View Full Version : Obsolete troop types
Something that has always bugged about MTW is units becoming obsolete & no longer buildable.
Historically certain styles of warfare and the troops thus required die out due to factors such as economics, battlefield effectiveness - whether perceived or real - military fashion & demographic changes.
Would the Saxon/Scandinavian style of axe-wielding heavy infantry, the huscarle, have died out if William had lost at Hastings. If the Normans hadn't had the confidence and 'proof' of the apparent superiority of their style of heavy horse over the huscarle from that battle, would the eventual rise of the Western knight with couched lance - something that owes a lot to the Normans - have occured or been as widespread? Further down that line of thought, would all the countertroops, such as the pike, have then been developed/re-developed?
By the nature of the game, history in MTW does not follow the same pattern as our real history, so why would your military stop arming themselves and fighting in the style of huscarles, for example, if you win battle after battle with those troops? The gradual technology changes that improved the armour & weapons of the knight would in this alternate game history have been instead applied to the huscarle, perhaps eventually leading to them being plate-armored - in effect the chivalric/gothic foot knight, but via a different route.
With this thinking, I prefer to mod the game so that for campaigns that begin in Early no troop type ever becomes obsolete, leaving it to the whims of the AI to determine what gets built by the other factions. With High and Late starting campaigns, I consider the history to be fixed and troop types that are already obsolete stay obsolete though. I haven't yet gone as far as creating new units that are perhaps logical developments of otherwise abandoned troop types, the plate-armored huscarle being an obvious one from my above example, but it would make an interesting alternate-history mod. Maybe one day, but with RTW on the way, MTW itself will soon be obsolete.
I agree with you. I'm not sure what triggers the Marius reforms in the game, but I hope that it's triggered by certain circumstances that mimmick the situation that promted the reforms in real life, as opposed to a date chosen by taking the year of the real reforms and giving or taking up to 5 years or something.
massamuusi
08-11-2004, 13:46
I vote peasants and all their equals. They should be right out.
Take one of them with you, it gets scared and then your whole army starts routing because one of the peasants got hit by ballista...
I think the dying of unit types should at least have something to do with how widely they're trained, for example, arab infantry, if no one trains them for 150 years since they appear, and no one ever uses them, except one rebellion where they get their asses kicked, wouldn't it be ok if they became unavailable?
Dunno...
eadeater
08-12-2004, 00:26
I just think that the viking landsmen rule and shouldnt become obsolete. In my opinion they are easily better than all the militias and the peasants and event the feudal units, and would give chivalric men-at-arms a good fight as well.
Plantagenet
08-12-2004, 06:01
I agree, but since I generally don't use peasant or equivalent troops, I wouldn't mind losing those.
Gnome Editor makes it extremely easy to fix though. Just replace the periods the unit is available with "All Periods".
LeeJackson
08-12-2004, 08:43
I just lost the ability to produce all the cool Vikings in my Danish game. I Hate that! Those units are what make the Danes fun to play, but since they have a long ramp up period you usually don’t get to have to many.
In my HRE campaign, I used to have a fair bunch of viking troops. Nearly a full stack of just landsmenn and some huscarles in Naples alone, waiting to be reassigned to several other stacks so as to balance all armies out a bit.
Then, the emperor (who, at the age of 63, had succeeded his brother who died at 65, because the latter's eldest son was only a kid, about 12 years old) died two years after his ascension to the throne, before his nephew had come of age. The count of Flanders was then elected emperor, but for some reason, probably some marriage I'd forgotten about, Naples was turned over to the Sicilians, along with all those vikings!
:worried2:
Now, I'm just waiting for the Sicilians to break our alliance to jump on those traitors with a big army and ride them down with lots and lots of mercenary heavy cavalry, putting an end to the viking era.
[QUOTE=Sinner]Something that has always bugged about MTW is units becoming obsolete & no longer buildable.
~:) In a way Huscarles don't just die out historically but stop being the decisive elemant on the field. Anglo-Norman armies still used the fryd into the 12th and Huscarles style units such as Gallowglaichts. The Gallowglass was an Irish warrior of Scandinavian origin often wielding an Axe. The french used Scottish Gallowglaichts to counter English men at arms, during the 100 years war.
But the triumph of knight over huscarle wasn't just down to "Old William" Who's horsemen were chucking as many spears as they were couching them. The problem was 8/10 A highly mobile, well trained and disciplined force will out manouver and thus often defeat a less mobile force. Huscarle armies couldn't manouver well. So could be easily out flanked and needed to sit on top of a big hill or have well protected flanks to have much chance against a cavalry force. Plus foot troops tire quicker. The root of the legend of King Arthurs knights is probably based on how a Britannic cavalry force repeatedly beat an army of Saxon Huscarles, Saxons who were being driven west by the knock on effect of the Hunic invasions (more guys on horses).
But thats just history and modding can be easy and fun. I introduced Elephants for some of the Muslim factions just coz they look cool.
~:wacko:
I agree, but since I generally don't use peasant or equivalent troops, I wouldn't mind losing those.
Gnome Editor makes it extremely easy to fix though. Just replace the periods the unit is available with "All Periods".
I leave the peasants in but add the Muster Field from the Vikings campaign to the Medieval campaign, making that a build requirement for peasants & similar troops. By setting the Muster Field to a low build priority, it reduces the number of peasants that appear, but still has them available.
I also replace all the starting peasants with the various types of basic spearmen, so it means I rarely encounter them in my campaigns outside of rebellions, especially since I also mod most regions to have a greater starting infrastructure, something that greatly aids the AI in developing and deploying the more advanced troops, giving my armies something more interesting to chew on. ~:)
For some reason, I never have warmed to the Gnome Editor or any other editor, I've always prefered just using Notepad - but I am odd.
I had some spare time last night, so I created a mod that made the Viking Huscarle the royal unit for the English and the Danes - renaming it as the Early Royal Huscarle - with a modded copy of Joms Vikings (-1 Charge, +1 Armour) as the High Royal Huscarle, and a modded copy of Gothic Foot Knights (60 men, +1 Charge, -1 Defence, -1 Armour, Move 6/10/12, Cost 850 and using axes instead of two-handed swords plus having large shields with a 0.5 modifier when not in melee) as the Late Royal Huscarle. I used the Saxon Huscarle as the generic non-royal huscarle for both factions and also added Carls and Landsmenn, replacing Peasants with Thralls, but removed their ability to build Chivalric Knights and both Feudal and Chivalric Men-At-Arms.
