TheRPGSite

Oftentimes misconceptions about rality has it's fallout in one's judgement. One of those misconceptions is uttered below

First Adventure Gamer Fallacy:

Longbows can penetrate heavy armor, and where the penultimate weapon in medieval times.

This is, in short a direct outcome of nationalistic british, better to say english, propaganda* through the ages.

Sure, Crecy and Agincourt saw "the flower of french chivalry defeated", but those were quite singular events. Most of the time, the armored mounted warrior reigned the battlefield. The success of the archers against heavily armored knights were only possible when huge amounts of arrows were shot at small groups. Only with large numbers of fired arrows did some penetrate weak spots in the knight's armour.
Only crossbows did stand a chance of penetrating the armour, which evened the battlegrounds in northern Italy in the struggles of the Kaiser against the cities and the Papacy. Still, this led to an increase of armour for the knights, which made them once again rulers supreme on the field of honour. Only large and well trained bodies of infantry and use of firearms led to a demise in chivalric battle value. Though the mounted warriors themselves transformed into cavalry, remained the decisive shock weapon until the development of the Machine Gun.

*Which sees and elevates the brave,free and industrious yeomen as the foundations of english superiority in world history. Of course the yeomanry has it's laurels and distinct place in history, especially on an economic scale. But especially the 19th century saw a lot of "yeomanry-hype", and with it, longbow-hype.

EDIT: Changed the entry.

Quote from: SettembriniWell I just read in my Prolus copy one thing that I want to call:

First Adventure Gamer Fallacy:

 
 The success of the archers against heavily armored knights were only possible when huge amounts of arrows were shot at small groups. Only with large numbers of fired arrows did some penetrate weak spots in the knight's armour.

Not quite so, i believe. Longbows were very effective against the French Knights because they remained mounted and so the rain of arrows killed their horses, thus unmounting them and breaking up both the charge and the formation. It also rammed home the importance of having a well balenced force with more than one component to it, such as an infantry to ram home such an advantage, archer as well as mounted force.

I recommend The Art of War in the Middle Ages by Sir Charles Oman for lots of goodies about the effectiveness of archers in warfare.

Quote from observer at battle of Crecy (where there were some 3000 horsemen charging): "For the bowmen let fly among them at large...sending the horses mad. Some stood stock still, and others raced sideways, and most of all began backing in spite of their masters, and some were rearing and tossing their heads at the missiles, and others when they felt the bit threw themselves down. So the knights in the first French battle fell, slain or sore stricken, almost without seeing the man who slew them."

The fact that the French refused to ditch their horses and continued to charge headlong into slaughter didn't help, not did the fact that their Genoese crossbowmen didn't have the range of the English Longbowmen as they were shooting uphill. The age of the unmounted 'man-at arms' came along.

More to the point perhaps from a gaming perspective, shoot the horses!!

I'm totally with you there, the horses I forgot, but they were just as important.

Still the fallacy is to think of the longbow being inherently superiour to armored knights, especially their armour. When Longshanks went to war with the Welsh, he had many archers, as the Welsh were themselves archer-heavy and without heavy armour. Against the Scots, he came with knights.

The longbows merits were long range and rate of fire, not penetration. Those were giving military commanders additional tactical options, which could win a battle, if circumstances allowed. Henry V or Eduard III used those tactical advantages masterfully, accompanied by tactical blunder(s) on the french side.


As a source I can give thumbs up for this jouyous read:
Delbrück, Hans (1920): History of the Art of War, University of Nebraska Press; Reprint edition, 1990. Translated by Walter, J. Renfroe. 4 Volumes.

EDIT: Oman was priour to Delbrück, and Delbrück refers to him in quite some detail. if you want, I could look up what he wrote on Oman's archer chapter.

Sure. The more the merrier. I have a feeling that Oman might be a little outdated by todays standards. He does tend to use hyperbole a bit, but his sources are obviously from a while before his period, so it's to be expected really.

When I read Keenan's take on Agincourt I never got the impression that the Yoemen won the battle for the English due to the superiority of the longbow against armor, but rather the French Knight refusing to engage the Yoemen 'peasants'... meaning that large gangs of Yeomen were able to pull french knights from the mass waiting their turn against the few English Knights and butcher them while the other French Knights looked on.  

