Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

The suggestion one shouldn't shoot to kill in our hypothetical prompted this thread to drop to the second page.

I never said that.  Just that you shouldn't aim specifically at the groin .

[Nikov]

Not shooting the groin means you're soft on crime! You'd just let murderers run bloody through the streets!

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Leafsnail]

Hmm... plus I guess then you have the risk of baby murderers.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Aqizzar]

Like, "why stand in lines to shoot muskets?"

So that soldiers could hear their officers giving orders.  A major reason for the huge ponderous blocks of troops seen throughout history until the twentieth century was that, without radios and good pocket-watches, you could only command army as far as you could blow a horn or wave a flag.

And anyone who's ever ridden a horse bareback can tell you that any kind of seat is infinitely better, and easier to fight from, than having a horse-spine bouncing around in your ass.

[Fayrik]

Clarification. Are we talking people who murder babies, or are we suggesting an increase in Lil' Murderin' Axe manufacturing?

If there's anything the world needs more of, it's Lil' Murderin' Axe toys!

[Earthquake Damage]

Nikov sets 'em up.  Aqizzar knocks 'em down.

Moving on...

Not shooting the groin means you're soft on crime! You'd just let murderers run bloody through the streets!

Nikov supports the Arch-Conservative conspiracy to keep the poor man down.  They're only burgling and murdering 'cause they can't afford to pay their rent.  It's too damn high, you see. 

[Aqizzar]

Nikov sets 'em up.  Aqizzar knocks 'em down.

Do you smell what the Aqizzar is cooking?

Put down the sign, it was an answer to an open question.

[Nikov]

Aqizzar, I beleive you overlooked the importance of massed formations in hand to hand combat. A scattered formation of infantry might be able to avoid most incoming fire, but the lack of close order leaves them vulnerable to cavalry charges that could easily sweep such a disorganized rabble of individual combatants from the field.

Furthermore I misspoke. I meant to say 'stirrups'.

[Aqizzar]

Aqizzar, I beleive you overlooked the importance of massed formations in hand to hand combat.

Well, the question was specifically about musketeers.  Yes, a closed formation is better able to fend off cavalry.  On the other hand, they're better able to swamp other infantry from an open formation by fanning around them.  It all still ultimately comes back to the formation having to stay within shouting distance of whoever's giving the orders.

Furthermore I misspoke. I meant to say 'stirrups'.

I'd still say yes, in total.  You can probably fight other mounted combatants without stirrups, but fighting people on foot, or firing an arrow or throwing a spear, let alone couching a lance, requires good leverage to keep your body in position.  Just holding the reins or a pommel uses a hand and isn't sturdy enough, on top of being uncomfortable for the horse.  So, you need some fake ground to stand on, unless you've got groin muscles good enough to climb a treetrunk with no hands..

[Nikov]

Furthermore you put no emphasis on the quality of troops at the time (dismal and usually serving in the army instead of hanging for other crimes) which resulted in soldiers with very little intuition or fighting spirit. This meant that without that direct motivation of the officer very little would get done, and quite often without his sword pressing against their backs they would sooner break and run. This was why the officer's presence was so vital to the men, without him none other took initiative.

However this breaks from another point, firepower. While a volley from a line could shatter an opposing force at close range, scattered and individual shooting leaves the group open for a charge by a unit retaining mass. Your example of simply enveloping a closed formation assumes far too much, since the role of light cavalry has always been to prevent skirmishers from encircling heavy troops.

Lastly its more than possible to use a lance without stirrups.

[Akura]

Yes, but not charge with it. Any hard impact, like a shield braced for a hit, would knock you on your ass, which would no longer be on top of the horse. Not only that, but there'd be a limit to how long(and therefore, how heavy) the lance would be, since the extra weight would pull you(and the horse) off balance.

[Nikov]

On the contrary.

[Jackrabbit]

Would it be true to say that stirrups made the idea of a lance charge more appealing?