Facing French armies of knights with huscarles has been great fun so far, although I'm having to play far more defensive tactics than I'm used to.
I don't think a unit should ever become unavailable because of lack of use. Right now, the British Army could start training Billmen again, but they don't 'cos they're not useful. However, even if they wanted to start raising units of longbowmen, they'd have to wait several years, as skill at longbow has to be practiced for a long time before it's useful.
Obviously this is an extreme example, but availability should be judged on this basis. The shape of an army should change according to what's required of it, and not have changes forced on it. In reality, armies improved against new treats. Burning pigs should not be buildable until the Army has faced Elephants.
However I doubt the technological changes are grand enough for a touch like this to be important enough.
eadeater
08-12-2004, 13:57
I think the British army SHOULD train some billmen, they could come in very handy ~:) I'd love to see a division if billmen cracking a tank open, or even better, a unit of longbowmen shooting down a fighter jet flying over head. A billman with a billhook is like a wild beast - dangerous if cornered! ~:joker:
[QUOTE=Sinner]Something that has always bugged about MTW is units becoming obsolete & no longer buildable.
~:) In a way Huscarles don't just die out historically but stop being the decisive elemant on the field. Anglo-Norman armies still used the fryd into the 12th and Huscarles style units such as Gallowglaichts. The Gallowglass was an Irish warrior of Scandinavian origin often wielding an Axe. The french used Scottish Gallowglaichts to counter English men at arms, during the 100 years war.
But the triumph of knight over huscarle wasn't just down to "Old William" Who's horsemen were chucking as many spears as they were couching them. The problem was 8/10 A highly mobile, well trained and disciplined force will out manouver and thus often defeat a less mobile force. Huscarle armies couldn't manouver well. So could be easily out flanked and needed to sit on top of a big hill or have well protected flanks to have much chance against a cavalry force. Plus foot troops tire quicker. The root of the legend of King Arthurs knights is probably based on how a Britannic cavalry force repeatedly beat an army of Saxon Huscarles, Saxons who were being driven west by the knock on effect of the Hunic invasions (more guys on horses).
But thats just history and modding can be easy and fun. I introduced Elephants for some of the Muslim factions just coz they look cool.
~:wacko:
Yah, I was mildly disappointed that the Gallowglasses in the game were the Scottish style, as opposed to the Scandinavian style, although I got the impression that the former was far more common.
As for cavalry vs infantry, manouver isn't everything, else we wouldn't have had the very common practice of knights dismounting to fight on foot until the closing stages of battle, because of the vulnerability of the horse in large-scale combat. What I'd opinion is the major problem for trained & disciplined infantry in dealing with cavalry is that in general they have to have a critical mass of troops to be able to stand against the horsemen. The cavalry need to be able to punch through the infantry before the momentum of their charge runs out thus avoiding the increased vulnerability of horse & rider when fighting at close quarters; to counter this the infantry need deep enough ranks to slow & halt the cavalry in their midst. If the infantry don't have enough numbers to be able to present massed ranks - in all directions if necessary - then they are far more vulnerable to a charge by even a small number of horsemen breaking and then scattering their lines.
Another problem for infantry facing cavalry is that they generally can't actually defeat them unless the cavalry are willing or dumb enough to attack. The greater mobility of the cavalry does allow them to dictate if battle occurs or not. Except in circumstances where the infantry can somehow force engagement, the best they can achieve is stalemate.
As you noted, the Norman cavalry primarily threw their spears at the time of Hastings, although this proved relatively ineffective against the Saxon shieldwall, and it was only the ill-discipline of the fyrd followed by the loss of morale at Harold's death that led to the eventual Norman victory. The Normans however still had the perception that their horsemen were a decisive weapon, else why bother with the not inconsiderable effort of bringing horses by sea rather than acquiring them locally after landing. This perception would have been reinforced after the victory at Hastings both in the Normans own minds and those of other Western nobles and military. Add in that only the relatively wealthy could afford a horse and you have a further bias to perceiving cavalry as elite. With the belief in the horseman's supremacy the perceived counter would be another horseman, leading to the escalation in arms and armour that changed the Norman knight from moderately armoured & primarily spear-armed to heavily armoured & lance-armed, with the increased effectiveness against infantry unable or unwilling to stand and face the cavalry being almost a side-benefit.
Once the effectiveness of disciplined infantry against cavalry was realized, or rediscovered, the prospects for the knight and their beloved mounted charge were gloomy. In a way the method of fighting eventually went full circle, at least as far as the English are concerned, with huscarles fighting with axes being surplanted by the mounted knight, who was then forced to revert to fighting on foot with the poleaxe a favored weapon. The French for one proved far more stubborn, their noblility fixated on the perceived glory of the mounted charge despite their repeated defeats to the lowly footslogger.
medmod gives ye ole armored huscarles.
that might whet your appetite.
billmen killing tanks would be funny.
reminds me of the stupid civ combat random generator which made my tank lose to a spearman!
I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.
combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.
eadeater
08-12-2004, 15:37
reminds me of the stupid civ combat random generator which made my tank lose to a spearman!
.
Yeah, that is one of the most random things in Civ. Tanks losing to spearmen is ridiculous, but I can just about imagine how that might happen, but when your nuclear submarine tries to torpedo a galley, and gets sunk, my imagination fails. I simply can't see it happening, torpedo inevitably hits the galley (which moves slower than i walk probably), which gets completely obliteratied, but one lucky sailor survives, swims hundreds of metres to the sub, which has now dived, holds his breath, survives compression/decompression, swims to the sub, using his inhuman strength and pissed off attitude, tears off the hatch, and punches a few holes in the armoured hull, and swims up to the surface. He then fixes the galley with errr, seaweed or something, and using his voodoo magic ressurects his crew, and happily sails on? Huh, I doubt it somehow. Maybe someone has a different idea on how a galley can sink a nuclear sub? ~D
It's been said that the pure slowness of a Biplane would pose a difficulty for modern air2air aircraft. Or maybe it was difficult for heat seeking missiles to track a biplane. Whatever, the only unit that will never grow obsolete is the ninja. Battlefield Ninja Elephants especially... they're so good that they've never been spotted.
I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.
That would depend if the infantry are lined up ready to fire with good officers to get the timing right & disciplined troops who obey their officers & hold their fire until ordered - in which case the footsloggers will be eating horsemeat steaks for supper. ~:) The cavalry should counter by pulling away & starting to try & flank the infantry, but then the infantry can counter that by forming into a square, etc.
combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.
