Slitherine

Some books on Medieval troops credit the Genoese crossbowmen as being "well-equipped ... armored and armed for close-quarters combat. ... etc.] [Ref: K. Devries et al, "Battles of the Medieval World 1000-1500", Amber Books/Metro Books, New York, 2006 - pp 136 ff]. The p 137 graphic shows the crossbowmen with protection probably somewhere between the FoG "protected" and "armored" levels. He carries a respectable sword.
On p. 39 of "Storm of Arrows", the Genoese crossbowmen have no "melee" combat capability and are "protected" and "drilled."
Protected and Drilled seem appropriate, but the Genoese professional/mercenary crossbowmen are not given the "Swordsman" rating.
Since the English Longbowmen, who were often described as being equipped and fighting [i.e., pouncing on unhorsed French knights] with with axes and daggers rather than swords and who often were not as trained "swordsmen" given the demands of longbow training, have been given the honor of the "Swordsman" rating, it seems that well-equipped experienced professional mercenaries also should be accorded the same rating.
Request that the Genoese crossbowmen be upgraded to Swordsmen.
Thanks.

I'm aware of no evidence that suggets that the Genoese were as willing or capable of hand to hand combat as English longbowmen so I can't see any justification for them having Swordsmen capability.

Having a sword is not enough they must show historical behaviour to justify the capability which, IMO, the English do but Genoese do not.

D@mn bias say I!

I recommend a plus one POA just for being English personally, British if I'm not playing against Scottish, Welsh or Irish. And I'm not talking about the armies being used.

Regarding the Genoese Crossbowman ...
Perhaps the well-known defeat of the Genoese CB at Crecy has been given too much weight in the ratings system. The French King misused his rather expensive mercenary CB assets by throwing them immediately at the English formations. English LB proceeded to out-shoot and rout [via missile fire] the Geneose, who then were run over by the French Kn units. In any event, the Geneose CB had little opportunity at Crecy to do the close-quarters routine. Long before and long after Crecy mishap, the Geneose CB had an excellent reputation, and were paid well by many rulers for their services. They are typically pictured with armor somewhere between FoG "Protected" and "Armored", often as having pavises, and almost always as having one-hand swords suitable for close combat.

Regarding the English Longbowmen ...
As I mentioned in the earlier post, dispatching unhorsed or wounded French men-at-arms [or crossbowmen] with daggers and hand-axes hardly qualifies one as a "swordsman". Additionally, while there is some armor and chain mail evident, there is not a sword in sight on the LBmen picture on page 8 of Storm of Arrows. On page 6 of Storm of Arrows, the LBmen have metal helmets, tunics, "walking shorts" [?] - and a hand axe probably suitable for firewood or making portable stakes, but again no swords. The same picture appears on p. 79 of the FoG rule book. Are we encountering a historical belief system here [i.e., the myth of the iconic Longbowman invincible with both longbow and sword]?

With the previous discussion and the Battle of Patay in mind, the applicability of the "Swordsman" label to the missile units of the various European Medieval armies perhaps needs to be revisited.

To repeat myself - having a sword does not a FoG Swordsman make, there are quite a lot of troops who had some sort of sword who do not get the FoG capability.

Neither do you need an actual sword to get the capability - it is an effect that gets the classification and not the harware alone, Early Germans are a very good example of troops who have the classification without actually having swords as it gets the correct effect.

Sorry to bang on about the sword thing here but I'm getting the impression that it is the possession of such that is driving your query.

effect... Ok...

Then pray tell why LB should get the effect if in most cases (really all but I don't like absolutes) IF the knights can contact the foot without their stakes, why should the foot benefit from a knife. If FoG is attempting to produce the effects of some (a)historical battle then they knights should slaughter the foot without the mitigating factors?

Madcam.

I'm being a bit dense - can't fathom what you are getting at here

philqw78 wrote:I recommend a plus one POA just for being English personally, British if I'm not playing against Scottish, Welsh or Irish. And I'm not talking about the armies being used.

Yeah? How about a -1 to allies' POA for your xenophobia?

Yeah? How about a -1 to allies' POA for your xenophobia?

