Francs Archers 'unprotected'?!

A forum for any questions relating to army design, the army companion books and upcoming lists.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
DanielS
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:05 am

Francs Archers 'unprotected'?!

Post by DanielS »

When reading the French Ordonnace list in preparation for a test game I noticed that the Francs Archers are rated as 'unprotected' which I found surprising as all of my sources described them as wearing same kind of armour used by English & Burgundian archers (sallets, brigandiens, mail haubergons or jacks) who are rated as proteced. Surely being rated as 'poor' and 'undrilled' takes care of the supposedly poor performance of the Francs Archers without adding unprotected to the mix? Or is there new historical proof that enough of them were unarmoured to warrant the 'unprotected' rating?
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28411
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Francs Archers 'unprotected'?!

Post by rbodleyscott »

DanielS wrote:When reading the French Ordonnace list in preparation for a test game I noticed that the Francs Archers are rated as 'unprotected' which I found surprising as all of my sources described them as wearing same kind of armour used by English & Burgundian archers (sallets, brigandiens, mail haubergons or jacks) who are rated as proteced. Surely being rated as 'poor' and 'undrilled' takes care of the supposedly poor performance of the Francs Archers without adding unprotected to the mix? Or is there new historical proof that enough of them were unarmoured to warrant the 'unprotected' rating?
You may be right. We felt that their low status would translate into a higher proportion of men being poorly equipped. In hindsight, we could perhaps have given them an option to be Protected.
Post Reply

Return to “Army Design”