Just talking

When thinking about things like that you then have to remember costs that would be added to equipping an army.

English Longbows (and I am sure other archers) were most effective firing en-mass, not in a volley which wasn't really perfected until Gunpowder (and it was then only effective because of the effects of the sudden blast on enemy troops' morale).

Instead archers tried to fire quickly as a massed horde into clumped enemy soldiers, as it was the mass of stabby sticks falling from the sky that did the damage rather than one or two well placed arrows, partially because this simply overwhelms the enemy's ability to block with shields, and the sheer quantity of arrows raining down would mean at least one or two would cause a wound. Additionally, any foot archers employing this tactic would by definition need to be at very close range to be effective by which point a footsoldier with a shield would have an easy time of closing in and cutting down the ill equipped archer.

The only real use I could envision for this rapid fire technique is for horse archers (and the way that guy was bending, and leaning made it quite reminiscent of videos I have seen of Mongolian horse archers), where a sudden flurry of arrows could do a lot of damage, and their mounts give them amble time to bolt back behind their infantry lines to replenish supplies.

One thing I hate more than anything in medieval films, is where they have a line of archers pop up and shoot in unison, then drop behind a shield. This would have been impossible to pull off by an army of peasants, let alone the fact that the defenders need just hold fire until the massed group of un-armoured archers showed themselves all at once.

The main use of W-European archers 100yrs-war onwards was essentially not to hit clumped infantry or horsemen, but to actually clump them together. EG: Crecy. A well organised group of infantry is shoved together and restricted by a constant rain of arrows, and massacred by a group of knights placed specifically to meet them head on.

Funny enough that this is completely the opposite of later, especially Napoleonic warfare: Then units of cavalry would force infantry into dense squares and defensive blobs so they could get massacred by artillery or skirmishers.

And we're of course ignoring Germanic and British guerrilla during the Roman conquests. Hiding and killing a couple of enemies before disappearing in the woods, thus lowering the morale of the legion. Yeah, I'm pretty sure they guerrila'ed the legionnaires.

In case you find it curious, I learned that native South-American (Central-Eastern) "wars" were not about destruction of the enemies but functioned more like a contest of sorts. The goal was to kill a few enemies and enslave rest (for mating, eating, brainwashing, etc).

War is weird.

Yes, I had heard that too which is one of the theories about why their armies struggled against the Spanish - they were not used to fighting enemies who killed outright and who were really good at it.

One of the most loved weapons of the natives on the Brazilian coast was a huge club, since keeping enemies alive was a good thing. Lethal weapons were a rarity and used mostly for hunting (Maias and Astecs, however, used sharp tools). Their bows, too, still today have no draw (no need to pierce armor - people walked around half-naked), and could pierce just enough to let the poison work. And no shields. Really, those people were asking to be conquered.

So the Silvermists are more like the English longbowmen I take it? Massed volleys, or do I have it wrong and they fucntiion more like sharpshooters, picking a target out of a mass. I guess a good bowman could do both however.

About those South-Americans, i remember i was reading something like, one of main reasons why they lost is becouse they tought that europeans were god's, if not it they could have easely ambushed and destroyed Spanish, by sheer number's and knowledge of enviroment. How much truth there is in that?

I think the god thing wore off pretty fast. The Aztecs did run Cortez out of their city, almost killed him too i believe. But trying to fight someone with a weapon made of wood when they are in a steel shell with a steel sword will go very poorly. The Spanish were't by themselves either, a lot of the tribes in Mexico were tired of the Aztecs and their "Flower Wars" to get captives for sacrifice.

1) http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2809#comic

2) Many theories. The most plausible is related to diseases: the Europeans were immune or resistant to a number of killer infections - even common flu was unknown to the natives, and thus became lethal. To get the picture, imagine how would it be if 20th century US-army invaded 14th Europe during the latter's plague years.

As far as i am concerned there where 3 main reasons in general, first was as Alaric pointed out superior equipment of europeans, secondly as Saeros said it was Diseases, and finally religion(well they let eurpeans in which led to more spread diseases in the first place, and secondly they were eating bodies of diseased(or just hearts, not sure here) believing it would save them).