Combined arms is always the way to go where possible, artillery plus cavalry were death for the infantry... for MTW, I'd guess archers plus cavalry would be more appropriate.
It's been said that the pure slowness of a Biplane would pose a difficulty for modern air2air aircraft. Or maybe it was difficult for heat seeking missiles to track a biplane.
The slow speed would be a big problem, but since modern fighters can and do shoot down helicopters which have similar top speeds to WW1 biplanes it wouldn't be impossible. Not too sure about the heat seeker, since they are effective against modern piston engined aircraft, but I'm not sure if the weaker engines used on WW1 biplanes have as strong an IR signature. Same for radar guided missiles, although modern ones are designed to be able to track low radar signature targets. Not that it matters, because a peasant would have already brought the biplane down with his pitchfork.
Daveybaby
08-12-2004, 17:02
Chances are that all a modern jet would need to do would be fly *near* a biplane and it would be torn apart by turbulence ~:dizzy: , or even set on fire by afterburners! ~D
w.r.t. the battle of hastings - the axemen actually performed pretty well - pretty much the only reason that harold lost is because his men were undisciplined - the normans repeatedly performed fake charges and retreats, and when small numbers of impetuous axemen broke ranks and charged down off of the ridge to chase them, they were slaughtered piecemeal in the open by the normal knights. General consensus is that if the Saxons had held their far superior defensive position, the normans would have lost.
So i dont know if you can assume that the changes came about because of one battle - these things changed gradually over hundreds of years - a gradual evolutionary progression, which MTW doesnt really simulate.
If it's evolutionary, why can't my units get upgraded for a price or if they surpass a certain valor threshold to superior units?
you might be able to change v4 feudal knights to v3 chivalrics etc.
Daveybaby
08-12-2004, 17:40
Well, like i said, MTW doesnt simulate it. It just gives you a set of 'idealised' units which were available at certain periods of history. In reality the nature of these units was constantly changing and evolving.
Admittedly you also get revolutionary changes due to new technology - gunpowder being the obvious example, but the evolutionary stuff is also there - its usually a large number of smaller steps which make up the changes.
w.r.t. the battle of hastings - the axemen actually performed pretty well - pretty much the only reason that harold lost is because his men were undisciplined - the normans repeatedly performed fake charges and retreats, and when small numbers of impetuous axemen broke ranks and charged down off of the ridge to chase them, they were slaughtered piecemeal in the open by the normal knights. General consensus is that if the Saxons had held their far superior defensive position, the normans would have lost.
So i dont know if you can assume that the changes came about because of one battle - these things changed gradually over hundreds of years - a gradual evolutionary progression, which MTW doesnt really simulate.
The huscarles - the 'professional' warriors in Harold's army - mostly did keep their ranks, it was the fyrd - the rank & file 'militia' who served for a couple of months per year - that were the ones who broke ranks, getting slaughtered & thus weakening the Saxon's numbers until eventually the Norman's could stage a successful assault during their last gasp wave of attacks with Harold's death being the final blow.
As for the story that the Norman forces faked retreats, that is considered unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely. William was leading what was in effect an adhoc force made up of various nationalities and groups lured by the promise of loot, complicating the task of coordinating them. In their very first advance the Normans failed to keep in line, with one wing getting ahead of the others and being routed by the Saxons before the remainder of the Norman forces could intervene. This example of poor command & control indicates that it would be unlilkely that fake retreats would have been possible in the heat of battle due to the danger of them turning into actual routs.
The idea of the fake retreats comes from the Norman chronicler of the battle, and it's likely that he wanted to avoid tarnishing the victory by admitting that the Normans broke at least twice only to be rallied by their leaders. The feigned retreat tale was commonly used by the victors of a battle to mask any embarassment that part or all of their army nearly or actually ran away.
supposedly it was after noticing that the fyrd gave chase to being out of position and getting isolated and massacred from the initial Norman rout that the Normans started feigning retreats.
supposedly it's possible to do so with William's cavalry to perform such a task of feigning retreats but not actually routing.
Ironside
08-13-2004, 09:48
Yeah, that is one of the most random things in Civ. Tanks losing to spearmen is ridiculous, but I can just about imagine how that might happen, but when your nuclear submarine tries to torpedo a galley, and gets sunk, my imagination fails. I simply can't see it happening, torpedo inevitably hits the galley (which moves slower than i walk probably), which gets completely obliteratied, but one lucky sailor survives, swims hundreds of metres to the sub, which has now dived, holds his breath, survives compression/decompression, swims to the sub, using his inhuman strength and pissed off attitude, tears off the hatch, and punches a few holes in the armoured hull, and swims up to the surface. He then fixes the galley with errr, seaweed or something, and using his voodoo magic ressurects his crew, and happily sails on? Huh, I doubt it somehow. Maybe someone has a different idea on how a galley can sink a nuclear sub? ~D
The galley doesn't need to win, they simply need to not lose. The nuclear sub missed the gally, accidently hit another nuclear sub (if they are a squad), and/or one the torpedoes exploded inside the sub. See it's easy. ~;)
eadeater
08-13-2004, 12:58
and/or one the torpedoes exploded inside the sub. See it's easy. ~;)
Ahhh, very clever, the galley didn't even need to know that the sub was there, the torpedo malfunctioned. Heh, why didn't I think of that myself ~:0 ?
CherryDanish
08-13-2004, 14:28
The idea of the fake retreats comes from the Norman chronicler of the battle, and it's likely that he wanted to avoid tarnishing the victory by admitting that the Normans broke at least twice only to be rallied by their leaders. The feigned retreat tale was commonly used by the victors of a battle to mask any embarassment that part or all of their army nearly or actually ran away.
Interesting and very likely the truth as the victor often rewrites history.
The AI tried this on me last night feigning with mounted sergants, my archers had a field day and their whole army routed and broke. I finally got some good use that day from my hobilars that I had held behind my spearwall and I chased down hundreds of fleeing Germans. The lesson here on offense is don't feign cav attacks against a hardened position backed by a significant number of missle troops. On defense the lesson is sometimes it's better to get distracted micromanaging a distant unit and neglect your main troop body so you don't get suckered into chasing down fast cavalry and getting butchered yourself ;).
In Civ, you can build the Biggest Baddest army 200 years ahead of its time, then march up to a primitive nothing of a nation and demand they hand over the city they planted in the corner of your island empire. Then they'd tell you to naff off, and when you siezed it by force, a speaman would trounce your marines and tanks.
