View Full Version : New Unit: Scots Guard
Templar Knight
08-31-2006, 18:33
www.totalwar.com
Looks nice :2thumbsup:
Mr. Longbowman
08-31-2006, 18:43
Looks good!
ShadesWolf
08-31-2006, 18:49
What the #### is a scots guard ?
professorspatula
08-31-2006, 19:00
Well at least they're not wearing a kilt I suppose.
Templar Knight
08-31-2006, 19:01
lol, I fear that the highlander units will be wearing kilts
The Blind King of Bohemia
08-31-2006, 19:02
What the #### is a scots guard ?
Many scots fought for the French armies during the Hundred years War such as at Poitiers and Verneuil. The first members of the Guard were around 450 men, around 300 being archers around the year 1419. Over the years more than 15,000 men would depart scotland and serve in the French armies. I think they are good. As long as they are small in number and can't challenge the englsih in the field. A ceremonial guard unit i can live with. This armour is fine also as for a bodygurard unit you would expect some armour
ShadesWolf
08-31-2006, 19:05
Many scots fought for the French armies during the Hundred years War such as at Poitiers and Verneuil. The first members of the Guard were around 450 men, around 300 being archers around the year 1419. Over the years more than 15,000 men would depart scotland and serve in the French armies. I think they are good. As long as they are small in number and can't challenge the englsih in the field. A ceremonial guard unit i can live with. This armour is fine also as for a bodygurard unit you would expect some armour
Yes around the year 1419, roughly the same period as Franc archers
But what effect could they have on the outcome of any battle. They would be using up one of the 20 units.
Templar Knight
08-31-2006, 19:07
Yea, I hope they don't equal/outmatch the English longbow. They will probably be highly expensive so there wont be many taking the field.
What the #### is a scots guard ?
Isn't it a chemical that helps keep stains off of clothing?
:hide:
The Blind King of Bohemia
08-31-2006, 19:18
If they are small in unit and bows are significantly reduced i'm ok by it. The Franc archer will probably not make it now but i suppose i can live with that. One Guard unit is enough for me. I just hope with the diverse units CA are obviously looking at they get a few for the english. A simple infantry man armed with a falchion, a mounted infantry maybe a Gascon, a welsh and/or Cornish auxillary from the early campaigns such as at Crecy i would like to see. No knights of the Garter or anything like that, we don't need another Grail style unit. I know a few of the english lords were part of it but didn't band together as uber knights.
What was the French equivalent Shades? Wsa the Golden Fleece? Or it was it something else?
ShadesWolf
08-31-2006, 19:19
Yea, I hope they don't equal/outmatch the English longbow. They will probably be highly expensive so there wont be many taking the field.
I do hope if we have scots guards, then we will also have franc archers.
The Blind King of Bohemia
08-31-2006, 19:32
I do hope if we have scots guards, then we will also have franc archers.
I think we will. I have high hopes for this game. The units really do look quality. The billmen and bowmen i saw in Burebista's pics really look great. I nice scummy, hard looking border reiver with short crossbow, lance and steel bonnet would really impress me mind.
ShadesWolf
08-31-2006, 19:37
We might be actually able to re-create a few battles from the period if you are upto it :laugh4:
The Blind King of Bohemia
08-31-2006, 19:42
I would love to do an Age of Warlords style mod for Medieval 2. That would be a dream. I remember us planning a war of the roses multi player with Duke John and a few fellas a year or so back. When the time comes closer i would love to rmake a few historical battles, just depends if my computer can stand the game because at the moment i doubt it mate
If they are small in unit and bows are significantly reduced i'm ok by it.
Why does everyone want them to be gimped? We are talking about 1419 here. Unless this game turns out like MTW these units will be competing against superior firepower by that period anyway. A longbow is a longbow.
The Blind King of Bohemia
08-31-2006, 19:54
All i'm saying is that they shouldn't be taking on english/welsh bowmen with the same sort of numbers and accuracy. The scots were never famed for their bowmen neither were the French, save the Franc Archers and the hiring of Genoese Bowmen
No nation used the mass numbers if warbowmen like the Englsih did. It took from infancy to train a great bowman. The scots and French simply didn't use them in significant numbers
All i'm saying is that they shouldn't be taking on english/welsh bowmen with the same sort of numbers and accuracy. The scots were never famed for their bowmen neither were the French, save the Franc Archers and the hiring of Genoese Bowmen
No nation used the mass numbers if warbowmen like the Englsih did. It took from infancy to train a great bowman. The scots and French simply didn't use them in significant numbers
I don't agree "la garde Ecossaise" is one of the best French archers and could kill any longbowmen 1vs1 but they are only a royal guard and should be a small groupe and cost a lot of Florins.
thw CA for this wonderful French unique unit :2thumbsup:.
r johnson
08-31-2006, 20:22
I thought the Scots guards was a eighteeth century add on to the army. Anyway looks good
Being nearly illiterate in military history, I find this unit very interesting. I like the look, and the bow seems like an interesting weapon for a Scottish unit. From reading this thread, it seems that most everyone expects the bow to be a longbow, is that correct? I didn't realize anyone other than the Welsh and English ever used the longbow. And what are these "French archers" that several people have mentioned? French longbowmen?
highlanddave
08-31-2006, 21:11
what is wrong with having highlanders wear kilts? jeesh.. would you rather them wear pants like in the last medieval total war?
I happen to like my great kilt, and so do my co-workers! *stares down co-worker protests*
Anyway, as usual it looks very nice. This one, plus the cannon threads etc make me more and more curious about recruitment limits and the pools and all. I wonder if the recruitment pools will be easily moddable? That would be positively brilliant to have all that info in the settlements file.
