The real feat with longbowmen, or non armoured knights anyhow, is making them keep the line after the first volley. Usually they would and should run, as long as they still could. With great leader, great terrain, Knights on foot to show "we are standing right beside you, and will die or win with you guys", you could put the longbow to quite some use.
But those aren't things you could count on building a state on.

Quote from: SettembriniThe real feat with longbowmen, or non armoured knights anyhow, is making them keep the line after the first volley. Usually they would and should run, as long as they still could. With great leader, great terrain, Knights on foot to show "we are standing right beside you, and will die or win with you guys", you could put the longbow to quite some use.
But those aren't things you could count on building a state on.

In which settembrini unwittingly reveals the true superweapon that can snatch victory from teh jaws of defeat and annihilate whole armies: Morale.   I have read of battles where divisions were smashed to flinders by their enemies, yet their total casualties were numbered on the fingers of one hand... they were defeated by poor morale.

The true strength of some historical armies was less their equipment, less their superior martial skills, and more their simple, unwavering resolve on the battlefield, a terrifying thing to face.

Sitting on a horse, metal armour donned, gives you heckuva morale boost...

Quote from: SettembriniSitting on a horse, metal armour donned, gives you heckuva morale boost...

As does having such a knight on a horse standing next to you ready to charge and kick the arse of those charging toward you. (you will notice that I said next to, wouldn't want to be behind..... )

Which is the right way to look at it. The Knight is the penultimate weapon of the middle ages. The longbow, whatever merits it did actually have, was an auxiliary weapon. It might have been the best auxiliary weopon, but it never was or could be the decisive fighting force on anything but at a tactical level.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is the right way to look at it. The Knight is the penultimate weapon of the middle ages. The longbow, whatever merits it did actually have, was an auxiliary weapon. It might have been the best auxiliary weopon, but it never was or could be the decisive fighting force on anything but at a tactical level.

Of course, given a leader who had no intention of playing by the rules, the longbow could prove superior to the knight.  All it takes is not being places where knights could get to, and refusing to try to face them on open ground.  It is a peculiarity of warfare that every so often everyone (or nearly so) seems to think that there are rules that need to be followed.   During the Napoleonic era it was unthinkable for a man to duck or step aside if he saw a cannon ball barreling at him.  To do so was cowardice.  

On that note: Armored 'knights' fought at Waterloo, in the form of 'Chasseurs' (sp?). bullets tended to be deflected around their heavily polished armor, though I have seen one curiass that caught a small cannonball in roughly the shoulder. No doubt the man wearing it was killed outright as there was a fist sized hole through and through.  So historically the knights outlasted the longbowmen, who were noticably NOT present...

Quote from: SpikeOn that note: Armored 'knights' fought at Waterloo, in the form of 'Chasseurs' (sp?). bullets tended to be deflected around their heavily polished armor, though I have seen one curiass that caught a small cannonball in roughly the shoulder. No doubt the man wearing it was killed outright as there was a fist sized hole through and through.  So historically the knights outlasted the longbowmen, who were noticably NOT present...

They (longbows) had dissapeared long before due to the annoyance of training time required and people finding other hobbies, much easier to teach "recruits" how to use a crossbow or massed musket fire.  At the start of the civil war there were officers still carrying pikes if I remember my reading.

Thanks to you bringing up Waterloo I'm having flashbacks to the Sharpe movies/episodes and the insanity of people following "the rules"

Quote from: cnath.rmAt the start of the civil war there were officers still carrying pikes if I remember my reading.

Sargeants used a ceremonial half pike, mostly to keep the men (literally) in line.

-clash

QuoteAll it takes is not being places where knights could get to, and refusing to try to face them on open ground.

Well that's a heavy word uttered easily. The realities of medieval warfare are that you can't maneuvre much. Your forces might be skilled soldiers but they weren' drilled in modern (or ancient) fashion. Thusly most of the time, an open field was sought out, so that both sides could keep their men together.

