Longbow v crossbow (and handgun) - historical discussion

[tin shed gamer]

I'd agree to them being the nearest modern comparison.Long story short,in the early nineties we did bit of training with them,and the can be spooked and it is difficult to regain control and defend yourself(the rider not me)and the horse at the same time.(which is my basis for the leadership role)
On a one to one and with room to turn ,and gather pace then on foot your buggered.But in an area where movement is restricted and a rider is faced with multiple opponent's then your rider is going to have to graft to defend himself and the horse.
But I'm skirmish gamer so the idea of an Achilles heal for the tiger tank works for me.The leadership test is there just to account for the reality that no matter how well trained an animal is .Its still an animal.
Its not an idea that transfers to bigger games as your dealing with massed formations and charges.
For me the point we need to remember (in skirmishes)Is that the knight who doesn't defend both himself and his horse is like me soon to be a pedestrian.when faced with multiple opponents,when the horse looses momentum.In short if you charge unsupported into a group and cant push straight through .it won't take long for anyone to realise a three legged horse in no horse at all.
But as I said that's just a nitpicking for skirmish games.
As for the question of my horsemanship Your right I'm no horsemen and they know it  (personally I think there snobs and don't want to be seen in public with me.So I get ditched at the first sign of anyone else  )
Mark.

[janner]

I agree that giving powerful units an achilles heel makes for better gaming 

[Blackwolf]

Excellent discussion; I won't,however add to the debate about horses,except...They are are a little more trainable and useful in combat( even at standstill) than you might think...Bugger

[sukhe_bator]

You're forgetting that in the real world such a trained horse would be considered extremely valuable and not be deliberately harmed. In the Medieval period the chief target would not be the horse but the rider. Cavalry are not necessarily a larger target but the rider is moving AND more importantly higher up and more exposed.

In practice infantry, armed with missile weapons or no, would most likely try to unseat the rider, threaten him with a knife through the eyeslit and confiscate his armour and his horse for sale/use and ransom the poor s** to get even richer.

[Atheling]

You're forgetting that in the real world such a trained horse would be considered extremely valuable and not be deliberately harmed. In the Medieval period the chief target would not be the horse but the rider. Cavalry are not necessarily a larger target but the rider is moving AND more importantly higher up and more exposed.

Argh! I cannot help myself 

One word.... Crecy.  

Also, as to the the other ubiquitous example in such a debate as this, at Agincourt the Archers were more than likely much more interested in winning the battle and not being slaughtered to a man than the niceties of chivalry and ransom.

Darrell.

[sukhe_bator]

Ahem! You've got to stop the B******d first! so Crecy is the medieval equivalent of stopping an 18 wheeler bearing down on you at speed with shots to the driver and the engine block. The Genoese crossbowmen and large numbers of MAA and knights (on foot) were the first casualties to fall to English longbows...

At Agincourt the French did not make the massed frontal charge as seen in the films. Stakes largely protected the English archers against such unwanted intruders. French cavalry were concentrated on the wings and played little part. The main attack was by dense formations of MAA and foot knights advancing supported by crossbowmen. Analysis of the boggy terrain proved that the suction on smooth (ie metallic surfaces) would have been debilitating whereas on rougher surfaces (cloth, leather) were far less. Lighter equipped troops had a considerable advantage on the ground.

Recent research has indicated that contrary to popular myth archery was not the super weapon at Agincourt. Arrows served to slow/stagger the French advance and create a bottleneck in which the French bogged down and were crushed in a crowd, but the arrows could not penetrate armour. Even the AP bodkins could make little impression on tempered plate armour. The so-called battlefield losses inflicted on the French nobility were largely the execution of prisoners on the orders of Hen V. For this gruesome task he employed the yeoman archers, who were not hampered by the social niceties of chivalry. Interestingly it was the loss of income by ransom by this act rather than the unpleasantness that English nobles railed against at the time.

[Atheling]

And folks wonder why I try to avoid this particular topic via fora

 

Ahem!

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying..... I've long argued, for many years (and in this thread if you had cared to take the time to read it ) that the primary function of the warbow was to disrupt charges. Thus my comments about the victors of the battles in the dynastic struggles we refer to the Wars of the Roses ie the protagonist who was forced through an archers duel to move first was usually on the losing side.

You've got to stop the B******d first! so Crecy is the medieval equivalent of stopping an 18 wheeler bearing down on you at speed with shots to the driver and the engine block. The Genoese crossbowmen and large numbers of MAA and knights (on foot) were the first casualties to fall to English longbows...

Yep, I'm well aware of the point you are trying to make. The fact is that from the evidence we have re: Crecy the dead and wounded warhorses were stacked up forming barriers to successive charges during the day. If this is not an indication of the archers loosing at the horses then I don't know what is. As far as I'm aware there is no evidence of French knights attacking to quote you verbatim "on foot" prior to the general cavalry charge at Crecy. I don't mean to be rude but perhaps you are getting confused with Poitiers?

At Agincourt the French did not make the massed frontal charge as seen in the films.

All the evidence we have is to the contrary. The undermanned 'cavalry' on the wings were forced to make a frontal charge because of lack of space to make their planned (Marshal Boucicaut's plan) viz one of the the reasons why the charge was so unsuccessful.

Analysis of the boggy terrain proved that the suction on smooth (ie metallic surfaces) would have been debilitating whereas on rougher surfaces (cloth, leather) were far less. Lighter equipped troops had a considerable advantage on the ground.

