View Full Version : Vote your favourite archer!
Leet Eriksson
08-06-2003, 15:56
OK lets get a rough idea of how all these train in archey:
Muslim:Tuaght archery at the age of 7,fought with a stick at 10,carried a sword at 13,at 14 they are tuaght to shoot from horseback.
Mongol:tuaght riding at the age of 3,Archery at the age of 5.Horesback riding and archery at the age of 7
Longbowmen:Starts at the age of 7,shoots 2 arrows every morning,is dismissed if he kill someone by accident(at least he'll live to kill the french http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif)
Ok put in your votes.
EDIT:sorry some typos http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Bah, I checked Longbowmen but accidentally nulled my vote by viewing the results
Quote[/b] ]Mongol:tuaght riding at the age of 3,Archery at the age of 5.Horesback riding and archery at the age of 7
Let's not forget raping, pillaging, mass murder and the defilement of holy sites by the age of 15
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Tough call. LBs ruled out, close gap between Muslim and Mongol...hmmm ......... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
The preferred recruits for Mamluks were Kipchak Turks who had been sold into slavery after being captured by the Mongols. Many of these same Kipchaks also served in the GH at the battle of Liegnitz. The Mamluks liked them because they did not need archery or horsemanship training, since they could already shoot down a knight while sitting backwards on a horse and running away from him. They basically served as the Mongol horse archers for the GH. The Mamluks incorporated these Turks and their skills in their armies and later defeated the Mongol invasion of Syria.
So in a sense Mongol archers became Muslim archers.
Sjakihata
08-06-2003, 23:17
he he only mongolian archers so far
deejayvee
08-07-2003, 07:54
Quote[/b] (faisal @ Aug. 06 2003,09:56)]Muslim:Tuaght archery at the age of 7,fought with a stick at 10,carried a sword at 13,at 14 they are tuaght to shoot from horseback.
Mongol:tuaght riding at the age of 3,Archery at the age of 5.Horesback riding and archery at the age of 7
Longbowmen:shoots 2 arrows every morning,is dismissed if he kill someone by accident(at least he'll live to kill the french http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif)
Faisal,
I get the impression that you are trying to bias this poll away from longbowmen. You give excerpts of the life-long commitment required to be a Muslim or Mongol archer and then just give an example of training routine for the longbowmen.
What about the fact that Longbowmen had to start at around 7 or 8 too? Or the fact that the King of England on multiple occasions made archery practice compulsory?
If you want to get serious results from a poll like this, provide everyone with accurate information so they can compare the choices, or don't provide any information at all.
Tachikaze
08-07-2003, 08:22
The Japanese practice kyudô, which makes archery an art form. It is very elegant, especially from horseback.
I voted Mongol finally. DJ he's not trying to bias the pool, he's just makin fun of LBs which are ohhhh ever sooo slightly over glorified.
He has an interesting point though. When did a longbowmen begin his training: 18-25 ? and really how much did his skill depend on his presence of mind rather than presence of weapon ?
Here is another ongoing discussion about the LBs:
The myth of Agincourt (http://www.totalwars.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=512)
Quote[/b] (Tachikaze @ Aug. 07 2003,08:22)]The Japanese practice kyudô, which makes archery an art form. It is very elegant, especially from horseback.
Kyudo is amazing.
Sjakihata
08-07-2003, 18:20
Kyûba no michi - The Way of Horse and Bow, a term for the Heian and Kamakura era
Indeed if the poll had included other choices *hint*
ROFL @ sinan http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
and yes, he is right about the over glorified lb's...
ShadesWolf
08-07-2003, 20:27
The longbow but of course
Red Peasant
08-07-2003, 21:50
To counter the bias of our err...*cough* 'eastern' friends http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif , here's some info from the Herstmanceau Castle site. You'll say it's biased as well, but it's good honest-to-God British bias So damn yer eyes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
"The Longbow
The longbow was renowned for being a hard hitting weapon, with stories being told of Welsh longbow men penetrating a four inch solid oak door with their arrows at the siege of Abergavenny Castle during the Welsh campaign. The longbow was a cheap weapon to produce and one that could be easily constructed and maintained by the common subjects. The weapon varied in length according to the height of its user and since the average height of Medieval yeoman was around five feet two inches, the longbow rarely exceeded the length of six feet.
