arrows on sky

[fogman]

the machine gun was revolutionary in that it rendered a key feature of the battlefield obsolete overnight: the massed infantry charge. the longbow was evolutionary. it changed nothing. furthermore it was never copied. the french stuck to their heavy cavalry as the main battle troops. by 1500, the longbow was obsolete but not the gendarmes who went on to play central roles in many subsequent battles. the true revolutionary infantry weapon at that time was the pike in that it went on to be adopted by every other continental army. you would think, reading the longbow apologists, that a mass of cheshire archers would easily destroy a column of swiss pikemen, slower and less armoured than french knights. the truth is longbows are not as effective as englishmen assert. many longbows victories are the result of other factors.

as for the longbow's rate of fire, is it any faster than that of any other bow? the steppe horsemen are certainly as skilled and highly trained as the best longbowmen. sure some of them could be superior, like the nubian archers (and how on earth are those superior? never heard of them!)

mf bowmen are cheap dangerous units in the game. they can really cripple a much more valuable unit on impact thanks to their 2 additional dies. given that they already have unlimited arrows, additional capability should not be entertained.

next we'll have a czech player complaining about the ineffective hussite armies.

[stockwellpete]

the longbow was evolutionary. it changed nothing. furthermore it was never copied.

A bit of an own goal there, fogman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franc-archer

by 1500, the longbow was obsolete

No, I think that is a bit too early. English armies were using the longbow effectively against the Scots at Flodden 1513 and Pinkie Cleuch 1547.

the true revolutionary infantry weapon at that time was the pike in that it went on to be adopted by every other continental army. you would think, reading the longbow apologists, that a mass of cheshire archers would easily destroy a column of swiss pikemen

They would make a right mess of them, a big lumbering target plodding along slowly towards them - luverly!! "Apologist" is a very strange word to use in this context though. Are you of noble birth, or something?

the truth is longbows are not as effective as englishmen assert. many longbows victories are the result of other factors.

I can't wait for Mark's reaction to being described as "English"! I am English myself, but if you think I am some daft petty nationalist then you are very much mistaken. The English longbow was devastating against neighbouring armies between about 1250 and 1500/1550, particularly the Scots and also the French. I am not making any other claims for it. Might you be French, by any chance?

as for the longbow's rate of fire, is it any faster than that of any other bow? the steppe horsemen are certainly as skilled and highly trained as the best longbowmen.

Yes, I agree - but it is irrelevant as English longbowmen didn't have to fight steppe horsemen.

mf bowmen are cheap dangerous units in the game. they can really cripple a much more valuable unit on impact thanks to their 2 additional dies. given that they already have unlimited arrows, additional capability should not be entertained.

Well, I am clearly differentiating between bowmen and longbowmen in the game. Bowmen are generally well-represented and their impact is attritional, which is basically correct. But my argument is that the longbow was a bit different inasmuch as it was more "explosive" in its impact when it was used in western Europe. The changes that I have suggested are linked to the ammunition issue, otherwise the longbow would become too powerful, I agree.

[Turk1964]

Well i never thought anyone would describe the Longbow as ineffective. The Bodkin used(arrow head) was designed to pierce armour.It had a chisel type edge.How thick do you think armour was ? As i have stated before the English longbow men were hand picked for their skill and Accuracy with the Longbow. They were well drilled and expertly deployed by their captains and had a rate of fire enmasse that would of been devestaing. 6000 archers releasing 8 arrows per minute is 48000 arrows that my friend would be devestaing for anyone or thing in its path.I am an Aussie by the way not an Englishman and History tells us of the effectiveness of the longbow and its certainly no myth.

[fogman]

On the topic of francs archers:

I'm afraid wikipedia isn't very good for you. The actual royal ordonnances (in original medieval french!) that created them are available here: http://lerozier.free.fr/ordonnance.htm

Ordonnance 1448:
(5) item: "en point de hucge de brigandines ou de jaques, de sallade, d'espée, de dague, d'arc et de trousse, ou d'arbalestre garnie"

this item discusses the equipment: protective vestment ("brigandines" or "jaque"), helmet ('sallade'), sword ('espee'), dagger ('dague'), bow and quiver ('arc' and 'trousse') OR crossbow ('arbalestre').