All i'm saying is that they shouldn't be taking on english/welsh bowmen with the same sort of numbers and accuracy. The scots were never famed for their bowmen neither were the French, save the Franc Archers and the hiring of Genoese Bowmen
No nation used the mass numbers if warbowmen like the Englsih did. It took from infancy to train a great bowman. The scots and French simply didn't use them in significant numbers
I wouldn't worry too much about it, the recruitment pools for this unit should be pretty small.
Looks like an excuse to give the French a generic elite archer unit...
I don't have much of a problem with it, I just hope they keep all the factions fairly unique.
Huzzah, a thorn in the bum for those Sassenachs! Seriously though, units keep looking better and better, and I can't wait to start a brand spanking new scots campaign. Lets just hope gameplay is as lovely as the graphics!
Templar Knight
08-31-2006, 23:10
what is wrong with having highlanders wear kilts? jeesh.. would you rather them wear pants like in the last medieval total war?
The Braveheart style kilt was not around until the mid 1500's, possibly later, so I hope the highlanders are similar to Gallowglasses of the period as they were essentially highland mercenaries.
Looks like an excuse to give the French a generic elite archer unit...
Wait, are these units (Scotch guards) available to the French? That only makes sense if the French are allied with the Scots at the time. Come to think of it, it doesn't make sense to be able to "recruit" Scottish units from your own populace when you're not Scottish. If these units can only be produced by the French, they're going to be pretty unrealistic all around. ~;p
And what are these "French archers" that several people have mentioned? French longbowmen?
Yup. A case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Or something like that. They did not really take off in great numbers, perhaps because the French discovered cannon could beat the longbow.
Wait, are these units (Scotch guards) available to the French? That only makes sense if the French are allied with the Scots at the time. Come to think of it, it doesn't make sense to be able to "recruit" Scottish units from your own populace when you're not Scottish. If these units can only be produced by the French, they're going to be pretty unrealistic all around.
I am not seeing why it's unrealistic. There are many examples in history of nationals of one country forming an elite unit in another, without either an alliance or a counterpart in their home country. Think of the Varangian guard or the Swiss guards in pre-revolutionary France (or the Vatican) or even the French foreign legion.
IrishArmenian
09-01-2006, 02:05
I thought the kilt, early on did not have the clan pattern on. The Highlanders could also wear loose trosers, as some Scots did.
Thanks for the French longbow info, econ21. ~:)
I am not seeing why it's unrealistic. There are many examples in history of nationals of one country forming an elite unit in another, without either an alliance or a counterpart in their home country. Think of the Varangian guard or the Swiss guards in pre-revolutionary France (or the Vatican) or even the French foreign legion.
Well, what I was refering to was the way that recruiting units depletes a province's population. You can't make Scotts from Frenchmen (that is, recruit Scottish soldiers from a French city's population). ~;p I assume that Scottish immigrants were not a regular minority among the continental French population, so any Scottish troops in the French army should be mercenaries, the way I see it. Maybe I'm getting too technical with things. I know in RTW, Carthage could produce Iberian infantry anywhere, but that always kind of bothered me. I prefered RTR's more realistic recruitment system.
So it just seems to me that if the French faction can "produce" Scottish units, they should come from some other source than their own population. If they are only available as mercenaries, then that would be a good way to keep their numbers in check, which is a concern a couple others have expressed.
poo_for_brains
09-01-2006, 05:37
the recruitment pool concept will keep their numbers in check.
As for your suggestion that they are not part of the population, it's a fair one, but one could argue that the population increases of the settlements also reflects immigration, as well as the birth rate, and so immigrants count as part of your population.
Also, if they were mercenaries, is there any way to stop them fighting for the English, if they advance into France, because they never would have done that.
Also, if they were mercenaries, is there any way to stop them fighting for the English, if they advance into France, because they never would have done that.
Well, I assume that they could only be recruited by the French in the first place. IIRC, in MTW there were faction requirements for many mercenaries.
AussieGiant
09-01-2006, 06:21
They look really nice!!
This has to be a niche unit though. If you're a really rich French player then I am sure they will be available in small numbers with the new recruitment system.
I'm sure when you see that you can hire 3 units of Geonese Crossbowmen for the same price people will think first before buying. :laugh4:
Still...with the amount of armour these chaps have on you'll need to get really damn close to do some real damage. They would make a great "counter battery" archery unit with all the armour on.
Keep in mind guy's, they are described as heavily armour longbowmen. I'd say they will have the same missile attributes as other longbowmen. With high moral and that amount of chain and plate on, you'd have to be a little wary of them...and fair enough really.
Thanks for the French longbow info, econ21. ~:)
Well, what I was refering to was the way that recruiting units depletes a province's population. You can't make Scotts from Frenchmen (that is, recruit Scottish soldiers from a French city's population). ~;p I assume that Scottish immigrants were not a regular minority among the continental French population, so any Scottish troops in the French army should be mercenaries, the way I see it. Maybe I'm getting too technical with things. I know in RTW, Carthage could produce Iberian infantry anywhere, but that always kind of bothered me. I prefered RTR's more realistic recruitment system.
So it just seems to me that if the French faction can "produce" Scottish units, they should come from some other source than their own population. If they are only available as mercenaries, then that would be a good way to keep their numbers in check, which is a concern a couple others have expressed.
La gard Ecossaise isn't an mercenary unit, it's only the personnal bodyguard of the French King, la garde Ecossaise was created by Charles VII in 1445 to honor the Scots were came in France during the 100 years war to fignt against English and even Louis XI had more confidence on his Scot Guard than his family.
They are the elite of the elite who are trained and equiped by the Royal house of France.
Bob the Insane
09-01-2006, 13:55
Either way it sounds pretty cool...