The longbow was made by hand from the English yew. Staves were cut only in Winter, when the sap was down. Skilful cutting and shaping of the stave in a D-section left a layer of sapwood left along the flattened back of the bow. The heartwood of yew is able to withstand compression and its sapwood is elastic by nature, and both tend to return to their original straightness when the bow is loosened. The edges were notched in order to take the string made of hemp or silk. There is no rest for the arrow on the bow ; it rests simply on the index finger of the archer himself. The best material for the longbow came from yew trees in the mountainous regions of Italy and Spain. This was due to the poor terrain that the trees grew in. This fact made the wood of these trees lighter due to a lesser amount of grain found in the staves. So important was this consideration that it was ordered that with every shipment of imported wine from Southern France there must be a consignment of yew staves.
The archers used a mixture of fine tallow, resin and wax to protect the bow from the elements, especially during damp weather. Also it was not unusual for a bow to be carried in an appropriate bow case to safeguard it more effectively from wet atmospheric conditions. Special care was taken in the protections of the string, since a broken string was a major shortcoming on the battlefield that could effectively put the weapon out of action..
In battle the arrows were either carried in an arrow bag or a belt quiver. In the absence of this, it was common practise to simply stuff a sheaf of arrows through the belt. The back quiver that one so often see in swashbuckling films featuring the 'prince of thieves' Robin Hood , was never adopted for use in combat .
Training with the Longbow
Naturally to achieve a high degree of precision and professionalism with a weapon such as the longbow requires a great deal of practise. Therefore it is little wonder that a great emphasis on training began from the tender age of seven. Further more to achieve a high degree of proficiency various laws were passed concerning the compulsory ownership of longbows for citizens in certain 'wage bands'. It was also mandatory to practise with the bow on Sundays after church. To this end churches were ordered to maintain butts in order to help foster the accomplished use of the longbow by constant practise . Regulations were also applied in these medieval shooting ranges. They mostly concerned the distance one must shoot from. Yearly, tournaments for archers were also organised and the most successful were immediately pressed in to service with the army.
One must bear in mind that in those days professional soldiers were few and far between and that these laws were intended for the common citizen who in time of war would be required for military service. So no wonder that the authorities constantly highlighted the important of rigorous training with the longbow. This fact is clearly demonstrated by anecdotal evidence from the time which stated that a man who could not draw and discharge 12 well aimed arrows in a minute aiming at a target 240 yards away was lightly esteemed, even if he only missed once. Such a degree of skill now seems incredible.
In Battle
Stories of the might and hard hitting power of the English Longbow an incredible dexterity of the English archers are abundant. There are stories of knights being literally pinned to their saddles. One account recalls an episode where a knight was pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both his armoured clad thighs, with the horse and saddle in between. Arrows fired from a longbow could easily do this, at 400 yards it could severely wound, kill at 200 yards and penetrate armour at100 yards.
The true potential in battle of the longbow was finally unleashed with deadly effect on an unsuspecting enemy during the Hundred years war. At the battle of Crecy in 1346, an English army which was mainly composed of English and Welsh bowmen under King Edward III inflicted a terrible defeat on a French host that greatly outnumbered them. The consequences of this military debut was that it elevated England to the rank of being a major power and elevated the role of the foot soldier above the knights.
The lessons of Crecy were forgotten by the French it seems : At the battle of Agincourt in 1415 their forces suffered a further crushing defeat due to the English use of the longbow. Again a small but proficient English army inflicted a drastically high casualty rate on a French army that greatly outnumbered them, to the extent that there was hardly a French noble family that did not suffer a death , and many French family lines were brought to an end due to the death of all their male relations."
