Check out all of the details of this month's Patch Notes, featuring the Reflections: Reforged update!
https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/69963/reflections-reforged-patch-notes-november-4th-2021
[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!

Duel Wielding Idea for Elves

Comments

  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    Bowguns smaller than crossbow? I think?

    B(l)owguns, yes, bowgun is not really a word. For that concept, we use the word: crossbow.

    Cheiroballistra or Gastraphetes

    Your ability to access and make use of online resources, such as thesauri, is acknowledged.
    My bad, I just copied from someone else up a little bit...

    Fugitaboutit.

    Just trying to offer some knowledge to what people think is a bow gun.
    When people think of crossbows, they think of the large cumbersome crossbows that were said to be used by the Genoese and French at Crecy and Agincourt, but as a matter of fact, many crossbows and hand held ballistas are much smaller and have a trigger like function.

    The French had crossbowmen at Agincourt but made no use of them, they were too busy squandering their heavy infantry.

    Well, they were equipped with those larger crossbows and pavises. The nobles probably thought they were cumbersome and useless versus their more well-quipped cavalry and infantry. Their egos led them to defeat.

    Warfare in those days consisted of nobles capturing one and other and then receiving ransom for them, this was the main reason European princes went to war so often back then. The English army had but one prize: King Henry himself. Since the English army was small and had little infantry; archers and crossbowmen, were commoners and were not worth ransoming, Henry was seen as an easy prize or rather as a quick buck, or should I say Franc. So all the French Nobles rushed him at once hoping to be the one to claim him. This caused the French to crowd an already spatially restricted battlefield. It was such a fiasco for the French that in the first wave the English captured so many French nobles that Henry could not spare the men to guard them and put them all put to death. So, yes hubris on the part of the French contributed to their defeat but avarice played just as big a role.

    The English army at Agincourt was comprised of mostly archers and other footmen and as they had been made common in the previous century, usually the entirety of the force would travel mounted and fight on foot when necessary. But also, by this time of the war, both sides relied on paid professional troops, mercenaries or full time troops instead of their regular levies. (This was probably as a result due to the population loss of the war and the Black Death 60-70 years prior). Whereas, in the early phase of the war, common troops were often killed after being captured, by this time, it was also valuable to ransom regular soldiers, in part because they now had money to pay. However, at Agincourt, Henry decided to kill all prisoners, because the English had no supplies to spare, plus their army was diseased anyway, couldn't even take care of themselves. Rather than trying to capture Henry, the French were hesitant to attack and were waiting for more reinforcements which were on the way. I believe there was confusion and a lack of centralized command. They had an opportunity to use their cavalry and mounted knights to defeat the English while the English moved their defensive positions, but failed to take the advantage and ended up attacking only after the English had completed redeploying. As with Crecy, the French failed to make use of their crossbowmen, by changing their deployment plans and placing them in the back line.
    Also, the popular currency used on the continent at the time were Florins.

    I think the only major battle where the French did themselves in seeking the spoils of war would be the Battle of Pavia.

    But back to the topic on portable crossbows, armies preferred using crossbowmen over regular archers, because it was a lot more difficult to train archers and because of law, not many people could use a bow. Bows were used mainly in hunting but only certain people were permitted to hunt. It also took years of training until one became competent at archery. The Welsh were different because, living in a mostly forested and mountainous region, they relied on bows a lot, which is why the Welsh ended up supplying much English force of archers.

    Crossbowmen, on the other hand were easy to equip and required very little training and were accurate. The power of crossbows was that the bolts used are armor piercing, which was made them preferable to have over bows. Also, assassins could be equipped with small crossbows and could take out their targets silently.

    Smaller crossbows often had a trigger, where the bowman would insert the bolt in place, and firing. Why the larger crossbow with the pulleys and slower rate of fire were used? Because they had more range and could do more damage.