I do agree that if the Scot's end up in an ahistorical war against the French it makes the units a bit odd... But well, what can you do? Ignore them altogether, like it has been said before, you have a whole bunch of units that are affected by issues like this...
They existed in the time period and the look good... That's good enough for me.
Additionally I don't think RTR's system included alliences in it's recruitment system. It is a nice idea though... :2thumbsup:
screwtype
09-01-2006, 15:50
"Heavily armoured longbowmen"? Sounds like a fantasy unit to me. I find it hard to believe that anyone wearing heavy armour would be able to fire a longbow. And since when were the Scots known for their longbowmen?
The Blind King of Bohemia
09-01-2006, 16:14
Many retainer longbowmen would have been armoured, depending what they could afford. If it was for a wealthy Lord, say William De Bohun, Earl Of Northampton in the early parts of the HYW he would have been paid very well and could arm himself much better than a normal archer who were armed normally with a close fitting helmet, a padded jakke and his weapons.
The scots did on occasion use the great warbow especially in the lowland forests such as Selkirk but they didn't have the training or the numbers of Longbowman the armies of Edward 1st, Edward the third and Henry V had.
"Heavily armoured longbowmen"? Sounds like a fantasy unit to me. I find it hard to believe that anyone wearing heavy armour would be able to fire a longbow. And since when were the Scots known for their longbowmen?
The Scots Guard certainly did exist and certainly did use longbows. They are unit 52 in Wargames Research Group book "Armies of the Middle Ages, Vol 1". We can quibble about the armour, but an illustration of the time shows them with plate leg armour. CA also seem to put some plate on the chest, but as the illustrations we have are ceremonial, it's not inconceivable they went in to battle even more heavily armoured. (Just as present British Guards don't wear body armour outside Buckingham Palace).
Apparently they were mounted infantry, like many English longbows were as well, but I suppose that cannot be represented in TW (they would fight dismounted anyway). The book says they distinguished themselves in Louis XIs war with Charles the Bold in 1470-72.
Seems to be yet another obscure unit that has been added for game balance and/or novelty value rather than historical accuracy.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-01-2006, 16:57
Why do you people do this?
It has been established that they were the actual bodyguard of the French King. That makes them pretty indespensible. If CA leaves this kind of unti out all we'll end up with is spearmen, archers and Cav for all factions.
That would be AOE, not Total War.
highlanddave
09-01-2006, 16:58
sad, but it may be the only scottish unit in the game for long if the english are all powerful. scotland may only survive a few turns. this may make me want to play the french just to have my scottish army. that would be bizarre.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-01-2006, 17:00
Actually, I don't like the look of that metal bow.
Ibn Munqidh
09-01-2006, 17:48
Beautiful, this is the kind of unit I would like to see, units which increase diversity and uniqueness in factions.
Furious Mental
09-01-2006, 18:14
It's probably impossible to determine exactly what armour these Scottish blokes wore in battle, but I suspect that in this case the appearance of their armour is basically the result of using the same soldier model as for the Zweihanders (seriously, compare the two). Whatever. They look cool and I'm not in a position to say I know better.
Seems to be yet another obscure unit that has been added for game balance and/or novelty value rather than historical accuracy.
La garde Ecossaise isn't a fantasy unit and was a heavy armored longbowmen but only a royal guard of the French king.
to see some pictures:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.colrat/garde_ecossaise.htm
to have some informations:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.colrat/2-ecossais.htm
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/bauges.htm
ShadesWolf
09-01-2006, 19:52
I don't agree "la garde Ecossaise" is one of the best French archers and could kill any longbowmen 1vs1 but they are only a royal guard and should be a small groupe and cost a lot of Florins.
thw CA for this wonderful French unique unit :2thumbsup:.
I have no problem with the concept of this unit, however, they should only be small in number and at the correct time period, towards the end of the hundred years war
The origin of the Scottish guard goes up at year 882, when a quota the noble ones shelled came to France to form the guard of the king Charles III. However, the Scottish guard was formally created only under the reign of Charles VII. Documents attest of its existence in 1425, but one can supposed that it was founded at the end of 1410.
Its members formed the guard brought closer to the king for whom they received broad wages. However their trade was not easier because the Scottish guard was also employed like combat unit. Thus a number of its members were killed in 1465 with the battle of Montlhéry at the sides of the king Louis XI. It was mainly made up archers considered for their great skill.
Original...
L'origine de la garde écossaise remonte à l'an 882, quand un contingent de nobles écossais vint en France pour former la garde du roi Charles III. Cependant, la garde écossaise ne fut formellement créée que sous le règne de Charles VII. Des documents attestent de son existence en 1425, mais on peut présumé qu'elle fut fondée à la fin des années 1410.
Ses membres formaient la garde rapprochée du roi pour laquelle ils recevaient un large salaire. Cependant leur métier n'était pas des plus faciles car la garde écossaise était également employée comme unité combattante. Ainsi nombre de ses membres furent tués en 1465 à la bataille de Montlhéry aux côtés du roi Louis XI. Elle était principalement constituée d'archers réputés pour leur grande habileté.
Midnight
09-01-2006, 20:33
Looks good to me. I'm hoping to see more diversity in the Catholic factions this time around, and it looks as if that may be the case. Good stuff!
I have no problem with the concept of this unit, however, they should only be small in number and at the correct time period, towards the end of the hundred years war
Agreed. It's pretty clear they're not a fantasy unit, so CA just needs to make sure they can be recruited in only limited numbers. In addition, I'm sure Scots Guard units will be expensive as well, thus further insuring we don't see French armies consisting of hundreds of these guys.
Aside from the silver bow--which I'm guessing was just an artist's error anyway--they look pretty good to me.
the recruitment pool concept will keep their numbers in check.
Yes, this unit is a perfect example of why the recruitment pool concept is a good idea.