AHA trained at 7. I told you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Intersting article. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Leet Eriksson
08-07-2003, 22:51
sorry for any bias,did not intend to be biased,thats becuase i did not know when they started so i had to mention something related to them,atleast http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
deejayvee
08-08-2003, 01:20
Quote[/b] (faisal @ Aug. 07 2003,16:51)]sorry for any bias,did not intend to be biased,thats becuase i did not know when they started so i had to mention something related to them,atleast http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
I meant to be a little bit more light hearted than I was. I know, from your many previous posts, that you would be favouring the first two so I thought I'd have a dig at you on behalf of all longbow fans. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Red Peasant
08-09-2003, 02:53
Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Aug. 07 2003,21:49)]AHA trained at 7. I told you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Intersting article. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
I have always been fascinated by the Mongols and regard them as possibly the greatest military people [after the Romans] and most fabulous of archers. However, the term 'Muslim Archers' is extremely nebulous and difficult to define, but I understand 'British Longbowmen' and 'Mongol Archers', for they are the most accomplished of missile troops in history.
...though, I could mention the Cretans, and the Salaminian, Teucer, the brother of Ajax, the greatest archer mentioned by Homer in the Iliad...but that ain't history.....
Red Peasant
08-09-2003, 03:19
Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Aug. 07 2003,21:49)]AHA trained at 7.
Well, 7 it is, and if it was good enough for the Spartans it was good enough for us
karmastray
08-09-2003, 05:23
Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Aug. 08 2003,20:53)][...though, I could mention the Cretans, and the Salaminian, Teucer, the brother of Ajax, the greatest archer mentioned by Homer in the Iliad...but that ain't history.....
What about the ancient Persians... according to Herodotus they were only taught 3 things as kids: to ride a horse, to shoot a bow and to tell the truth.
i can't belive you guys are voting for longbowmen over the MOngol Aarcher.
Quote[/b] ]There is no rest for the arrow on the bow ; it rests simply on the index finger of the archer himself.
That has me wondering a bit as I have been nailed by a feather on release. How did they avoid the nasty slice that would occur to the finger. Were the feathers soft enough that they would not injure the finger, I think at the speed the arrow will travel on release could impose a nasty paper cut.
Now modern day arrows use nylon or another manmade material wich is much more rigid than feathers but I really don't see a feather not casuing any damage
deejayvee
08-12-2003, 06:04
Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ Aug. 09 2003,04:46)]i can't belive you guys are voting for longbowmen over the MOngol Aarcher.
The topic is about "your favourite archer" so why can't my favourite archer be a longbowmen??
I know that the Mongols, particularly as individuals, were arguably better archers but some of us just can't help but love the English yew bow and the devastation it caused the French.
For me tehy are the best and the favourite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
LordMonarch
08-15-2003, 02:22
Well, I would never vote for the Brits so Muslim archer, they were a little more 'civilised' then their Mongol counterparts. Well, then again, civilization and the Middle Ages don't really mix
Red Peasant
08-16-2003, 10:40
Quote[/b] (LordMonarch @ Aug. 15 2003,01:22)]Well, I would never vote for the Brits so Muslim archer, they were a little more 'civilised' then their Mongol counterparts. Well, then again, civilization and the Middle Ages don't really mix
Hey, Shakespeare ain't history, but he puts a cool Irish character in Henry V. The Irish were there, as they always are for a good fight..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
...and my family's mostly Irish..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
PFJ_bejazuz
08-23-2003, 17:52
Imagine my disappointment when i couldn't vote for Jeffery but then i guess it's not the 'most amusing Archer of all time' poll.
Lord De Moray
08-25-2003, 15:39
The question can be misleading. I have shot both Mongolian and Longbows, prefering the later. The Mongolian bow certainly has more strike power if using the same arrow as used on the longbow, but this was not the case. The longbow out ranges the mongolian buy a good way some 75 yards.
On the battlefeild it boils down to how the weapon was deployed rather than the solider using it. I would rather face 5000 Mongol horse archers wirling about me than 5000 English Longbowmen shooting from a dense formation with 30,000 arrows raining down every minute, and those armour piercing heads
The sky would be black
De Moray
Quote[/b] (oaty @ Aug. 09 2003,17:06)]
Quote[/b] ]There is no rest for the arrow on the bow ; it rests simply on the index finger of the archer himself.
That has me wondering a bit as I have been nailed by a feather on release. How did they avoid the nasty slice that would occur to the finger. Were the feathers soft enough that they would not injure the finger, I think at the speed the arrow will travel on release could impose a nasty paper cut.
