57 replies to this topic

[Lauri]

Because they had the best knights in Europe? What if they spent most of their money on said knights, wouldn't that mean that there was not much left for the mobilised, untrained troops? Who were given crossbows, because they didn't need much training with it?

 

At the end, it's simply a matter of taste. The only crossbow I've ever liked is the one in The Walking Dead. Otherwise, I prefer bows and arrows.

 

I believe that the dwarves would give proper attention to an archery detachment, and have them trained properly. I don't think dwarves did much drafting, I think everyone went through training and had decent lives. Unlike in France, where untrained farmers would be drafted if they were needed.

[Nertea]

Isn't the most telling argument the bit where Kili uses a bow, and uses it well?

[Rider of Rohan]

Isn't the most telling argument the bit where Kili uses a bow, and uses it well?

Case closed XD

[Bashkuga]

Because they had the best knights in Europe? What if they spent most of their money on said knights, wouldn't that mean that there was not much left for the mobilised, untrained troops? Who were given crossbows, because they didn't need much training with it?
 
At the end, it's simply a matter of taste. The only crossbow I've ever liked is the one in The Walking Dead. Otherwise, I prefer bows and arrows.
 
I believe that the dwarves would give proper attention to an archery detachment, and have them trained properly. I don't think dwarves did much drafting, I think everyone went through training and had decent lives. Unlike in France, where untrained farmers would be drafted if they were needed.

Well, I believe the Dwarves also spent most of their wealth that goes to the army on melee troops, like France did, and actually didn't pay much attention to the archery. That's what I think at least. And ofcourse, like I said before there are Dwarven archers, but crossbows are still the main missile weapons.

Also, Dwarves prefer to fight in melee, so a missile weapon is like a "lets use it for a sec and then leap on to the enemy lines" weapon to them, they don't value it that much, so why bother giving them so much training while they could use an easy crossbow?

France consisted of trained soldiers at that time, not farmers, that was only at the age of Feudalism, which ended in France I believe somewhere around the end of the 12th century by Philips August the second, whilst I'm refering to the Hundred Years war at the 14th till 15th century, where France actually had real trained melee soldiers and strong knights, but their main missile weapon was the crossbow because, like the Dwarves, they honoured close combat.

And about the Kili thing, I'm not sure if this is true, but I don't remember him being official part of the Dwarven army, also I didn't deny the fact that there were Dwarven archers, but rather that the bow was the main missile weapon .

[Nertea]

France consisted of trained soldiers at that time, not farmers, that was only at the age of Feudalism, which ended in France I believe somewhere around the end of the 12th century by Philips August the second, whilst I'm refering to the Hundred Years war at the 14th till 15th century, where France actually had real trained melee soldiers and strong knights, but their main missile weapon was the crossbow because, like the Dwarves, they honoured close combat.

 

 

In actuality, for most of the HYW, the French hired Genoese mercenaries because it was so beneath them to care about such things. They provided the crossbow based firepower. They also got wiped by the English (and, at Crecy, the French ran down their own forces ). The tradition had nothing to do with honouring close combat, it had everything to do with their conception that no man could stand before a mounted noble with God on his side. It's not exactly the same...

 

And geez, feudalism was still alive and kicking until about the 17th century in France. They didn't have trained professional soldiers until the very very end of the HYW... and still didn't do it properly.

 

I have my own opinions on why Dwarves would have used bows, and they don't need tenuous historical justification

[Lauri]

And about the Kili thing, I'm not sure if this is true, but I don't remember him being official part of the Dwarven army, also I didn't deny the fact that there were Dwarven archers, but rather that the bow was the main missile weapon.

 

 

 

 

A few points:

a) There was no "Dwarven army". That would equal to "Man army", and we know that both Gondor and Rohan have different preferances.

b) As far as I know, there are no records or indications that there were crossbows in Middle-Earth at all. There are however proof that dwarves used bows. If it was common or not is another issue.

[Rider of Rohan]

OO We've got a debate, but on another note ... what can we come up with the Dwarven Archers on, should they be a specialized unit or some hunters (or maybe they start off like hunters and with upgrades become more specialized  ). I still might include the Crossbows as a cheaper less effective unit.

Edited by Rider of Rohan, 01 February 2013 - 01:52 AM.

[MattTheLegoman]

I like the idea of having upgrades that makes the Dwarven archers more specialised.

[njm1983]

Specialized how? I would like to know what people are thinking.....I think the short bows would have short range and the armor of the unit would be light. Perhaps they could be the fastest archer unit ingame, movement speed wise. Or have an ability like that allows them to sprint over short distances lol

[Bashkuga]

Yeah sure, let's all gang up on me .

France hired Genoese mercenanies, but those mercenaries were just a small percent of the main army, this was really a war whose king is stronger, the French or the English, so yeah, the French cared about this war, and with Jean d'Arc talking about "the nation of France", the French fought not only for their king, but also for their homeland, the first signs of French nationalism (I know, as someone who studies history this is not the right word to use ).