    But as mentioned above, dual wielding crossbows may need the same type of ammunition as dual guns, because if only one shot can be fired at any one time with a crossbow, it will be a pain to reload. The only other way is to have a more mechanically advanced crossbow that can hold and fire multiple rounds of bolts before reloading, a revolver version of the repeating crossbow.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    Yep the English were mostly archers because archers were cheap, compared to infantry, and that's what dear old Henry could afford. Since archers were made up of commoners there was no one who could or would pay a reasonable enough ransom to make the bother worthwhile, so they were dispatched. Henry had the prisoners killed during the battle not because of concerns regarding supplies but because there was a serious concern that there were so many that they might overpower the men guarding them and continue the fight; it was a tactical rather than strategic decision.

    Ironically, most of French killed by the English archers were killed with their daggers rather than their bows, as the French, in full armour, fell down in the mud and became helpless.

    Whereas the French army was indeed waiting for some Duke and their army or some such thing to show up first, Henry uprooted his steaks and moved his army forward so that the French fell within longbow range and began harassing them. Rather than falling back and calling up their crossbowmen though, the French heavy infantry, comprised of the nobility and their companions gave into their desires and charged. Although Henrys position presented a narrow front to the French which did create a funneling effect, the French heavy infantry still went straight at Henry and amplified the effect even more; and that's because Henry's shield might as well have had a $ painted on it.
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Yep the English were mostly archers because archers were cheap, compared to infantry, and that's what dear old Henry could afford. Since archers were made up of commoners there was no one who could or would pay a reasonable enough ransom to make the bother worthwhile, so they were dispatched. Henry had the prisoners killed during the battle not because of concerns regarding supplies but because there was a serious concern that there were so many that they might overpower the men guarding them and continue the fight; it was a tactical rather than strategic decision.

    Ironically, most of French killed by the English archers were killed with their daggers rather than their bows, as the French, in full armour, fell down in the mud and became helpless.

    Whereas the French army was indeed waiting for some Duke and their army or some such thing to show up first, Henry uprooted his steaks and moved his army forward so that the French fell within longbow range and began harassing them. Rather than falling back and calling up their crossbowmen though, the French heavy infantry, comprised of the nobility and their companions gave into their desires and charged. Although Henrys position presented a narrow front to the French which did create a funneling effect, the French heavy infantry still went straight at Henry and amplified the effect even more; and that's because Henry's shield might as well have had a $ painted on it.

    Well, archers were made up of huntsmen and some nobles, generally people who had enough status to use a bow. Peasant levies for archers were usually ineffective because of their lack of training. By the 1400s, there were probably a lot more archers that became full-time professionals versus the 1300s. Archers are cheaper in the sense that they were cheaper to equip than other classes of soldiers.

    With the Duke of Brabant arriving from the NE and the Duke of Brittany arriving from the West, they would have effectively cut off the English on all sides. The longbow was only effective at a certain range for killing, at longer distances, it was mostly a nuisance for advancing enemies, damaging armor and causing additional weight. Against cavalry, they would aim at the unarmored part of the horse, killing/wounding/or causing the horses to panic. Rather than being helpess in the mud, French cavalry casualties occurred due to being outnumbered as most of them had mostly been scattered off. The infantry suffered from fatigue having to go across the muddy field under fire, they lost from fatigue rather than the English beating them.

    The defeat at Agincourt, caused by confusion and a lack of central command. Whereas, at Crecy, where there was a central command it was the overeagerness and rashness that led to defeat. King Philip during the Crecy campaign had decided to use a Fabian strategy, let the English march around the northern countryside aimlessly sacking and looting until they got tired. It was an unpopular strategy that eventually forced his hand to move out.

  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    Commoners were required, in England, to practise their archery after church, each week. For the English having a pool of commoners to draw upon to fill such ranks was the goal of this policy. So it was at Agincourt. Remember commoners were not slaves, so Henry DID have to pay them, but archers don't cost much both during and after service.