Now modern day arrows use nylon or another manmade material wich is much more rigid than feathers but I really don't see a feather not casuing any damage
The method for attaching the feathers was a bit different. Today, they are glued on, but back then no such glues existed. One method bound each end of the feather to the shaft using a fine twine.
The largely eliminated the possibility of getting a feather driven into the hand on release. Another method involved carefully cutting a groove into the butt end of the shaft into which the feather was slid.
Lord De Moray
08-28-2003, 11:04
The feathers were tied on. At the front of the flight where the sharp point of the quill is visiable on a modern arrow , they had it bound in thread. This limits cuts.
DemonArchangel
08-31-2003, 01:58
i would face errr.... none at all, unless i had 1000 guys armed with personal miniguns and riot shields with me.
Orda Khan
09-10-2003, 17:35
The fletchings were spirally bound to prevent them from lifting or coming away. I do this now with my arrows as, yes your finger gets cut up badly. I suppose back then they were a tougher lot too.
Mongol btw....won't go over all the reasons but ask anyone who knows archery, finest design of any 'traditional' bow and it's the bow I use myself.
heh can't resist it........Longbows? Too unreliable, they explode when you least expect http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
.......Orda
TheSilverKnight
11-21-2003, 16:01
I like longbows because in Braveheart, the British aimed them up, and then they came raining down on the Scots *makes arrow landing noises* pppthh fffffttth
Well as I am Welsh and therefore British I would have to pick the Britsh Longbow.
If I was neither Welsh nor British I'd still have to pick the British longbow due to its battle winning prowess.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-10-2003, 01:06
Quote[/b] ]Let's not forget raping, pillaging, mass murder and the defilement of holy sites by the age of 15
You seem to forget that the Mongols were very tolerant of different religions... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Raping, pillaging, yes
I grant you that, but they didn't made sistematic mass murder their everyday plan.
When a Mongol army arrived in a enemy city, it depended a lot on the "welcoming comitee":
-If the population opened the doors and welcome them, they would demand a payment to leave. After that the city would become a protected vassal of the Empire. It would have to pay a tribute every year and allow the population to be recruted, if need be, to the Mongol's campaigns.
-If the city closed itself on their arrival, the Mongols would send an emissary to indicate the terms of surrender. These terms involved in most cases the sacking of the city (robing and raping included), but not the killing of the population nor the destruction of its buildings. After the sacking, the city would fall under the same regime of tribute to the Empire as mentioned before.
-If the city did not surrender and resisted then the might of the Mongol army would be put to work. They would storm the city, sacking, pillaging, burning and destroying. But a lot of the population and the religious buildings would be unarmed (unless soldiers of the city would seek refuge in it).
-If a city already conquered revolted, then it would get in real trouble. The Mongols hated broken promisses. The city would be burned to the ground, and all of the population put to the sword. In practical terms, it would cease to exist...
They would do this, not only for revenge or punishment, but to set an example to the other conquered cities. You revolt, you pay the consequences.
That's one of the reasons why the Mongols were able to hold such a large empire, for 200 years, without having massive armies. In fact the total Mongol armies never exceded 150000 men.
Another thing the Mongols did: they took the artisans and craftsmen to Mongolia.
Why? Since Ghengis Khan's (pronounced Chinggis Khan - meaning Strong Ruler or Oceanic Ruler, not certain) early expansion, that they were trying to modernize their country with those men's knowledge.
Quote[/b] ]They basically served as the Mongol horse archers for the GH. The Mamluks incorporated these Turks and their skills in their armies and later defeated the Mongol invasion of Syria.
In reality Ain-Djalut was a defeat by numbers more than by skill or efectiveness. Mongol forces in the area were less than 10000men. Nothing compared to the northern invasions (+50000men). They also didn't have a good general either. Quite strange, considering the fabulous commanders like Subedei or Jebei. It's considered by historians that it was a reconnaissance force more than an invading army.
Quote[/b] ]The Japanese practice kyudô, which makes archery an art form. It is very elegant, especially from horseback.
Very true. Quite delightfull... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]Kyûba no michi - The Way of Horse and Bow, a term for the Heian and Kamakura era.
