| Author |
Message |
|
William P
|
 Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2011 8:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Kurt Scholz wrote: |
I suggest we end this mounted crossbowmen discussion (because we have only nuances of differing opinions and it seems unlikely we convince each other of anything) and refocus on knights. While we're at mounted and dismounted combat, we can also discuss why knights and other memebers of the heavy cavalry also decided to fight dismounted. |
( Bold highlighting not in the original quote )
I agree that it's totally speculative and is only interesting when discussion theoretical tactical usage rather than trying to make a point about historical usage.   ( Note, priorities differ at times in these discussions, although I obviously am interested in History, my personal " obsessions " tend towards military tactics and weapon usage, often in the abstract and not 100% related to actual History ..... so a bit of apples & oranges and I completely appreciate your very logical post(s) but with history fully in mind. ).
Just to make a final type of use of crossbow or bow for cavalry would be as back up weapons that would be mostly carried and used if they had to defend themselves from horse archers in a defensive position: A force of heavy cavalry being harassed by horse archers, with their usual attack and retreat tactics, might better dismount and use precision shooting to counter horse archers i.e. chasing horse archers is futile with heavy cavalry, so don't even try, and take a defensive position, and force the horse archers to come to you ! Much better than trying to defend from missile attack without any way to reply in kind or futily trying to chase them down using lance or sword.   |
these arnt knights as such.. but mamluks, klibinariphoroi, and heavy cavalry of the kwarazmian shah. were not just heavy lance cavalry they were also frequently equipped with bows. and had barding armour as WELL
|
|
   |
 |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2011 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Just to make a final type of use of crossbow or bow for cavalry would be as back up weapons that would be mostly carried and used if they had to defend themselves from horse archers in a defensive position: A force of heavy cavalry being harassed by horse archers, with their usual attack and retreat tactics, might better dismount and use precision shooting to counter horse archers i.e. chasing horse archers is futile with heavy cavalry, so don't even try, and take a defensive position, and force the horse archers to come to you ! Much better than trying to defend from missile attack without any way to reply in kind or futily trying to chase them down using lance or sword. |
Well Jean, the crusaders used these tactics to a point, but the crossbowmen were on foot. It seemed their most effective tactic against horse archer based armies was to have their infantry in a boxed formation, and as a rallying point for crusader cavalry who would wait to try their mounted charge at the most opportune time, as opposed to fruitless chasing of light cavalry.
BUT, I might add, that according to period sources these crossbowmen performed these duties on foot, which makes a heck of a lot more sense. They were a smaller target on foot, they were often armoured as opposed to being mounted on an unarmoured horse, more density of fire do to being in a tighter formations, etc., etc.
Foot archers almost always trump mounted archers in an exchange of arrows. The only thing is the foot archers usually have to be protected, be it by other non-missile infantry, or a fortified position (stakes, caltrops, etc., or both).
| Quote: | | hey, i said that as well regarding crossbowman ( and longbowmen) galloping, stopping , shooting while stationary, then running off again. |
That would not be overly effective. Perhaps in a skirmish role, but that would be about it.
I don't see either pre 14th century crossbowmen or Longbowmen functioning in tis dragoon type capacity you mention. Biggest problem with it -
For a large body of men to ride to a spot, have their animals tended to they don't run off (A portion of the force or other attendants would be needed -horses (and men) tend to get skittish if the opposing party looses arrows or other missile fire at them), then dismount, fire a few volleys, mount up again, and move would be a major undertaking that even a well trained body of men and horses would take time to do. You also risk the loss of formation, resulting in a disorganized body, which could also turn inot a route if the battlefield situations were not good.
They would be far more effective making maximum use of their firing time, and having some supporting body of melle based troops to ward off the attacking force. I'd rather get 3 volleys in and have the supporting melee troops then close than get 1 volley in and then move again.