    Indeed the French effort was disorganzied. Like any goldrush, they who get their first get the gold. So it was when those seeking the prize did all that they could to get to Henry first, and, well, the rest is History, as it was for the Happy Few on St. Crispins Day.
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Commoners were required, in England, to practise their archery after church, each week. For the English having a pool of commoners to draw upon to fill such ranks was the goal of this policy. So it was at Agincourt. Remember commoners were not slaves, so Henry DID have to pay them, but archers don't cost much both during and after service.

    Indeed the French effort was disorganzied. Like any goldrush, they who get their first get the gold. So it was when those seeking the prize did all that they could to get to Henry first, and, well, the rest is History, as it was for the Happy Few on St. Crispins Day.

    I believe you are referring to Yeomen, who were indeed commoners, but also landowners, part of the rise of the new middle class following the effects of the Black Death. But even then, there weren't so many landowners in the early part of the 1400s, I believe most of the archer pool for the English were still Welsh.

    I still don't think the main objective was to capture Henry for money, that's just a bonus. But it was greed that led to Henry to go to war. The demand of Aquitaine along with a ridiculous dowry to marry the daughter of Charles VI. The French renegotiated a different dowry sum and a larger portion of land to which the English decided they wanted more.

    Both sides needed money of course, but the French were more productive than the English and economically fared better than the English, who had their economy turned to ashes by Edward III who had defaulted on high interest rate loans.

    Henry was lucky he got the victory at Agincourt, because overall, the other parts of his campaign was a disaster. Besieging Harfleur took way too long and made his army diseased, he decided to cut across Normandy to Calais which led to Agincourt, in which he was able to escape.

    Despite the crushing blow to the French army, he was unable to capitalize immediately to pose a direct threat to Paris, and they didn't get any momentum until the death of Charles VI, and the succession crisis following that that led to the Anglo-Burgundian alliance against the Armagnacs.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    The bulk of the army may well have been Welshmen who, at the time, would not have been worth the trouble to ransom since they were all of a social level that could not afford to pay large enough ransoms to make the enterprise worthwhile. In battle, during these times, the commoners were the ones literally fighting for their lives, while the nobles at worst could expect to be interned and have to cough up the dough to get out of confinement. This is why bounties were so important for the nobilities direct participation in battles. This is also why when Henry ordered the captured French nobles to be executed it was a shock to everyone French and English alike.

    For the French, Henry, being a Richard-head asside, was the prize on the field. Their avarice gave them the tunnel vision needed to concentrate them further than the confines of the battlefield did.
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    The bulk of the army may well have been Welshmen who, at the time, would not have been worth the trouble to ransom since they were all of a social level that could not afford to pay large enough ransoms to make the enterprise worthwhile. In battle, during these times, the commoners were the ones literally fighting for their lives, while the nobles at worst could expect to be interned and have to cough up the dough to get out of confinement. This is why bounties were so important for the nobilities direct participation in battles. This is also why when Henry ordered the captured French nobles to be executed it was a shock to everyone French and English alike.

    For the French, Henry, being a Richard-head asside, was the prize on the field. Their avarice gave them the tunnel vision needed to concentrate them further than the confines of the battlefield did.

    No, Henry likely ordered the execution due to being incapable to hold the captives for the rest of the campaign and from the frustration that the campaign had gone rather poorly. There were more prisoners than the remaining English force could keep an eye on for the remaining trip to Calais. The English had a sick army with little provisions. The French captives, other than being fatigued from crossing the muddy field were mostly healthy, and little mistake and the prisoners could've turned the tables on them, especially with 2 other French forces nearby. So, other than keeping the highest ranked nobles, everyone else had to die. There weren't too many French soldiers in this battle that didn't have status, probably only the crossbowmen.

    Bounties were not common and not issued before battle to the regular army. Mercenaries would have received bounties, but they would have the terms written on their contracts for each mercenary group employed. To the French, Henry wasn't worth much, but they wanted to beat him badly. Henry was the one who needed money, which was why he resumed the war in the first place.

    By this time, only the few remaining levied soldiers would be subject to fighting for their lives. Professional soldiers and anyone with a rank, which included squires and men-at-arms would be able to usually persuade the enemy for mercy and ransom.