They honoured combat at some degree, for ecample, if a knight has been defeated by another one, the defeated one will surrender himself en let him be taken prisoner by the winner, eventually the knight who lost will still be treated as a nobleman by his former enemy. Chances are that they even become friends, this will last untill the ransom has been paid by the king of the loser knight. All that is what I mean with honoured fighting, and ofcourse this is only for knights, not the normal soldiers who will just get slaughtered like pigs if the enemy gets the chance .

Feudalism in France ended in the 12th century, France was also the last in Europe where it ended. King Philip the second ended it, that's what I remember from my lessons in college.

France had the strongest knights, but the English kicked the French asses because:

1. The English used great tactics with especially their longbowmen.
2. Many French noblemen fought on the side of the English king, since he also had ties within the French royal family.

Alright, that was my reply to Nertea, now Lauri

a) If there wasn't a "Dwarven army" then what do you want to call an ARMY of thousand Dwarves of Erebor? Btw, I meant Dwarven armies before, there are different kingdoms ofcourse, so my bad .
b) True, but there are many things that were not recorded in Tolkiens books, for example, there is still a debate if Balrogs had wings, but we still interpretent them to have wings or not. I do not deny that Dwarves used bows, but I just want to base the Dwarves on historical stuff, in this case the medieval French

Btw, Horse Rider, don't listen to me, I'm not trying to convince you to use crossbows for Dwarves, I just made a statement before and I want to defend that .

Edited by Fredius, 01 February 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[Lauri]

a) If there wasn't a "Dwarven army" then what do you want to call an ARMY of thousand Dwarves of Erebor? Btw, I meant Dwarven armies before, there are different kingdoms ofcourse, so my bad.

 

You answered this one yourself.

 

b) True, but there are many things that were not recorded in Tolkiens books, for example, there is still a debate if Balrogs had wings, but we still interpretent them to have wings or not. I do not deny that Dwarves used bows, but I just want to base the Dwarves on historical stuff, in this case the medieval French

 

Not comparable. Crossbows are never mentioned. Wings for the Balrog are mentioned, it's just unclear if the wings are real or just a part of the shadow:

 

 

 His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about ut reached out like two vast wings.

 

... suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall ...

 

 

 

And of course, even though we like to base our stuff on historical references, there isn't any reason to do so. And especially not on just one faction\nation. You like to point out a likeness between Dwarves and the French, and correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the French known for their superiour cavalry armies?

Edited by Lauri, 01 February 2013 - 01:12 PM.

[Nertea]

Fredius, your historical knowledge is a patchwork at best.

 

France hired Genoese mercenanies, but those mercenaries were just a
small percent of the main army, this was really a war whose king is
stronger, the French or the English, so yeah, the French cared about
this war, and with Jean d'Arc talking about "the nation of France", the
French fought not only for their king, but also for their homeland, the
first signs of French nationalism (I know, as someone who studies
history this is not the right word to use ).

 

At Crecy (1346, Joan of Arc was 1431) the French had several thousand (estimates vary from 3,000 to 10,000) Genoese mercenaries. It was the only regular portion of the army even, there were also around 10,000 various mounted nobles. That's a good third of the army there (The peasant infantry contingent never fought). The war was really about, at this point, the routing of the English from northern France (not nationalism or the strength of the country, particularly since France wasn't really unified until a while after the HYW, eventually as a result of Joan of Arc's rally of the French). Phillip was a very weak king at this point, and the nobles did not fight for their king, they fought because there were a few thousand English nobles on the hill that would have very good ransoms. The discipline of the French suffered because of this.

 

Feudalism in France ended in the 12th century, France was also the last
in Europe where it ended. King Philip the second ended it, that's what I
remember from my lessons in college.

 

The Song of Roland (~1400) provides a very clear example of feudalism. Roland was also French .

 

France had the strongest knights, but the English kicked the French asses because:

1. The English used great tactics with especially their longbowmen.

2. Many French noblemen fought on the side of the English king, since he also had ties within the French royal family.

 

The failure lies more with the tactics and lack of discipline of the French than any particularly good English tactics. Point 2 is just plain wrong. English nobles were outnumbered by between 5:1 (Crecy for example) and 3:1 (Agincourt). It's good that few French noblemen fought with the English, as they had a tendency to charge their horses into bogs or lines of sharpened stakes.

 

Really though this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Considering Tolkien's descriptions of the horrors of war and advances of technology and industry, particularly with respect to Isengard and Goblin-town, the idea that any of the "good" factions in Middle-earth would use machinery is strongly suspect. That's the best argument there is against crossbows.

[Bashkuga]

And of course, even though we like to base our stuff on historical references, there isn't any reason to do so. And especially not on just one faction\nation. You like to point out a likeness between Dwarves and the French, and correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the French known for their superiour cavalry armies?

 

Yes, but I meant they focused more on melee, both cavalry and footmen, the English basic tactics were like this:

 

"First, we use our archers to shoot volleys of arrows at the enemy, when they are weakened we charge with our infantry. When they route we use our cavalry to finish of the remaining survivors."

