View Full Version : Horses....
I know it is discussed before a little bit....but I can't find it.....
Are horses one and the same with there riders....so knights have a horse...ad nothing more...
Or can mounted troops...be of mounted...during battle...
(I know that you need a different building for horses...a stable....a then for examle also an archery to recruit mounted archers....)
But how seperately are they?
I'm also curious to know the answer to that one Arjenvs, though i think that i already know the answer.
I wouldn't put my money on that there are troops which can dismount from their horses - but it would be awesome :)
btw, i'm not sure that i ever have heard of troops that dismounted during battle in the midieval age
Archers on horses would probably have stayed in the sattle under a battle I.e. they had such an advantage being so mobile and fast when they were riding horses and shooting arrows at the same time, so dismounting as horse, i think, would actually be a disadvantage !
Originally posted by Henrik
I'm also curious to know the answer to that one Arjenvs, though i think that i already know the answer.
I wouldn't put my money on that there are troops which can dismount from their horses - but it would be awesome :)
btw, i'm not sure that i ever have heard of troops that dismounted during battle in the midieval age
Archers on horses would probably have stayed in the sattle under a battle I.e. they had such an advantage being so mobile and fast when they were riding horses and shooting arrows at the same time, so dismounting as horse, i think, would actually be a disadvantage !
Yes but maybe...when the horse dies....
But I mean also an aspect of seperate archer and horse......is the archer recruited seperate form the horse....and will the horse be breeded seperately?
so for instance...you have 20 horses breeded in the last couple of years....but need another 10 archers or cavalry to mount them....
I can really feel how fond you are of this idea Arjenvs :D but this time I really really........................REALLY think that you are figthing for a lost course ;) - I think that mounted archers comes in a nice package solution: archer+horse....I know the other thing would be cool and i'm with you all the wayon this one, but i wanna see it before i believe it :cheers:
Lord Nicko
19-12-2003, 10:22
I think a knight would have been able to fight as a foot soldier cause he would have been highly skilled but I dont think a foot soldier would of had the skills to just jump on a horse and start lopping of heads.
I think it would be going in to much fiddly detail to incorporate that into a game anyways,
ie. archer attempts to kill knight but misses killing the knight horse instead. Knight falls off splat face down in mud. Knight slowly gets up but cant see cause he has a helmet full of mud.
A nearby pikeman see's a horse with no rider, idea! i'll hop onto this horse and start killing everyone but soon realises that he cant even ride and falls of breaking his neck. Along comes a peasant see a horse with no rider....
hrmm :D
Lord Nicko
19-12-2003, 10:24
Originally posted by Arjenvs
Yes but maybe...when the horse dies....
But I mean also an aspect of seperate archer and horse......is the archer recruited seperate form the horse....and will the horse be breeded seperately?
so for instance...you have 20 horses breeded in the last couple of years....but need another 10 archers or cavalry to mount them....
know that makes more sense -- yes i wonder too!
Originally posted by Lord Nicko
I think a knight would have been able to fight as a foot soldier cause he would have been highly skilled but I dont think a foot soldier would of had the skills to just jump on a horse and start lopping of heads.
I think it would be going in to much fiddly detail to incorporate that into a game anyways,
ie. archer attempts to kill knight but misses killing the knight horse instead. Knight falls off splat face down in mud. Knight slowly gets up but cant see cause he has a helmet full of mud.
A nearby pikeman see's a horse with no rider, idea! i'll hop onto this horse and start killing everyone but soon realises that he cant even ride and falls of breaking his neck. Along comes a peasant see a horse with no rider....
hrmm :D
Yes you can inmagine everything else.....but I mean especially....that the Knight can be of his horse....cause a horse can also die.....and the units that can not ride a horse..will not try it so...
Guys ! - I really think that this thread is DEAD let it R.I.P :yawn:
Lord Nicko
19-12-2003, 10:35
Originally posted by Henrik
Guys ! - I really think that this thread is DEAD let it R.I.P :yawn:
Yes kill a knights horse also kills the knight!
