Are English Longbowmen underpowered?

[Paisley]

Look at the casualties the Swiss suffered when eventually they were beaten (and even then they quit the field in good order).

Consider also that they were held in the highest regard by their contemporaries, who hired them in numbers and that those who aped their style never equalled their achievements.

On the Spartans, I didn't mean every hoplite in a Spartan army should be superior as they generally came with allies etc. Merely that the Spartan units themselves should be. And as I say, I'd have no objection to picked Spartan units being elite, just not every one.

[Aryaman]

As I commented in the playtest forum, if you were using the best French Historical sources for the battle, you would have found not necessary to downgrade French knights or upgrade English longbow, just withe the historical numbers and the right terrain the historical result would have been achieved

That's your viewpoint, but according to Mr Bennett the French evidence is scant or at best unreliable, and I made a decision to go with his argument with lack of anything else that seemed reasonable or convincing.

It is not my personal viewpoint, I follow in this the great historian Philippe Contamine, who saw the detailed account of the Herald of Berry. Besides, historian Anne Curry has recently published (after the Osprey book was published) a research in which she has found evidence for 230 retinues in the pay of the French Chambre des Comptes —French equivalent of the Exchequer, for roughly 6.000 men. Curry adds that in a meeting of the Royal Council on August 31 it was decided to levy 24,000 livres tournois in order to raise an army of 6,000 escuiers and 3,000 gens de trait. In all the documentary evidence supports well the numbers of the Herald of Berry.
Mr Bennett is not an historian hinself, he simply resumed a number of secondary English sources and put forward some personal ideas, but he has simply no real knowledge of the French army of the time, to start with it was not the Feudal host he pictures in the book, but an army raised and payed in similar fashion to the English army.

[Aryaman]

Regarding the Swiss, they are certainly overrated in the game, their main advantage in battle was numbers, not quality, as it was made clear a long time ago by Delbruck, who demonstrated that the numbers for the Burgundian army were grossly exagerated by pro-Swiss sources. It is a basic principle in military history that in order to get the most accurate numbers you must check the sources on friendly troops, and never trust those on enemy troops. too many myths have been built upon one sided sources, especially during the 19th century, when military history was just part of Nationalistic propaganda.

[grumblefish]

On the Spartans, I didn't mean every hoplite in a Spartan army should be superior as they generally came with allies etc. Merely that the Spartan units themselves should be. And as I say, I'd have no objection to picked Spartan units being elite, just not every one.

Oh yeah, all I'm looking for is some picked Spartan units being elite, and the bulk superior or allied. Right now the DAG does this well; see the Seleucids with their opportunity to pick 2 elite companions. They can grab some elites, but it's not an all-elite army; for the Spartans, however, they literally can't take any elite units. That seems unduly harsh on the Spartans, given that the benefits associated with elites (better rolls, and better cohesion testing) seems to fit their contemporary reputation (famed for cohesion, fighting to the end, and various things like night fighting).

[Paisley]

The Swiss certainly often had numerical advantage, but as any soldier or military historian knows, numbers are not everything (and actually in the game the Swiss often have equality of units which tends to represent a superirity of numbers as pike units are half as 'big' again in terms of bases per pc counter.

And the fact remains that in terms of elan, drill, willingness to take casualties and contemporary reputation (and let us not forget reputation is a powerful factor in war) - and sometimes numbers too, the Swiss were superior to any army of their day.

[Aryaman]

The Swiss certainly often had numerical advantage, but as any soldier or military historian knows, numbers are not everything (and actually in the game the Swiss often have equality of units which tends to represent a superirity of numbers as pike units are half as 'big' again in terms of bases per pc counter.

And the fact remains that in terms of elan, drill, willingness to take casualties and contemporary reputation (and let us not forget reputation is a powerful factor in war) - and sometimes numbers too, the Swiss were superior to any army of their day.

That is all true, but I think that if we make the Swiss pikemen average but cheaper we will have a result historically more accurate

[Paisley]

No you won't, not really.

While I have your attention though, we've a game going that you haven't moved in for a wee while. I don't want to hassle you but if you're not interested in playing on, might you perhaps resign as I could do with freeing up the slot. Thanks.

[Aryaman]

No you won't, not really.

While I have your attention though, we've a game going that you haven't moved in for a wee while. I don't want to hassle you but if you're not interested in playing on, might you perhaps resign as I could do with freeing up the slot. Thanks.

I would like to know th reason, though.

No problem, I will resign. I am now at work, so I can´t play, but I will resign the game as soon as I get home, next Monday.