The only thing good about Civ was the diplomacy, and funnily enough the dimplomacy in Rome looks like it will be very similar. Bonus.
yep. the diplomacy is my biggest complaint about MTW.
now, if they would fix naval combat, the world would be perfect.
wonder if they'll bring back movies like in Shoggy?
yep. the diplomacy is my biggest complaint about MTW.
now, if they would fix naval combat, the world would be perfect.
wonder if they'll bring back movies like in Shoggy?
I don't think they will. The 3D characters on the map are animated.
I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.
combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.
Not always... Infantry can sometimes stand up to cav charges in a line. The stand of the 93rd Highlanders at Balaclava in 1854 makes great reading.
The Russian force of 25,000 rode down the road to Balaklava. It was countered, in part, by a clash with the British Heavy Cavalry, who charged uphill, led by the apparently fearless Sir James Scarlett. The rest of the Russian force (approx 5000 men) went on to charge the 93rd (approx 500 men).
Campbell is said to have told his men, "There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand." Sir Colin's aide John Scott is said to have replied, "Aye, Sir Colin. If needs be, we'll do that." Campbell formed the 93rd into a line two deep --- the "thin red line" --- and had the regiment wait until very close quarters before the first line fired. The Russians continued to advance, and Campbell had his men wait until no more than 500 yards lay between the Highlanders and the charging Russians to fire the second volley. This broke the Russian charge. At that, some of the Highlanders started forward for a charge, but Sir Colin stopped them with a cry of "93rd, damn all that eagerness!"
It was the London Times correspondent, William H. Russell, who wrote that he could see nothing between the charging Russians and the British base of operations at Balaklava but the "thin red streak tipped with a line of steel" of the 93rd. Popularly condensed into "the thin red line", the phrase became a symbol, rightly or wrongly, for British sang-froid in battle.
When asked afterwards about his 'unconventional' tactics the commander replied that knowing the 93rd he didn't think it was worth the trouble of forming a square. lol :knight:
Plantagenet
08-13-2004, 19:00
I also replace all the starting peasants with the various types of basic spearmen, so it means I rarely encounter them in my campaigns outside of rebellions, especially since I also mod most regions to have a greater starting infrastructure, something that greatly aids the AI in developing and deploying the more advanced troops, giving my armies something more interesting to chew on. ~:)
Thats a great idea. Not only do I not use them, but I hate having to fight them because its just too easy. Thanks for the idea; I'm gonna do that in my next campaign.
@ rivelin, I meant that in general, with good tactics, cav should trump infantry in line.
if the russian cav weren't so darn scared of british troops and had flanking forces etc., you'd find it difficult to guard a line from all sides whereas square is better.
Also, Highlanders are not what I consider regular infantry. they are more like jedi units. reminds me of Italian medmod units such as pavisiers whereas pinned, flanked, and rear attacked, they'd form some pretzel formation without losing their rank bonus and proceed to slaughter and rout half my army.
Didn't mean to be pedantic, its just a great story, warms me cokles it does
true. Highlanders never fail to amaze.
I've modded in an end game unit or at least ultra high tech unit that requires master gun, master spear, and academy.
It's a musketeer unit which is basically an arq that shoots at longbow range, high accuracy, capable of shootinging in the rain and also possessing stats close to that of huscarles in melee.
I then have a highlander version which has 16 morale and +2 attack which is available in Scotland.
of course not OP...
Al Khalifah
08-13-2004, 22:23
I think the British army SHOULD train some billmen, they could come in very handy I'd love to see a division if billmen cracking a tank open, or even better, a unit of longbowmen shooting down a fighter jet flying over head. A billman with a billhook is like a wild beast - dangerous if cornered!
Actually, several special forces units are trained in the use of bows simply because they are an excellent silent killer weapon. Modern bows have longer range and are far more accurate to a less skilled user than the Medieval equivalent. Not much use against Kevlar mind, but against militia, a bow would be a handy weapon.
Don't anyone dare respond to this by talking about 'silenced' weapons unless you want to be pulled apart with insults about how you've seen FAR too many movies to believe in these guns that are quiter than a mouse, at 10m away, indoors.
On the subject of bow usage, I can't remember which commander or side suggested it but there was still belief that armies should be equipped with bows even during the English Civil War - long after guns had been adopted as common. With the proper training I'd certainly agree. Supperior fire rate and range and accuracy. Plus the non-direct fire aspect. I expect the training period was probably the main prohibitive factor in this and the everyone-else-is-doing-it factory with muskets.
Shame.
well, some weapons are never outdated. knifes and daggers are still useful in close quarters and probably will be for a long time.
hmmm, longbows can probably inflict more damage than some muskets simply by difference in fire rate and ability for bombardment effect.
special ops use bows? you learn something new everyday.
eadeater
08-13-2004, 23:19
Yeah, bows are pretty handy for silent militia killing, but they could also be used to kill proper troops in body armour. I mean, Arnie did it in predator - he just strapped explosives to the arrows - except that kinda defeats the silence aspect. Oh well, can't have everything. ~D
if you have enough aim, you can always go for vulnerabilities in body armor.
EatYerGreens
08-14-2004, 18:58
Hi to all,
Interesting discussion, couldn't resist chipping in....
From what I've heard, the significance of line formation was that Napoleonic-era guns were smoothbore, not rifled and thus not very accurate. Volley fire into a massed target made up for the limited accuracy but range wasn't great either, so there was only ever time for a few rounds before attacking infantry could close, fire off one round (skip reloading) and fight hand to hand. Cavalry could close the last few hundred yards and engage before the defenders had much chance to reload, so it's a logical enough tactic.
Thinking, for a moment, about the pre-firearms era, cavalry's mobility and speed is great for scouting or rapid deployment to a key location on the field (however transient its importance may be) and the ability to engage or disengage foot troops at will. You also have a height advantage against foot, allowing downward or sidewards swipes at the head/neck/back, using the weight of the weapon to your advantage. In reply, the defender has to lift theirs upwards, reducing the strength of their blows. A distinct disadvantage with a heavy axe or sword, designed to be used in a side-swipe motion.
However, since the invention of the shield wall and the spear/pike wall, cavalry's use as an assault tool was always something of a gamble. The bravado element was part of the cavalryman's culture and perhaps the assumption was always that the (regarded as lower-class?) footslogger was too weak-willed or fearful to stand up to the charge. You might be able to judge troop quality by appearances (uniformed or not, armoured or not) but you never knew for sure until the second you actually slammed into them...