Cause he loves his horse so much he cant live without it and slices his own throat.
Frank Fay
19-12-2003, 10:53
The horse units die with their horses. Also so does a Knight or King.
Originally posted by Henrik
Guys ! - I really think that this thread is DEAD let it R.I.P :yawn:
WHY????
Lord Nicko
19-12-2003, 11:07
Originally posted by Frank Fay
The horse units die with their horses. Also so does a Knight or King.
hrmm so the king also rides a horse- cool I guess that make sense, wouldnt have him walking around like some other game i play :)
Originally posted by Frank Fay
The horse units die with their horses. Also so does a Knight or King.
well ok...a pitty...but understandable......:cheers:
but how about recruiting? Also together.....I guess....:rolleyes:
:cheers:
Frank Fay
19-12-2003, 12:03
Yes, mylord ;)
"btw, i'm not sure that i ever have heard of troops that dismounted during battle in the midieval age"
It was really common.
On the battle of Hasting, for example, Harold had cavalry. That doesnt mean that the english were too poor or whatever to have horse, they were using their horses to move across the country. But the standard technique they were trained to was the infantry shield wall. So as the battle time came, warriors dismounted.
For the battle of azyncourt where the french king stupidly charged the english longbowmen, it's said that the english knight had dismounted.
And for castle assault... naturally you could not go defend your castle on the rampart or climb a ladder mounted. Knights werent staying behind just waiting for the wall to be breached to fight.
I thought so too Vanedor......:rolleyes:
Originally posted by vanedor
"btw, i'm not sure that i ever have heard of troops that dismounted during battle in the midieval age"
It was really common.
On the battle of Hasting, for example, Harold had cavalry. That doesnt mean that the english were too poor or whatever to have horse, they were using their horses to move across the country. But the standard technique they were trained to was the infantry shield wall. So as the battle time came, warriors dismounted.
For the battle of azyncourt where the french king stupidly charged the english longbowmen, it's said that the english knight had dismounted.
And for castle assault... naturally you could not go defend your castle on the rampart or climb a ladder mounted. Knights werent staying behind just waiting for the wall to be breached to fight.
I was thinking of archers dismounting their horses before a battle - I stille believe that archers at that time wasen't mounted on a horses ( I can't recall to have heard or reading this anywhere ) - as for The Battle of Agincourt ( 25 October 1415 ) (http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html) it is true that Men-of-arms did dismount from their horses to form a line on the battlefield.
Originally posted by Henrik
I was thinking of archers dismounting their horses before a battle - I stille believe that archers at that time wasen't mounted on a horses ( I can't recall to have heard or reading this anywhere ) - as for The Battle of Agincourt ( 25 October 1415 ) (http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html) it is true that Men-of-arms did dismount from their horses to form a line on the battlefield.
The mounted archer thing was only a example... I also think there were no mounted archers in that time.....
Hi
I have researched a bit more nad i think that i've found a kind of "proof" that some ( probably a VERY small number ) of the archers infact DID ride to the battlefield on a horse:
Few archers were available to the Saxons at Hastings. While present as Stamford Bridge, the lightning rush south meant that few made it to the battle. Even in the latter Middle Ages when the English archer ruled supreme, they were rarely wealthy with access to horses. In his haste to meet William in battle, Harold was forced to leave them behind and didn't delay in London long enough for others to be raised. As a result, the Normans were strongest where the Saxons were weakest, in mobile cavalry and archers.
The battle of Hastings ( october 14, 1066 ) (http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Hastings/HaArmies.html)
Look on paragraph just above the headline "The battle formation"
- i'll guess that i learned a bit too :D -
Mounted archers were absent from the western european batlefield.
They were more common in middle east. The turkish, for example, were famous for their fast mounted archers with deadly short bows and scimitars who massacred the huge crusade of commoner led by Pierre l'hermite. They had trouble, however, against the heavily armored crusader who came to them led by Godefroy de Bouillon(who created the kingdom of Jerusalem).
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.