Dates needed for French and English allies to stop them being used with Armoured Indians.
I propose as follows:
French - only from 1610, but allow the Hurons 2 bases of French arquebusiers in 1609 to cover Samuel de Champlain's expedition.
English - only from 1621, when the Plymouth brethren made an alliance with the (Algonquian) Wampanoag - whom they subsequently assisted against the Pequot.
-------------
Should the Colonial English get Eastern Woodland Culture allies as well as the Indian troops in the list? (Not to be used together of course)
Eastern Woodland Culture
Moderators: nikgaukroger, rbodleyscott, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2

- Posts: 28323
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Eastern Woodland Culture
rbodleyscott wrote:Dates needed for French and English allies to stop them being used with Armoured Indians.
I propose as follows:
French - only from 1610, but allow the Hurons 2 bases of French arquebusiers in 1609 to cover Samuel de Champlain's expedition.
English - only from 1621, when the Plymouth brethren made an alliance with the (Algonquian) Wampanoag - whom they subsequently assisted against the Pequot.
Works for me.
I only saw relatively small scale Indian usage, however, I would hardly claim to have done in depth research ...Should the Colonial English get Eastern Woodland Culture allies as well as the Indian troops in the list? (Not to be used together of course)
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
BTW, given that the Iroquois got large numbers of firearms from 1648 - which if the article in the latest Arquebusier is correct led to a string of victories - should they get higher numbers of firearms earlier than others in this list, specifically the tribes allied to the French?
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2

- Posts: 28323
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Unfortunately my subscription to Arquebusier has lapsed.nikgaukroger wrote:BTW, given that the Iroquois got large numbers of firearms from 1648 - which if the article in the latest Arquebusier is correct led to a string of victories - should they get higher numbers of firearms earlier than others in this list, specifically the tribes allied to the French?
What changes do you propose exactly?
We could change the 1668 things to: "Only Iroquois League from 1648, others from 1668". Though it perhaps defies reason that none of the other tribes caught up for 20 years.
Maybe simply change the date to 1648, with a troop note to the effect that the Iroquois took full advantage of their early adoption of firearms to beat up on their less well-equipped neighbours. Historical sticklers can then refrain from equipping their Huron that soon. I don't think it makes any difference to permitted tournament armies.
We should probably remove the minimum for LF with Musket.
By the way, I assume that the weapons they obtained in 1648 were muskets and not some crappy obsolete Arquebuses that were offloaded on them?
-------------------
I have changed the date of the French starter army to 1650 and added the following to the French troop notes:
"France had been supplying firearms to her native allies since 1632, but when the Huron were attacked by the Iroquois League in 1649, the Iroquois advantage in firearms proved significant. It is uncertain how quickly the discrepancy was made up."
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
rbodleyscott wrote:Unfortunately my subscription to Arquebusier has lapsed.nikgaukroger wrote:BTW, given that the Iroquois got large numbers of firearms from 1648 - which if the article in the latest Arquebusier is correct led to a string of victories - should they get higher numbers of firearms earlier than others in this list, specifically the tribes allied to the French?
Not much of a loss IMO - doubt I will renew mine.
Something like that.What changes do you propose exactly?
We could change the 1668 things to: "Only Iroquois League from 1648, others from 1668".
If the Euros don't supply then they can't catch up - French policy, for example, banned direct sales of firearms even after the Dutch and British did, restricting them to gifts.Though it perhaps defies reason that none of the other tribes caught up for 20 years.
As far as I can tell they were proper muskets. By 1648 the Dutch and English probably didn't have any obsolete stuff to offload anyway.By the way, I assume that the weapons they obtained in 1648 were muskets and not some crappy obsolete Arquebuses that were offloaded on them?
I have changed the date of the French starter army to 1650 and added the following to the French troop notes:
"France had been supplying firearms to her native allies since 1632, but when the Huron were attacked by the Iroquois League in 1649, the Iroquois advantage in firearms proved significant. It is uncertain how quickly the discrepancy was made up."
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2

- Posts: 28323
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Fair enough, I will go with 1648 for Iroquois, 1668 for others then. (And my suggested troop-note becomes redundant.)nikgaukroger wrote:Something like that.What changes do you propose exactly?
We could change the 1668 things to: "Only Iroquois League from 1648, others from 1668".
If the Euros don't supply then they can't catch up - French policy, for example, banned direct sales of firearms even after the Dutch and British did, restricting them to gifts.Though it perhaps defies reason that none of the other tribes caught up for 20 years.