  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    No that's not correct. Henry was in the middle of a battle against a significantly larger, healthier, and better equipped force, that was between him and where he needed desperately to go to. Fortune had given him so many prisoners, while the battle yet continued, that he did not have the resources to spare from the immediate fight on hand. His needs for men were immediate, so the prisoners had to be dispatched lest they overpower their guards and take up weapons at the rear of Henry position. The decision was a tactical one not strategic. The strategic concerns may have simply been the icing on the cake for Henry to finally come to a decision which was shocking in his own time but based on an immediate problem.
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    No that's not correct. Henry was in the middle of a battle against a significantly larger, healthier, and better equipped force, that was between him and where he needed desperately to go to. Fortune had given him so many prisoners, while the battle yet continued, that he did not have the resources to spare from the immediate fight on hand. His needs for men were immediate, so the prisoners had to be dispatched lest they overpower their guards and take up weapons at the rear of Henry position. The decision was a tactical one not strategic. The strategic concerns may have simply been the icing on the cake for Henry to finally come to a decision which was shocking in his own time but based on an immediate problem.

    Which was what I had said in several consecutive replies?
    There are strategic effects to his decision as well. By executing most of the prisoners, it creates a mental shock to everyone else (when news spreads). That would be one way that will lead to nearby French forces to pause and think what on Earth was he thinking violating the common codes of engagement, and two, the intended reinforcements no longer had an numerical advantage to take on the English by themselves.That would allow him to get to Calais unscathed and also a strategic effect was that due to the casualties to a considerable amount of nobility, knights, and people holding office as a result of executions, it was nearly crippling to French governance, law and order.

    Due to the not so great campaign, the English were weakened themselves, but the French would be sidelined for years because of the time needed to restore order to the country, in which they had struggled to do until the ascension of Charles VII.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    Do you really think Henry was thinking about dysentery and having enough hardtack to get to Calais in the middle of the battle? His immediate concern was that a large hostile force might suddenly be constituted at his very back. The solution required not only breaking the laws of chivalry, which would make him a pariah everywhere word of his actions spread, dishonoring himself and the men serving under him, but also it was throwing away the chance to make some seriously nice coin ransoming off the windfall of valuable bodies his soldiers had dutifully collected for him. It was a decision that needed to be made and made fast. How hard for him to justify it, after the fact, by thinking "Oh well I probably couldn't feed them anyway".
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Do you really think Henry was thinking about dysentery and having enough hardtack to get to Calais in the middle of the battle? His immediate concern was that a large hostile force might suddenly be constituted at his very back. The solution required not only breaking the laws of chivalry, which would make him a pariah everywhere word of his actions spread, dishonoring himself and the men serving under him, but also it was throwing away the chance to make some seriously nice coin ransoming off the windfall of valuable bodies his soldiers had dutifully collected for him. It was a decision that needed to be made and made fast. How hard for him to justify it, after the fact, by thinking "Oh well I probably couldn't feed them anyway".

    His goal was to get to Calais, not engage the French in open battle. And it's every commander's responsibility to think of all the logistics and supply necessities for their force to survive a campaign and it's all part of the calculations to make such a decision.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Do you really think Henry was thinking about dysentery and having enough hardtack to get to Calais in the middle of the battle? His immediate concern was that a large hostile force might suddenly be constituted at his very back. The solution required not only breaking the laws of chivalry, which would make him a pariah everywhere word of his actions spread, dishonoring himself and the men serving under him, but also it was throwing away the chance to make some seriously nice coin ransoming off the windfall of valuable bodies his soldiers had dutifully collected for him. It was a decision that needed to be made and made fast. How hard for him to justify it, after the fact, by thinking "Oh well I probably couldn't feed them anyway".

    His goal was to get to Calais, not engage the French in open battle. And it's every commander's responsibility to think of all the logistics and supply necessities for their force to survive a campaign and it's all part of the calculations to make such a decision.