You could limit them by price or unit size, but that's very hard to balance. Too expensive or too small, and the player won't bother. Too good a buy and you'll start to see many in an army.
Limiting them to production in the highest level palace of the capital and giving them stiff tech requirements is probably necessary but not sufficient for them to be a rare unit.
La garde Ecossaise isn't a fantasy unit and was a heavy armored longbowmen but only a royal guard of the French king.
to see some pictures:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.colrat/garde_ecossaise.htm
to have some informations:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.colrat/2-ecossais.htm
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/bauges.htm
I didn't say they were fantasy units, i said they were obscure, that is uncommon and quite unique, yet in M2TW there will doubtless be whole armies full of them, which isn't realistic.
I didn't say they were fantasy units, i said they were obscure, that is uncommon and quite unique, yet in M2TW there will doubtless be whole armies full of them, which isn't realistic.
What makes you think the French will field armies of nothing but Scots Guard, Caravel? CA has already stated that with the way "recruiting pools" work, you'll be able to recruit only a handful of elite troops (such as knights), with medium to lower-grade units available in greater numbers. The Scots Guard description indicates they're an elite unit, and thus their availability in recruiting pools will likely be very limited.
I, like you, am skeptical about a lot of aspects of Medieval 2. I think this is one case where you may be fretting unnecessarily, however. If (and I concede it's a fairly big "if") the recruiting pools work like CA says they will, about the only way one could have an entire army of nothing but Scots Guard (or other elite units) would be to horde them over a period of many turns and then combine them into a single stack--and by that point, you could've built an army that consists of 10 times as many regular troops.
I think the scot guards should only a king unit and should be available in the late of the campaign to reflect its history.
and also the allaince between France and Scotland can't be break to reflect the Auld Alliance. :2thumbsup:
I think the scot guards should only a king unit and should be available in the late of the campaign to reflect its history.
I think that's a good idea. :2thumbsup:
and also the allaince between France and Scotland can't be break to reflect the Auld Alliance. :2thumbsup:
Well, I wouldn't like that, personally. I prefer altering history, not simulating it. I'm the type of player who considers the Romans in RTW the most boring faction to play, precisely because playing a successful Roman campaign is basicly repeating history. However, I think it would be really interesting if there could be certain units that are only available to your faction depending on the status of other factions. In the case, the Scotch Guard would be available as long as France and Scotland were not at war with each other.
SaberHRE
09-02-2006, 17:45
Many retainer longbowmen would have been armoured, depending what they could afford. If it was for a wealthy Lord, say William De Bohun, Earl Of Northampton in the early parts of the HYW he would have been paid very well and could arm himself much better than a normal archer who were armed normally with a close fitting helmet, a padded jakke and his weapons.
The scots did on occasion use the great warbow especially in the lowland forests such as Selkirk but they didn't have the training or the numbers of Longbowman the armies of Edward 1st, Edward the third and Henry V had.
true, but what is importnat here is to judge to what extent "heavily armoured archers" can be. From pictorial sources i've encountered, the heaviest type of armour seen on Archers were transitional armours of the Longbowmen of the Compagne D'Ordannance de Burgundie. Burgundian longbowmen usually wore a mixture of brigadine with mail or transitional armour(if i got that term right. I mean mixture of brigadine and breastplate).
Check out Schilling Chronicles for heavy armoured longbowmen.
The unit itself looks sweet, but i hate the chapel-de-fer warhat being present in late era :wall:
The Blind King of Bohemia
09-02-2006, 19:04
true, but what is importnat here is to judge to what extent "heavily armoured archers" can be. From pictorial sources i've encountered, the heaviest type of armour seen on Archers were transitional armours of the Longbowmen of the Compagne D'Ordannance de Burgundie. Burgundian longbowmen usually wore a mixture of brigadine with mail or transitional armour(if i got that term right. I mean mixture of brigadine and breastplate).
Check out Schilling Chronicles for heavy armoured longbowmen.
The unit itself looks sweet, but i hate the chapel-de-fer warhat being present in late era :wall:
The Burgundian Longbowmen were predominately English, so the chance of Welsh and english longbowmen with experience and wealth joining the ranks were very high and being fairly well equipped for war. In the War of the Roses many retainer archers did use some sort of armour. Their job would mainly to be near their lord with the lower archers who were lightly armoured to do much of the killing. The Northern elements, particularly around Macclesfield and Cheshire probably didn't use much armour as their quality in archery aided them enough. Most archers only entered the fray once they had ran out of arrows and the melee was in full sway.
I think the more battle hardened and veteran the archer, the more likely he would be well equipped as the booty and wealth accumilated, especially in war torn france would have been extremely high. If you were part of the archer companies under the Anglo-Gascon armies of Edward Woodstock or the Earl of Derby, who raided into the rich and mostly unguarded parts of southern France then the chance of riches were almost certain.
Myrddraal
09-02-2006, 19:39
and also the allaince between France and Scotland can't be break to reflect the Auld Alliance
:no: There won't be any fixed alliances, and thank heavens for that. I want to be able to reforge the world...
Bob the Insane
09-03-2006, 05:30
However, I think it would be really interesting if there could be certain units that are only available to your faction depending on the status of other factions. In the case, the Scotch Guard would be available as long as France and Scotland were not at war with each other.
It will be interesting to see if that can be modded in...
screwtype
09-04-2006, 04:16
The Scots Guard certainly did exist and certainly did use longbows.
I'm not suggesting the unit didn't exist. What I'm questioning is the portrayal of this particular unit as, essentially, a heavily armoured knight who is armed with a longbow.
I am extremely sceptical that anyone wearing heavy armour could adequately fire any kind of bow, let alone a longbow which required great strength and agility. It's one thing to swing a sword or an axe while wearing heavy armour, quite another to aim and fire a bow. Bowmen are typically lightly armoured in my opinion for very good reason - they need considerable freedom of movement, which armour is obviously going to restrict.
