New Unit: Scots Guard

[Bob the Insane]

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...

[screwtype]

"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]

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.

[caravel]

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]

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]

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]

Actually, I don't like the look of that metal bow.

[Ibn Munqidh]

Beautiful, this is the kind of unit I would like to see, units which increase diversity and uniqueness in factions.

[Darsh]

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.c..._ecossaise.htm

to have some informations:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.c...2-ecossais.htm
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/bauges.htm

[caravel]

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.c..._ecossaise.htm

to have some informations:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.c...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.

[Martok]

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.

[Darsh]

"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.c..._ecossaise.htm

to have some informations:
http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.c...2-ecossais.htm
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/bauges.htm

[SaberHRE]

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

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

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

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]

and also the allaince between France and Scotland can't be break to reflect the Auld Alliance

There won't be any fixed alliances, and thank heavens for that. I want to be able to reforge the world...

[econ21]

"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.

[screwtype]

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.

[econ21]

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.c..._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]

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.

[Orb]

I think the Mamluks are my favourite example of cavalry hybrids...

[screwtype]

The portrayal is not far from what we know from history:

http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.c..._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]

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.

[econ21]

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.