[Paisley]

You don't have to resign if you want to carry on at any stage, it's just if it's 'dead' then I could use the slot is all. But if you've just been away, no problem. As I say I don't want you to think I'm carping.

If you don't rate the Swiss as superior, what troops from the SoA period would you rate as superior?

Nobody at the time was as well drilled, nobody at the time was prepared to take as many casualties, no infantry of the time beat them. It took massed gunpowder weapons to beat them eventually, just outside SoA era and even then they withdrew in good order. What other troops of the era withdrew in good order when having been defeated in a pitched battle? What other troops were as highly regarded? Okay, the landschnekts came close but they were well beaten by the Swiss.

In the game, more average troops do not in fact tend to beat fewer superior melee infantry. In fact I'd argue that the solution to the Swiss problem is to make superior troops a point pricier and thus drive up the cost of the Swiss halberds by 1 and the pikes by 2.

[Aryaman]

Maybe we should reconsider what is meant by troop quality
The Swiss were better drilled than any other infantry at the time, they were more soldiers than warriors. However I don´t think a given of Swiss pikemen could take, for instance, on a similar number of French Gendarmes, they needed the mass of a large number to counter them. The Swiss pikemen were a step in the direction of the new armies, composed by soldiers, not by warriros, that were cheaper and could be trained much faster.
The main advantage of the Swiss is that they could be fielded in large numbers, and then they were well drilled so they could make good use of those numbers. The Burgundian army was much better in quality, but it was simply outnumbered, and other powers quickly took note.

[Paisley]

But the game simulates those numbers by the fact pikes are charged at 1.5 times the normal points. What you suggest is that Swiss pikes were no better than any other lightly armoured infantry of the time. Which I find strange as it flies in the face of every contemporary account.

Why, if the gendarmarie were superior in quality to the Swiss did people not continue to mimic that system?

And of cours eit was not merely the Burgundians the Swiss defeated.

[TheGrayMouser]

Can we keep on topic? The discussion was the value of cataphracted mammoths with longbowmen crews in the houdas and whether they should remain drilled

[Aryaman]

But the game simulates those numbers by the fact pikes are charged at 1.5 times the normal points. What you suggest is that Swiss pikes were no better than any other lightly armoured infantry of the time. Which I find strange as it flies in the face of every contemporary account.

Why, if the gendarmarie were superior in quality to the Swiss did people not continue to mimic that system?

And of cours eit was not merely the Burgundians the Swiss defeated.

1) Let´s see, they were better than most infantry on equal numbers, they were not better than longbowmen though, but they were cheaper.
2) Because the Gendarmes were inmensely more expensive, so, they were less cost effective
3) And they were also defeated.

[SRW1962]

As I commented in the playtest forum, if you were using the best French Historical sources for the battle, you would have found not necessary to downgrade French knights or upgrade English longbow, just withe the historical numbers and the right terrain the historical result would have been achieved

That's your viewpoint, but according to Mr Bennett the French evidence is scant or at best unreliable, and I made a decision to go with his argument with lack of anything else that seemed reasonable or convincing.

It is not my personal viewpoint, I follow in this the great historian Philippe Contamine, who saw the detailed account of the Herald of Berry. Besides, historian Anne Curry has recently published (after the Osprey book was published) a research in which she has found evidence for 230 retinues in the pay of the French Chambre des Comptes —French equivalent of the Exchequer, for roughly 6.000 men. Curry adds that in a meeting of the Royal Council on August 31 it was decided to levy 24,000 livres tournois in order to raise an army of 6,000 escuiers and 3,000 gens de trait. In all the documentary evidence supports well the numbers of the Herald of Berry.
Mr Bennett is not an historian hinself, he simply resumed a number of secondary English sources and put forward some personal ideas, but he has simply no real knowledge of the French army of the time, to start with it was not the Feudal host he pictures in the book, but an army raised and payed in similar fashion to the English army.

As I said I made a decision based upon all of the books/accounts that I had available and yes I have read Anne Curry's work. As you may be aware yourself anyone can google the Battle of Agincourt (or any battle) and be given various plans/accounts etc. that may all seem plausible and how many books have been written on the subject and contradict each other, as historians are always doing. As for Bennett not being a Historian, well make up your own mind from reading on:

Matthew Bennett MA FSA RHistS is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (London) and of the Royal Historical Society. He acts as External Examiner to the Swansea University War and Society BA and MA course where he has been appointed a Fellow of the Callaghan Centre for Conflict Studies and is a visiting lecturer to the Chester University MA in Military Studies. He is Trustee of the Battlefields Trust and a founder member (although not yet a badged guide!) of the Guild of Battlefield Guides. He is also member of numerous historical, archaeological and literary societies and lectures on a wide of range of his interests to both professional and amateur societies. Over the last two decades he has appeared regularly on television programmes about military history.