Of course we have the benefit of education about history, so it's easy to sit and talk about what to do or not in that situation but most of us probably haven't had to face a single horse galloping towards us, let alone hundreds of them at once. Who knows how each of us would react?
For the unenlightened and ill-disciplined peasant/militia soldier, cavalry were totally lethal because they probably didn't realise that turning your back and running (logical response) is precisely what they wanted you to do. The famed success of infantry squares (at Waterloo, for the sake of argument) was not because of the shape of the formation itself - if anything each side can only be a quarter as strong (in numbers and firepower) as the full formation in line, though it did allow them to have some spare men within the square who could carry out reloading duties or attend to the wounded in relative safety.
No, it was because the troops were trained about the dangers of breaking and fleeing and disciplined into getting in formation and holding position at all costs, all long prior to going into combat. These were professional soldiers, not hastily recruited, inexperienced troops simply on the field to make up the numbers. When they remained unbroken, the cavalry found that the reach of their swords, designed as they were for melee or pursuit, was not as great as that of the bayonet and their attacks came to nothing. Their horses baulked at the bayonet wall, leaving them nothing to do but circle around and risk having horses shot out from under them, or withdraw.
The mantra that cavalry should only be deployed in the latter stages of the battle and then only against units which are already routing is sometimes easier to say than to follow. In STW, I'll only use them against exposed archer units and other cavalry. I've seen the AI send its spearmen towards a forward-placed CavArcher unit of mine several times, so I know what the combat odds are.
Reading about the Takeda traditionally opening with a full charge was a surprise and not something I was willing to emulate so I didn't relish trying a full campaign using them. Even when I did, I raised a lot of foot troops anyway though this was as much due to the customary budgetary problems as a strategic choice.
~:)
Aside from all that why or how do the Saxons get mounted units in Viking invasion. Did they ever actually have Mounted nobles or mounted Bodygaurd units.
~:rolleyes:
CrackedAxe
08-15-2004, 12:30
I think the demise of the saxons, infantry only 'Shield-fort' tactics was a natural development rather than the result of one incident ie: Hastings. It was this form of fighting that became obsolete rather than the unit types themselves.
This type of tactic was always vulnerable to fast-mobile units such as cavalry and thus the advent of cavalry was a natural progression to counter it. Cavalry, was imo, an inevitable development, the Normans picked it up from the native French who in turn learnt it from warriors from deeper in the continent. The Saxons, therefore, would probably have developed it themselves and made their own style of warfare obsolete.
Its all part of the evolution of warfare, in much the same way as the invention of the machine gun made cavalry itself obsolete centuries later.
So, personally, I think that extending these troop types into later periods would represent a history that would never have happened.
But who the hell cares! do it and have fun! ~:p
Well, like i said, MTW doesnt simulate it. It just gives you a set of 'idealised' units which were available at certain periods of history. In reality the nature of these units was constantly changing and evolving.
Admittedly you also get revolutionary changes due to new technology - gunpowder being the obvious example, but the evolutionary stuff is also there - its usually a large number of smaller steps which make up the changes.
That sumarises it all. Reality is evolution, but that would be very hard to program and difficult for the player to understand. So the game uses programmed 'revolution' that simulates what happened, but not what could have happened.
wonder if they'll bring back movies like in Shoggy?
I have discussed this with several respected Org members before and they have assured me that the movies will return.
Aside from all that why or how do the Saxons get mounted units in Viking invasion. Did they ever actually have Mounted nobles or mounted Bodygaurd units.
I understand they did not. Saxon Thengs rode to battle and dismounted to fight on foot. The Saxons, unlike the French Normans, did not have horses that were powerful enough to carry a warrior and his armour. You also need to train horses against the noise and confusion of a battlefield and to make them willing to charge into a mass of men (especially if the mass of men is tipped with spearheads).
However, they probably had light cavalry (horsemen in game), like the Celts.
I think the demise of the saxons, infantry only 'Shield-fort' tactics was a natural development rather than the result of one incident ie: Hastings. It was this form of fighting that became obsolete rather than the unit types themselves.
This type of tactic was always vulnerable to fast-mobile units such as cavalry and thus the advent of cavalry was a natural progression to counter it. Cavalry, was imo, an inevitable development, the Normans picked it up from the native French who in turn learnt it from warriors from deeper in the continent. The Saxons, therefore, would probably have developed it themselves and made their own style of warfare obsolete.
Its all part of the evolution of warfare, in much the same way as the invention of the machine gun made cavalry itself obsolete centuries later.
So, personally, I think that extending these troop types into later periods would represent a history that would never have happened.
But who the hell cares! do it and have fun! ~:p
Was it really so inevitable though? If the Western style of mounted combat that reached its pinnacle in the knight was so superior, why did they later revert back to fighting on foot? Experience taught them that except in certain battlefield circumstances, well disciplined foot can hold and even defeat superior numbers of horsemen, also requiring far less resources to equip and lesser training requirements as well. Infantry just need to learn to fight on foot plus maybe to ride for strategic movement, but cavalry obviously have to learn to ride and how to fight on both foot and horseback.
William's cavalry proved relatively ineffective at Hastings, their charges - generally to throw spears at close range - were beaten back time and time again at little cost. It was only the occasions when some Saxons broke ranks - mostly fyrd - to chase the retreating Normans, whether actual or feigned retreats, that the cavalry were then able to get among the disordered Saxons and cause real casualties. The final successful Norman assault relied as much on the archers switching tactics, aiming over the shieldwall and targeting the lesser armoured fyrd, plus the death of Harold that shattered the Saxon morale, provoking the majority to rout, allowing the cavalry to begin the slaughter of already defeated foes.
If Harold had more time between Stamford Bridge and Hastings, enabling him to bring up his own forces of archers that he'd been forced to leave behind in his haste to confront William, I believe it's doubtful that the Normans would have won, even if the Saxon fyrd still occasionally disobeyed orders & broke ranks. The Norman archers wouldn't have been able to act with impunity and the Norman cavalry would have had to have been far more cautious.
