Slitherine

It's impossible to represent the Lithuanian-Polish army at the Orsza using the Early Polish, Polish Ally, or Early Lithuanian lists. The well-known near contemporary painting of the battle shows unarmoured arquebusiers who have just crossed the river and armoured men with pole-arms and pavises crossing by pontoon bridge. It also shows both types formed up for battle with a rank of pavisiers with several ranks of arquebusiers shooting from behind. In front of their formation are dismounted gendarmes. There is nary a crossbow in sight, ahorse or afoot.

The list notes describe a rapid transition in the second quarter of the century and presumably that is the reason for the 1525 cutoff. However, the lists are only a guide, and you should do what fits for a scenario.

The painting is approximately dated to the second decade after the battle. Is it possible the artist favoured representation of more modern missile weapons rather than ones becoming archaic?

MikeK wrote:The list notes describe a rapid transition in the second quarter of the century and presumably that is the reason for the 1525 cutoff. However, the lists are only a guide, and you should do what fits for a scenario.

The painting is approximately dated to the second decade after the battle. Is it possible the artist favoured representation of more modern missile weapons rather than ones becoming archaic?

Zygulski reckoned it was the work of an eyewitness. A scenario could be constructed for it but it's just odd that not a single crossbow appears in the painting. I wonder what the source is for the lists' depiction of Polish infantry.

I don't know too much about Eastern European art of the period but certainly in Western European art almost all scenes of no matter how far back in history feature troops in dress and using weapons of the time of the painter (except for the obligatory classical hero who often features little or no clothing). Indeed it is often the most accurate source we have for contemporary arms and armour. Same might apply here.

Sarmaticus wrote:A scenario could be constructed for it but it's just odd that not a single crossbow appears in the painting.

It is odd, which is consistent with the idea that the arquebus may have been depicted as the artist's convention. Also may be easier to paint at different angles.

From a game point of view, being able to mix crossbow and arquebus could be desirable, since the crossbow has a better POA and range against Russian mounted than arquebus (less lethal, but more likely to achieve disruption). The either/or choice may have been to prevent this sort of opportunism.

MikeK wrote:

Sarmaticus wrote:A scenario could be constructed for it but it's just odd that not a single crossbow appears in the painting.

It is odd, which is consistent with the idea that the arquebus may have been depicted as the artist's convention. Also may be easier to paint at different angles.

From a game point of view, being able to mix crossbow and arquebus could be desirable, since the crossbow has a better POA and range against Russian mounted than arquebus (less lethal, but more likely to achieve disruption). The either/or choice may have been to prevent this sort of opportunism.

The Orsza painting is normally considered to be a remarkably accurate depiction. The Polish infantry are using pavises - which would make sense versus Muscovite archery.

P.S. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is wrongly referred to as a Kingdom throughout the lists.

You might want to add this to the Errata thread in the Rules Questions bit if you can evidence same. My knowledge is by no means complete in that area but I thought that the Treaty of Lublin made it a Kingdom.

timmy1 wrote:I don't know too much about Eastern European art of the period but certainly in Western European art almost all scenes of no matter how far back in history feature troops in dress and using weapons of the time of the painter (except for the obligatory classical hero who often features little or no clothing). Indeed it is often the most accurate source we have for contemporary arms and armour. Same might apply here.

Indeed, but in that painting there are too many other troop types, Russian and Polish, to simply discard the Landsknecht types as "contemporary" or "local" depictions of unknown troop types.

timmy1 wrote:You might want to add this to the Errata thread in the Rules Questions bit if you can evidence same. My knowledge is by no means complete in that area but I thought that the Treaty of Lublin made it a Kingdom.

No, it made a Union of the two states. Whoever was elected to rule was elected King and Grand Duke as well. Before Lublin, the two states happened to sometimes have the same person as head of state or, while the dynasty lasted, at least a Jagiellonian for each.