Now perhaps this could be effective for a small body of men/horses to do, and highly trained, perhaps get some volleys in, move, and then take up a position to hopefully fire on the enemys flanks once melee has begun, but it would have to be a really small amount in relation to the force as a whole, and would have to be well trained.
Horse archer armies use the fire/retreat method, but these are troops that have practiced this way of warfare as a culture for thusands of years, and as individuals from probably the time they could ride. And even then, they had problems at times, a tactical withdrawl or feigned flight often turned into a route for the horse archer army. Pechenegs and Maygars often ran into this problem vs. the Byzantines.
A lot depends on the tactics/equipment of the opposing party and other facotrs, such as the size of forces involved, terrain, etc., etc., so nothing is truly set in stone, but in general I think the above is accurate.
| Quote: | one thing i noticed about cavalry that used weapons on horseback, , kalmuks carabiners horse archers
is a very peculier thing comparing them to medieval 2/ rome total war |
Be careful looking at any type of game as a representation of history. It is first and foremost a game, historically accuracy comes in second (or third, or fourth ). It's also based on many preconceived popular myths and notions of the game designers, not as much based on true research.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2011 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could we get off the topic of the mounted crossbow debate for a little bit please? I have some questions about some research, Would these points be accurate or inaccurate?
-In England this type of Vassalage and way of supporting the military aspects of things did not come to England until the 12th century (Around 1100-1135)
-In France and Germany when a Lord (Duke, Baron, or Knight) passed on the land went to the person whom it was customary to go to a successor.
-In England This same idea was around, however the King could (if he choose to) ultimately put the land into anyone of his choosing, other than the successor. The King of England was the sole Proprietor.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
Gerald Fa.
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Sep, 2011 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Knights History-Correct me if i'm wrong |
|
|
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: |
Rome
-4th Century
- Romans took from the Heavy Calvary units from Macedonian rule.
-Heavy Cavalry still only made up a small part of the army.
|
Well the Romans did have well armored Cataphrats I think sense 15 AD or was it 65AD.
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: |
-We are speaking specifically about Germany and France
Expense of Knights
-Cost was measured in Cows.
-Today a cow 800~900lb Steer cost roughly $1040.00
- Helm =============== 6Cows===== $6,240.00
-Mail shirt =============12Cows=== $12,480.00
-Sword with scabbard == 7 Cows==== $7,280.00
-Leg Armor ============ 6Cows==== $6,240.00
-Lance and Shield ====== 2Cows===== $2,080.00
-Horse =============== 12 Cows=== $12,480.00
- A total cost of $41,200.00 Dollars in todays market.
-And don’t forget about the cost of additional horses for campaigns, and the fact of supplies and food such. |
Well to sleepy now to put all my thoughts; but I personally think many historians put the cost of Medieval military equipment a bit over the top. Yes, military equipment do in fact cost a pretty penny, even today the modern crappy body armor the government gives us is about $1000.oo or $2000.oo with out super heavy ZAPI plates that can maybe stop 4 shots form a assault rifle.
A little off subject: Do not believe the crud you hear in the TV about modern body armor… Modern body armor is a bit of a joke. Today our body armor is so crappy that in the Marines we do not bother calling it body armor LOL we call the helmet Kevlar and body armor flack, and I herd ZAPI pates were called bricks LOL. I called it body armor ones and other Marines were laughing about that like if I made a joke. Armorers from the past are rolling in there graves…
ANY WAYS back on subject, military equipment from any age is not going to cost so much were you cannot arm or equip armies… There is no way a simple mail shirt is going to cost that much. More so a helmet! Is like my flack vest and my Kevlar helmet cost 18 cars! There is no way.
A War Horse, Lance, and Shield is more believable on cost range…
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Sep, 2011 11:45 pm Post subject: Re: Knights History-Correct me if i'm wrong |
|
|
| Gerald Fa. wrote: | | Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: |
Rome
-4th Century
- Romans took from the Heavy Calvary units from Macedonian rule.
-Heavy Cavalry still only made up a small part of the army.
|
Well the Romans did have well armored Cataphrats I think sense 15 AD or was it 65AD.