The win at Hastings resulting in the conquering of an entire kingdom and culture was a major event, one that would have attracted a lot of attention around Europe. Other nobles would perhaps speculate how to emulate that feat, or how to avoid having it happen to them. The Norman knights - those nobles' peers & thus the ones they'd actually believe - would naturally be emphasising their favoured method of combat as the cause for their victory, not wanting to point out that the supposedly inferior foot sloggers held them off for hour after hour at a time when battles were short-lived affairs - hardly a ringing endorsement of the supposed superiority of the heavy horse. So the belief would start that heavy horse was the latest & greatest wonder weapon, others would be eager to try to exploit this, in effect to keep with the latest military fashion.
The square formation can't be easily flanked by cav and allows for concentrated fire.
It's usually 4 deep on a side with the first rank kneeling and bracing the muskets on the ground to present bayonet tips to the horses while the rear 3 ranks provided the musketry to mow down the horses.
cav is undeniably useful for pursuit phase but also useful for breaking troops as many suggested.
massed heavy cav rush with 16 premier heavy cav in MTW is still one of the surest ways to a victory unless massed heavy spears were present.
cav is also useful for often getting the AI missiles to skirmish and thus getting hit in the rear, letting even light cav trumping hybrids in the game while this shouldn't happen if the hybrids stayed to fight.
Was it really so inevitable though? If the Western style of mounted combat that reached its pinnacle in the knight was so superior, why did they later revert back to fighting on foot?
The Longbow replaced the armoured knight as the king of the battlefield. The Scottish learned never to attack longbowmen on horseback, but there was no 'right' way to deal with them until better firearms were invented. The only weakness was the limit of ammo.
In MTW the rate of fire is ridiculously slow for longbowmen. They used to train their speed and accuracy specifically so that they could wipe out an equivalent number of knights in the time it took for those knights to charge the 400 yards of the longbow's range.
Oleander Ardens
08-16-2004, 13:41
Nice thread, good posts;
About faked retreats, some info of Bernhars S. Bernach:
Nithard, a grandson of Charlemagne, witnessed a practice near Verdun in 842 which he described in the follow–ing manner:
"For purposes of training, games were often arranged in the following manner. Fighting-men would be deployed in a place where they could be observed. The entire group of Saxons, Gascons, Austrasians, and Bretons were divided into two units of equal size. They charged forward from both sides and came toward each other at full speed. Then [before contact was made] one side turned its back and under the protection of their shields pretended to be trying to escape. Then those who had been engaged in a feigned retreat counter-attacked and the pursuers simulated flight. Then both kings [Louis the German and Charles the Bald] and all of the young men, raising a great yell, charged forward on their horses brandishing their spear shafts. Now one group feigned retreat and then the other. It was a spectacle worthy of being seen as much because of its nobility as because of its discipline.69 "
If you want to hear more, just ask ~:wave:
Cheers
OA
[QUOTE=Sinner]
William's cavalry proved relatively ineffective at Hastings,
[QUOTE]
~:)
But..... it was the knights that got through the shield wall and cut Harold down which inturn broke the moral.
I think this all proves that in the rock, paper, scissors, evolution of weapons and tactics, a good tactician recognises combined arms as the nescessity something we all already know in here. ~;)
The Longbow replaced the armoured knight as the king of the battlefield. The Scottish learned never to attack longbowmen on horseback, but there was no 'right' way to deal with them until better firearms were invented. The only weakness was the limit of ammo.
In MTW the rate of fire is ridiculously slow for longbowmen. They used to train their speed and accuracy specifically so that they could wipe out an equivalent number of knights in the time it took for those knights to charge the 400 yards of the longbow's range.
But the English knights were in the forefront of the switch back to foot combat and they didn't have to worry about the longbow... except when dealing with a poacher of course. ~:)
I agree about the rate of fire, but since we don't really want to play Arrows Total War, we have to accept the chosen model. As a note, a recent TV show - Weapons That Made Britain - demonstrated that it would be possible for a skilled archer to loose 9 arrows in 30 seconds! In comparison, a crossbow managed just 4 bolts in the same time. The same show also performed tests at a UK military lab on realistic replica armour and found that the longbow would actually have a real killing range of just 20 meters against plate armour. They would still be effective at longer ranges because the armour coverage of the French knights, etc wasn't complete, especially on the horses.
In a later show in the series they also detailed the battle of Verneuil in 1424 where Italian mercenaries wearing late-model arrow-proof armour - in effect Gothic Knights/Lancers - were proven effectively invulnerable to the longbows, and the English only won because the 2000 Italians went off to loot the English baggage, leaving the 13-14000 French to get beaten up by the English (again ~D ), who numbered just 9000 at the start of the battle, so the numbers who engaged the French must have been less than that due to casualties and troops routed by the Italians.
As for the longbow being dealt with by better firearms, in effect they weren't. In the hands of a trained archer, the longbow was more effective overall - taking into account the combination of range, accuracy, lethality, rate of fire & reliability - than any firearm up to the rifled musket. Only in the ability to still fire trlatively effectively even when fatigued is the firearm truely superior to the longbow in battle. The major problem for the longbow was the the relative simplicity of construction and use of the firearm once they were developed beyond the early handgonnes. Instead of taking maybe a year or so to make a longbow and training for years to become a skilled archer, an arquebus could be built within weeks & a recruit trained in its use in little more time. Tactics then evolved - massed ranks primarily - to exploit the ability to use just about any peasant as a soldier and to compensate for the major failings of range, accuracy & rate of fire.
Even with the difficulties involved, since the longbow was demonstrably a superior weapon overall and the English already had the 'production line' for both bows and archers in place, why did they abandon the longbow? Military fashion as always played a part - to be seen by your peers as adopting the lastest technology - but perhaps we should also consider what led to the adoption of the longbow in the first place.
No other European nation created a similar corp of archers using comparable weapons, despite the obvious effectiveness demonstrated on the battlefield over a good two centuries, so something peculiar, even unique, occured in England. I've come across the proposal that a widespread enthusiasm for archery, almost a fashionable craze, spread throughout many parts of England, creating a large pool of potential archers at just the right time to exploit the Welsh longbow. Once the battlefield effectiveness was proven, this enthusiasm was strengthened, given further weight of law by royal decree.
The eventual loss of the English possessions in what is now France, limiting the opportunities for battle abroad, plus perhaps arrogant assumption of superiority due to the superb battlefield record, meant the drive to excel at archery slackened, leading to the gradual decline in the skillbase. This would reduce the perceived effectiveness of longbowmen compared to the more fashionable firearms, so fewer men would train nor train as hard, the skill level thus drops again, and you have a self-driven decline.
