Re: [FT] (LONG) The Balance of Power -- Fighters and a Defense

--- David Brewer <david@brewer.to> wrote:

> Medieval battle narratives are rarely that specific.
> When they > are, they are often wrong by an order of
magnitude, > at least.

Excepting Byanztine sources, and they tend to be wrong
by an order of magnitude when dealing with the
opposition.  :)

> The Anglo-Normans, once established, had quite a
> respectable
> tradition of archery with self-bows made of yew,
> later revived
> when found to be useful when shooting at Scots.

Hey, people wrapped in one layer of cloth who
obligingly stand there in a packed formation make
great targets.	I find it noteworthy that every time
the English shot the Scots up, they won the fight. 
Every time they charged without shooting them, they
lost.  It doesn't take a genius. . . 

> I recall reading (it's outside my usual period of
> interest so I > reserve the right to be wrong) that
this occurred > first at Pavia, > during the Italian
Wars, although this involved > defending what a
> wargamer would call a "terrain feature".

Yup.  Pavia is also one of the first times you see
large numbers of effective battlefield artillery,
large number of effective shot, and otherwise is the
first battle that has a more 'Renaissance' flavor than
a medieval one.

> "Heavy cavalry" may have been around for a long time
> after that, > but when did they stop being
"knights"? When did > cease to be > recruited from the
petty nobility and become just a > bunch of > troopers
with pointed sticks?

Easy answer:  Knights were gone on the Continent when
Henri IV ordered the Gendarmie of France to discard
their lances and replace with pistols.	There may have
been a small contingent of knights left in England,
but by Elizabeth's reign they no longer took the
field.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.