Slitherine

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:

Cerberias wrote:Some armies will always find it harder against some armies, and easier against others.. a lot of fighting a battle is finding the army that suits you and how to cover the weaknesses of that army.

Very prosaic. So, pray, tell me the weaknesses of Later Ottomann Turk, then. Not 'it can't beat Swiss', what is it's bete noire? Because, if you follow this thread back, my point is that it is a heads I win, tails I don't lose army (especially without Serbs).

I have no problem with knowing that there are armies I can't fight: however it isn't a level playing field, because when an Ottomann draws an army it can't beat, it doesn't fight it at all. (I would continue but I would be infringing madaxeman's copyright).

Thats strange I managed to win against an Ottoman Turkish army on Monday night, who had elite Cav Bow/Sword and 3 BGs of Armoured cavalry and hordes of LH. I managed to evade of the table or destroy all his LH 7 in total and rout one Cavalry BG

I must admit I was playing the Khazers with Lancers and LH Bow/sword I did lose 3 BGs Lancers but thats what they are there for.

Against Ottomans you have to get in quick pin them back, and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote: Very prosaic. So, pray, tell me the weaknesses of Later Ottomann Turk, then. Not 'it can't beat Swiss', what is it's bete noire? Because, if you follow this thread back, my point is that it is a heads I win, tails I don't lose army (especially without Serbs).

I have no problem with knowing that there are armies I can't fight: however it isn't a level playing field, because when an Ottomann draws an army it can't beat, it doesn't fight it at all. (I would continue but I would be infringing madaxeman's copyright).

Thats strange I managed to win against an Ottoman Turkish army on Monday night, who had elite Cav Bow/Sword and 3 BGs of Armoured cavalry and hordes of LH. I managed to evade of the table or destroy all his LH 7 in total and rout one Cavalry BG

I must admit I was playing the Khazers with Lancers and LH Bow/sword I did lose 3 BGs Lancers but thats what they are there for.

Against Ottomans you have to get in quick pin them back, and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

So, its bete noir is an army that is, erm, essentially the same ?

fgilson wrote:

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote:
Thats strange I managed to win against an Ottoman Turkish army on Monday night, who had elite Cav Bow/Sword and 3 BGs of Armoured cavalry and hordes of LH. I managed to evade of the table or destroy all his LH 7 in total and rout one Cavalry BG

I must admit I was playing the Khazers with Lancers and LH Bow/sword I did lose 3 BGs Lancers but thats what they are there for.

Against Ottomans you have to get in quick pin them back, and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

So, its bete noir is an army that is, erm, essentially the same ?

No, no...his LH got to be more expensive than the Ottoman because his Lancers are cheaper than the Cv Bow-Sw...also, his lancers must have often been forced to charge evaders!

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote: Very prosaic. So, pray, tell me the weaknesses of Later Ottomann Turk, then. Not 'it can't beat Swiss', what is it's bete noire? Because, if you follow this thread back, my point is that it is a heads I win, tails I don't lose army (especially without Serbs).

I have no problem with knowing that there are armies I can't fight: however it isn't a level playing field, because when an Ottomann draws an army it can't beat, it doesn't fight it at all. (I would continue but I would be infringing madaxeman's copyright).

Thats strange I managed to win against an Ottoman Turkish army on Monday night, who had elite Cav Bow/Sword and 3 BGs of Armoured cavalry and hordes of LH. I managed to evade of the table or destroy all his LH 7 in total and rout one Cavalry BG

I must admit I was playing the Khazers with Lancers and LH Bow/sword I did lose 3 BGs Lancers but thats what they are there for.

Against Ottomans you have to get in quick pin them back, and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

So, its bete noir is an army that is, erm, essentially the same ?

dave_r wrote:

The place where superior bows are too good is with Christian Nubians IMO rather than Jannissaries

Have you actually checked how good the Christian Nubians were?

david53 wrote: and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

azrael86 wrote: Lastly, although insignificant in battle, how many armes really had no Foot at all? Because butchering 5000 ottomann peasants shudl have an effect.

hazelbark wrote: Well historically the Ottomans didn't mind gettin 5,000 peaasant butchered. In fact they did it quite regularly. A lot got butchered.

Historically I am not certain many of the mounted noblity or "elite" cared too much with mass peasant losses. Whetherr those were Maryannu charioteers, Timariots, Knights, Milites and so forth. They seemed quite willing to ignore mass peasant casualties.

azrael86 wrote:

dave_r wrote:

The place where superior bows are too good is with Christian Nubians IMO rather than Jannissaries

Have you actually checked how good the Christian Nubians were?

Yep. the Christian Nubian empire extended to Nubia, plus maybe a bit of Sudan. Yet they have more superior bow than Achamenid Persian, who ruled 1/2 the known world.e

dave_r wrote:

azrael86 wrote:

dave_r wrote: Have you actually checked how good the Christian Nubians were?

Yep. the Christian Nubian empire extended to Nubia, plus maybe a bit of Sudan. Yet they have more superior bow than Achamenid Persian, who ruled 1/2 the known world.e

And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

azrael86 wrote:Possibly some steppe armies were less bothered, the Mongols in china being a case in point.

Skullzgrinda wrote:

dave_r wrote:

azrael86 wrote: Yep. the Christian Nubian empire extended to Nubia, plus maybe a bit of Sudan. Yet they have more superior bow than Achamenid Persian, who ruled 1/2 the known world.e

And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

I am waiting on those superior Welsh longbow . . .

dave_r wrote:

Skullzgrinda wrote:

dave_r wrote: And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

I am waiting on those superior Welsh longbow . . .

They never won a battle either

david53 wrote:

dave_r wrote:

Skullzgrinda wrote: I am waiting on those superior Welsh longbow . . .

They never won a battle either

That doesn't count, that was a battle between two Welsh forces!

I'm sure they did win one battle against the english the battle at Pilleth in 1402

dave_r wrote:

david53 wrote:

dave_r wrote: They never won a battle either

That doesn't count, that was a battle between two Welsh forces!

I'm sure they did win one battle against the english the battle at Pilleth in 1402

Einstein wrote:

david53 wrote:

dave_r wrote:

Its was an english army made up of a county levy of Herefordshire under Sir Edmund Mortimer. The majority were English but he did have some Welsh archers who he placed on his left wing who half way through the battle attacked the English. But it was still a Welsh victory over the English, just shows you should'nt attack up hill against Longbows, or depend on your allies.

if youcarry on quoting like this you can see if the centre quote reaches critical density, forms a black hole and drags the rest of the forum in.

Schrödinger wrote:

Einstein wrote:

david53 wrote: Its was an english army made up of a county levy of Herefordshire under Sir Edmund Mortimer. The majority were English but he did have some Welsh archers who he placed on his left wing who half way through the battle attacked the English. But it was still a Welsh victory over the English, just shows you should'nt attack up hill against Longbows, or depend on your allies.

if youcarry on quoting like this you can see if the centre quote reaches critical density, forms a black hole and drags the rest of the forum in.

Meow

hammyhasnosenseofhumourwhenhehasahangoveronsundaymorning wrote:Very pretty as all those quotes might look can people please consider cutting out some of the less relevant lines when they quote a message.