Re: crossbows and such

From: Kevin Rose <vladt_at_interaccess.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:37:12 -0600 (CST)


Robert McArthur
> Actually, I find the same sort of thing when we try and suggest
> legions of crossbow firing peasants ;-) In reality (big :-) there were
> many strange and weird problems with doing such things.

The primary problem that you had in much of Europe with crossbows was that it allowed anyone to kill a nobleman from a great distance. That's why it was banned. The idea of arming the population was not considered a good idea in most of Europe until revolutionary France. But certain areas of Glorantha do not have these sort of problems.

> Outfitting a unit with crossbows would a) cost a fortune in equipment and
> training, b) last a couple of seconds as, if they're that good, heap big magic
> is directed their way (Dragon Pass has shown me *that*), and c) move and fire
> slowly. In short, you'd put so much $, time and effort into making them
> effective that you would have to deplete some other part of your defence/attack.
> Better to have the numbers with a gross more knights, or knight fodder.

Hmm, a gross more knights. At about 25,000 SP per knight you can afford a lot of 1000 SP heavy crossbow men. The historic problem wasn't that crossbow men were too expensive or too slow. Heavy infantry costs a lot more per man because of the need for armor. All infantry moves at about the speed of a marching man, whether they have pikes, axes, longbows, or crossbows.

And would not a small unit of really expensive and highly trained troops that operate in concentrated units be more vulnerable to the sort of massive destruction magic in DP than a number of larger units composed of much less expensive troops?

The primary problem was social. Allowing commoners to kill nobles with unmanly weapons was WRONG. This is a problem that doesn't affect all societies in Glorantha. Tactically a longbow archer is superior, but they don't exist in Gloranth - other than dragonewts. Even if they were available, the training time is immense. Horse archers are even better than longbows, but they require more time and lot more capital.

I'm not suggesting that anyone would use a unit composed soley of crossbows. They would be destroyed by shock cavalry. But a large number of crossbow men supported by a large number of pike armed troops is a fairly cheap way to make life bad for an overly agressive foe.

And militia units are not necessarily bad, poorly trained, or unwilling to fight. The Swiss in the 1300's did pretty well.

Ultimately people tend to fight wars in the way their society feels is correct and appropriate. Only under great pressure do societies change their cultural norms. If a society doesn't feel that the farmers should fight they are probably not going to be very good soldiers if they are forced to bear arms. If a society feels that all adult males have an obligation to defend the state the farmers probably make fairly good soldiers.

Kevin


Powered by hypermail