It wasn't technical superiority so much as an obstinant adherence to a code of conduct that was not based on anything but an innate sense of superiority.

Quote from: SpikeIt wasn't technical superiority so much as an obstinant adherence to a code of conduct that was not based on anything but an innate sense of superiority.

I can agree with that.  Keegan's description of the battle is pretty good for that.

I hate it when gamers fetishise a weapon, that quote from Ptolus, Settembrini, really sours me on buying it.

Oi Vey! why is it I always get his name wrong? Keegan/Keenan....shouldn't be hard, no?

Gamers DO fetishize their weaponry, sad but true. Of course, this is really a bit more limited then the katana fetish, don't you think?

Yes, as I understand it its that at the time Agincourt happened, in Europe military combat had shifted to weigh completely to the side of Knights leading the warfare; the armies were designed around the idea that the Knight was the most important element of any force.
Agincourt demonstrated that this was no longer viable, and in that sense was a very real technological improvement; it didnt mean that the night was useless, or that the Longbow was an uber-weapon (the crossbow wasn't really the "uberweapon" either; you have to wait for gunpowder to get to that, to the weapon that REALLY marked the end of medieval-style warfare). It did mean that a wierd shift in weight that happened to continental european armies now had to shift back to more balanced forces using more balanced tactics.

Think of it in game terms: when an RPG or wargame introduces a certain class/feat that is so broken, that it doesn't really make any sense at all to take any class/feat BUT that one if you have the choice; then in a subsequent update, they introduce a counterbalance, a fix to the rules, that suddenly makes it more sensible to create a more varied set of classes/feats.

RPGPundit

Quotethat quote from Ptolus

Oh! It wasn't a direct quote! I generalized a statement in Ptolus, the quote was meant to be the Fallacy. I better change it. The correct qutation is:

QuoteSidebar:
You might have read that one of the most devastating aspects of the firearm as it developed in the real world was that it could pierce armor. However this fact was also true for the longbow, but the d20 System rules don't grant the longbow special "armor piercing" qualities other than a deadly 3x critical. The same then, should apply to firearms in the abstract combat system of the game

Sidebar in Technology chapter, p. 559

@Pundit: Interestingly enough, even after Agincourt, or Crecy for that matter, the French did'nt really change their force composition. At least there is no evidence for it. So the real military revolution started when large bodies of Infantry was trained well OR cohesive enough to repel an armed attack. The swiss and the development of trained masses of pikemen were the real changebringers, with the spreading use of firearms, this change was cemented.
If the longbow would have been the "unbalanced weapon", everybody would have sought out to get them. But history shows us, this wasn' t worth the hassle.

As basically we are all in the same boat here, I would go out further and postulate, that the Archetypical Elven Archer (AEA) is a mystified wet dream of this english patriotic myth. Ther is some evidence, that Tolkien himself wanted to write a true national epic. Any thoughts on that, and the origin of the AEA? Were Elves beforehand into longbows?
What I read is that Rohan was meant to be the Saxons, just with horses. Tolkien noted several times, that he thinks Hastings could and should have been avoided, had Harald had better mounted warriors. Thus Rohan is "wishful revisionist history", directly from Tolkiens personal historical views and emotions.

Quote from: SettembriniIf the longbow would have been the "unbalanced weapon", everybody would have sought out to get them. But history shows us, this wasn' t worth the hassle.

The other problem being that to get a really good archer you had to train for years if I remember my reading right, (it's a much more difficult weapon to learn then a sling or crossbow) when the people found other persuits and didn't have the requirement of training, they couldn't field the units and moved on.  Of course it was somewhat of a mistake from some angles, I think it was Ben. Franklin who wrote something or other about wishing for a bunch of english longbows during either the revelutionary war or just before it, due to the better rate of fire and the lack of the smoke cloud to give away your position.

The typical 'proverb' about getting a good longbowman was to start with his grandfather. So yes, training was a serious issue. In fact the true superiority of the crossbow (and later firearms) was really a logistical one. Quite simply it is much faster and easier to train people to fire crossbows accurately, thus more crossbowmen can be feilded faster. larger units, faster replacement of casualties with only a slight drop in overall performance...