The War of the Roses perhaps had another effect, with many young would-be archers volunteering or getting recruited/press-ganged into fighting for one side or the other before they were fully trained, either fighting as common foot or arquebusers instead - maybe then getting killed or becoming less inclined or able to resume archery - or serving as archers, but being less effective due to lower skills, so maybe they're again less inclined to continue practising/training. Plus since both sides were English the number of archers was being reduced due to casualties far more than it would fighting the French for example. It may even have been that in some areas of the country there were no experienced archers left after the war to continue the tradition and train the upcoming generations.
Jumping back to Weapons That Made Britain, it was an awesome TV series that I thoroughly recommend. It was a real eye-opener regarding many of the myths and facts about medieval combat and military technology. Highlights included the presenter throwing himself off a horse wearing a 80 pound suit of full plate & then jumping to his feet to disprove the common myth that dismounted knights were as helpless as upended turtles.
Testing a number of swords from the late Dark Ages to 15th Century for effectiveness at cut & thrust, showed the Long Sword, aka Bastard Sword or Hand-and-a-half Sword, was the most effective for both styles of attack, with the late model 15th C sword amusingly no more effective than the early Saxon/Viking style sword.
Demonstrations of fighting with a number of weapons, using techniques drawn from authentic medieval training manuals, were fascinating... my co-favorite with the Long Sword being the Poleaxe - CA really do need to rethink the animations for the Chivalric Foot Knight!
The effect of armour on fatigue was quite thought provoking... they had a well built & fit guy wearing full armour & had him 'fight' with 3 opponents, not really moving & only exchanging a few blows with each before switching to the next one. He only managed a few minutes before he was so exhausted that he could no longer lift his weapon. Even allowing that medieval warriros could fight for twice the time, even ten times longers, this indicates that for the massive multi-hour battles that occasionally occured, a relay system akin to that used by the Roman Legions must have been used, continually cycling the troops through the frontline so that only a small number in an army were actually fighting at any particular moment.
[QUOTE=Sinner]
William's cavalry proved relatively ineffective at Hastings,
[QUOTE]
~:)
But..... it was the knights that got through the shield wall and cut Harold down which inturn broke the moral.
I think this all proves that in the rock, paper, scissors, evolution of weapons and tactics, a good tactician recognises combined arms as the nescessity something we all already know in here. ~;)
The four knights that killed Harold were the surviviors of a group of about 20 that targetted him when the weakened Saxon flanks were already fragmenting, partly because of the reduced numbers due to the fyrd who'd broke ranks and been slaughtered earlier in the battle and partly from the losses to the Norman archers when they switched tactics and targets during the final assault.
At Harold's death the rout really started, with few Saxons continuing to fight, although apparently some rallied & turned on their pursuers killing 50 or so knights in an ambush.
Would Harold have been killed if the Saxons hadn't already started to waver due to the crumbling flanks? It's possible simply because he fought on the front line like any good Saxon lord and could have been killed at any time once battle was joined. Would the flanks have started to break if the Saxon's numbers hadn't been depleted due to the impetuosity of the fyrd? It's possible that the Normans might have eventually wore the Saxons down, but it was by no means certain and the Normans knew themselves that the final assault was a last gasp effort that had to succeed or else they were doomed. If the final assault was in doubt even after the losses of the ill-disciplined Saxon countercharges, then it would have been even less likely to have succeeded & maybe not even ordered if all the Saxons had followed orders & kept in their ranks. Of course that's just speculation and opinion, but it does make for an enjoyable discussion. ~:)
If you want to speculate further, then weather, timing & politics probably had the greatest effect. If the weather had been clear when William originally planned to sail, he apparently would have encountered a Saxon army of maybe 20000 instead of the 8000 he faced. If the weather had cleared a few days later than it did, Harold would have had more time after Stamford Bridge thus allowing him to bring his archers & summon even more fyrd than the 4000 he managed to round up. If Harold had been able to ignore the pressure from his lords to attack as quickly as possible because of William's ravaging of the land and people around his beachhead, he again would have had more time to bring up troops.
Nice thread, good posts;
About faked retreats, some info of Bernhars S. Bernach:
Nithard, a grandson of Charlemagne, witnessed a practice near Verdun in 842 which he described in the follow–ing manner:
"For purposes of training, games were often arranged in the following manner. Fighting-men would be deployed in a place where they could be observed. The entire group of Saxons, Gascons, Austrasians, and Bretons were divided into two units of equal size. They charged forward from both sides and came toward each other at full speed. Then [before contact was made] one side turned its back and under the protection of their shields pretended to be trying to escape. Then those who had been engaged in a feigned retreat counter-attacked and the pursuers simulated flight. Then both kings [Louis the German and Charles the Bald] and all of the young men, raising a great yell, charged forward on their horses brandishing their spear shafts. Now one group feigned retreat and then the other. It was a spectacle worthy of being seen as much because of its nobility as because of its discipline.69 "
If you want to hear more, just ask ~:wave:
Cheers
OA
There's one problem with any form of pre-planned tactic like that... the enemy always manages to 'mess' up your plans.
There's a couple of major differences between training and combat: in training the other guy usually isn't deliberately trying to kill you and you can always stop the drill if somebody gets it wrong, but there are no tapbacks on the battlefield, you get it wrong and it literally is the last thing you'll ever do! In the confusion of combat it's very difficult for an individual to be certain that a retreat is just a feint and not real. The fear of having sharp metal things poked in you can heighten an individual's doubts: What if we really are routing? Even though we'd planned to fake a withdrawl, what if the enemy is actually beating us & if I don't run soon enough & quick enough I might be caught & poked with sharp metal things! Perhaps I'd better runaway just to be sure! Even if most soldiers stick to the plan, there are always those who will not and if enough start to break you get a cascade effect until eventually even the bravest will have to run.
That's not to say it's impossible, the Mongols for one were masters at feints, but they had a very efficient battlefield communication system and had the advantage of mainly fighting at a distance, lessening the confusion for the individual who has time and space to observe the situation & gain support from comrades and leaders. The various elite troops throughout history would be more capable as well, even in the midst of a melee, because by their nature they tend to be braver and more disciplined, plus many cultures' elites had a honour system that held them in battle.
Hi Sinner,
Intresting replies. I think we've been watching the same TV. And I agree with most of what you say and enjoyed watching the programmes your talking about. A couple of points made me think twice though.
Whilst
the longbow was more effective overall - taking into account the combination of range, accuracy, lethality, rate of fire & reliability - than any firearm up to the rifled musket.