This unit may have worn armour ceremonially but as you say it's not known what they wore into battle. I would suggest that either they were relatively lightly armoured in battle in order to fire their longbows, or else that they were heavily armoured and their longbows were largely a ceremonial arm.
I'm not suggesting the unit didn't exist. What I'm questioning is the portrayal of this particular unit as, essentially, a heavily armoured knight who is armed with a longbow.
The portrayal is not far from what we know from history:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.colrat/garde_ecossaise.htm
The Scots Guard apparently were a genuine hybrid unit - they were highly skilled bowmen, who took their bows to battle, but they were also the King's guard, so they were equipped to fight at hand to hand and be a match for armoured knights. My source says they also had glaives and large shields - if CA portrayed that as well, they would be a real uber unit in the game!
I am extremely sceptical that anyone wearing heavy armour could adequately fire any kind of bow, let alone a longbow which required great strength and agility. It's one thing to swing a sword or an axe while wearing heavy armour, quite another to aim and fire a bow.
I'm not convinced by this. I suspect armour is more encumbering when fighting in melee than with archery - melee is so much more exhausting. I saw a TV program where a medieval history student (a big strong lad) was kitted out in full plate and had to duel alternate enemies - he was exhausted after 20 seconds.
Furious Mental
09-04-2006, 11:34
History is littered with examples of heavily armoured cavalrymen fighting with bows. Obviously wearing heavy armour did not make it impossible or even terribly difficult to use a bow. Heavily armoured bowmen fighting on foot would seem to be much less common but arguably that is because they were generally not required to also fight in a melee. If these Scottish soldiers were, however, required both to fight at a distance and in a melee it arguably makes sense for them to be heavily armoured and carry a longbow. In any case if you examine the unit you will see that their arms are not fully armoured.
I think the Mamluks are my favourite example of cavalry hybrids...
highlanddave
09-04-2006, 18:12
by furious mental
History is littered with examples of heavily armoured cavalrymen fighting with bows. Obviously wearing heavy armour did not make it impossible or even terribly difficult to use a bow
yes, definitely. i knowing in original medieval total war the kataphracts were only melee. i another game rule set i have for minatures the kataphracts also had bows. it seems to me i remember rome total war had persian heavies with bows as well. it made good tactical sense to arm heavy cavalry with bows as there was no good option for some infantry. if one stood off, they knocked ya down with archery. if you close with them, they charge.
What makes you think the French will field armies of nothing but Scots Guard, Caravel? CA has already stated that with the way "recruiting pools" work, you'll be able to recruit only a handful of elite troops (such as knights), with medium to lower-grade units available in greater numbers. The Scots Guard description indicates they're an elite unit, and thus their availability in recruiting pools will likely be very limited.
I, like you, am skeptical about a lot of aspects of Medieval 2. I think this is one case where you may be fretting unnecessarily, however. If (and I concede it's a fairly big "if") the recruiting pools work like CA says they will, about the only way one could have an entire army of nothing but Scots Guard (or other elite units) would be to horde them over a period of many turns and then combine them into a single stack--and by that point, you could've built an army that consists of 10 times as many regular troops.
I doubt 'recruitment pools' will be quite as restrictive as some people would like to think. Larger and castles will probably have no difficulty recruiting large numbers of elite units. I just can't see CA restricting this aspect of gameplay that much.
..No knights of the Garter or anything like that, we don't need another Grail style unit. I know a few of the english lords were part of it but didn't band together as uber knights...
:book: A book I've been reading about the fourth crusades talks about French knights working as a unit of uber knights during a few battles. ALthough there always seemd to be the problem of them wanting to break formation and charge off on their own. :charge:
:hide: Of course, if the book was wrong I'd have no way of knowing since I know so little about medieval warfare.
][GERUDO][Mojoman
09-05-2006, 07:53
looking at the scots guard, i think my theory that english longbowmen are going to be the ultimate pwnage MTW2 archers is about to be tested....:wall:
Sir Moody
09-05-2006, 16:06
looking at the scots guard, i think my theory that english longbowmen are going to be the ultimate pwnage MTW2 archers is about to be tested....
i doubt it i expect the English will have very large recruitment pools from which to draw Longbowmen from while the Sctos guard will be an Elite and as such will be in small numbers
ShadesWolf
09-05-2006, 19:01
Hopefully if we are going to have these 'Scots things' we should also have the kings own 'cheshire archers'.
They would make a nice addition to the historic battle of shrewsbury im planning on creating, when the game comes out....
It will be nice for the french to have a bit of their "own" longbows.
Why not, let's give every faction longbows, I mean it's just so unfair that only the English have them. Wait... if I do some research and find that a moor once found a longbow washed up on a desolate beach on the moroccan coast, and if he managed to loose an arrow from it, then surely the moors can train thousands of elite Almoravid Armoured Longbows as well!!
I was kidding. ~;)
Until we know more about the recruitmentpools and their extent, perhaps you should relax a bit.
Yes, we understand you are uncertain about it. But so are many others, and given how it is a totally new feature we can be allowed to believe it will be good at balancing units.
You however, are already discrediting that feature as not important. That is a very negative stance.
Randarkmaan
09-06-2006, 14:13
Why not, let's give every faction longbows, I mean it's just so unfair that only the English have them. Wait... if I do some research and find that a moor once found a longbow washed up on a desolate beach on the moroccan coast, and if he managed to loose an arrow from it, then surely the moors can train thousands of elite Almoravid Armoured Longbows as well!!
