I'm sorry Russell, but the Cretans and the English Longbowmen were used in EXACTLY the same fashion.
CRETANS VS. FOOTMEN -- When the opposing force are footmen, as when facing hoplites, the Cretans go forward and harass the foe, retreating if charged. If the enemy unit is dispersed, the Cretans, armed with shields and swords, rush in to engage in melee.
LONGBOWMEN VS. FOOTMEN -- the longbowmen, facing footmen, as English vs. Scots, do the same thing. They move forward and harass the Scottish schiltrons, retreating if charged. If the enemy becomes dispersed, the longbowmen, armed with mallets, engage in melee.
CRETANS VS. CAVALRY -- When the enemy are on horseback, as the Persians, the Cretans stay near their hoplites. That way, they can keep off enemy horse archers and thus defend the hoplites. If they are charged, the hoplites can protect them.
LONGBOWMEN VS. CAVALRY when facing cavalry, as with the French or Arabs, longbowmen behave similarly to Cretans, i.e., they stick close by the heavy infantry (in this case, dismounted knights and men-at-arms). The longbowmen (or crossbowmen, more common on the crusades) can hold off horse archers (the Arabs), and thus defend the men-at-arms. If they are charged, they seek shelter with the other infantry. This is precisely the tactic used at Crecy, Agincourt, and on the Crusades, and in too many battles to go into in detail.
>Longbowmen are NOT particularly vulnerable to cavalry charge. The
>French changed tactics against them, from the mounted charge which
>failed at Crecy, to the advance on foot which was destroyed at
>Agincourt and Verneuil.
The mounted charge at Crecy was NOT vs. the longbowmen. The French were charging the dismounted knights, while being shot by longbowmen on the flanks. Agincourt & Verneuil were both infantry assaults, and so only prove that heavy foot are vulnerable to missile fire, one of the principles I've been upholding. There _was_ a tiny cavalry charge at Agincourt (outnumbered over 10:1 by the longbowmen) and the longbowmen were backed by heavy infantry besides (not to mention field fortifications, which the French stupidly gave them time to set up).
When bowmen, even longbowmen, were charged directly by heavy cavalry, they were almost invariably the loser. At Falkirk, the English knights handily dispersed the Scottish archers. At Bannockburn, Robert the Bruce's knights drove off a much greater number of English longbowmen who threatened the Scottish pikemen. At Mauron, the French cavalry charged the English longbowmen, and drove them into a wood and out of the fight. Massed cavalry is the best weapon to use against missile-users, if you have it, and the missile-users can't seek shelter among infantry.
>I agree that both were disadvantaged facing a fully armoured
knight >afoot, but then until the advent of firearms so was every
other type >of troop.
Spanish Tercios, Swiss pikemen, Scottish schiltrons, to name just three types of non-gunpowder-using troops that proved effective against dismounted knights -- though not archers.
>Is there any equivalent on Glorantha to the use of massed missile
>fire as exemplified by the Persians?
Probably. My money would be on Fonrit and Fethlon. Not that those areas are Persian-like, but that they may use massed archers in the Hindu, Persian, etc. fashion.
Me, saying that the KoW can tap its peasants and still run a country
> Why not? Their strength and constitution are normally
> unimpaired. They may not be quite as productive as a free human
> being, or even a Jonating serf, but this is probably more than made
> up for by diminished garrison and management requirements.
Andrew Joelson
>Okay, if they're not tapping Str or Con, then what are they tapping?
POW, and a little INT. A low POW lowers your will, your morale, and if you do somehow get the nerve to fight, you're easily defeated by POW-using foes. Most peasants are probably kept below the POW 6 level by the KoW. As far as INT goes, I think that the KoW normally Taps only 1d6 INT from each peasant, except for punitive purposes. This means the average KoW peasant has an INT of 9-10, which is smart enough to work fields and do chores, but that's all.
End of Glorantha Digest V2 #183
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail