Charge Bonus??

**QwertyMIDX** · 10-30-2006, 16:43

Stirrups were also a huge boon for mounted archers.

**Watchman** · 10-30-2006, 16:51

I was under the impression you could do the Parthian Shot and all the rest of the impressive tricks right fine without the things... Seem to have worked right fine too.

I've been told stirrups rather improve the endurance of both the mount and the rider over long distances though, since the horseman need not grip the flanks of his mount with his legs for stability.

**Artificer** · 10-30-2006, 18:15

As mentioned on the TWC forums, it was the four-horned saddle that allowed for the couching technique, not the stirrups. This was because stirrups only offer support for sideways movement, not front-to-back. Apparently you could couch a lance without stirrups (not that stirrups didn't help give a more stable seat, I'm sure).

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65165

Foot

Thanks for the link Foot. The discussion within is very interesting, but leaves me scratching my head. From what I've read, I gather that an actual cavalry "charge" consisted of a rapid close with enemy troops and then really more of a needling action with one's spear rather than the Earth-shaking, formation cracking, guts & glory action that we all think of when recalling mounted combat. Is this correct, or have I misinterpreted the information? If so, shouldn't the charge bonus present in EB be drastically lowered?

**vizigothe** · 10-30-2006, 20:20

I love that term. Reconnaissance in Force. Wasn't the Abd er-Rahman's "reconnaissance" force somewhere between 20,000 and 80,000 men?

I guess that would classify as a Reconnaissance in "Serious" Force

**Watchman** · 10-31-2006, 01:38

Well, he didn't plan to stay (at least, not yet that time around) by what I've read of it. So aside from good old-fashioned raiding and pillaging and obliterating a few armies and razing some towns his little sightseeing trip could presumably be termed just that.

Pretty much the normal method of going about new conquests too by what I've read. Hit the place hard enough and often enough that the resistance weakens sufficiently for proper takeover. Sounds like a solid plan to me...

**QwertyMIDX** · 10-31-2006, 02:35

Originally Posted by Watchman

I was under the impression you could do the Parthian Shot and all the rest of the impressive tricks right fine without the things... Seem to have worked right fine too.

Sure, but once you can stand up in the saddle and use your legs to absorb the motion of the gallop your accuracy and mobility are improved.

**vizigothe** · 10-31-2006, 03:10

Continuing my attempt to stay off topic Watchman. I was under the assumption that they were driving to Tours to sack the city and then use it to drive deeper into the countryside once it got warmer. The funny thing was he didn't any recon so I guess you could say that his army was indeed a recon-in-serious-force :D

**Fenrhyl** · 10-31-2006, 04:57

Basically, No one knows for sure what The muslims wanted to do. They actually wasted Aquitaine and they were retreating to these lands when they stumbled upon Charles Martel and his troops. That's for the muslim part.

For the franks part, there are serious hints that make some historians believe that Charles was witnessing the whole thing from his border and let the muslims burden themselves with loot and slaves. It allowed him to be in a position to move, decide where the batle would occur and force the muslims to fight. As a bonus, the muslims had pretty much destroyed any kind of power Eudes of Aquitaine had. An opportunity to get back these lands into his family's dominion he wasn't eager to let slip away.

It must be noted that the clash was the second one. A first one occured at Toulouse in 723 (or 725), on the old roman way (parts of it stil exist.) The muslims were sieging the town and the defnders offerd such a resistance that numerous franks and gallo-romans (as written in the accounts) could be mustered in a relief force. The muslims were surrounded by Eudes and destroyed to the last. The muslims call this battle the "paveway of the martyrs." It is often messed up with the battle of Poitiers (or Tours, anyway it was between those towns.)

It is also important to know that several cities allied themselves to the muslims (out of fear or driven by the belief the muslims would be better masters... go figure...) When the Muslims fled to Narbonne, Charles proceeded to enforce his family's grip on the lands he just got back. He took, wasted and looted every single town, village or farm that allied with the muslims, thus gaining its nickname.

The Muslims did not stop the fight after 732. They tried another raid in the Rhone valley but it failed in front of Lyon. Thereafter they were defeatd several times and Pepin the short reclaimed the lands of Septimania from them during his reign.

PS : i would recommend, in any event, to ignore any number given by the texts from these times. The figures are ludicrous and only serve to demonstrate that a handfull of christians led by god's will could defeat such a horde of heathens (If i had more time, i'd write a compendium of the lies written by clerics in those times.) Those are lies, just discard them.

PPS : Watchman, your explanation makes sense. Thank you for sharing your insights about this matter.