View Full Version : why cant I train crossbows??
I have a boyer's workshop so why cant I?? is it to early at 1123
Knight Templar
10-03-2005, 23:05
Of course zou cant train crossbows yet, it is still early era. Crossbows are trainable only from 1205 ~;)
edit-grammar
Of course zou cant train crossbows yet, it is still early era. Crossbows are trainable only from 1205 ~;)
edit-grammar
so does anyone know when billmen and longbows are available???
Knight Templar
10-03-2005, 23:25
so does anyone know when billmen and longbows are available???
Also from 1205 (high era)
EatYerGreens
10-04-2005, 19:20
so does anyone know when billmen and longbows are available???
Billmen and longbows are only trainable if you're playing the English faction, of course, though you might be able to pick them up as mercenary units, if you're playing as some other faction.
As for crossbows, use them with caution on the battlefield - their rate of fire is slower than normal archers so, in an archery duel, they'll lose more men than they kill, versus normal archers. Keep them at a safe distance and use them to shoot at high-value, well-armoured enemy units, once meleé has started.
Other than that, they make cheap (low-maintainance cost) castle garrisons (you'll need to pair them with at least one meleé unit, to fight off units trying to break in through the gate) and the slow rate of fire means their ammo lasts longer, so they're ideal for defending at river crossings but try to avoid firing into the fighting on the bridge itself as you'll be shooting your own men in the back - a unit's amour rating is highest on the front, because of the shield, obviously. Fire at enemy units as they approach the end of the bridge, so that they are at less than full strength when they enter the fight and their morale is reduced by being under fire.
Don Corleone
10-04-2005, 21:50
I actually recently modded my standard Catholic defensive army in High to include 4 units of archers and 4 of crossbows. I do this to account for exactly what EYG is talking about. In an archery duel, the x-bows simply cannot keep up. So I bring out the 4 rows of archers and let them fire away at unarmoured or lightly armoured enemy units to soften them up. Once depleted, I withdraw them completely, with the 4 x-bows as the first 4 replacements. Works quite well, AAMOF.
Procrustes
10-05-2005, 15:37
Of course zou cant train crossbows yet, it is still early era. Crossbows are trainable only from 1205 ~;)
edit-grammar
Though for some odd reason you can train mounted x-bows in early. Factions that get them are - I think - german, italian, poland, and hungary.
Best,
EatYerGreens
10-06-2005, 00:54
Though for some odd reason you can train mounted x-bows in early. Factions that get them are - I think - german, italian, poland, and hungary.
History books will simply have to be scoured, to get to the bottom of this.
To be specific, when & where were they invented? If not in Europe, how long did it take for the idea to arrive? When they were new, were they rare and thus expensive? Rich-man's plaything, so to speak. That would fit with men who could also afford a battle-ready horse, so it makes sense that the mounted version arrives on the scene first. Once mass-production reduces the cost of the weapons, they can be entrusted to the peasantry, so the foot version only comes in later on.
Incidentally, I spotted the word 'crossbow' in that Sun Tzu website I looked at recently. This could easily be the result of mistranslation but, if not, his era was long before the MTW timeframe. It would not surprise me at all to learn it was a Chinese invention and took its sweet time to arrive on the European scene.
As far as the unit in the game is concerned, I reckon I'm using them completely wrong as they've been a bit pants, compared to how much they cost. (Well 300 per unit is expensive when you're as skint as my HRE were at the time).
As far as the West is concerned, I've got the crossbow having been invented in France circa 1050 A.D.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl1300s.htm
Again, referring to Medieval Europe only, they appear to have become more prevalent on the battlefield in the late 11th century:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2866061
EatYerGreens
10-06-2005, 03:10
Well, the H2G2 entry reckons on it dating back "5000 years, in China", so it is truly ancient, indeed.
It only remains to find out if the idea travelled the world or whether it was a genuine case of 'convergent thinking' - the same idea popping up in different places, at different times, with no actual 'transmission' of ideas being involved. One must remember the Great Wall closed in ideas, as well as people, until old Marco Polo paid them a visit.