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: |
-We are speaking specifically about Germany and France
Expense of Knights
-Cost was measured in Cows.
-Today a cow 800~900lb Steer cost roughly $1040.00
- Helm =============== 6Cows===== $6,240.00
-Mail shirt =============12Cows=== $12,480.00
-Sword with scabbard == 7 Cows==== $7,280.00
-Leg Armor ============ 6Cows==== $6,240.00
-Lance and Shield ====== 2Cows===== $2,080.00
-Horse =============== 12 Cows=== $12,480.00
- A total cost of $41,200.00 Dollars in todays market.
-And don’t forget about the cost of additional horses for campaigns, and the fact of supplies and food such. |
Well to sleepy now to put all my thoughts; but I personally think many historians put the cost of Medieval military equipment a bit over the top. Yes, military equipment do in fact cost a pretty penny, even today the modern crappy body armor the government gives us is about $1000.oo or $2000.oo with out super heavy ZAPI plates that can maybe stop 4 shots form a assault rifle.
A little off subject: Do not believe the crud you hear in the TV about modern body armor… Modern body armor is a bit of a joke. Today our body armor is so crappy that in the Marines we do not bother calling it body armor LOL we call the helmet Kevlar and body armor flack, and I herd ZAPI pates were called bricks LOL. I called it body armor ones and other Marines were laughing about that like if I made a joke. Armorers from the past are rolling in there graves…
ANY WAYS back on subject, military equipment from any age is not going to cost so much were you cannot arm or equip armies… There is no way a simple mail shirt is going to cost that much. More so a helmet! Is like my flack vest and my Kevlar helmet cost 18 cars! There is no way.
A War Horse, Lance, and Shield is more believable on cost range… |
thing is whole armies weren't equipped with mail, i mean, at agincourt we had a high % of people in plate because pretty much the whole force was composed of noble knights.
but maile? very rare,
did that cost of 12 cows for a hoorse is that just the cost of buying it outright? or is that the cost of it, and enough food for a month for example?
thing is that while maile was quite expensive, it was a 1 time purchase pretty much any further costs would be the cost of abit of oil or something to keep it from rusting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Sep, 2011 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arms and armour are an interesting and well-documented topic, due to administrative requirements, unlike "symbolic" battle reports.
In the German speaking regions there was the "Zeughaus" where people living in cities not only had the communal, but were also required to store a lot of their private weapons there. This in turn could also lead to well-documented legal disputes about what weapons one can have at home which in the communal storage.
Same as in the modern military, storing weapons is important because in war there's a tendency of more weapons than men being lost. the Bayeux tapestry is a nice example of shipping weapon stores. Another important issue is how to store weapons and how long this can be done. Because some medieval weapons survived until today, good storage could mean availability for several centuries. I think Islamic sources of the early conquest are a nice source about storing and producing maill and leather armour (and how many victories provided equipment for many men, especially their elite fighters, quite logical in a society that favoured champions to start combat as a kind of religious judgement).
Good sources on availability of armour would be the Brabanzons, who started out as well-armed and trained, unemployed craftsmen, including some with maill armour and the late Scandinavian leidang regulations (on how many men had to provide a fighter with specified equipment.
Concerning armament, I strongly suspect that there were as wide quality gaps back then as today. We are very likely mostly in possession of quality material because cheap stuff was more likely being recycled. Once again, take a look into administrative records, like the Royal Armouries.
I almost forgot to mention, if a town was ruled by a cleric, he had the armament of his heavy cavalry, including knights, also partly stored in his armoury (especially if he wanted to keep them away from Unchristian tournaments).
I had another idea, check about armouries giving equipment to friends. If there are lots of petty wars it might be a reasonable way to safe money by amassing arms and armour that could be sold dear in times of war (including the risk of debt reductions), but possibly for something that was more reliable than debt obligations, like titles, rights, war booty or rents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic