Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [DBA] Re: HYW DBA2 2 battles fought

Expand Messages
  • Jan W. S. Spoor
    ... Gaah! Germans! Always complicating the issue! :-) In that case, surely the classic matchup was the knights on the sidelines watching the landesknechts and
    Message 1 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
      At 05:46 AM 3/5/01 +0000, KH.Ranitzsch@... wrote:
      >--- In DBA@y..., "Jan W. S. Spoor" <jspoor@p...> wrote:
      > > the HYW is *the* classic late medieval European matchup,
      >
      >I thought the classic late medieval European matchup was pikes (Swiss
      >or Landsknechts) vs.knights ?
      >
      >;-)
      >Karl Heinz
      >German Wargameer

      Gaah! Germans! Always complicating the issue! :-)

      In that case, surely the classic matchup was the knights on the sidelines
      watching the landesknechts and the Swiss duking it out? ;-)

      ************************************************************
      Jan Wybesse Stiles Spoor
      <http://www.pobox.com/~jspoor> * ICQ: 10525252
      Help someone today! <http://www.jtsa.edu/melton/tzedakah/>
      Go DC United! Three-time MLS Champions!
      <www.dcunited.com> * <www.screaming-eagles.com>
      ************************************************************
    • David KUIJT
      ... No, I think you are both incorrect. Hardy s book The Longbow describes the archaeological examination of the Mary Rose (which sank in 1545 with its full
      Message 2 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
        On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 KH.Ranitzsch@... wrote:

        > > While the standard 100-12lb draw weight longbow...
        >
        > Most warbows had draw weights in that range.

        No, I think you are both incorrect. Hardy's book "The Longbow" describes
        the archaeological examination of the Mary Rose (which sank in 1545 with
        its full complement in Portsmouth harbour). Several hundred longbowmen
        were part of the complement and died with their bows, and the
        archaeologists investigating determined that most of them would have been
        (when new and functional) about 70lbs draw weight. The few exceptions
        were about 150lbs draw weight, and are theorized to have been
        special-purpose bows for firing special munitions (incendiaries).

        Incidentally, it was possible to identify the skeletons of longbowmen
        because of skeletal distortions (disproportionate shoulder
        development) caused by a lifetime of shooting longbows. Kinda keen!



        > Oh, and the Chinese regarded the crossbow(!) as their primary
        > advantage over the Steppe Nomads.
        >
        > Greetings
        > Karl Heinz


        Similarly, the Mongols (great bowmen, with excellent composite bows)
        considered the Genoese mercenary crossbowmen they were exposed to in the
        Crimea as excellent troops.

        I'm afraid that I agree with KH; I don't see the historical justification
        for making longbows +3 vs. foot. Not only that, but I think it would
        unbalance the interaction of longbows vs. Auxilia and longbows vs. Psiloi.

        However, I think that Ken's suggestion of reducing Blades' to +4 versus
        ranged combat as a "scenario rule" to make the HYW and WotR work better
        might have merit.

        DK
      • ken.blackley@gov.ab.ca
        ... Most warbows had draw weights in that range. **** You bet. This seems to have been the range the average WOTR archer used. The longbow was sometimes used
        Message 3 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
          > While the standard 100-12lb draw weight longbow...

          Most warbows had draw weights in that range.


          **** You bet. This seems to have been the range the average WOTR archer
          used. The longbow was sometimes used with a heavier 150 lb draw, but I doubt
          if the average WOTR longbowmen went that heavy. I just mentioned this range
          to show I wasn't talking about the heavy-draw longbows, which, as I say,
          wasn't used that much IMHO.

          > lacked the hitting power of the crossbow, its rate of fire was much
          > higher. Supposedly, a competent longbowmen could shoot at least six
          > times as fast as a crossbowmen witha reasonable degree of accuracy.

          As could a trained Chinese archer.

          **** I'm sure he could. But I'm more concerned with the longbow versus the
          crossbow.
          Unfortunatly there were only a couple of instances where large numbers of
          crossbows faced large numbers of longbows. And at the most famous of them
          (Crecy) the crossbows were disadvanted by wet bowstrings and a setting sun.
          So it's hard to say sometimes exactly how the two weapons compared.


          I don't have a problem with that, but it has nothing to do with the
          longbow as such, and could equally be argued for, say, Achaemenid
          Sparabara foot with their shield and spear. You could have a separate
          class 'Archers with close-combat weapons' who all receive the +3
          vs.foot.

          **** I wouldn't have problem with that at all. But I'm just worried about
          the western medieval games, and the crossbow versus the longbow. As far as
          tourney stuff is concerned, I think the rules work fine as they are.


          > ... Following this theory, maybe the longbow is no different than
          > any other bows, there are just more of them.

          Indeed, and the 'more of them' applies only in the context of Western
          Europe.

          **** Yup.


          Ken
        • ken.blackley@gov.ab.ca
          No, I think you are both incorrect. Hardy s book The Longbow describes the archaeological examination of the Mary Rose (which sank in 1545 with its full
          Message 4 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
            No, I think you are both incorrect. Hardy's book "The Longbow" describes
            the archaeological examination of the Mary Rose (which sank in 1545 with
            its full complement in Portsmouth harbour). Several hundred longbowmen
            were part of the complement and died with their bows, and the
            archaeologists investigating determined that most of them would have been
            (when new and functional) about 70lbs draw weight. The few exceptions
            were about 150lbs draw weight, and are theorized to have been
            special-purpose bows for firing special munitions (incendiaries).

            **** IIRC (and I may be wrong here) 15th-century longbowmen used a heavier
            draw than their 16th century decendants. I'll have to look this up.


            Incidentally, it was possible to identify the skeletons of longbowmen
            because of skeletal distortions (disproportionate shoulder
            development) caused by a lifetime of shooting longbows. Kinda keen!

            **** As long as your skeleton isn't distorted . . .:->


            I'm afraid that I agree with KH; I don't see the historical justification
            for making longbows +3 vs. foot. Not only that, but I think it would
            unbalance the interaction of longbows vs. Auxilia and longbows vs. Psiloi.

            However, I think that Ken's suggestion of reducing Blades' to +4 versus
            ranged combat as a "scenario rule" to make the HYW and WotR work better
            might have merit.


            **** As I mentioned in another post, I'm only looking at houserules. I'm not
            suggesting changes to the core rules, and am quite happy with bows the way
            they are for tournament-style games. However, I think the +3 is justified
            for scenario play. As for the interaction between bow and auxilia/psiloi,
            just look at Stoke in 1487 where the longbows absolutly shredded the Irish
            auxilia.


            Ken
          • John Hills
            On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:49:16 -0700 (MST) Ken Blackley ... The Irish at Stoke aren t really what I would call normal auxilia, which to me are Hellenistic
            Message 5 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
              On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:49:16 -0700 (MST) Ken Blackley
              <kblackle@...> wrote:

              > But the damage at Stoke was
              > done before any contact was made, with the "bare-legged" Irish being
              > shot up like "porcupines".

              > > If the Longbow are +3 vs. foot in close combat, the Auxilia really
              > don't > have a chance.
              >
              > As so they shouldn't. But like I say, I'm happy enough with the status
              > quo.

              The Irish at Stoke aren't really what I would call 'normal' auxilia,
              which to me are Hellenistic thureophori or Roman Auxialia. The Irish
              at Stoke behaved more like Hordes...

              John

              ----------------------
              John Hills
              j.r.hills@...
              http://freespace.virgin.net/johnr.hills/default.html

              Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in-fa-me!
            • David KUIJT
              ... Give me a reference if you find this, Ken, because I m skeptical. The idea that the longbow of 1545 was much different from the longbow of 1485 seems
              Message 6 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
                On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 ken.blackley@... wrote:

                > **** IIRC (and I may be wrong here) 15th-century longbowmen used a heavier
                > draw than their 16th century decendants. I'll have to look this up.

                Give me a reference if you find this, Ken, because I'm skeptical. The
                idea that the longbow of 1545 was much different from the longbow of 1485
                seems pretty dubious to me. Only a sixty year span different, without
                external forces acting on England, and without prolonged peace or
                massive technological change. The longbow didn't start falling out of use
                until Elizabeth with her long peaceful reign (Toxophilus, for example, is
                late Elizabethan England).


                > Incidentally, it was possible to identify the skeletons of longbowmen
                > because of skeletal distortions (disproportionate shoulder
                > development) caused by a lifetime of shooting longbows. Kinda keen!
                >
                > **** As long as your skeleton isn't distorted . . .:->

                That must be the source of the Tudor propaganda regarding Richard of
                Gloucester -- perhaps they thought he was a longbowman!


                > for scenario play. As for the interaction between bow and auxilia/psiloi,
                > just look at Stoke in 1487 where the longbows absolutly shredded the Irish
                > auxilia.

                Sure, but that can happen in DBA right now. Longbows in a fair line
                against oncoming Auxilia can already cause a slaughter without additional
                rules. 3 longbow vs. 3 aux in a line; shoot at the center guy with two
                overlaps at +2 vs +1 and kill him; the 2 remaining aux get into combat at
                +2:+2 and if they don't get a kill one of them will get flanked and the
                battle is essentially over; and recoils mean more devastating missile
                fire.

                If the Longbow are +3 vs. foot in close combat, the Auxilia really don't
                have a chance.

                D
              • Ken Blackley
                ... **** Well, you ve got me wondering as well. I ll look up the draw of teh 15th century longbow tonight. I m sure it was in the 100-120 range but I ve sure
                Message 7 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
                  On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, David KUIJT wrote:

                  > Give me a reference if you find this, Ken, because I'm skeptical. The
                  > idea that the longbow of 1545 was much different from the longbow of 1485
                  > seems pretty dubious to me.

                  **** Well, you've got me wondering as well. I'll look up the draw of teh
                  15th century longbow tonight. I'm sure it was in the 100-120 range but
                  I've sure been wrong before. Anyway, I'll post an update on what I find.