There is one oddity that has been staring us in the face and that's the simple observation that the crossbow is little more than a miniaturised ballista. So the mechanics would have been well known, it only remained for some person to come up with the idea of "I know, I'll make a hand-held one of these, mwahahahaha".
AntiochusIII
10-06-2005, 07:17
One must remember the Great Wall closed in ideas, as well as people, until old Marco Polo paid them a visit.The real Great Wall, and, for that matter, the isolationism attitude was a product of the Ming dynasty. In response to the Mongols "foreigners" who once ruled the country as the Yuan dynasty. The Ming were native Chinese rebels who won power from a falling Yuan (Mongolian) dynasty, so they were after Marco Polo.
:bow:
Before that, especially during Han and Tang times, the Chinese were open and, in fact, imperialistic. The Mongols established even stronger contacts with their conquests which re-vitalize and secure the Silk Road(two, actually - one to Constantinople, the other to the Levant), the road between China and the West. While the Song dynasty (pre-Mongol) was a mercantilistic one, with wide-ranging sea trade routes and very active cultural development. How sad their military was weak; China and Chinese culture/economy flourished under them.
As for the crossbows, I think they're convergent thinking. After all, Romans knew ballistas, and, as you said, crossbows are "mini-ballista" weapons.
To be specific, when & where were they invented? If not in Europe, how long did it take for the idea to arrive? When they were new, were they rare and thus expensive? Rich-man's plaything, so to speak. That would fit with men who could also afford a battle-ready horse, so it makes sense that the mounted version arrives on the scene first. Once mass-production reduces the cost of the weapons, they can be entrusted to the peasantry, so the foot version only comes in later on.
Incidentally, I spotted the word 'crossbow' in that Sun Tzu website I looked at recently. This could easily be the result of mistranslation but, if not, his era was long before the MTW timeframe. It would not surprise me at all to learn it was a Chinese invention and took its sweet time to arrive on the European scene.
The game is actually wrong as to when crossbows are available, since they were known already in the early middle ages (and for some reason the VI expansion gives both mounted and foot crossbows to the Pict faction in 800 A.D.). However, the crossbow, much like the longbow, did not become popular until the high middle ages, so from that point of view the game is accurate.
Crossbows were invented by the Chinese, like you said. IIRC the introduction of my translation of Sun-Tzu said something about the introduction of horse crossbows that replaced the old chariots shortly after Sun-Tzu's time, and so made some of his statements (specifically the one advising not to attack cities) invalid, though I fail to see the logic of this. It had something to do with another treaty called "The Art of War", by a writer named Sun-Pin. I understand that recently a version of Sun-Pin has been found and that it is either being translated or already translated. The translater of my copy of Sun-Tzu suggested Sun-Pin was a later relative of Sun-Tzu, who kept the treatise up to date.
I also know that Dionysos the Elder from Syracuse introduced the "superbow", basically a very primitive crossbow. The Romans refined this idea into their dreaded ballista. This was a century or two after Sun-Tzu, which suggests that the crossbow had penetrated to Europe yet.
Ahem, this concludes the exposé of my patchy historical knowledge. For what it's worth, R:TW's expansion features crossbow-armed Bucellari.
yesdachi
10-06-2005, 17:13
Heron of Alexandria invented a cheiroballistra, which looks a lot like a big automatic crossbow, back around 100 AD.~:)
p_nutter
10-06-2005, 21:29
Some crossbow sightings in the Early period:
The Normans brought crossbows to the battle of Hastings in 1066, but they were hand-drawn, so they wouldn't have been any more powerful than a bow.
The Pope banned crossbows in 1097. (But they were only banned for use against other Christians, he didn't care if you shot the infidels.) There must have been armour-piercing ones around, or he wouldn't have bothered- the reason for banning them is that a peasant can kill a knight with one.
Richard the Lionheart was killed by a crossbow in 1199.
What I'm having a hard time finding out is whether they were used by armies, or just by assassins, bandits etc. Would the nobles trust their peasants with such effective anti-armour weapons?
The Pope banned crossbows in 1097. (But they were only banned for use against other Christians, he didn't care if you shot the infidels.)
After banning crossbows, the Pope proceed to arm his own guard with them. A fine example of Papal hypocricy. It might also explain why his ban was ignored.
Richard the Lionheart being killed by a crossbow is also a nicely ironic tale, since it is supposed to be him who introduced the weapon in France. However, this is probably not true.
EatYerGreens
10-09-2005, 15:35
After banning crossbows, the Pope proceed to arm his own guard with them. A fine example of Papal hypocricy. It might also explain why his ban was ignored.
Not wanting to sound like an apologist for them but I don't imagine for one moment that the Pope(s) ever took on the role of general, what with certain other duties to keep them occupied and likely it was the person tasked with running the Papal Army who was responsible for that. Pragmatic acknowledgement that the infernal things existed, could not be "un-invented" and you had to fight fire with fire, sometimes. <shrug>
The Pope issued the decree but, as Sun Tzu says, once a ruler has set a task for his military commanders (the defence of the Papal realm), they should not interfere any further with the manner in which those tasks are carried out. Ho, hum.
They never, EVER, repeat the first series of Blackadder (from whence the byeline under my tag comes - 'Witchsmeller Pursuivant' episode) these days, not even on satellite, whilst they play the other ones back to back every couple of weeks. Evidently series one was never regarded as 'classic' but there are one or two comedic gems in there.
In the episode where Edmund is made Archbishop of Canterbury, Popery of all sorts comes in for some mockery. He and Baldrick are picking through some of the tools of the trade, working out ways of making money. Baldrick shows off the range of phoney relics (fingerbones of Christ can only be sold in boxes of 10, apparently), some parchments containing curses from mild to severe then more which are official pardons, some for minor crimes but going up the scale as far as one pardoning the bearer for murder, signed by "both Popes".
This last bit is funny in itself (truth being stranger than fiction, sadly there's no Orthodox Pope in MTW) but the delivery is superbly blasé as if it was not remotely scandalous at the time. ~D
The whole series was deliberately peppered with anachronisms. The opening episode sets up the 'alternative history' for the series - Henry Tudor defeated at Bosworth, making the setting 1485 and afterwards but there are repeated references to the Crusades, which were all over by then, surely?
"Preee-sent...fresh horses!"
Not wanting to sound like an apologist for them but I don't imagine for one moment that the Pope(s) ever took on the role of general, what with certain other duties to keep them occupied and likely it was the person tasked with running the Papal Army who was responsible for that. Pragmatic acknowledgement that the infernal things existed, could not be "un-invented" and you had to fight fire with fire, sometimes. <shrug>
By my knowledge, the Pope was pretty much a medieval king, so he was probably quite intimitely involved with his own army. Popes from the early middle ages to the renaissance have been leading armies.
But I realize my previous statement might be offensive to Catholics, so please allow me to say it was merely directed at the Popes of the Middle Ages. I have great respect for the current leader of the Catholic Church.
In the episode where Edmund is made Archbishop of Canterbury, Popery of all sorts comes in for some mockery. He and Baldrick are picking through some of the tools of the trade, working out ways of making money. Baldrick shows off the range of phoney relics (fingerbones of Christ can only be sold in boxes of 10, apparently), some parchments containing curses from mild to severe then more which are official pardons, some for minor crimes but going up the scale as far as one pardoning the bearer for murder, signed by "both Popes".
~D Unfortunately, I have never seen the series, but doesn't this refer to two Catholic popes? This happen a few times in history. I wonder if it can also happen in game?
Mr White
10-09-2005, 16:12
I just want to confirm the two things said above. I'm doing this from memory so I can't give any names or dates.
1. at least some popes commanded their armies. I even heard one had the nickname 'pope-general'.
2. at one time there were two popes. One residing in Rome ( or the papal states) and the other one in Toulouse.
Maybe someone else can confirm what I said with names and dates.