 

Now for the basic French tactics:

"Charge the enemy with our infantry, the cavalry will sneak up from behind and charge them at the rear lines, thus closing them in from both sides."

 

Of course, everything could happen in battle when the circumstances aren't right for these tactics, like there were possibilities where France didn't have cavalry, but these are some basic tactics.

[Bashkuga]

Fredius, your historical knowledge is a patchwork at best.

 

 

At Crecy (1346, Joan of Arc was 1431) the French had several thousand (estimates vary from 3,000 to 10,000) Genoese mercenaries. It was the only regular portion of the army even, there were also around 10,000 various mounted nobles. That's a good third of the army there (The peasant infantry contingent never fought). The war was really about, at this point, the routing of the English from northern France (not nationalism or the strength of the country, particularly since France wasn't really unified until a while after the HYW, eventually as a result of Joan of Arc's rally of the French). Phillip was a very weak king at this point, and the nobles did not fight for their king, they fought because there were a few thousand English nobles on the hill that would have very good ransoms. The discipline of the French suffered because of this.

 

Yeah, that's one of hundred battles, now please do you really believe there were so many Genoese mercenaries in the French army? Considering the amount of men available? Philip was actually a strong king, quoted from wiki, which I actually never wanted to use in the discussion:

 

"Philip was one of the most successful medieval French monarchs in expanding the royal demesne and the influence of the monarchy. He broke up the great Angevin Empire and defeated a coalition of his rivals (German, Flemish and English) at the Battle of Bouvines
in 1214. He reorganized the government, bringing financial stability to
the country and thus making possible a sharp increase in prosperity.
His reign was popular with ordinary people because he checked the power
of the nobles and passed some of it on to the growing middle class."

 

He didn't unite France btw, he just made sure that France didn't consist of hundred counties who all reigned for themselfs, instead of their king.

 

The Song of Roland (~1400) provides a very clear example of feudalism. Roland was also French .

 

You do know the song is about Roland and the Franks who fight the Moors at the time of Charlemange (8th-9th century), age of Feudalism in other words?

 

The failure lies more with the tactics and lack of discipline of the French than any particularly good English tactics. Point 2 is just plain wrong. English nobles were outnumbered by between 5:1 (Crecy for example) and 3:1 (Agincourt). It's good that few French noblemen fought with the English, as they had a tendency to charge their horses into bogs or lines of sharpened stakes.

 

Really though this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Considering Tolkien's descriptions of the horrors of war and advances of technology and industry, particularly with respect to Isengard and Goblin-town, the idea that any of the "good" factions in Middle-earth would use machinery is strongly suspect. That's the best argument there is against crossbows.

 

Like I said, great English tactics, and yes, many French nobles sided with the English because the English were still considered French at that time, the English kings had ties within the French royal family. Yes there were no nations but kingdoms whose knights and soldiers fought for their king, not homeland. This lasted in France until Jean d'Arc came who told people to fight for their country, instead of king.

 

Sorry but if you accuse me of my history knowledge being nothing else than a patchwork, please look at yours first.

 

And sorry for double post, I was replying to Lauri at the same time that Nertea posted his reply .

Edited by Fredius, 01 February 2013 - 07:37 PM.

[Lauri]

Well that escalated quickly. We should all withdraw our french and english forces, and focus on the matter at hand. Dwarves with crossbows or not!

 

And I'll simly say again: My view is that nothing is mentioned about crossbows in Tolkien's entire work, while dwarves are mentioned to having bows, makes dwarves use bowmen.

It's all up to RoR though

[Bofur]

Continue yer French sturf elsewhere!

[Bashkuga]

All right, crossbows! No, bows!

 

Why not both?

 

End

 

[Rider of Rohan]

I'll try to make the Dwarven Archers for the current Beta, and later might make the crossbow unit just as a bonus for the Campaign version of the mod , I might have to be redoing the Archery Range to if you think about it ... Well there are alot of buildings that could use fixing up now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So a quick list of the Dwarven Unit Rooster (hopefully will be done at some point in time) :

- Iron Hill Guardians - Heavy Infantry Unit

- Blue Mountain Pike-bearers - Normal Pike Unit

- Axe Thrower Milita - I don't know ...

- Erebor Phalanx - Heavy Pike Unit

- Erebor Warriors - Normal Infantry Unit

- Erebor Archers - Normal Archer Unit

- Iron Hills Catapult  -  Seige Unit

- Iron Hills Battering Ram - Seige Unit

- Eastern Beast Riders ( BattleWagon ) - Will be a summon from a hero

- Marksmen of Dale (from the Inn) - Bad Ass archer unit that will get a re-done and epicly Overemphasized since useless in Melee ....

Edited by Rider of Rohan, 02 February 2013 - 11:33 PM.

[Bashkuga]

Don't listen to me, Rider, I never intended to convince you to give them crossbows

[njm1983]

Why dont you call the men of dale "Marksmen of Dale"