Brimstoned
Sergeant
Amman de Stazia said:
I would say bucaneers...
Archers; Too heavily armed
- Thread starter thesneakster
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Sergeant
I would say bucaneers...the respect man
Archers are a problem. While in a battle i flank and send mercenary cavalry men then they somehow go down fighting others armed with byrnies and leather with good weps and are tripled or doubled. They die. I finish the archers off and *facepalm*
I think the problem there is less the fact they are armed and more the fact that historically, archers had a tendency to haul ass when cavalry got past the infantry line.
Panthea
Recruit
Well, not all archers were unarmored poorly equipped wimps. There were some where they had been equipped with all sorts of better armors, from leather to possibly even lesser plate armors and given swords or axes. Some of the Crossbowmen from Italy obtained mail and helms and wore large pavise shields for protection from return fire. These tended to come from wealthier merchant class citizens.
Also other Archers were trained in hand to hand combat, such as the English yeomen at Agincourt. After expending all of their arrows they proceeded to engage the french Men at Arms and Knights with hatchets, swords, and mallets. Working together to knock over the heavily armored french and proceed to eliminate them. They were also often equipped with bucklers, and those that could afford it of course bought coats of mail, or had it passed down from their fathers.
Whether the Archers in game are over equipped or not I'm not sure yet, but I have yet to see anything unbelievable.
Also other Archers were trained in hand to hand combat, such as the English yeomen at Agincourt. After expending all of their arrows they proceeded to engage the french Men at Arms and Knights with hatchets, swords, and mallets. Working together to knock over the heavily armored french and proceed to eliminate them. They were also often equipped with bucklers, and those that could afford it of course bought coats of mail, or had it passed down from their fathers.
Whether the Archers in game are over equipped or not I'm not sure yet, but I have yet to see anything unbelievable.
Filip_Bingo
Recruit
well .. in my opinion its good that ranged troops are well equiped .. i would make ranged weapons even stronger , but decrease amount of arrows or bolts and totaly remove sheilds for them ..
xelasissob
Recruit
sneakey pete said:
Thats bull****, historically soldiers wore whatever armor was available to them. There was no archertype. Historically.
nordkiller
Sergeant
I'll confess I didn't scroll through the 47 or so pages of comments so if this was said already so be it. Historically as was mentioned I know archers were poor so armor was usually minimal but as far as physical strength goes they were just as strong as many of the foot soldiers do to the weight of the bow string and the amount of strength it took to draw back. So in my opinion they should be lightly armored but still be able to pack a punch in melee combat.
FrisianDude
Archduke
Meh, there's more to melee than strength, and more to strength than the muscles used for pulling a bow. Also, archers were quite likely poorer than knights, sure, but as were other men-at-arms, many archers could still find a decent amount of money; they came from many social 'levels' after all. Sure, a peasant could be an archer, but so could a yeoman. Mercenary archers especially would, if successful in a company, have access to quite decent equipment, imo.
saadsilver
Recruit
they should be equipped with a shortsword/military scythe/Pickaxe and should not be given a shield. hoods and jerkins would do fine as attire for them.
I see a lot of people saying "archers were poor" with nothing to back it up. I recall seeing one of those "Weapons that made Britain" things with Mike Loades that showed historical records showing that archers were actually paid quite a bit more than regular infantry.
Otto of Finmark
Veteran
You can't say that archers generally were anything specific, but if you are a nobleman or otherwise sufficiently wealthy a horse and armor were a far more effective and survivable choice (Infantry was really at a disadvantage against cavalry even when armed with pikes due to lances and the sheer blunt force of a horse and a knight).
11sparky11
Master Knight
Otto of Finmark said:
I'm sorry but I have to step in here, it is incredibly rare for a horse to willingly charge a pike formation. Horses aren't suicidal, and will more likely buck their rider off than charge into a bunch of pointy sticks. I say incredibly rare as in one instance (I can't recall where) a formation of Polish Winged Hussars successfully charged and defeated a pike formation. They were a special case though.
Otto of Finmark
Veteran
11sparky11 said:
As far as I knew historically cavalry defeated pike formations more often than not? By head on charge or by flanking I don't know, I'm no expert.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
brognar said:
I've come across this too often to think that it was anything but true. And it made sense as well - it took years of training to make a longbowman - the physical strength as well as the weaponskill. Add to that just how advantageous massed archers were, and it becomes a no-brainer that the demand/reward would be high, in order to encourage the supply.
In the late 14th or early 15th C. , laws were introduced in England that allowed archery practise on holidays and Sundays - but no other sport or recreation (holidays being Holy Days in the real sense back then). In pre-reformation society, giving something like archery practise exemption from 'thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy' was a huge encouragement for it.
A modern equivalent would be to waive all speeding fines issued to BMW drivers, in order to encourage people to buy BMWs.
- because the point of those laws was that England needed more archers, and was trying all sorts of encouragement to ensure the supply.
11sparky11
Master Knight
Yeah as I recall they had to practice every Sunday after church 'until the felt that their arm was going to fall off'. I think that was on some video with Kevin Hicks. He's pretty badass btw.
11sparky11
Master Knight
English Army. And you're probably thinking of Agincourt, which was more down to the fact that the French knights got stuck in the mud, the archers expended their arrows and tehn they all ran down into the mud with knives and killed the French, since they sank with their heavy armour.
They'd use anything they could get their hands on, be it armour or weapons. The strenght to pull a bow is unrelated to the strenght needed to strike with a sword though. You use entirely different muscles for that. In any case, I'd give them, ranging from their 'veterancy' level, equipment grading from aketons/gambesons/padded jacks (please no fantasy leather armour) to chainmail vests to brigandines.
As for weapons, the same process, beginning at cheap weapons such as axes and hammers, ending at swords, axes, maces, ... suited for warfare. (one-handed weapons though. They had no space on their backs to carry anything larger)
Disclaimer: I am a history buffoon and a necromancer before that. Apparently.
As for weapons, the same process, beginning at cheap weapons such as axes and hammers, ending at swords, axes, maces, ... suited for warfare. (one-handed weapons though. They had no space on their backs to carry anything larger)
Disclaimer: I am a history buffoon and a necromancer before that. Apparently.