[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(TFT) Re: TFT Digest V3 #583 (should have been, stainless sword...)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: (TFT) Re: TFT Digest V3 #583 (should have been, stainless sword...)
- From: Mark Tapley <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:27:58 -0600
- In-reply-to: <200402290829.i1T8TBLg021986@zappa.brainiac.com>
- References: <200402290829.i1T8TBLg021986@zappa.brainiac.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Charles Gadda wrote:
This is one possible explanation, but the example you cite is somewhat
Well, granted, but my point was the sequel: their own
employers rode them down and killed them. I was trying to address the
original question, "why would they carry an ineffective weapon into
battle?" by showing the consequences if they didn't.
Or who knows, perhaps the French showed up in Genoa saying
they wanted 400 crossbowmen, "never mind those obsolete longbows, we
want *crossbows*!" Merc. captain tells his men "learn to use 'em, we
have a job." Genoese complain but what the heck, French outnumber
English 5-1 anyway, so they pick up crossbows and march off. It
amounts to the same thing - equipment by edict, not by soldiers'
choice or by demonstrated superiority.
I also grant your point that the troops would discard them
quickly under the right circumstances - perhaps leading to a later
question, "why would they show up for battle *unarmed*?".
210-522-6025, page 888-733-0967
Post to the entire list by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unsubscribe by mailing to email@example.com with the message body