Ordonnance 1466
(12) item: "A esté ordonné que tous les Francs-Archiers que l'on mettra sus de nouvel, soient habillez de Jacques, Salades, Gantelets, Espée, Dague et Voulge, ou autre batton dont il se sçauront aider."

the 1466 ordonnance states that new 'francs archers' will be equipped with 'jaques', 'salades', gloves ('gantelets'), swords, 'voulges' (a type of polearm) or other 'batton' (baton, probably a general term for polearm). NO mention of bows.


Instruction de Aymar Cadorat (circa 1466)
(2) item "Il semble audit Bailly que les Francs-Archiers se devroient departir en quatre habillemnts. Les ung en voulges, les autres en lances, les autres archiers, et les autres arbalestriers."

this document states that 'it seems to the bailiff that francs-archers ought to be equipped in 4 different ways: some with voulges, some with pikes or spears ('lances'), some with bows, and some with crossbows."

'Francs archers', despite the name is not about a force of archers modelled after the english. It was a general term for locally raised infantry. Moreover, the first ordonnance dates from 1448, more than a generation after Azincourt, at a time when french arms were already on the rise. the ordonnances can hardly be construed as a desperate attempt to copy a triumphant enemy.

[fogman]

item 2: Nowhere did i say longbowmen were ineffective, rather, they were NOT AS EFFECTIVE as we are led to believe here, you know, "better than napoleonic musket volleys", could dominate swiss pikes etc...

if longbowmen are to be augmented because of their rate of fire, then this has to be applied equally to any other well trained archer forces, because the rate of fire is a function of the archer, not the (long)bow itself.

that's from a canadian from toronto.

[stockwellpete]

I have this on Francs archers and the longbow element was clearly important within these "bandes". In FOG you can actually have quite large numbers of francs archers that are "poor" longbowmen - although I am not sure if that is the most accurate way to portay them. Maybe a mixed unit of spears/bows or heavy weapon/bows might be better.

"In 1451 a further amendment was issued changing 'parish', to a more specific; '50 hearths'. While it was hard for the royal accountants to pin down precisely how many francs-archers there actually were, the often mentioned figure of 8000 is pretty close to the mark, judging by surviving records. Organisation was into bandes of 500 men, of which there were sixteen, their captains being appointed by the crown, in the same way as those of the 'royal companies' were.

Despite the confusion over numbers, the bandes themselves were quite structured, with compagnies of a hundred men, complete with captains and lieutenants, banner bearers and musicians, as well as sub-units of; fifty, ten and five men. The men supposed to serve were required to practice every Sunday with their bows, but I imagine that this was as popular as it was in England and various other activities replaced the target-shooting.

Initially the Francs-Archers proved very useful, whether by virtue of patriotic fervour, or by the practice of parishes often hiring professionals to fulfil the role. However once the Hundred Years War was over, they declined in effectiveness and the position of 'Franc-Archer' within a community became seen as a tax break, rather than as service to the state. Nevertheless the corps was expanded to 16,000 men in 1466, the companies now being grouped into four districts, each of 4,000 men. They now also included companies and bandes of voulgier and piquets (actually spearmen, rather than pikemen), in addition to the actual archers themselves."

http://arlequinsworld.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... -1480.html

[Turk1964]

A very interesting read Pete,thanks for posting that Pete your Knowledge of Medieval warfare is without doubt remarkable.Which is why your knickname in here Is Medieval Pete,to those who know you. Stockwell pete to everyone else

[stockwellpete]

A very interesting read Pete,thanks for posting that Pete your Knowledge of Medieval warfare is without doubt remarkable.Which is why your knickname in here Is Medieval Pete,to those who know you. Stockwell pete to everyone else

I am also known as "Mediocre Pete" in Stockwell but that is a completely different story!

[fogman]

this is too funny. you purport to prove me wrong by quoting an un-referenced wargaming blog; and that's supposed to supersede my use of primary sources... what actually makes me laugh, other than turk's subsequent sycophancy, is that the said blog has two illustrations, one showing a longbowman with the legend 'The LITERAL franc-archer' (my emphasis) and the other showing a crossbowman with the legend 'Probably always the most common type, crossbowmen had totally eclipsed the bowman by the late 15th Century'.

To the part where francs archers have to train:

Ordonnance 1448

(9) item "L'archer esleu sera tenu de tirer de l'arc aulx festes, ou soy exerciter d'habillemens qui lui seront ordonnez..."

it states: 'the archer will be required to use the bow on feast days, or practice with the weapons that will be given to him...'