                  > That must be the source of the Tudor propaganda regarding Richard of
                  > Gloucester -- perhaps they thought he was a longbowman!

                  **** There is lots of interesting stuff from the exhumed gravesites at
                  Towton as well. IIRC, they all had lots of bone-mass as well.
                  >
                  > Sure, but that can happen in DBA right now. Longbows in a fair line
                  > against oncoming Auxilia can already cause a slaughter without additional
                  > rules. 3 longbow vs. 3 aux in a line; shoot at the center guy with two
                  > overlaps at +2 vs +1 and kill him; the 2 remaining aux get into combat at
                  > +2:+2 and if they don't get a kill one of them will get flanked and the
                  > battle is essentially over; and recoils mean more devastating missile
                  > fire.


                  **** Ah, but anything can happen in DBA with the right die rolls. Certain
                  cheaseballs can even win by charging their knight-general into the other
                  guys pikes and rolling a 6-1:-). But the damage at Stoke was done before
                  any contact was made, with the "bare-legged" Irish being shot up like
                  "porcupines".

                  > If the Longbow are +3 vs. foot in close combat, the Auxilia really don't
                  > have a chance.

                  As so they shouldn't. But like I say, I'm happy enough with the status
                  quo.

                  KB


                  KEN BLACKLEY email: kblackle@...

                  Ken Blackley's Medieval Wargames Page:
                  http://fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~kblackle/
                • Ken Blackley
                  No, I think you are both incorrect. Hardy s book The Longbow describes the archaeological examination of the Mary Rose (which sank in 1545 with its full
                  Message 8 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
                    No, I think you are both incorrect. Hardy's book "The Longbow" describes
                    the archaeological examination of the Mary Rose (which sank in 1545 with
                    its full complement in Portsmouth harbour). Several hundred longbowmen
                    were part of the complement and died with their bows, and the
                    archaeologists investigating determined that most of them would have been
                    (when new and functional) about 70lbs draw weight. The few exceptions
                    were about 150lbs draw weight, and are theorized to have been
                    special-purpose bows for firing special munitions (incendiaries).

                    **** I looked up longbow draw weight in a number of books, but only found
                    one reference, in Andrew Boardman's excellent "The Medieval Soldier in the
                    Wars of the Roses" (1998). He says (p145) that "Heavy, powerful 150 lb
                    longbows could shoot great distances, but this was not necessary if a
                    standard issue bow and arrow could have the same desired effect at an
                    effective range. Therefore, we may conclude that the longbow of 100-120 lb
                    draw weight would have been in regular issue during the Wars of the Roses,
                    as it had been in the past, and would be for some time to come."

                    He does mention the Mary Rose, and remarks upon the archer skeletons that
                    David mentioned.

                    KEN BLACKLEY
                    email: kblackle@...
                    Ken Blackley's Medieval Wargames Page:
                    http://fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~kblackle/
                  • andrewgr@microsoft.com
                    From Armies and Warfar in the Middle Ages: The English Experience , Michael Prestwich, 1996: The draw weight of a full-sized medieval longbow was very
                    Message 9 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
                      From "Armies and Warfar in the Middle Ages: The English Experience",
                      Michael Prestwich, 1996:

                      "The draw weight of a full-sized medieval longbow was very
                      considerable: probably from 100 lbs to as much as 175 lbs."

                      Of course, it's not footnoted, so he may just be repeating
                      (incorrect?) figures from other secondary sources; though with a
                      publication date of 1996, you'd think it would reflect recent
                      research.
                    • andrewgr@microsoft.com
                      And breaking etiquette by replying to my own post, I have also found the following (the book in question was underneath some papers, and so escaped my initial
                      Message 10 of 23 , Mar 5, 2001
                        And breaking etiquette by replying to my own post, I have also found
                        the following (the book in question was underneath some papers, and
                        so escaped my initial notice):

                        From "Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred Years War"
                        edited by Anne Curry & Michael Hughes, 1994; from a chapter devoted
                        entirely to the longbow, which references the wreck of the Mary Rose
                        extensively:

                        "...the Mary Rose bows ran from about 100 lb draw-weight at 30 inches
                        to 180 lb... when the vital statistics of these weapons were fed into
                        the Kooi computer their draw-weights came out with absolute accuracy,
                        so we had to believe them."
                      • John Hills
                        Hi How about this as a HTW houserule? You could use a DBR style support bonus: +1 for Bw fighting foot if they have at least one flank in contact with friendly
                        Message 11 of 23 , Mar 6, 2001
                          Hi

                          How about this as a HTW houserule?

                          You could use a DBR style support bonus:

                          +1 for Bw fighting foot if they have at least one flank in contact with
                          friendly Blades.

                          This would give the CF 3 that Ken wants and also encourage the classic
                          bow/blade/bow deployment.

                          Comments?

                          John

                          ----------------------
                          John Hills
                          j.r.hills@...
                          http://freespace.virgin.net/johnr.hills/default.html

                          Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in-fa-me!
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.