Subject:
|
Re: historical accuracy re. factions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:57:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
464 times
|
| |
|
|
Thanks for your Hendo-Babble, very interesting. (Thanks James Stacey also
for your comments).
I understand that in the early and high middle ages, most of the infantry
might only wear some simple armour (or none) and not really have much in the
way of uniform or heraldry. When kings brought large armies abroad made up
of different lord's soldiers I often see whole armies wearing the same
emblem. The crusaders for instance often are depicted with a red cross on a
white field, and in this case, the long white surcoat might well help
against the sun. And I know that at one of the major battles of the 100
year's War, the English were all instructed to wear the cross of Saint
George for easy identification.
But with the advent of livery and maintenance in say the 1400s, I get the
impression that soldiers began wearing the heraldry of their lord. I seem to
remember that the English armies, at battle scenes from braveheart bear this
out. This is where the typical lego army made up of 3 to 6 factions, each
with their own assortment of weapons seems to be "realistic". But at the
same time I have read of units of say, bowmen all who fought under the same
banner and who might all wear the same coloured jerkin. In this kind of
scenario, it might make sense to have one faction dedicated to one kind of
weapon.
Another thing I have thought about, in a medieval army, surely all the
knights who fight for say the "Black Falcon Lord" would have their own coat
of arms, instead of all using that of their lord? But what then about
squires, and other heavily armoured mounted soldiers who were not themselves
knighted, but who fought from the saddle with a lance. Would they bear the
arms of their lord, or perhaps their closest relation who was knighted?
Perhaps some of them weren't even nobility at all, all these mercenaries you
hear about. Did they just make up what to have on their shields?
I agree that various lords probably saw the advantage of training a wide
selection of troop types, but I imagine that they actually got to a
battlefield, the army would be more likely to split into weapon types than
factions. So you might have archers along the flanks, spearmen in the middle
holding the line, heavy infantry behind them to help break the enemy at teh
crucial point of the battle, and the knights somewhere at the front ready to
make the first charge etc.
Just a little Magnus-Babble, thanks for reading.
cheers
Magnus
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: historical accuracy re. factions
|
| In lugnet.castle, Magnus Lauglo writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Hmm. Well, certainly larger armies were using combined arms strategies as far back as the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc. So by the time of the Middle Ages, any good miltary (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.castle)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