I believe aztecks could deal with any single of those reasons, but all of them combined led to they'r downfall, i mean eurpeans were vastly outnumbered, so armor wouldn't save you in, let's say 1vs5 situation, you just would be pulled down and smashed with maces.I am not even talking about bows, at least one of 50 arrows is bound to hit unprotected area.

Hmm, unrelated, but I just read the wiki page on David Cameron, and apparently while he was in Russia the KGB tried to recruit him.

We could have a sleeper agent as PM! WOOO!

The best comment about the position of "overseas diplomat" I've ever heard: "Well, you can't really say 'Hey, president X, I'm sending a spy to your country!'. So we just say 'please grant a visa to this diplomat of mine. He will take care of our foreign affairs in your country and definitely not send me intelligence reports.' That's how it is, but everyone knows that these people also work as agents."

Zekic Thunion of Laria wrote:

As far as i am concerned there where 3 main reasons in general, first was as Alaric pointed out superior equipment of europeans, secondly as Saeros said it was Diseases, and finally religion(well they let eurpeans in which led to more spread diseases in the first place, and secondly they were eating bodies of diseased(or just hearts, not sure here) believing it would save them).

I believe aztecks could deal with any single of those reasons, but all of them combined led to they'r downfall, i mean eurpeans were vastly outnumbered, so armor wouldn't save you in, let's say 1vs5 situation, you just would be pulled down and smashed with maces.I am not even talking about bows, at least one of 50 arrows is bound to hit unprotected area.

Don't forget the natives the Spanish recruited against the Aztecs

As did the Portuguese. That happened (/happens) in Africa as well. Funnily enough, some tribes volunteered to fight for the Dutch against Portuguese tyranny in South America.

Saeros wrote:

The best comment about the position of "overseas diplomat" I've ever heard: "Well, you can't really say 'Hey, president X, I'm sending a spy to your country!'. So we just say 'please grant a visa to this diplomat of mine. He will take care of our foreign affairs in your country and definitely not send me intelligence reports.' That's how it is, but everyone knows that these people also work as agents."

Well the position of head of security at any embassy is invariably a spy guarding documents and information etc.

So what's up with Javiksholm? I kinda need to know the outcome of the event, especially if Redsword is alive, dead, in jail, and who is the next lord in charge of the city.

Saeros wrote:

So what's up with Javiksholm? I kinda need to know the outcome of the event, especially if Redsword is alive, dead, in jail, and who is the next lord in charge of the city.

SHUSH SHUSH

*slips Saeros a bag of denars*

Zekic Thunion of Laria wrote:

About those South-Americans, i remember i was reading something like, one of main reasons why they lost is becouse they tought that europeans were god's, if not it they could have easely ambushed and destroyed Spanish, by sheer number's and knowledge of enviroment. How much truth there is in that?

Some historians now believe that Quetzalcoatl (the god that the Aztecs may have believed was Cortez) was infact an earlier Viking explorer, as there are descriptions of Quetzalcoatl being a white man, with a beard who arrived on clouds (which they attribute to sails). This is further bolstered by the spread of Quetzalcoatl as a god figure in Aztec society between 6-900AD; precisely during the Viking Era.

Vikings everywhere.

This is the final proof to my statement that vikings are the MOST BADASS PEOPLE EVER.

That is awesome!

Mordred wrote:

Some historians now believe that Quetzalcoatl (the god that the Aztecs may have believed was Cortez) was infact an earlier Viking explorer, as there are descriptions of Quetzalcoatl being a white man, with a beard who arrived on clouds (which they attribute to sails). This is further bolstered by the spread of Quetzalcoatl as a god figure in Aztec society between 6-900AD; precisely during the Viking Era.

That is quite possibly the most interesting thing I have read on this forum. Sorry everyone else, the Vikings beat you again.

I'm about to start round three of nobilty reactions. How do I decide to start a round? I wait until there are a lot of reaction triggers. When the critical mass is reached, I begin thinking about actions for my four lords, then post them and watch the results. This means that I don't wait until every player has posted his actions to start another round.

With this in mind, I'd like to say that so far I've got no triggers from the Eventide, Griffons* and Legion.

So, please pick a lord and do something. Choose your mid-term strategy and start persuading/annoying those lords relevant to your plan. Don't think too much, post!

Sure, some triggers just make things worse for you.

*. I've not forgotten about you, Haegon.