English Longbowmen & Poleaxe

[Kawee]

I just finished reading Bernard Cornwell's Agincourt

In the book, the English longbowmen used poleaxe to do most of their killing. Which, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense. Their arrows weren't particularly effective against plate armour, and they eventually ran out of arrows to shoot. But poleaxe can kill a man in plate armour, combine that with the archers tremendous upper-body strength, it was no wonder they were so dangerous, especially in the muddy fields where they were more mobile than the knights.

Now, I realize that his book is not an academic history book, and so one can't believe everything in it. However, I did some more, albeit basic internet research, and he seems to be right on this account.

So, wouldn't it be a good idea to give Yeomen and Retinue Longbowmen poleaxe? England is most famous for their longbowmen, and this will make the longbowmen units even more unique and deadly. It'll also give them some more use against those late game knights.

[meese]

I'm not sure holding a bow and a poleaxe is quite viable especially not a longbow which was pretty darn tall

At any rate, you've got other poleaxe units like billmen

[Daraunon]

Now, I realize that his book is not an academic history book, and so one can't believe everything in it.

Mmmm recent developments in history and the way it is portrayed make me think about the contrary...you probably would have to be wary about academic books...of course,that depends on who wrote it in the first place.

Anyway,balance-wise it could be too much,and the point raised by meese makes sense in a way,a longbow would have to be dropped in order to handle a poleaxe. And dropping a bow in the mud isn't exactly what an archer would do I think...they could have had ways to store them,but during battle?With enemies so close that they would need poleaxes?I can't really say...they could have joined the melee after running out of arrows,but IIRC a lot of losses in the french second wave were due to archers firing over the melee,while the remnants of the first wave were being butchered,thus making the third wave avoid the battle and run into the woods.

Returning to the game,I repeat it could be unbalanced,of course IMHO.

[Awellesley]

Billmen and Dism. English Knights
I am likewise a little leery of this concept. I think the author has merged the dismounted men at arms and longbowmen in both weaponry and function (yes I have read it). Its not the holding of the weapon per se but the accuracy of it. After all, you could have it on the ground beside you and pick it up after expending your arrows. Retinue longbowmen are correctly portrayed with bucklers and swords. Being well paid, the could afford such accouterments. Regular English Archers using a longbow were more like levies and would be expected to provide their own equipment. Its not inconceivable for them to have polearms (either crude ones or captured ones), but much more likely to have swords, daggers, axes and mauls as secondary weapons. However, I am interested in what others think as well.

[Shasqua]

Historically, the maul was the favorite melee weapon of longbowmen, along with swords and bucklers. The poleaxe was the favored by dismounted knights.

[Clackdor]

Bernard Cornwell usually has some pretty good history sources backing him up. They are usually in the back of the book. I haven't read Aginicourt yet, though. He tried to keep a lot of things historically accurate, especially technology. He will sometimes sacrifice historical accuracy of events to make a better story, though.

I'd say if its in there, its more or less accurate.

[Navajo Joe]

Kawee.

My understanding that a Longbowman's secondary weapon would be a sword or a maul, not a weapon such as a Poleaxe.

If we gave this weapon in SS to Longbowmen, the AI would be at a massive disadvantage, after their HC had impaled itself on stakes, the survivors would be cut down by Poleaxe equipped archers!!!!

[Daraunon]

Yes the majority of longbowmen were levies,but IIRC there was a system during the times that something like 4 men would have to pay the equipment for another 1 in order to have fully equipped troops,so money could have been less of a problem in that case. It just isn't logical to give such weapons to longbowmen,also thinking about the problems of carrying such an equipment during marches...I haven't been reading for a while,I may be confused,correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sir Wem]

They would be to strong if we gave them AP mauls or polearms.... Stakes against cavalry, AP arrows against any foes who´s in range and if some get to close they could attack with AP mauls. Imagine the slaughter they could do......

[Kawee]

They would be to strong if we gave them AP mauls or polearms.... Stakes against cavalry, AP arrows against any foes who´s in range and if some get to close they could attack with AP mauls. Imagine the slaughter they could do......

But isn't that why they were so highly rated? They were a dangerous bunch.

To the English, it made sense. An archer could never swordfight a knight for two reasons. One, he's not nearly as well trained so he'll get cut to pieces. Two, his sword would do almost eff all against the knight's armour. So might as well, go for sheer power with the poleaxe.

The archer will always have the weakness of being lightly armoured. They should also be quite clumsy with their poleaxe. In the book, it was only because most of the knights ignored the archers, and were bogged down by mud that the archers were able to kill them with poleaxe (and knives into weak areas of the armour.)

However, I do get it that it'll make the longbowmen pretty OP. How about give them low and slow attack, but AP attribute? This will show that they are clumsy and untrained in the use of the poleaxe, but with their strength, they can deal good damage against heavier units, but not so well with the faster more mobile lighter units.

[hpsauce13]

I think that longbowmen having polearms would be historically accurate, and unbalance the game, although it would be pretty awesome. However firing all of their arrows would take it out them hugely, it would be pretty unlikely that they would have the energy left to be effective

[Kawee]

I think that longbowmen having polearms would be historically accurate, and unbalance the game, although it would be pretty awesome. However firing all of their arrows would take it out them hugely, it would be pretty unlikely that they would have the energy left to be effective

I think archers get "tired" in the game as well from firing arrows, so that's represented.