Productivity
10-09-2005, 16:38
I actually recently modded my standard Catholic defensive army in High to include 4 units of archers and 4 of crossbows. I do this to account for exactly what EYG is talking about. In an archery duel, the x-bows simply cannot keep up. So I bring out the 4 rows of archers and let them fire away at unarmoured or lightly armoured enemy units to soften them up. Once depleted, I withdraw them completely, with the 4 x-bows as the first 4 replacements. Works quite well, AAMOF.
The other things is that crossbowmen don't have a high enough rate of fire to keep a morale penalty on a unit.
With crossbowmen it flickers on and off, whereas with archers they can keep the morale penalty on a unit no problems.
AntiochusIII
10-09-2005, 22:35
1. at least some popes commanded their armies. I even heard one had the nickname 'pope-general'.I presume you're talking about St. Gregory I "The Great", who took to his own hands the affairs of Rome, and was the first pope who acted independently from the authority of the Emperor at Constantinople, represented in Italy by the exarch of Ravenna. He commanded the defense of Central Italy against the Lombards, I believe.
2. at one time there were two popes. One residing in Rome ( or the papal states) and the other one in Toulouse.Actually it was Avignon in southeastern France, in Provence, if I remember correctly. That was called the Babylonian captivity period, where the pope at Avignon was influenced greatly by the French crown and the Italian leading church figures, loathing French influence, denied the authority of Avignon and elected their own pope. That was a major blow on the influence of the Catholic Church, even after they reconciled later on. It lasted from 1305 to 1378. In fact, even after pope Gregory XI moved back from Avignon to Rome, the cardinals of Avignon still refused to reconcile with Rome and elected their own antipopes until 1414, known also as the Western Schism. The most infamous use by the French crown of their influence over the Papacy at Avignon was Philip IV's (known as Philip the Fair) successful scheme that destroyed the Knights Templar completely.
ajaxfetish
10-10-2005, 07:46
Well, there's two different ways of thinking of having two popes at once. One is the schism, already discussed, but the other is a pope in exile while the secular authority (usually the HR Emperor) installs his own candidate, labelled the antipope by the pope in exile. This happens in the game whenever the papacy is eliminated and you get that great message about establishing your puppet pope. So you could think of those times as having two popes, even though the papal faction is not participating in the game.
As for the schism, IIRC the Babylonian captivity was not at first a schism, just a shift of operations from Rome to Avignon. The schism happened only after Gregory XI moved the Papacy back to Rome and then promptly died the next year (1378). There was controversy in the appointment of his successor which resulted in one pope at Rome and a Rival who returned to Avignon. The schism was finally solved by councils of Bishops in 1417, but at its height there were actually three simultaneous popes. This form of multiple popes isn't really represented in the game, though it would be cool if playing as the French you could start manipulating papal decisions in the early 14th century!
Mr White
10-10-2005, 08:45
Actually it was Avignon in southeastern France, in Provence, if I remember correctly.
Right you are. My mistake
EatYerGreens
10-11-2005, 04:59
Thanks for all that detail, from all of you. Up until now, I had mistakenly believed it was something to do with the Orthodox church also having a Pope but even that assumption was probably wrong.
Thanks to dropping the subject at school, my knowledge is rather patchy, so listening to people who know what they're on about is really appreciated. Hopefully, the more blunderingly inaccurate assertions I make, the more I'll learn. Apologies if this behaviour is at all irritating.
@Ludens, if the facts are on your side - and it seems they were - then your original assertion still stands. It was a statement about the past and it should therefore not offend anyone unduly. I doubt that anyone thought, for one moment, that the hypocrisy of those times, still holds true today.
Hopefully, the more blunderingly inaccurate assertions I make, the more I'll learn. Apologies if this behaviour is at all irritating.
Not at all. Most people (myself included) love to teach more than they love to learn. ~D
@Ludens, if the facts are on your side - and it seems they were - then your original assertion still stands. It was a statement about the past and it should therefore not offend anyone unduly. I doubt that anyone thought, for one moment, that the hypocrisy of those times, still holds true today.
I know that I am often rather careless with the feelings of other religions, so I thought I'd better explain. I guess they tried to convert me once to often. :embarassed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.