That was from some literature I found from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst where he is a lecturer, if that doesn't qualify him to be a historian then I don't know what will.

As for my 2 upgrade/downgrade decisions I thought they were reasonable and would still stand even after reading Curry's account, but with 50 percent less French and 50 per cent more English it would be simply a totally one sided massacre of the French which doesnt really reflect how hard fought the battle was. I would argue then that the French would have to be upgraded and the English downgraded to poor to make it a more even and hard fought battle because of the terrain difficulties that the French had to endure to get through the 'Arrow Storm' so that they could get to grips with the English.

Having said all that although we disagree, I do value the argument you are putting forward.

[mschund]

I think it would be interesting to create a more expensive English longbowman option...but I also think it would help to allow archers to fire over friendly units directly in front of them...so you could double rank your units and therefore double the fire within a defined area...with the front rank planting stakes, the could be quite deadly in the right situation...

To date, I have found the deadliest armies are the Irish and Anglo Irish in very rough terrain...and my Germans (with a Swiss contingent equal to about half their strength in more open terrain...The Germans add more bowman and Knights...my other armies have not been nearly as successful...

[Paisley]

allow archers to fire over friendly units directly in front of them

I've an aversion to this idea because historically units simply did not do this without elevation advantage. But actually from a gameplay perspective it has a good deal of merit, I think. So long as it is only over adjacent units directly to their front and applies only to bow or longbow MF equipped identically to the units in front (ie longbows firing over longbows is fine, longbows firing over men at arms is most definitely not), and restricted to firing over just one unit (so a third rank cannot fire at all).

On the Swiss - they were not defeated in the timespan of SoA. When the were, they withdrew from the battlefield in good order behind a rearguard that sacrificed itself to cover the retreat. They were admitted to be the finest infantry in Europe of their day by all. None of their battlefield behaviour gives any hint of averageness, the best enemy troops could not match them in melee. From a game perspective the Swiss should ideally be represented by relatively small front and the ability to absorb fearful punishment. That is far better reresented by superior status than by average. On both counts the Swiss as average argument is weak.

Now, one could argue that the English longbowman was also the finest and most feared soldier of his day (HYW) and so should count as superior too. But they showed no enthusiam for pitched combat with better equipped foes unless said enemy were in considerable disorder and definitely lacked the resiliance of the Swiss to casualties. I'd actually possibly support allowing the more professional longbowmen to fire as superior but melee as average, were that possible.

[kujalar]

Historically longbows were a weapon that forced cavalry to dismount and try to close their opponents behing a shield walls.

I have read that reason for this was mainly that horses do not run against a massed 'wall of arrows'. So the cavalry charge breaks if longbowmen are experienced enought to create that wall of arrows. Poor quality bowmen can't. High quality can.

Maybe longbows should distrupt cavalry more easily? That should simulate the effect of breaking charge and make dismounting a good general option against longbows.

I think there was some extra distrupt possibility for arrows against cavalry, but as far as I have tried to break initial cavalry charges with arrows, it is not easy...

If the arrows can't break the charge, then we are in a situation where we fight with medium infantry against cavalry and use terrain for best advantage. In this situation the longbow would be just a weapon to force the enemy charge. They do not want to stand and wait while in range.

Thequestion is, should the longbow be able to break the charge? If terrain is open, there is only 1 turn to shoot before the cavalry closes 5 hexes!

[Paisley]

There were not many situations where longbowmen stopped cavalry by fire alone. At Agincourt for instance the French horse on the flanks reached the archers' lines, being repulsed by the stakes. Without that artificial obstacle, the archers would have been slaughtered and Henry V a deal less famous...

[Aryaman]

As I said , he is not an Historian, he has connections to military history teaching centers and little more, he has made no original research, but anyway my point was that he has no authirity to dismiss French sources as unreliable, especially against the opinion of someone as Contamine.
If I have time I will make an Agincourt scenario myself using the best historical sources, the Gesta Henrici Quinti for the English and Herald of Berry for the French, and I think it will work without having to upgrade the Longbowmen.

[Aryaman]

On the Swiss - they were not defeated in the timespan of SoA. When the were, they withdrew from the battlefield in good order(...)

.

Doesn´t that sounds as a contradiction?
Anyway I imagine why you talk about the SoA timespan, because between 1500 and 1525, just outside that time span, they suffered a chain of defeats, either alone or as part of French armies