Contrary to popular belief military stuff isn't always the best available. its the most practical.  And over a long time frame the most successful weapons are the simplest to use.

Quote from: SpikeThe typical 'proverb' about getting a good longbowman was to start with his grandfather. So yes, training was a serious issue. In fact the true superiority of the crossbow (and later firearms) was really a logistical one. Quite simply it is much faster and easier to train people to fire crossbows accurately, thus more crossbowmen can be feilded faster. larger units, faster replacement of casualties with only a slight drop in overall performance...

I picked up a book on the sling awhile ago, and one of the comments from the author was that the groups of people who used bows stayed with them for a long time and the people who used slings stuck with them for a long time, but they never really switched back and forth. There is a lot to be said for the long history of using the weapon. (and the sling can be made of almost anything which helps in that regard.)

Quote from: SpikeContrary to popular belief military stuff isn't always the best available. its the most practical.  And over a long time frame the most successful weapons are the simplest to use.

Which explains why the AK is still all over the place, as a friend of mine put it, it's peasent proof. (and you can get a ton of them if you have a government)

I'm happy to see that Israel is looking to switch from the M16, and the new Tavor that they are looking at...  I've decided that if I ever win the lottery, I want one. :heh:

When it comes to Agincourt, one shouldn't forget the atrocious battlefield conditions, which where heavily stacked against the French.

Quote from: JongWKWhen it comes to Agincourt, one shouldn't forget the atrocious battlefield conditions, which where heavily stacked against the French.

What? :D  You mean marching uphill through mud isn't advantageous when attacking massed archers?

I really liked Bernard Cornwell's view on the battle in his archer series, I thought it was very well done.

All of that said, let's not forget that fundamentally Agincourt was about the power of a group of people with sufficient determination. What defeated the French, at the end of the day, was King Hal.

RPGPundit

The real feat with longbowmen, or non armoured knights anyhow, is making them keep the line after the first volley. Usually they would and should run, as long as they still could. With great leader, great terrain, Knights on foot to show "we are standing right beside you, and will die or win with you guys", you could put the longbow to quite some use.
But those aren't things you could count on building a state on.

Quote from: SettembriniThe real feat with longbowmen, or non armoured knights anyhow, is making them keep the line after the first volley. Usually they would and should run, as long as they still could. With great leader, great terrain, Knights on foot to show "we are standing right beside you, and will die or win with you guys", you could put the longbow to quite some use.
But those aren't things you could count on building a state on.

In which settembrini unwittingly reveals the true superweapon that can snatch victory from teh jaws of defeat and annihilate whole armies: Morale.   I have read of battles where divisions were smashed to flinders by their enemies, yet their total casualties were numbered on the fingers of one hand... they were defeated by poor morale.

The true strength of some historical armies was less their equipment, less their superior martial skills, and more their simple, unwavering resolve on the battlefield, a terrifying thing to face.

Sitting on a horse, metal armour donned, gives you heckuva morale boost...

Quote from: SettembriniSitting on a horse, metal armour donned, gives you heckuva morale boost...

As does having such a knight on a horse standing next to you ready to charge and kick the arse of those charging toward you. (you will notice that I said next to, wouldn't want to be behind..... :D )

Which is the right way to look at it. The Knight is the penultimate weapon of the middle ages. The longbow, whatever merits it did actually have, was an auxiliary weapon. It might have been the best auxiliary weopon, but it never was or could be the decisive fighting force on anything but at a tactical level.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is the right way to look at it. The Knight is the penultimate weapon of the middle ages. The longbow, whatever merits it did actually have, was an auxiliary weapon. It might have been the best auxiliary weopon, but it never was or could be the decisive fighting force on anything but at a tactical level.

Of course, given a leader who had no intention of playing by the rules, the longbow could prove superior to the knight.  All it takes is not being places where knights could get to, and refusing to try to face them on open ground.  It is a peculiarity of warfare that every so often everyone (or nearly so) seems to think that there are rules that need to be followed.   During the Napoleonic era it was unthinkable for a man to duck or step aside if he saw a cannon ball barreling at him.  To do so was cowardice.  