A true connaiseur Bravo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] ]...he's just makin fun of LBs which are ohhhh ever sooo slightly over glorified.
Correct, they really were over glorified...
Quote[/b] ]The question can be misleading. I have shot both Mongolian and Longbows, prefering the later. The Mongolian bow certainly has more strike power if using the same arrow as used on the longbow, but this was not the case. The longbow out ranges the mongolian buy a good way some 75 yards.
WRONG You have shot MODERN versions of the mongol composite bow and of the longbow. The techniques used today are very consumer based and begginer based.
I'll explain. The tension on the string is in both cases much lower than in the 13th and 14th centuries. About half or less in reality.
And the materials that are used today are specifically for "mass" production even if they are touted as "hand-made".
In fact, it is known today that no craftsman has managed to string a Mongol bow with the original tension. And even if he could, nobody would be able to shoot it. To shoot the TRUE Mongol bow you had to learn the "Mongolian release".
There were, in fact, two types of Mongol bow. One to shoot from horseback and another to shoot on foot. This last one, could also only be shot using the "Mongolian release", but had a much greater tension than the Mongol cav bow.
In reality it had a tension of about 50% to 70% greater than the Longbow... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
You can read more here:
www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm
Quote[/b] ]On the battlefeild it boils down to how the weapon was deployed rather than the solider using it. I would rather face 5000 Mongol horse archers wirling about me than 5000 English Longbowmen shooting from a dense formation with 30,000 arrows raining down every minute, and those armour piercing heads
You really don't know what you're saying, do you? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
How do you think that Polish, German and Hungarian Knights were killed?
With "normal" arrow heads?
The Mongols had for a long time been using armour piercing heads.
Another thing:
If you had a horse what would you think to be the safer situation?
The slow 5000 Longbowmen or the fast & furious 5000 Horse Archers?
We are talking REAL life here, not MTW... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]If I was neither Welsh nor British I'd still have to pick the British longbow due to its battle winning prowess.
You've been asleep somehow? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Battle winning prowess?
Longbow:
Let's see... ...Crecy(1346), Poitiers(1356), Agincourt(1415)... ...and other little skirmishes.
Mongol bow:
1218 Kara-Kithai Empire falls... 1221 Empire of Kwarezm falls... 1227 Kingdom of Xi-Xia falls... 1234 Jin Empire falls... 1236 Georgia conquered... 1238 Russian Principalities fall... 1239 Korea conquered... 1241 Hungarian, Polish & German armies crushed... 1243 Seljuk Sultanate falls... 1258 Abassid Caliphate falls... 1279 Song Empire falls...
Do you still want me to continue? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Yes Continue http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-10-2003, 03:49
Quote[/b] ]Yes Continue http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
When the "quoted" persons reply, rest assured, I will... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I fail to see your point.
The mongols have had more battles therefore their bow is better ?
The fact that the british longbow more or less demonised our Archers in France goes to show just how feared a weapon it was.
The poll is your favourite archer- not which archer is 'the best'
Its not some competiton- you can't 'prove' that your opinion holds more weight than anyone else by copying and pasting statistics.
Its quite sad that 'winning' on a message board appears to make you so smug.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-10-2003, 15:31
Quote[/b] ]The mongols have had more battles therefore their bow is better ?
Not MORE battles, for 100 years they were NEVER defeated.
And the Mongol bow was a key point in their system of warfare. Therefore it's an important factor...
Quote[/b] ]The poll is your favourite archer- not which archer is 'the best'
Point taken...
Quote[/b] ]Its not some competiton- you can't 'prove' that your opinion holds more weight than anyone else by copying and pasting statistics.
I wasn't copying and pasting statistics to "win" anything http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
In fact, I'm pretty surprised that you think I was trying to impose my opinion on anyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
I was commenting HISTORICAL FACTS
The simple fact that the English never conquered anything "permanently" during the 100 Years War, despite the superiority of their archers.
In about the same amount of time, the Mongol Empire was born and grew to became the LARGEST empire the world has ever known
Quote[/b] ]Its quite sad that 'winning' on a message board appears to make you so smug.
Winning?
SMUG?