    His immediate goal was to be able to see the next sunset. A commander can't be thinking about logistics when he's in the middle of the fight of his life.
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    Do you really think Henry was thinking about dysentery and having enough hardtack to get to Calais in the middle of the battle? His immediate concern was that a large hostile force might suddenly be constituted at his very back. The solution required not only breaking the laws of chivalry, which would make him a pariah everywhere word of his actions spread, dishonoring himself and the men serving under him, but also it was throwing away the chance to make some seriously nice coin ransoming off the windfall of valuable bodies his soldiers had dutifully collected for him. It was a decision that needed to be made and made fast. How hard for him to justify it, after the fact, by thinking "Oh well I probably couldn't feed them anyway".

    His goal was to get to Calais, not engage the French in open battle. And it's every commander's responsibility to think of all the logistics and supply necessities for their force to survive a campaign and it's all part of the calculations to make such a decision.

    His immediate goal was to be able to see the next sunset. A commander can't be thinking about logistics when he's in the middle of the fight of his life.

    I'm pretty sure the decision to execute the prisoners happened after the main part of the battle had passed and they were not under any further immediate threat at the moment. It's not like they were in the middle of fighting and he was screaming "kill them all." That's the stuff for Shakespeare and other drama.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    Not so. It was after the main onslaught, but the French had not quit the field, nor were they yet showing signs to do so. They had not stood down and there was plenty of day left. Henry's concern was that the prisoners would recognized that they were insufficiently guarded and act.
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Not so. It was after the main onslaught, but the French had not quit the field, nor were they yet showing signs to do so. They had not stood down and there was plenty of day left. Henry's concern was that the prisoners would recognized that they were insufficiently guarded and act.

    Of the actual events and what is recorded down in history yes, but I'm pretty sure he must've weighed the costs of if the French did quit the battle, they would have to drag a couple thousand prisoners for 50 miles to Calais with other French forces tailing them. I would say it's at least another 3 days march back then.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    So recorded history versus what then? Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, perhaps you should "correct" its article on the Battle of Agincourt because it says what I've been saying all along. Or we can keep at this and continue to boost both our post counts.

  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    So recorded history versus what then? Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, perhaps you should "correct" its article on the Battle of Agincourt because it says what I've been saying all along. Or we can keep at this and continue to boost both our post counts.

    Yes, and people can write frigging anything they want in the history books as well. All I'm saying is that there are other factors that could have influenced his decision while you keep dabbling over the same facts over and over again.

    I don't know why we started debating the events of Agincourt here, but I think it's time to stop because we are going nowhere but into the abyss from derailing this topic.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    Yes, and people can write frigging anything they want in the history books as well..

    And elsewhere.
    . . . while you keep dabbling over the same facts over and over again..

    I wasn't alone in that.
    I don't know why we started debating the events of Agincourt here, but I think it's time to stop because we are going nowhere but into the abyss from derailing this topic.

    Sounds good to me.
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,555
    Posts: 7,896
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Yes, and people can write frigging anything they want in the history books as well..

    And elsewhere.
    . . . while you keep dabbling over the same facts over and over again..

    I wasn't alone in that.
    I don't know why we started debating the events of Agincourt here, but I think it's time to stop because we are going nowhere but into the abyss from derailing this topic.

    Sounds good to me.

    Guess it's time to rout like the French army.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,469
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Yes, and people can write frigging anything they want in the history books as well..

    And elsewhere.
    . . . while you keep dabbling over the same facts over and over again..

    I wasn't alone in that.
    I don't know why we started debating the events of Agincourt here, but I think it's time to stop because we are going nowhere but into the abyss from derailing this topic.

    Sounds good to me.

    Guess it's time to rout like the French army.

    If they are lead properly they do well enough; Napolean (At least until his enemies had finally learned how to fight him), Ms. D'Arc, and Chucky the Hammer proved that. On the other hand, no less than Aurther Wellesley himself, when asked about his assessment of Waterloo, put it best: "They came at us in the old manner, and we dispatched them in the old manner"; ouch!