On that note: Armored 'knights' fought at Waterloo, in the form of 'Chasseurs' (sp?). bullets tended to be deflected around their heavily polished armor, though I have seen one curiass that caught a small cannonball in roughly the shoulder. No doubt the man wearing it was killed outright as there was a fist sized hole through and through.  So historically the knights outlasted the longbowmen, who were noticably NOT present...

Quote from: SpikeOn that note: Armored 'knights' fought at Waterloo, in the form of 'Chasseurs' (sp?). bullets tended to be deflected around their heavily polished armor, though I have seen one curiass that caught a small cannonball in roughly the shoulder. No doubt the man wearing it was killed outright as there was a fist sized hole through and through.  So historically the knights outlasted the longbowmen, who were noticably NOT present...

They (longbows) had dissapeared long before due to the annoyance of training time required and people finding other hobbies, much easier to teach "recruits" how to use a crossbow or massed musket fire.  At the start of the civil war there were officers still carrying pikes if I remember my reading.

Thanks to you bringing up Waterloo I'm having flashbacks to the Sharpe movies/episodes :) and the insanity of people following "the rules"

Quote from: cnath.rmAt the start of the civil war there were officers still carrying pikes if I remember my reading.

Sargeants used a ceremonial half pike, mostly to keep the men (literally) in line.

-clash

QuoteAll it takes is not being places where knights could get to, and refusing to try to face them on open ground.

Well that's a heavy word uttered easily. The realities of medieval warfare are that you can't maneuvre much. Your forces might be skilled soldiers but they weren' drilled in modern (or ancient) fashion. Thusly most of the time, an open field was sought out, so that both sides could keep their men together.

Truly great is the general, who can shape or command his un-drilled forces into uneven terrain AND keep the intent of his battleplan. The person of the monarch or prince in charge is extremely important for this, which makes the feat of Henry V., Edward III, the Black Prince or Barbarossa all the more glorious.

@Waterloo: Cavalry (trained coherent mass of horsemen) has survived the Knight, who was an individual warrior. This is the big thing in medieval warfare: individual, un-drilled warriors. Even the knights Templar, with one of the strictest regimes, had problems holding together their mounted knights for a massed charge, knights would more often than not ride ahead or trickle at the enemy. One of these occasions was Agincourt, and for twice someone had an answer to this mistake.
The cohesiveness and tactical versatility was the real feat in the use of the longbowmen at Agincourt and the following campaign, not the weapon unto itself.

Quote from: flyingmiceSargeants used a ceremonial half pike, mostly to keep the men (literally) in line.

Interestingly, this fact also points to how certain elements of our language have changed over time.  The word "comfort", for instance, is today considered "luxurious and soft accomodation" (more or less).

However, in the same period you are discussing, there is a painting of a King of England (I forget which one) "comforting his troops."  The picture shows him jabbing them with a sword in the backside to drive them into battle. :)

Quote from: flyingmiceSargeants used a ceremonial half pike, mostly to keep the men (literally) in line.

-clash

I learn something new (historical type stuff anyway) on these boards every day.


we have a whole lot of history buffs around here and it rocks!:emot-rock:

@Pikes: Well they could also fight with it, Melee being still the most bloody and decisive part of combat up to the 1870ies.

Quote from: flyingmiceSargeants used a ceremonial half pike, mostly to keep the men (literally) in line.

-clash

Not only that, but the independent-minded governor of Georgia, Joe Brown, had (est.) over 10,000 pikes ordered for Georgia troops--6 feet of ash or hickory with a foot and a half knife on the tip. One model was even featured a retractable, spring-loaded blade!  The idea was that a large reserve would join the main Confederate lines when it came time for a bayonet charge.

Sadly, there are no reports of "Joe Brown's Pikes", as they came to be called, in action in the U.S. Civil War.  He came under a tremendous amount of fire for the idea, though, in his defense, he was merely echoing tactics that had seen use during the Napoleonic War in Spain.  But soldiers didn't like going up against opposing regiments armed with only a pike, and once Georgia obtained a respectable number of firearms for its troops, the pikes were largely dropped.

