Re: (TFT) Targeting Horses and their Riders

["Edward Kroeten" <ekroeten@farmersagent.com>]

Also English yeoman archers didn't care if they killed the horse or man with
their arrows, they stopped the charging knight because they could get a big
enough volume of fire much like the modern day automatic weapons.



 Another thing to take into account were that mercenary pikemen became much
more organized in terms of tactics and formations to stop heavy horse charges,
there is some scholarship that says this is really the reason Richard III lost
at Bosworth.  Even with the treachery he should have won that battle over the
inexperienced and by all accounts cowardly Henry Tudor, Richard was an
established military commander and John Howard the Earl of Mowbray was also a
established veteran.  Together they had more experience than anyone in Henry's
army except the mercenary pikemen.





   Edward Kroeten
     Farmers Agent
     39899 Balentine Drive Suite 200
     Newark, CA 94560
     Phone 510-579-0135
     Fax 510-438-6875
     Website: www.kroeteninsurance.com













 ------ Original Message ------
   Received: 07:52 PM PDT, 08/23/2013
   From: raito@raito.com
   To: tft@brainiac.com
   Subject: Re: (TFT) Targeting Horses and their Riders




     > I've read some of those same statements, PvK. This is why I personally
       > discount them:

       You shouldn't, for places invested in European Chivalry. You can't look
at
       it from the perspective you're taking. There's a lot more involved
than
       just winning a fight.

       > Logically, knights, in particular, should be well-motivated to kill
their
       > opponents' horses because then it would be easier for them to capture
and
       > ransom said opponents.

       This is not logical. The horses were worth more than (lower-class)
people.
       And if you did deliberately kill the other guy's horse, regardless of
       whether you captured him, you'd still need to pay up, or risk your
       reputation. And that reputation is what made the other guy try to
capture
       you in preference to killing you.

       See, however it's stated, the Chivalric Code (inasmuch as there could
be
       said to be one and one only) had to do with how guys who could kill
each
       other kept from doing so. A large part of it had to do with economics.
If
       you captured your enemies and ransomed them, they'd be economically
unable
       to continue fighting. Kill him out of hand (accidents do happen), and
your
       future enemies would likely just kill you, if for no other reason than
       disturbing the social system.

       Logic does enter into it, but it's a wider logic than winning a fight.
       Politics and economics figure very prominently in the whole thing.

       These guys were the law, but so was everyone else with the means to be
a
       Knight. You can't think of them, as a modern person, like they are an
       individual. It's more like how nations act towards each other today
than
       anything else.

       > Peasants and militias would have no motivation whatsoever NOT to
attack
       > horses since they wouldn't get any of the proceeds of looted
knightly
       > horses, anyway.

       Peasants rarely fought, and when they did, they weren't subject to the
       laws of arms that constrained the nobility. Militias and other
       professional non-Knight soldiers took their commands from Knights.

       > And when a really big dude in armor with a really big weapon is
bearing
       > down on you trying to kill you you're pretty much motivated to stop
that
       > individual in any way possible, regardless of where or when you're
from.

       Not when you may as well die being charged as take your chances with
       punishment afterwards.

       > I'm not sure why super heavy cavalry was so dominant in the early
middle
       > ages before Crecy and the Mongols and Agincourt, but I strongly
suspect it
       > wasn't because horses were "off limits".

       It was pretty dominant afterwards, too, for a span of time. It more
died
       off because of political changes that changed the composition of
armies
       than anything else. When you start seeing the rise of national armies,
you
       start seeing the end of the lance cavalry. This is because the rulers
       began to be able to use their country's monies to maintain armies,
rather
       than their own personal wealth. So the rulers began to use more yeoman
in
       their armies, as they needed more soldiers than the upper classes
could
       provide. Officers remained of the Knightly classes, though.

       Part of it was that wars were waged not by armies, but by groups of
       nobles. The nobles were the ones who had the money, and money wins
out.
       They were the ones who could afford the armour, horses, and trappings
       necessary at that time to wage war. Others just didn't have the money
to
       do it.

       Some scholars out there attribute the rise of the manorial system to
the
       need to pay for the mounted knight. I'm not quite of that opinion. I
think
       that the manorial system arose indirectly from the collapse of the
Roman
       Empire, and the consequent formation of the feudal system (which is
also
       more complex than people think). When Rome went away, there was an
awful
       lot of land to govern. So the strongest guy of the bunch said to his
       buddy," you rule that land over there for me. You be my vassal, and
I'll
       be the lord. Whenever one of us in attacked, the other has to come and
       help." And the buddy took the offer. Why would he take the subordinate
       position? Because it got him out from under the immediate thumb of the
       warlord, that's why. And he got richer than he would ahve staying in
the
       warlord's lodge.

       Note that all this only holds for western Europe during the age of
       chivalry. Other places did it differently.

       Neil Gilmore
       raito@raito.com
       =====
       Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
       Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
       "unsubscribe tft"






This e-mail message and any documents accompanying this transmission may
contain confidential information and are intended solely for the addressee (s)
named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient, any use of,
disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on the contents of this e-mail
information is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender advising of the
error in transmission and immediately delete/destroy the message and any
accompanying documents.

Farmers Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Farmers
Financial Solutions, LLC, reserve the right to monitor and review the content
of all e-mail communications and attachments sent or received by or from this
address and to retain them in accordance with the applicable regulatory
requirements. Securities are offered through Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC,
30801 Agoura Road, Building 1, Agoura Hills, California 91301. Member FINRA &
SIPC.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"