Truly great is the general, who can shape or command his un-drilled forces into uneven terrain AND keep the intent of his battleplan. The person of the monarch or prince in charge is extremely important for this, which makes the feat of Henry V., Edward III, the Black Prince or Barbarossa all the more glorious.

@Waterloo: Cavalry (trained coherent mass of horsemen) has survived the Knight, who was an individual warrior. This is the big thing in medieval warfare: individual, un-drilled warriors. Even the knights Templar, with one of the strictest regimes, had problems holding together their mounted knights for a massed charge, knights would more often than not ride ahead or trickle at the enemy. One of these occasions was Agincourt, and for twice someone had an answer to this mistake.
The cohesiveness and tactical versatility was the real feat in the use of the longbowmen at Agincourt and the following campaign, not the weapon unto itself.

Quote from: flyingmiceSargeants used a ceremonial half pike, mostly to keep the men (literally) in line.

Interestingly, this fact also points to how certain elements of our language have changed over time.  The word "comfort", for instance, is today considered "luxurious and soft accomodation" (more or less).

However, in the same period you are discussing, there is a painting of a King of England (I forget which one) "comforting his troops."  The picture shows him jabbing them with a sword in the backside to drive them into battle.

Quote from: flyingmiceSargeants used a ceremonial half pike, mostly to keep the men (literally) in line.

-clash

I learn something new (historical type stuff anyway) on these boards every day.


we have a whole lot of history buffs around here and it rocks!:emot-rock:

@Pikes: Well they could also fight with it, Melee being still the most bloody and decisive part of combat up to the 1870ies.

Quote from: flyingmiceSargeants used a ceremonial half pike, mostly to keep the men (literally) in line.

-clash

Not only that, but the independent-minded governor of Georgia, Joe Brown, had (est.) over 10,000 pikes ordered for Georgia troops--6 feet of ash or hickory with a foot and a half knife on the tip. One model was even featured a retractable, spring-loaded blade!  The idea was that a large reserve would join the main Confederate lines when it came time for a bayonet charge.

Sadly, there are no reports of "Joe Brown's Pikes", as they came to be called, in action in the U.S. Civil War.  He came under a tremendous amount of fire for the idea, though, in his defense, he was merely echoing tactics that had seen use during the Napoleonic War in Spain.  But soldiers didn't like going up against opposing regiments armed with only a pike, and once Georgia obtained a respectable number of firearms for its troops, the pikes were largely dropped.

Quote from: SpikeThe typical 'proverb' about getting a good longbowman was to start with his grandfather. So yes, training was a serious issue. In fact the true superiority of the crossbow (and later firearms) was really a logistical one. Quite simply it is much faster and easier to train people to fire crossbows accurately, thus more crossbowmen can be feilded faster. larger units, faster replacement of casualties with only a slight drop in overall performance...

Contrary to popular belief military stuff isn't always the best available. its the most practical.  And over a long time frame the most successful weapons are the simplest to use.

I think this is the root of many gamer misconceptions.

Crossbows were easier to train men in than longbows, that was the key secret to their success.  Muskets were also easy to train men in, extremely easy, that rather than range or accuracy was the secret of their success.

All too often gamers, seeing say that muskets dominated the battlefield during a given period assume that logically they were more accurate and did more damage than comparable weapons.  But often that simply isn't right, they were just much better suited to mass warfare.

And that's the thing, rpgs mostly focus on small unit skirmishes, but gamers look to mass warfare for what was used.  Which leads to many oddities.

QuoteAnd that's the thing, rpgs mostly focus on small unit skirmishes, but gamers look to mass warfare for what was used. Which leads to many oddities.

And to great untapped gaming potential!
All those eras up to the development and widespread use of the rifle(d bore) are basically untapped, even though melee combat was still the most important part, at least for small number of men. Movies like "the patriot" with the ridiculous accuracy of pistols aren't helping either.