Archers; Too heavily armed

Users who are viewing this thread

Merentha said:
Historically, if they could afford armor, they would wear it.  Archers tended to be relatively poor peasants, often criminals.  They couldn't afford much

Not the English bowmen, only the greatest warriors got to be English Longbowmen.
 
There wasn't an elite group. All Longbowmen were peasants initially, though near the end of the war it was seen as a slightly more skilled trade it was still something only peasants were included in, and levies rather than proffesional soldiery (although more than a few became mercenaries).
 
Archonsod said:
Actually, all men are still required to spend a few hours training with the longbow on Sunday after church. Law came in during the Hundred Years war, and never been repealed.


so your saying that it's still law?
 
Yup. Though no longer enforced much (be a bit hard, since the Longbow is classified under the Offensive Weapons act). There's a lot of old laws like that which never got repealed, like its perfectly legal to kill a scotsman outside the walls of York. Or the fact that witchcraft is still illegal (though it carries a prison sentence rather than burning at the stake).
 
Archonsod said:
There wasn't an elite group. All Longbowmen were peasants initially, though near the end of the war it was seen as a slightly more skilled trade it was still something only peasants were included in, and levies rather than proffesional soldiery (although more than a few became mercenaries).

Saw it on the History channel, Elite is what they said, They also said that these men were Huge and had had very big muscles.
 
An4Sh said:
Saw it on the History channel, Elite is what they said, They also said that these men were Huge and had had very big muscles.

Possibly elite in the sense of their skills, but like I said it wasn't considered an elite occupation, or grant any rise in social status. Usually they would be levied from the land as normal peasants, and return to it once their time of service was up. Of course, there are legends about the true elite (Such as robin hood) so it is likely a fair few became heroes, though only in the eyes of their fellow peasants most likely. Theres a few pubs named after them still dotted around Southern England.

As far as size, the muscles used for archery would be well developed, but then hunting with a bow was seen as a useful method of supplementing one's diet, and was practiced from an early age. Also, lacking machinery pretty much all of the farmwork was done by hand, so they'd  end up being pretty beefy anyway.
 
I don't know.. Common sense would tell me that it is possible that there was infact a full-time archery unit in the full-time military - but I may be wrong ::\
 
Not really. Part of the purpose of the law was to ensure a steady supply of longbowmen for the armies (in other words, to find something the peasants were useful for something).
England never really had a standing army until Cromwell. Usually it would consist of whatever the lords could raise, supported by as many mercenaries as the treasury could afford.
 
I'm not really talking about the english... They always had a crooked / wierd way of doing things (no offence to the brits here ::razz:)... The chinese and other asian countries definately had specialised archer ranks.. Regarding European countries, weren't there dedicated archers stationed at all castles / keeps ? Like I said I may be wrong, but military was a lot more active before than it is today, and I would really assume that somewhere there would be specialised trained archer units?
Obviously in wars peasants where drawn in to fight, but not only as archers, but as the 'lower class' infantry no? Someone after all, would have to make the masses of the army ::\
 
The Byzantines had plenty of professional archers, so did a lot other other countries. And by archer I mean every ranged type there was.
And there was of course the professional mercenaries, like the Genoan Crossbowmen, but they were just one of many companies.

So full time ranged infantry was not uncommon. And they were indeed well armed if they were good (good pay = good equipment).
 
Tarrak said:
The Byzantines had plenty of professional archers, so did a lot other other countries. And by archer I mean every ranged type there was.
And there was of course the professional mercenaries, like the Genoan Crossbowmen, but they were just one of many companies.

So full time ranged infantry was not uncommon. And they were indeed well armed if they were good (good pay = good equipment).

You try carrying around a axe, sheild and a bow and arrows, plus heavy amour?
 
Well, you can apply that to all troops in the game. Give marnid or Borcha bow, arrows, armour, weapon and shield. It has more to do with the setup than the equipment itself.
 
sneakey pete said:
You try carrying around a axe, sheild and a bow and arrows, plus heavy amour?

Modern soilders often carry atleast or more equipment. Plate armor is not much of a hinderence toarchery with exception to the fingures. in somecases gauntlets are articulate enough not to hinder much either. Ive seen depictions of englishmen in breastplates wiht plackerds from what I assume to be the the late 1400s.

an archers equipment should have much more to do with his social status. whether it be peasent(tennant) or yeoman(land owning commoner.)
 
My assumption (and that's all that it is) was that full gothic plate would not allow the range of motion necessary for archery. Nonetheless, it could be made in such a manner that it would. Breastplates would not be a problem, obviously.
 
calandale said:
My assumption (and that's all that it is) was that full gothic plate would not allow the range of motion necessary for archery. Nonetheless, it could be made in such a manner that it would. Breastplates would not be a problem, obviously.
The preconception that plate is movement-restrictive comes from the same place as "medieval swords are REALLY heavy".  You should be able to do rhythmic gymnastics in properly articulated and tailored plate.  That's why it's so freaking amazing and expensive.  My concern would not be with the range of motion, but with the chance of your string catching on the rondelle or couter.
 
It's actually the thickness which worries me. When I draw a bow fully, my right elbow is entirely creased. I don't think that I'd what much more than a shirt over that part of my arm. More seems like it would seriously reduce your full draw length. I've tried in a leather jacket, and found that I had to remove it.
 
Back
Top Bottom