news of English reinforcements coming from the North, led by John Falstoff. Joan wanted to attack the North before this new army could join the main English one - which is basic tactics. However, there was no attack on the North. On May, 4th 1429 the French attacked Saint Loup (while Joan was napping, this is true ) because it was a "safe attack meant to build confidence and morale" (this, too, is basic tactics). Notice how that Truth messed up not only different events but even different times. Joan arrived in time for the last part of the battle and "wept for the English soldiers". She then said that the siege of Orleans would have been no more in five days (spoiler: it was no more in less than four).

On May, 5th her spiritual counsellor and confessor, Pasquerel (so, not the French leaders) suggested for Joan not to go on the field - as it was the very holy Ascension Day. According to Pasquerel Joan agreed. However, Jean d'Aluon and others said that she prayed but then went out and attacked the strong point at Saint Jean le Blanc. We have the full description of the attack, which included a dangerous crossing of the the Loire thanks to a isle in the middle of the river. All for nothing, as Saint Jean le Blanc had already been abandoned.

This next big attack was against "La Boulevard des Augustins" also called "St. Augustine" (where a church devoted to the saint once stood), on May, 6th - and this time Joan was part of the planning. It was a key English strongpoint and, even if they won, the French were exhausted. However, it was clear that the English were wavering, and it was important not to lose momentum.

[Factoid time: there was NO "Stronghold of Boulevart" in the first place, as "Boulevards" was the generic name the French gave to the English positions (i.e. "La Boulevard des Augustins"). That The Truth is really depressing.]

On May, 7h the French attacked la Tourelle, the main English stronghold by then, and again Joan took part to the planning phase. It was on this day that she was wounded by an arrow in her shoulder - but apparently it was only a flesh wound, because she still fought until the end of the battle. That she was "the first on the first ladder put against the fortress" was dictated by Joan herself in her after-action report (because they already had to do it) and confirmed by everyone else - as a scare, because if Joan died the risk of a rout was high.

They fought for la Tourelle from early morning to the evening - and this is when a key event happened: around 8 PM everybody was tired and the two armies were about to call a day. Joan said "No". All the testimonies from the French side agree in saying that she forced the French to fight on even if they were exhausted by using her will alone. The English Chronicles seem to confirm this by noticing how "the battle was thought to be broken for the day when the French launched an assault like if it was the first one in the morning." By nightfall the English were basically routed. On May, 8th the siege was lifted; the English packed their things and went home unmolested (there was no pursuit).

Sources? All of Joan's generals, her squire d'Aulon, chroniclers of the battle from both sides, and The Journal du siège d'Orléans. Plus others.

I wonder who fact-checked The Truth.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 09:53:12 PM
She had a brain that could calculate the trajectories of siege engines without even being trained in mathematics, physics, or siege craft, you know.

Alençon [...] testified that the Maid seemed to have been especially adept at sighting the relatively new gunpowder weaponry that the French used in their sieges:

. . . everyone marveled at this, that she acted so wisely and clearly in waging war, as if she was a captain who had the experience of twenty or thirty years; and especially in the setting up of artillery, for in that she held herself magnificently.

Devries, Kelly. Joan of Arc: A Military Leader (p. 90). The History Press.

Quote
She MAY have only had her soldiers bathe for general appearance, but he will never rule out the possibility that she somehow discovered germ theory centuries early. MAY, wonderful word that.

Are you aware that you are the only one fixated with germ theory?

However, cause ---> effect may be understood before the "why". Ships were quarantined well before germ theory was discovered.