[Gorrrrrn]

From the non-fictional accounts I've read so far, I've not seen any reference to english archers using their own pole-axes.

at close range some may have kept heir bows handy to shoot at French men-at-arms who were unwise enough to open the visors on their helmets.
Others would have waded in from rear / flanks if there weas no danger of them being attacked, and used whatever weapons available - their own equipment
(normally swords, daggers, mallets etc) or whatever they found on the ground - with so many dead and dying, concussed etc French MAA there would be a lot of their weapons
that could have been used against them.

Anyone wearing a helmet that totally encases the head is going to find seeing what's going on around them difficult, and won't be able to hear too much either, making them
vulnerable to rear and flank attacks, if engaged to their front.

generally though, bowmen would have their own weapons - longbow plus sword is quite sufficient!

[Brygun]

Id dont recall the source of the top of my head.

My recollections of Agincourt reading involved (and may be blending this with Cercy) is that the English knights where dismonted to fight AMID the archers. Not the formation you see in Total War. You could make it happen by say putting both into open formation and overalapping them.

The archers fired alot of arrows. Wounded horses. Wonded knights. The charge was halted by the piling up of bodies.

I will also add that what wounded knights did get to the archers then also had to contend with the dismounted knights. Again, its a matter of local swarming. The English knight, who may have a poleaxe, parries the French knight. Bunch of yeoman/militia archers tackle the Frenchie. Daggers in the eye holes or a poleaxe smash while he is held.

When the knights proceeded on foot they where individually swarmed by archers. Imagine 4 to 6 people rushing someone. Someone is parrying at the knight's sword. The others football tackle him. Knight slips in the mud. Archers slip in the mud. One person holds each of the knights arms while a dirk (narrow dagger) is stabbed into the eyeslits and armpits.

From a practical side as someone who has fought in the SCA in armor reproductions the thing with armor isnt a mobility issue. Its fatigue. You get tired. Having to walk hurry a hundred or two hundred yards while being shot at would be tiring.

A longbow is 5 ft to 6ft long. Its a valuable piece of equipment. Takes two hands to use.
A poleaxe is 5ft to 6ft long, is valuable and takes two hands.

Really dont see anyone carrying, marching or trying to fight with TWO things 6ft long.

If a dismounted knight was getting close to the archer dropping your bow for a poleaxe left in the mud is way crazy compared to running away, loading an arrow and shooting him. At short range you might get an arrow into certain places. At least the knight's sword isnt going to cut you.

If it really had to happen a shortsword/dirk and a buckler is far better. You can whip the longbow onto your back or drop it.

Mauls likewise were primarily for putting in the stakes. Using them as a melee weapon was secondary to putting up the cavalry stopping pointy sticks.

Mostly though... the reading recollections I have are the archers swarmed the knights and stabbed them.

To model that in Total War would be awkward as the game doesnt dismount a knight when the horse is shot. You could run a battle with dismounted knight and first fatigue the knights.

edit:
Another idea might be to keep the yeoman with single handed swords with a nomral attack number but give them the Armor Piercing. Not sure if the game would apply AP to their arrows as well though.

[meese]

Another idea might be to keep the yeoman with single handed swords with a nomral attack number but give them the Armor Piercing. Not sure if the game would apply AP to their arrows as well though.

Not sure about normal SS, but in RR/RC the longbowmen have 'maces' which are given the ap trait. The yeoman also have maces but with 2 attack instead of 1, and they attack faster. The retinue longbowmen have swords with higher attack but no ap.

The game wouldn't apply ap to the arrows as well since it distinguishes between primary and secondary weapons. If you only add ap to the secondary attribute, only that weapon will have ap.

[Prince Valiant]

I’m reading the book right now, I did some research from Osprey and similar editions, but I found nothing to support the poleaxe theory. Although we can’t tell for certain that no longbow-man ever veiled a polaxe in some situation, there is really nothing to support this theory.

[k/t]

The others football tackle him

American rugby tackle him.

[midget_roxx]

American rugby tackle him.

What in the world is american rugby ??

[worldsdead]

love bernard cornwall, mostly because he reseaches the time period. the stories are based on a certain accurate time. if anything isn't historical or is fabricated by him he stats that in he authors notes or whatever.
anyways i think for sake of game balance, longbowman are already too powerful. once playing as england i had a stack of longbowman with two hc and general and they killed everyone they meet.
and like meese says high level longbows already have ap, albeit low attack, but that's realistic as training was with bow, not melee.

[Gorrrrrn]

just checked the relevant section of Juliet Barker's "Agincourt"

pretty much agrees with what most people here have said (including myself) - weren't armed with pole-axes but she does suggest some may have used weapons recovered from the dead and injured French MAA.

(cover illustration commits a howler - you really don't want to be wearing a steel hat with a wide brim when drawing to the ear. also (unless I'm mistaken) the archer is shown in a left-handed stance left.
(which would be unusual, but not impossible)