Now, I repeat the word 'archer' is not necessarily a bowman, but a general term for infantryman, as is clear from the equipment regulations.
That 'archer' is archaically used that way can be seen from this:

"L'ordonnance de 1480 porterait que le roi leverait dix mille hommes d'infanterie francaise qui seraient a sa solde, au moyen d'un impot place sur le peuple, et six mille Suisses; ce qui completait l'effectif de seize mille hommes des francs-archers." (M. Adrien Pascal, 'Histoire de l'Armee et de tous les Regiments, vol 1', 1847, p 285) This book has been digitized by Googles Book.

"the ordonnance of 1480 states that the king would raise 10,000 french infantry, paid for by him using taxes on the people, and 6,000 swiss; which would give a strength of 16,000 francs archers."

You guys are just not in the same league when it comes to historical research. let the pros do it.

[voskarp]

Jeebus! This has turned into a wildfire.

[stockwellpete]

You guys are just not in the same league when it comes to historical research. let the pros do it.

What a load of elitist shite!

Anyway, I think imbeciles like me should carry on with their own researches cos you never know what we might find out. But there is something odd going on here. In both the Later Medieval Burgundian/Burgundian Ordonnances lists and the two French Ordonnances lists, players of FOG are able to choose large numbers of longbowmen units for their armies. The Burgundian lists include "Picard longbowmen" and "Mixed Battlegroups" as well as some English longbowmen, while the French lists include Ordonnance longbowmen as well as Francs longbowmen (you can actually choose 9 (!) units of each if you wanted to). Now I would query the designation of Francs archers as purely longbowmen in the French Ordonnance lists (they might be better as Mixed Battle groups as in the Burgundian lists) but it is fairly clear that both the French and the Burgundians were trying to use the longbow in large numbers in the 15thC. And they copied this from the English (the English had originally nicked the idea from the Welsh!). I don't see anything particularly controversial in this either. Societies that come into contact with each other influence each other in many ways, including the military sphere.

[fogman]

You are free to prowl the internet as much as you want. but if you want to argue cogently, you've got to be prepared. i come from an academic background (no longer in academia though) and we don't have patience for approximations. the FOG lists on ordonnance french are not very historical. the francs-archers as a militia institution was abolished in 1480; and of course francs-archers encompasse a wide range of infantry types. furthermore, they were barely used as a battle force. there's only one battle where they are attested (guinegate, 1479, the english wiki based on delbruck is terrible (zero mention of them); the french one, bataille de guinegatte, based on contamine is much better) and their failure led to their abolition. I'm actually trying to recreate a good ordonnance french army based on that battle.

[stockwellpete]

I don't just "prowl the internet" though. I have read a lot of stuff on medieval warfare from Froissart to Osprey in the course of making what is approaching one hundred scenarios from that period now. Of course, all of them are my own personal interpretations of what I have read, many will contain mistakes, one or two of them are probably ludicrous - but all of them will give you an interesting game as they have been play-tested many times with other FOG players. I see in your latest scenario Guinegate that you are representing Francs archers as mixed formations. I think this is the right way to go with them and it might be worth suggesting it as a change to the DAG once the new version of the game has been completed and the discussion begins to shift towards gameplay changes and suchlike.

[Turk1964]

Let me wade into this with my trusty Longbow once more. Mr Fogman you are from an achademic background well what does that prove?Have you ever used a longbow or any bow?Well matey i have and im sorry but my knowledge of bows would far supersede yours.I my friend have quite a collection, which i use on a regular basis.I find it very insulting that you seem to think your intelect is superior to someone you barely know.

[stockwellpete]

By the way, this website is being repaired now and it is a fantastic resource . . .

http://deremilitari.org/

[fogman]

Let me wade into this with my trusty Longbow once more. Mr Fogman you are from an achademic background well what does that prove?Have you ever used a longbow or any bow?Well matey i have and im sorry but my knowledge of bows would far supersede yours.I my friend have quite a collection, which i use on a regular basis.I find it very insulting that you seem to think your intelect is superior to someone you barely know.

you asked if i have ever used a longbow, then without knowing the answer, you claim to know more. then you find it insulting that i proclaimed my superiority over someone i barely know. like you know me very well. this is too funny.

[Turk1964]

Well buddy seems you have the answers to everything and no point continuing this conversation because acording to you, your expertise on this subject is vastly superior to mine on anyone elses for that matter.Thats all mate dont expect any more replies to your comments as i wont be able to see them. Byeeeeee