Oh my word Allies, gosh I'm an English Gentleman. Wouldn't want Johnny....No I'd better stop, Nick will be deleting posts again.

philqw78 wrote:

Yeah? How about a -1 to allies' POA for your xenophobia?

Oh my word Allies, gosh I'm an English Gentleman. Wouldn't want Johnny....No I'd better stop, Nick will be deleting posts again.

ROFL, too true, Phil, too true.

The mods are apparently feeling strict right now; best we mind our P's and Q's until they get distracted by furry pr0n again...

madcam2us wrote:effect... Ok...

Then pray tell why LB should get the effect if in most cases (really all but I don't like absolutes) IF the knights can contact the foot without their stakes, why should the foot benefit from a knife. If FoG is attempting to produce the effects of some (a)historical battle then they knights should slaughter the foot without the mitigating factors?

Madcam.

Chances are that longbowmen caught by knights in the open without stakes are not going to last very long whether they have the "swordsmen" POA or not. The simulation works.

To respond to Claudius, Genoese crossbowmen were indeed reputed for their shooting skills but I can't really remember them dropping their crossbows and willingly entering into hand-to-hand combat with many foes. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe longbowmen did just that at Agincourt and they did more than despatch the wounded.

Julian

More than just Agincourt - we try very hard not to base classifications on a single battle/example as that can distort things, of course it isn't always possible but thankfully for English longbowmen there are a number of examples

until they get distracted by furry pr0n again

More likely to be furnitureporn.com ...

possum wrote:until they get distracted by furry pr0n again...

Never eat furry prawns.

These are all very interesting points. I dont believe that should a picture show a sword, does a swordsman make - yet the overall about crossbows has been covered in general by a general post by Mikekh. I still believe that whilst im pretty sure the loading time is factored into the crossbowmen overall in terms of poa, i still cannt fathom why there are no poa's at all against armoured opponents. Surely, they have some punching power dont they?

As for the Genoese? Well im inclined to follow nick on this one. Incidentally, for Reading's Warfare comp, im dropping x-bow from my list totally, because they seem to be more of a hindrance than help!

bigdamnhero wrote:These are all very interesting points. I dont believe that should a picture show a sword, does a swordsman make - yet the overall about crossbows has been covered in general by a general post by Mikekh. I still believe that whilst im pretty sure the loading time is factored into the crossbowmen overall in terms of poa, i still cannt fathom why there are no poa's at all against armoured opponents. Surely, they have some punching power dont they?

Crossbows ignore the target armour, i.e. regardless of how much armour the target has, the POA is always the same. Isn't that enough punching power for you?

It's a low POA and that is because of the rate of fire. Actually it's not that bad against mounted.

bigdamnhero wrote:These are all very interesting points. I dont believe that should a picture show a sword, does a swordsman make - yet the overall about crossbows has been covered in general by a general post by Mikekh. I still believe that whilst im pretty sure the loading time is factored into the crossbowmen overall in terms of poa, i still cannt fathom why there are no poa's at all against armoured opponents. Surely, they have some punching power dont they?

As for the Genoese? Well im inclined to follow nick on this one. Incidentally, for Reading's Warfare comp, im dropping x-bow from my list totally, because they seem to be more of a hindrance than help!

I took a total of 20 MF, xbow bases to the Granada competition (in addition to another 16 MF, bow) and they did surprisingly well. They were placed last on table and I always made sure they ended up on the flanks facing off horsemen. My only regret was that I took them as undrilled which caused me all sorts of problems when manoeuvering near the enemy and my own skirmishers and without a general. Problems in the sense that I couldn't maximise firepower!

If your list can field units of 4 MF,Xbow (usuallly drilled), go for them. They are great for providing rear support to other infantry and these can open a gap wide enough for them to shoot from relative safety. They are also pretty good for exploiting open flanks once one of the HF they support has routed the opposition.

Julian

Help - What is a "furry prun" [furry prawn?]?

I'm back to the library to do some more research on the combat records of the Genoese CB units.
I'll see if I can make more of a historical case for them to be considered "swordsmen".

In the meantime, here's a fine Genoese CB image from "Wolves of Rome"
http://webzoom.freewebs.com/predatorscl ... bowmen.JPG