.....leadshot could penertrate Gothic armour, meaning any one could take out a knight. The suit of armour was made almost obsolete. With this and the cost of training, firearms were more effective in real terms at least thats how the Europeans and Muslims saw it, who also began to abandon the deadly composite bow. The Composite bow is known to have outshot the English longbow during the many crusades.
.
[/QUOTE=Sinner]No other European nation created a similar corp of archers using comparable weapons, [/QUOTE]
The Francs archers, (So called because of the tax relief they were granted) were said to be similar in number and superior in skill. Also raised by Royal decree. The french didn't want to challenge there own chivallric codes or empower the lower classes to such a degree, so didn't employ them en masse.
Archery practice was seen by the English as part of the vestige of Fuedalism. With the demise of Franco-Norman power its practice was simply not enforced as vigourously, (although as we all know, the law to practice archery on sundays, remains in the statute books). English people were enjoying English rule. The new Tudors didnt emulate the unpopular Plantagenets. Once more, come sunday, people could play a game of footy or go bell ringing, which seems to have been the new craze at the time.
~:)
hotingzilla
08-17-2004, 09:55
I miss Varangian Guards when i hit late period. I build them so widely. Now I keep several units of them in Constantinople for ceremonies.
.....leadshot could penertrate Gothic armour, meaning any one could take out a knight. The suit of armour was made almost obsolete. With this and the cost of training, firearms were more effective in real terms at least thats how the Europeans and Muslims saw it, who also began to abandon the deadly composite bow. The Composite bow is known to have outshot the English longbow during the many crusades.
Firearms could, unlike arrows, penetrate the late model plate with a solid hit, but they would still have the problem of actually being able to hit the target in the first place, although shot-proof armour was possible. Excluding massed ranks of firearms at close range, the heavily-armoured horseman would in effect be just as invulnerable as he would be to archers by holding just beyond range. And all it needs is for the arquebusiers, or a significant number of them, to fire too soon due to inexperience or nerves and the horsemen will have an opening to charge them down. Such events often occured even during the Napoleonic era when the firearms were far better and the cavalry typically unarmoured and thus technically more vulnerable.
Most soldiers were not wearing such heavy armour however, and these troops would be more at risk to the range/accuracy/rate of fire combination of the longbow than to the slower & less accurate firearm. There would also be circumstances such as ambush and raids when a soldier normally wearing heavy plate wouldn't have it available and again the longbow is likely to have the edge over firearms in such circumstances.
Re the longbow/composite bow comparison, the oft-quoted extreme ranges achieved by the Turkish (I think it was) bows were only possible using specialist lighweight flight arrows mainly intended for competition shooting, where the only goal was simply how far you could shoot, not whether you could hit anything at that range. Shooting beyond a certain range becomes almost pointless due to target movement, environmental effects, etc something that still is an issue for trained marksmen using modern rifles.
I'm also curious as to how many longbowmen would have crusaded - going by vague memory the English had stopped crusading as a nation before they adopted the longbow in significant numbers. They were far too busy beating on the Scots and French to worry about the Holy Land.
The Francs archers, (So called because of the tax relief they were granted) were said to be similar in number and superior in skill. Also raised by Royal decree. The french didn't want to challenge there own chivallric codes or empower the lower classes to such a degree, so didn't employ them en masse.
The reference to their skill seems to come from Jean Juvenal des Ursins, so I don't find it unusual that he'd favourably compare the French archers to the English. His excuse that French nobility supressed their use, thus excusing their significant lack of effect on the battlefield, seems a somewhat weak excuse. The French might have been irrational at times, but they still recognized the need for missile troops, hence the Genoese Crossbowmen at Crecy, and the need to adapt their tactics, such as the gradual acceptance of the English preference of knights fighting on foot.
Archery practice was seen by the English as part of the vestige of Fuedalism. With the demise of Franco-Norman power its practice was simply not enforced as vigourously, (although as we all know, the law to practice archery on sundays, remains in the statute books). English people were enjoying English rule. The new Tudors didnt emulate the unpopular Plantagenets. Once more, come sunday, people could play a game of footy or go bell ringing, which seems to have been the new craze at the time.
~:)
Bell ringing instead of shooting French knights... were they mad? ~:) The English kings were seen as truly English long before the Tudors, Edward III is a good example, truly considered one of their own by his people and more importantly his troops. Even late in the 16th century there were still attempts to enforce restrictions of other pastimes, so it wasn't a purely Plantagenet issue.
Simple human nature was probably the main reason so many neglected the bow: it's much easier to fire a firearm and nowhere near as tiring, so you get to fulfil your military requiremenst without raising too much of a sweat; and the firearm was seen a new & exciting, and we all like to go with the crowd or even try to be on the leading edge, and it's again common to assume that new means better.
Oleander Ardens
08-17-2004, 18:36
A real nice thread to say it again ~:)
@Sinner: You're right about feigned retreats being not easy to master and risky. But they were trained to get used afterwards like that example shows:
"Flank attacks by one mounted unit against another were also an essential part of the tactical repertoire used by medieval horsemen. For example, at Andernach in 876 Louis the Young, the East Frankish king, defeated Charles the Bald when he used the technique of a "refused center" in order to expose the flanks of the West Frankish army to an attack by his horsemen. Louis had learned through his intelligence network of scouts and informers that Charles the Bald was going to attempt a surprise attack at night upon his camp near Andernach. Louis drew up his force in front of his camp with units of East Frankish horsemen slightly refused, or back, on either flank and a corps of lightly armed Saxons slightly advanced at the center. This formation in its initial stage was deployed to await Charles's army and resembled a slightly arched bow with the center thrust forward to attract the enemy's charge. Charles's army, somewhat surprised that the East Franks had learned of its advance, immediately charged the Saxons at the center of Louis's line. After putting up a nominal resistance, the Saxons began a feigned retreat which drew Charles's horsemen in pursuit. Now that the East Frankish center was "refused," the West Frankish horsemen were exposed to an attack on both flanks, and Louis's horsemen charged with devastating effect. Charles's army was crushed."
Once again the worthy read of Bernhard S. Bachrach
From: The Study of Chivalry: Resources and Approaches (1988)
Very interesting archery discussion - I'm tempted to comment, but than again I don't want turn this in a Composite Bow vs Longbow discussion. I already too much engaged in the .com ~;)
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=5576.topic&start=141&stop=159
Cheers
OA
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.