The moors had composite bows so they did not really need longbows, which were inferior to composite bows ~;p. And besides it was not just the bow that was the winning factor for the english it was the way it was used... en masse
Midnight
09-06-2006, 14:41
Doesn't bother me at all that these guys are in, as long as they can only be recruited in small numbers.
Tiberius maximus
09-06-2006, 18:45
i think the units look awesome and i would take them over english longbows anytime
but is it a french or scottish unit?
AND ENOUGH WITH THE KILT THING:wall:
"but is it a french or scottish unit?"
La garde Ecossaise isn't a fantasy unit and was a heavy armored longbowmen but only a royal guard of the French king.
to see some pictures:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.colrat/garde_ecossaise.htm
to have some informations:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.colrat/2-ecossais.htm
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/bauges.htm
screwtype
09-07-2006, 12:50
The moors had composite bows so they did not really need longbows, which were inferior to composite bows ~;p.
Longbows were inferior to composite bows? I don't believe it.
screwtype
09-07-2006, 13:06
The portrayal is not far from what we know from history:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.colrat/garde_ecossaise.htm
That site's in French. I haven't done French since high school.
However, there is a picture there of an armoured guy with a longbow, I'll grant you that. But I still have to wonder just how practical that combination would have been.
Let me put it this way - if armour was compatible with archery, why wasn't every melee unit in medieval times armed with a bow as well a melee weapon? I suggest it was simply because the combination is impractical.
I'm not saying you couldn't fire a bow with a suit of armour, just that you probably couldn't do it very quickly or with much in the way of accuracy. Just my opinion.
I suspect armour is more encumbering when fighting in melee than with archery - melee is so much more exhausting. I saw a TV program where a medieval history student (a big strong lad) was kitted out in full plate and had to duel alternate enemies - he was exhausted after 20 seconds.
Yes, melee is very exhausting if you're not used to it and if you don't know how to pace yourself. They didn't practice melee for hours on end for no reason I'm sure.
I still remember the first time I went to fight a bushfire. I was given a wet sack to hit the flames with, I was a pretty fit young man, and envisaged myself heroically putting out large swathes of fireline. After about two minutes slapping flames with the sack I was totally exhausted! You've got to know how to pace yourself, and not to allow yourself to get over-excited.
Experienced Roman soldiers could melee for 15-20 minutes at a time, after which they would rotate to the rear while a fresh centurion took up the fight. So even hardened veterans could best fight in relatively short bursts.
.
Randarkmaan
09-07-2006, 15:05
Longbows were inferior to composite bows? I don't believe it.
A composite bows construction gives it a draw weight and therefore a strength and range of a bow of simple construction that is many sizes larger. However i do think that the English longbow (originally the Welsh) were constructed a little differently, actually the usual bow in nearly the entire world was a longbow it's simply that; a long bow(it had to be long to have a decent strength and range), heck Nubians also used longbows. The English also used their special bodkin arrows which were quite heavy which helped them punch through armour (also remember that the effective killing range of a longbow was only a little over 50 meters and to penetrate armour they had to be closer).
Anyway to make all this really short... Why would anyone use a bow on a wide scale that is much harder to construct if a bow of simple construction is more effective? Also you know who were regared as the best archers in Europe for quite some time? Sicilian Arabs using composite bows... they were widely utilized by the Normans.
Let me put it this way - if armour was compatible with archery, why wasn't every melee unit in medieval times armed with a bow as well a melee weapon? I suggest it was simply because the combination is impractical.
Armour is compatible with archery - the example of kataphracts and other eastern cavalry has been raised (the Mongols par excellence); Samurai would be another.
There were often hybrid melee/bow infantry - for example, a lot of Ottoman infantry and ancient Persian infantry too.
In the West, it is true, that such hybrid troops were not common. I suspect part of the reason is that the climate and terrain favoured close order armoured melee combat more. Eastern styles of fighting seem to have relied more on skirmishing, often between mounted forces. A bow quite soon becomes irrelevant to the front line in a close quarter battle. A longbowman would be lucky to get off three shots before a mounted knight was on him. In such a situation, there's an advantage to specialisation. The skilled archers stay back and shoot; the more armoured troops hold the front. Saves on armour and on training costs; there's also a danger that hybrids do neither task well (the mentality of the archer and the shock trooper are rather different).
But no doubt there were also considerations of propriety too - witness the disdain of the French knights for the Genovese crossbowmen (or English longbowmen).
I also think the bow was starting to decline in importance in the West during the medieval period. Armour was gradually becoming proof against it. The English longbowmen stand out as an exception. I don't think there would have been a great benefit from sticking a bow on every knight and man-at-arms.
ShadesWolf
09-07-2006, 20:17
Kraxis and longbows :laugh4:
"but is it a french or scottish unit?"
It's a french unit composed of scotsmen. The two were frequent allies against the English, so I wouldn't be surprised (or disappointed) if this unit was one that could be raised in france, not just scotland, representing emigrating/mercenary scotsmen come over to france to help fight the english.
The reason we don't see more armored bowmen is the same reason we don't see more armored melee troops - cost. The presence of unarmored melee troops does not show that armor is incompataible with melee anymore than the presence of unarmored missile troops shows armor is incompatible with archery.
Any armor that wouldn't let a bowman draw a bow would almost certainly be so cumbersome as to be instant death for anyone unfortunate enough to be caught in a melee with it (where the required range of motions is far greater).
Dr_Who_Regen#4
09-07-2006, 21:02
I would imagine it was a question of cost as many have said (in regardrs to archers and armor).
