Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    If archery is so marvelous, why is it so unique to the English? Why don't we see Scottish, French, Spanish, Germany, Italian, and so on companies of archers, and why don't we see them winning battles?

    The answer is two-fold. One part is that the English victories were very much due to factors apart from weapons and very much questions of leadership and the cohesion of leadership. Both Edward and Henry had (during the time of their victories) a group of friends and relations who were very talented. During the rest of the Hundred Years War, longbows or not, there are no great victories and obviously, the war was never won. Second, there were dramatic technological changes that happened to longbows in the generation before the start of the Hundred Years War. There was an interesting article in Scientific American about 10 years ago based on (then) new archeaological evidence. In D&D terms, its like before, say 1300, only longbows were available, and after 1300 in England, composite longbows with strength bonuses became available.

    Its because of this interpretation that I have ruled that only among the Rjurik are composite longbows martial weapons, and are exotic weapons for all other peoples. Likewise (for the guy who was going to post about how the mongols of the same period also had military success with bows) the Khinasi have compound shortbows as martial weapons and everyone regards them as exotic weapons.

    In this way, any power might have elite archers. But only the Rjurik can have elite archers with composite longbows, and only a well organized realm forced by a PC regent can produce the kind of well coordinated court associated with Edward or Henry, and produce the total package.

    The mighty longbowmen was a distinctivly English fighting man. The French tried and failed to devise their own archery arm to match it. Likewise the same type of excellent unit could only be Rjurik.
    Wow, thats an amazing revelation! That nicely restructures my thinking on this. I had always considered the English's success with the longbow as a product of their war machine infrastructure. From the decree by Edward I, that any sport but archery on Sundays was illegal, they had gained a crop of really good archers, but over time these archers weren't easily replaced. Not to mention the logistical difficulties in producing such numbers of longbows and the arrows to go with them. I imagine they pretty much decimated the available Yew supply in Europe. With the appearance of powder weapons, and the easily (comparatively) trainable units that use them, putting the longbow on the backburner.

    I'm fond of the racial feat modifications in respect to the Rjurik. I think I'll work with that. This discussion has made me realise that such a dominate force of archers was, though effective for a time, a one-off accomplishment not likely to be replicated by just any regent. Yay for epiphany!

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Whammydill View Post
    I imagine they pretty much decimated the available Yew supply in Europe.
    Actually, by the last part of the 15th century, wine traders were ordered to import it from Italy at the rate of 10 yew trunks to a cask, because it was getting so hugely rarefied in England. And gunpowder also requires something which is a killer: salpeter. The english kept with the longbow longer because of their notorious problems with salpeter procurement (which resulted in the famous story of the guns of Calais being barely able to shoot past their own walls in 1554 - or Henry VIII's annoyed reaction upon learning that his german reiters were pistoleers and not lancers); this was also a problem for China in the south.
    Last edited by Gwrthefyr; 09-02-2007 at 01:52 PM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    I mean no offence, but did you mean Ritter instead of reiter?

  4. #14
    Senior Member Beruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    228
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RaspK_FOG View Post
    I mean no offence, but did you mean Ritter instead of reiter?
    Well, in German, Ritter means knight, while a Reiter is simply a horseman. So the latter is probably more fitting.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by RaspK_FOG View Post
    I mean no offence, but did you mean Ritter instead of reiter?
    Reiter - it means rider and was the generic term used, at least for german mercenary cavalry (the french called them reîtres, to rhyme with maître; much like landsknecht/lansquenet was the generic term for a german (non-swiss) mercenary footman in England and France). Ritter is the title for a knight.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    81
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The Japanese Longbow equivalent (forget the name) can be used by an experienced user both on horsebow and kneeling - so if you are really keen on Dwarvish technology and bow use then there is a longbow option available. Good at creating stuff those dwarves...

    Also the only culture that I have heard of with a "knight class" cohesive enough to kick gunpowder use back out after it came in. (At least for a while)

    Ahh ...I fondly remember the Korokoburru (spelling may not be right) Dwarf equivalent in Oriental D&D Samurai.

  7. #17
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    That would be the Korobokuru; the great bow originally made for the samurai caste (since their original primary weapons were the yari [spear/lance] and bow and arrow) is known as the daikyu (literally "great bow").

    I just felt I had to ask because you wrote "reiter," without using a capital R in the beginning of the word, something which is... well, an error in itself. That's why I asked whether you meant something else entirely. I know the difference between Reiter and Ritter, since I know some German; and I know a bit of French, too (or, at least, how to pronounce them ).

    Tidbit: isn't it interesting that the German and Japanese invented similar words for their higher caste? Knecht and samurai both mean "servant."

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post

    Also the only culture that I have heard of with a "knight class" cohesive enough to kick gunpowder use back out after it came in. (At least for a while)
    That wasn't entirely a question of the military class' cohesion, but central government control. The trading privileges of the dutch were very tightly controlled, by that point the primary chinese maritime trade was either piracy or in Indonesia and the bakufu had just suppressed its main enemies in a series of wars. This left local foundries, which had either been torched during the civil wars, or were under the direct control of the shogun and his close allies, and thus rather easy to get destroyed.

  9. #19
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Abandoning gunpowder was only possible because there was no one outside the system using against them. So the word we're looking for is isolation.

  10. #20
    Some comments on previous messages.
    Japan daikyu is asymmetrical - upper part is much bigger, than lower part. Sorry, no caves and low ceilings. But dwarves still have their beloved crossbows - not flimsy thing which are reloaded by simple belt hook and stirrup on far end. Really heavy crossbows (they are not so big, as anyone can suppose) have detachable devices for getting ready (I'm sorry, don't remember proper english words). Their bolts are harder to balance than arrows - so they are less precise on long range. Their reloading speed is awful, compared to bows, especially shortbows. But throwing force of such crossbows is ten or even twenty times greater, than normal bows. This compensate shorter "working path" for shorter bolts. Add greater weight and caliber of bolts, and they have tremenduous stopping power. If I recall correctly, Catholic church several times forbade use of crossbows, not bows.
    So I can propose pluses to hit against armored troops for crossbows.
    Shooting on long ranges was effective with "volley fire" training option, and I wholeheartedly agree with proposition about advanced training option and -2 to hit for volley fire at long range (and even worse, maybe, for crossbows).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. dream attacks
    By kgauck in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2003, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.