Quote from: SpikeThe typical 'proverb' about getting a good longbowman was to start with his grandfather. So yes, training was a serious issue. In fact the true superiority of the crossbow (and later firearms) was really a logistical one. Quite simply it is much faster and easier to train people to fire crossbows accurately, thus more crossbowmen can be feilded faster. larger units, faster replacement of casualties with only a slight drop in overall performance...

Contrary to popular belief military stuff isn't always the best available. its the most practical.  And over a long time frame the most successful weapons are the simplest to use.

I think this is the root of many gamer misconceptions.

Crossbows were easier to train men in than longbows, that was the key secret to their success.  Muskets were also easy to train men in, extremely easy, that rather than range or accuracy was the secret of their success.

All too often gamers, seeing say that muskets dominated the battlefield during a given period assume that logically they were more accurate and did more damage than comparable weapons.  But often that simply isn't right, they were just much better suited to mass warfare.

And that's the thing, rpgs mostly focus on small unit skirmishes, but gamers look to mass warfare for what was used.  Which leads to many oddities.

QuoteAnd that's the thing, rpgs mostly focus on small unit skirmishes, but gamers look to mass warfare for what was used. Which leads to many oddities.

And to great untapped gaming potential!
All those eras up to the development and widespread use of the rifle(d bore) are basically untapped, even though melee combat was still the most important part, at least for small number of men. Movies like "the patriot" with the ridiculous accuracy of pistols aren't helping either.

Quote from: SettembriniAnd to great untapped gaming potential!
All those eras up to the development and widespread use of the rifle(d bore) are basically untapped, even though melee combat was still the most important part, at least for small number of men. Movies like "the patriot" with the ridiculous accuracy of pistols aren't helping either.

There's a scene in I think The Warhound and the World's Pain, by Michael Moorcock, in which the protagonist rides down on his enemies, fires each pistol then draws his sword and closes.

I love that feel, the characters fire then close for hand to hand, it feels gritty and deadly and is a much underexplored period.

That said, one of my players the other week said that playing Runequest had given him a new respect for missile weapons, which I also like.

Quote from: SettembriniAnd to great untapped gaming potential!
All those eras up to the development and widespread use of the rifle(d bore) are basically untapped, even though melee combat was still the most important part, at least for small number of men. Movies like "the patriot" with the ridiculous accuracy of pistols aren't helping either.

I was reading a book set in colonial India, Sharpes something or other I think and the commentary there about Muskets was that they really only worked because they were fired en masse at massed troops, as any given musket ball could be ten feet or more off of where it was aimed at within fifty feet.  It was quite a damning condemnation of their accuracy at any range.  That might explain why the British in the American Revolution were so appalled by the habit of minute men sniping officers.  It was impossible using military weaponry, and thus it was viewed as 'bad form'.

Quote from: SpikeI was reading a book set in colonial India, Sharpes something or other I think and the commentary there about Muskets was that they really only worked because they were fired en masse at massed troops, as any given musket ball could be ten feet or more off of where it was aimed at within fifty feet.  It was quite a damning condemnation of their accuracy at any range.  That might explain why the British in the American Revolution were so appalled by the habit of minute men sniping officers.  It was impossible using military weaponry, and thus it was viewed as 'bad form'.

Later in the Sharpe series he is put in charge on a group of riflemen, and I believe that they were in limited use during the Napoleanic wars in actual history, just that the rifle had a lower rate of fire, and the British were not normally the first to innovate that that point in history. They still had troops using muskets till at least the american civil war if my memory serves.

The British had rifled muskets by the 1850's, ten years before the American Civil War.  In fact, the Enfield percussion rifle-musket was said to be the trigger for the Sepoy rebellion; the Indian sepoys rioted when rumours spread that the new minie-ball cartridges were greased with "unclean" beef or pork fat.

Quote from: SamarkandThe British had rifled muskets by the 1850's, ten years before the American Civil War.  In fact, the Enfield percussion rifle-musket was said to be the trigger for the Sepoy rebellion; the Indian sepoys rioted when rumours spread that the new minie-ball cartridges were greased with "unclean" beef or pork fat.

If I recall, the really tragic thing is that it was a false rumor, too.  Of course, ir wasn't like they didn't have plenty of other reasons for rebelling.