Of course I am no expert, but I believe the variance in horse, armor, weapons used by the soldier/or knight etc during the period had to do almost completely with the wealth of the individual who was taking the field. Bascially if you were some type of freeman then you afforded some type of light armor and weapons. Children of lesser nobility made up the knights and if you were just a conscript your lord just gave you a spear and shoved you out in the field to die.
screwtype
09-08-2006, 16:51
A composite bows construction gives it a draw weight and therefore a strength and range of a bow of simple construction that is many sizes larger. However i do think that the English longbow (originally the Welsh) were constructed a little differently, actually the usual bow in nearly the entire world was a longbow it's simply that; a long bow(it had to be long to have a decent strength and range), heck Nubians also used longbows. The English also used their special bodkin arrows which were quite heavy which helped them punch through armour (also remember that the effective killing range of a longbow was only a little over 50 meters and to penetrate armour they had to be closer).
Admittedly I'm no scholar of medieval warfare, but I don't believe your claim that "nearly the entire world" used some type of longbow. From what I've read, the longbow was unique amongst bows. And what made it unique was not just its size and the strength required to draw it, but the fact that it had to be drawn right back to the shoulder rather than simply the eye as with a normal bow.
Drawing a bow back to the shoulder means you cannot get your eye directly behind the arrow to aim it - which in effect means it takes years to learn to fire the bow accurately. This is why longbow training was made compulsory for young Britons in its heyday - years of practice were required to make an effective longbowman.
I don't know of any other bow that had the unique features of the longbow, but then as I say I'm not really a student of the era so I might be wrong. But I doubt it.
And BTW, I don't accept your estimate of the bow's lethal range to be just 50 meters either. I think even an ordinary bow would have a lethal range greater than that. A modern study done some years ago determined that a longbow can penetrate four inches of solid oak! You need a lot of velocity to do that...
Edit: Yes, I thought so, you are way out. From a webpage on the longbow:
The two current authorities both agree the weapon was much stronger than our present day bows. Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimates the bows of the Medieval period drew between 90 and 110 pounds, maximum.9 Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believes the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80 to 90 pounds.10
A bow of the strength described by Stayner and Paterson would project a war arrow a long distance. But here again, no one is sure how far: Stayner believes the war arrow had an effective range of 180 yards;11 Paterson maintains a slightly further distance of 200 yards;12 and Bartelot estimates a useful range of 249 yards.13 Captain George Burnet, Secretary to the Royal Scottish Archers, notes that the members of the Queen's Body Guard for Scotland, who still shoot, use six foot long self yew bows of 55 to 60 pounds draw weight. The range of these modern bows is 180-200 yards shooting light target shafts.14
http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html
The typical longbow was "as tall or taller" than the man using it. Many longbows have been found or been recorded as in excess of six feet long. Do you know of any other bow in history anywhere near as large as that? I certainly don't.
AussieGiant
09-08-2006, 17:45
Hi Guy's,
After studying history at university for 6 years I'd like to make some statements regarding Longbow's.
Due to the fact that information is based on the study of history there is never going to be quantifiable evidence but there is more than enough information to determine the accuracy of the following;
The Welsh/English Longbow was unique.
It was around 165 to 190 cms long and usually the height of its user if not a little longer.
Due to its dual wood construction in which one piece was made of very, very hard wood and the other made of very flexible wood the design was unique to the the British Isle's. (The hard inner wood and soft outer wood gave the power). This wood combination was found in th British Isles predominantly. Yew was the main wood type if I remember correctly.
Draw weights were enormous. Between 85 and 110lbs. Some reports have mentioned 120 to 140 lbs. Don't be fooled. You can draw this weight back to your eye a few time when you are a strong person. But please note that these men would draw this weight back many times in 1 minute and the difference between drawing the weight to your eye as apposed to your shoulder is huge (thanks screwtype :2thumbsup: ).
So, in order to pull this weight and do it so frequently the users of this weapon were on average large men and hugely strong through the chest, arms and shoulders.
It took a long time to develop this strength and the skill to master this weapon. To solve that the English culture basically "institutionalised" its use in the population so that a large pool of men could be drawn into the army and be able to use the weapon effectively.
All in all gentlemen it was specific to the Welsh and English due to the above mentioned skills and characteristics.
Effective range was out to 300 yards when used en mass and still out to 200 yards or greater when used individually.
Effective range mean that if you were hit by this weapon (arrow) you may not die, but equally, you will no longer be taking an active part in the battle after a successful hit.
Please note that as an effective fighting force men encased in Full Plate (French knights) being hit repeatedly by Bodkin tipped arrows WILL NOT be able to fight.
Steel rain will break bones and inflict internal concussion injuries to the soldier and render their mount unusable in a short period of time. At 50 yards (well before the charge signal is given to heavy cavalry, meaning that are trotting or still walking) this weapon will start to penetrate even Full Plate armour. The time spent receiving fire by English Longbows therefore mean huge numbers of arrows are being release. No fighting force could withstand this, and at the time this technology was the equivalent of the machines gun developed in WWI.
Arrow types were broken down into two main types. Normal or Bodkin. Normal heads were excellent against lightly armoured opponents. As armour developed the Bodkin head was develop as a counter and allowed the weapon to remain relevant for a long period of time.
This is all from memory so please don't quote me. I will say that I spent over 6 months studying warfare and that include this weapon.
Composite Bows are a valid option but the draw weights were not as large as English Longbows in general. Composite Bows were used by physically smaller people on average. In many cases it was used from horse back which took advantage of the "Recurve" technology which made the draw weight good and the bow short in length.
I hope I have shed some light and understanding on this topic.
Have a good weekend everyone.
It seems to me the biggest problem with the composite bow was its complex construction. Thanks to its many parts and the organic glue that held it together I imagine the composite bow didn't fare as well as the longbow in adverse weather conditions (I wonder how those Mongol bows fared in Vietnam's sultry, jungle rot inducing climate) and I'm guessing it didn't take well to being mishandled or banged around. In contrast a longbow was remarkably simple in its construction as it was made from a single piece of wood with only a few extra bits used for the nocks. Not that the longbow was an all-weather wonder but it's single piece construction seems to naturally endow it with greater constitution and longevity.