Did I insult anyone? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
I'm afraid you got the wrong idea...
I already told you that my objective wasn't winning anything... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
I'm very sad that you think so... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
I may have been a little harsh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Quote[/b] ]You really don't know what you're saying, do you?
How do you think that Polish, German and Hungarian Knights were killed?
With "normal" arrow heads?
The Mongols had for a long time been using armour piercing heads.
The above across as a little competitive.
Quote[/b] ]The simple fact that the English never conquered anything "permanently" during the 100 Years War, despite the superiority of their archers.
In about the same amount of time, the Mongol Empire was born and grew to became the LARGEST empire the world has ever known
The fact that Britian is small island with a limited population may have also contributed to that.
Plus Henry V dying rather young didn't help either http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-10-2003, 20:04
Quote[/b] ]I may have been a little harsh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Good to know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
You really don't know what you're saying, do you?
How do you think that Polish, German and Hungarian Knights were killed?
With "normal" arrow heads?
The Mongols had for a long time been using armour piercing heads.
The above across as a little competitive.
I was joking a bit, but beeing "competitive" was not my intention. I was just surprised by such a careless answer.
Specially because, everyone (OK, not everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) knows that the Polish, Hungarian & German Knights killed at Leignitz and Mohi, were no "Sunday Drivers" in terms of warfare. Those poor guys couldn't be mistaken for peasents...
As I see it, some people have the tendency to think that every bit of the game his an Historical fact
That the range and lethality of the in-game MHA, is what in reality the Mongol Horseman in the 13th century could produce
Quote[/b] ]The fact that Britain is small island with a limited population may have also contributed to that.
Correct, but let's not forget that the England in the Middle Ages had far more population than the whole of Mongolia.
An agricultural country, specially one fertile like Britain, had a far greater food production than a country of nomadic tribes could have.
The difference is:
Britain: 20 to 30% of the male population at the most, going to war, in the worst case scenario.
Mongolia: ALL male, between 15 and 60 were soldiers, every day of their lifes. Even some women, if touted as very skilfull, would battle along with the men. In fact Mongol armies travelled with the soldier's wifes, children, houses, etc...
But for such a VAST empire their forces never totalled more than 150000men.
It was their terror and deception tactics that proved invaluable in keeping the empire under control. As an example: when aproaching the enemy, they would tye branches to all the horses to work like brooms, allowing much more dust to be lifted in the air. The enemy would in fact see a much more numerous enemy army than the true Mongol army. The mith of "numberless men" or "seas of men" was very well exploited by the Mongols.
On a side, in another post I wrote:
Quote[/b] ]But they didn't have only the most sturdy and resistant horses. They had an intricate system of "horse-courier" to keep all tumans(army corps) in contact with one another.
Something like the "pony-express" of the Old Wild West.
The speed at which their communications moved, allowed them to know the locations of the enemy troops as well as their own, enabling strategic and tactical preparations to be made or altered well before the battle. That's how they sometimes would crush the enemy by surprise, using efective coordinated attacks.
It's widelly regarded today, by military strategists, that the Mongol army invented the concept known today by the term C3I (Command, Control, Communications & Intelligence).
I know it's a little out of bounds, but its just to be informative. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]Plus Henry V dying rather young didn't help either
Indeed, it really didn't. That's what I call a dirty trick of Destiny... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
|OCS|Virus
01-23-2004, 07:05
I like the muslim ones the best but only because THEY LOOK SO COOL they are by no means the best.
ShadeFlanders
01-25-2004, 20:37
Mongols, hands down, no arguement possible. They won victory after victory against very diverse types of opponents both in Asia and Europe.
Second place should go to the longbows, I even vaguely remember a battle in the second crusade when Richard's army, which was based around english bowmen, absolutely massacred Saladin's mainly horse archer force. And those were still an early version of the true longbwmen IIRC.
DemonArchangel
01-25-2004, 23:12
they were crossbows
Leet Eriksson
01-26-2004, 01:02
Longbows were invented much more later(early in the 100 years war i think),richard used mainly crossbows..
As to cool muslim archers,i dunno where that came from,as i have not yet seen an accurate description of them in a european source...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.