I couldn't agree more. This was without doubt a major factor in the slaughter of the French.

Recent research has indicated that contrary to popular myth archery was not the super weapon at Agincourt. Arrows served to slow/stagger the French advance and create a bottleneck in which the French bogged down and were crushed in a crowd, but the arrows could not penetrate armour. Even the AP bodkins could make little impression on tempered plate armour. The so-called battlefield losses inflicted on the French nobility were largely the execution of prisoners on the orders of Hen V. For this gruesome task he employed the yeoman archers, who were not hampered by the social niceties of chivalry. Interestingly it was the loss of income by ransom by this act rather than the unpleasantness that English nobles railed against at the time.

I absolutely concur!

BTW, the research you're referring to is far from being "recent". It's been stacking up for years. I was not suggesting anything different to what you have stated above! I don't want to blow my own trumpet but I'm quite well read on the HYW and threw away my Burne-esque view of Agincourt when I was a teenager  

Darrell.

[Arlequín]

The so-called battlefield losses inflicted on the French nobility were largely the execution of prisoners on the orders of Hen V. For this gruesome task he employed the yeoman archers, who were not hampered by the social niceties of chivalry. Interestingly it was the loss of income by ransom by this act rather than the unpleasantness that English nobles railed against at the time.

I imagine he used his own archers for the task... back then there was a share system in operation for ransoms, so if a guy took a prisoner everyone in his unit got a share, along with his 'company commander', 'division commander' and ultimately the King himself (it was not unlike the prize money system used by the navy in later years). If your 'company' took a few prisoners there was a lot of money coming your way and unlike loot it carried itself to Calais.

Everyone relied on loot and ransoms to make soldiering worthwhile, 6d a day as an archer or 1/ as a man at arms didn't go very far. So it would have been a very desperate act to order, not least as Harry had beggared the crown to pay for the campaign. No happy faces in the English army that day, win or not.

 

[Atheling]

Everyone relied on loot and ransoms to make soldiering worthwhile, 6d a day as an archer or 1/ as a man at arms didn't go very far. So it would have been a very desperate act to order, not least as Harry had beggared the crown to pay for the campaign. No happy faces in the English army that day, win or not.

Indeed. The act of a man desperate to win the battle.

Interestingly enough, if my memory is not failing me, contemporary French chronicles did not put the blame on Henry V for what we would now consider without reservation to be a warcrime but the French for not quitting the field.

It goes a long way to place in parallel modern thinking along side that of the Medieval mind.

Cheers,
Darrell.

[Cubs]

Isn't modern dressage with horses (at least partly) born out of the training warhorses received to keep moving about and stamping their feet, even when not travelling forwards? I seem to remember reading that somewhere, the way they were taught to keep themselves moving to make an awkward target, stop surrounding troops getting an easy chance to lop off a leg and also stick a hoof into a few of them?

[Arlequín]

Interestingly enough, if my memory is not failing me, contemporary French chronicles did not put the blame on Henry V for what we would now consider without reservation to be a warcrime but the French for not quitting the field.

It goes a long way to place in parallel modern thinking along side that of the Medieval mind.

Certainly... I think there was a very pragmatic world view back then and certainly the aggrieved didn't make much of it at the time. There is far more of an outcry about 'the Princes in the Tower' today than there was in 1483 too. I imagine Machiavelli would have thought it was a good call and the man in the street wouldn't have been thinking "Wow didn't see that coming" before he carried on with his daily life. I think there was more public outcry about the rumour that Richard III wanted to marry his niece.

Isn't modern dressage with horses (at least partly) born out of the training warhorses received to keep moving about and stamping their feet, even when not travelling forwards? ...

I read something like that too and I can believe it. Certainly a moving horse is more intimidating than a standing one and to be approached with caution and never from where it can't see you.

The prevalence of actual 'war horses' is generally overstated though... If I remember correctly they were ten times more expensive than a decent courser and mares were preferred because they were more placid, which seems the opposite of what you'd want.

[Captain Blood]

Do we need to amend the thread title to 'Longbow v crossbow (and handgun) and horses - historical discussion'?

[Cubs]

Princes, too.

[janner]

Isn't modern dressage with horses (at least partly) born out of the training warhorses received to keep moving about and stamping their feet, even when not travelling forwards? I seem to remember reading that somewhere, the way they were taught to keep themselves moving to make an awkward target, stop surrounding troops getting an easy chance to lop off a leg and also stick a hoof into a few of them?

I believe that dressage simply means education/training in French, i.e. it was indeed originally military training for horse and rider. If you look into classical dressage, as performed by the Spanish Riding School, for example, you'll still see aggressive dressage moves such as the levade even if they no longer perform the mezair. Modern dressage grew out of the baroque style, which, in my opinion, was merely a continuation of medieval riding practice.

[Atheling]

I believe that dressage simply means education/training in French, i.e. it was indeed originally military training for horse and rider. If you look into classical dressage, as performed by the Spanish Riding School, for example, you'll still see aggressive dressage moves such as the levade even if they no longer perform the mezair. Modern dressage grew out of the baroque style, which, in my opinion, was merely a continuation of medieval riding practice.

And in Urdu 

   سوار کے تقریباً ناقابل شناخت اشاروں کی اطاعت کرتے ہوۓ بہت ہی زیادہ ماہرانہ کرتب کرنے کے لیے گھوڑے کی تربیت کا طریق کار

Loosely translated as:

Manoeuvres of a horse in response to body signals by the rider

Darrell.