After reading the link provided by econ21 I was surprised to learn that keeping bowstrings dry wasn't nearly the pain in the rear we've been led to believe...
Bow strings were of two materials: in the sixteenth century, strings were made of "good hempe...(but, earlier, strings were made of)...fine Flaxe or Sylk".47 A waterproof glue was used to preserve the Renaissance bow string and it was reinforced by a whipping of fine thread.48 The strings were attached to nocks made of bone or horn.49
Admittedly I'm no scholar of medieval warfare, but I don't believe your claim that "nearly the entire world" used some type of longbow. From what I've read, the longbow was unique amongst bows. And what made it unique was not just its size and the strength required to draw it, but the fact that it had to be drawn right back to the shoulder rather than simply the eye as with a normal bow.
Drawing to the ear is not unique as that has been used by archers throughout history. Archeological evidence shows bows of similar length and design like the English bow. The myth of longer bows really comes from late 19th century historians like Oman, who tried to explain the rise of English archery by longer bows and drawing to the ear.
And BTW, I don't accept your estimate of the bow's lethal range to be just 50 meters either. I think even an ordinary bow would have a lethal range greater than that. A modern study done some years ago determined that a longbow can penetrate four inches of solid oak! You need a lot of velocity to do that...
Arrows will certainly be lethal further away than 50 meters. The 4 inches of oak is quoted lots of places and is from an old story and AFAIK that is even wrong as the text says 4 fingers thick which is 3 inches. If that is a realistic claim I cant say.
The typical longbow was "as tall or taller" than the man using it. Many longbows have been found or been recorded as in excess of six feet long. Do you know of any other bow in history anywhere near as large as that? I certainly don't
The Nydam bows (dating from AD 400 iirc) were 197, 182 and 178 cm. And there are many more examples.
Apparently bows of elm, yew and pine needs to be 5+ feet long to prevent breakage so its not surprising to find bows of such lengths.
CBR
Watchman
09-09-2006, 00:15
The Indian infantry archers Alexander encountered back in the day reputedly carried seriously huge bows (the Indian charioteers presumably had composite bows; maybe even of the non-recurve Late Bronze Age type). 'Course, they were made of something like cane; I've no idea how that acts as bow-shaft material. The Japanese daikyu was also rather large, but asymmetrical for mounted use (and not, contrary to what is occasionally claimed, "composite" in the meaning normally relevant to military archery).
AFAIK the English longbow was very much a self-bow, that is to say, made out of a single piece of wood. The bowyers would of course make them so that parts of the wood of desirable characteristics went to the suitable parts (I don't quite recall the details, and don't really feel like checking my literature right now) basically in a pale imitation of the effect composite bows achieved with sinew and horn, but that's as far as it went.
Put this way: the longbows always had serious issues dealing with heavy armour. Out in "the East" where composite bows had been used since God knows when (an early type was around at least as early as the first war chariots) layered armour setups longbows would cower before were widely employed (by those who could afford them, and despite the often punishing climate) for a long long time partly no doubt to counter a composite bow a man could carry in a belt case, plus a few spare unstrung ones suspended from the saddle.
screwtype
09-09-2006, 06:08
Drawing to the ear is not unique as that has been used by archers throughout history. Archeological evidence shows bows of similar length and design like the English bow. The myth of longer bows really comes from late 19th century historians like Oman, who tried to explain the rise of English archery by longer bows and drawing to the ear.
I didn't say drawn to the ear, I said drawn to the shoulder. There's quite a difference, as the strength required increases greatly the further back the bow is drawn.
The Nydam bows (dating from AD 400 iirc) were 197, 182 and 178 cm. And there are many more examples.
Apparently bows of elm, yew and pine needs to be 5+ feet long to prevent breakage so its not surprising to find bows of such lengths.
Yes, I was wrong to suppose that longbows were unique to Britain, apparently they were used by a variety of cultures.
The unique feature of the English longbow was not the length of the bow but its overall robustness, which required very heavy draw weights - of as much as 200lbf, which is apparently four to eight times the draw weight of a modern bow.
Wiki has a good article on the English longbow. A couple of quotes:
Longbows were difficult to master because the force required to draw the bow was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 36 kgf (360 N, 80 lbf) and possibly more than 65 kgf (650 N, 143 lbf). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat fire required. Skeletons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeleton) of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_spur) on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers....The range of the medieval weapon is unknown [but] a 150 lb Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.89 oz) arrow 328.0 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd).
...In peacetime, in some regions, carrying chisel points was a hanging offence, because it was thought to threaten noblemen or they were taken as evidence that one was a highwayman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highwayman)...The effects of a longbow are illustrated by this 12th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_century) account by Gerald of Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_of_Wales):
...in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirass), and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. (Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow
Kraxis and longbows :laugh4:
??? :help:
The unique feature of the English longbow was not the length of the bow but its overall robustness, which required very heavy draw weights - of as much as 200lbf, which is apparently four to eight times the draw weight of a modern bow.
There is AFAIK no evidence that English bows were stronger than say bows used by Vikings. You will find bows of various strength as it depends on the user's strength as well as its purpose as hunting bows are rarely very strong.
The Mary Rose bows has IIRC an average draw weight of around 150 pounds and the strongest 180 pounds. The skeletons that could be identified as archers had a an average height as modern day recruits. So overall taller than the sailors and average males from that time.
That is no big surprise as it requires big strong men to use such heavy bows, and, as Mary Rose was the flagship in the English navy, the ship would most likely have had a collection af top quality archers.
The good question is then what the average draw weight would be for large armies.
CBR
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.