Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7296391" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>They, um, weren't. They were very good, but not because of the fact that they were missile troops. Archers had been tried often before against the armies the Mongols rolled up with little success. No, it wasn't that the Mongols used vastly superior missile troops, it's that the Mongols used vastly superior tactics and strategies that took advantage of the fact that they had mobile missile troop. Mongols never settled in for long bombardments of the enemy. Instead, they adopted and perfected a set of practiced very reminiscent of the modern US military -- high trained and drilled troops under independent commands. The Mongols could split their forces into independently maneuvering forces of whatever size they needed to accomplish their objectives. They used extremely sophisticated deception and psychological warfare. They conducted extensive and details long term reconnaissance of their targets (I believe they scouted Europe for over a decade before invading and had excellent intel on the political and military capabilities of the various targets along with detailed maps and routes). </p><p></p><p>THEN they applied their strengths to the weaknesses of their enemies. Whatever it took was what they did. They recruited surrendered enemies into their armies and utilized siege experts and engineers at a level previously not seen outside of the Roman Empire. When the Mongols attacked you, they often did from the flanks or rear, making lightning raids with archers to disrupt and disorganize the foe, but the final blow was, now get this: heavy cavalry with lances and armor.</p><p></p><p>That's right, the Mongol tactics were to use advanced maneuvers to outflank and disrupt the enemy with archers, but finish the job with a heavy cavalry charge. It had never been seen before, was exquisitely executed at a level of professionalism not seen again until modern times, was driven by a unified cultural concept, and it was devastating. However, it wasn't because missile weapons were superior. The Mongols relied heavily on missile troops, and very good missile troops, but it was their overall tactical employment (they only attacked where they wanted on terrain they assisted them when they were well informed about the enemy) that carried the day for the Mongols.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Do you know how I know you don't shoot? You say things like this. Hitting a stationary target in the calm and safe environment of a range when that target is close isn't <em>hard</em>, but it does take practice and skill. Hitting a stationary target when your best friend just died next to you in a bloody and horrifying way and the guy that did it is aiming back at you and you're freezing and hungry and scared is freaking <em><strong>hard</strong></em>. If the other guy is running, it's even harder.</p><p></p><p>Battlefield accuracy is surprisingly low, even for highly trained troops like the US Marines using modern firearms. It wasn't better for strength powered weapons.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Briefly, from the reign of Edward the III through the 100 years war, but, by the end of the war, the supremacy of the English archer was broken by the adoption of battlefield tactics that outmaneuvered them and let unit grapple with the longbowmen, and event that uniformly went very badly for the archers. The French in the skirmishes after the 100 Years War closed proved very adept at countering the English longbow and won decisive victories against them. This and the cost of maintaining the archers didn't survive the reversals of the black death and the iron control of the House of Plantagenet.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It was effective against other auxiliaries forces, like skirmishers and light cavalry. It wasn't effective against the heavy infantry units of the day. Egyptian chariots weren't dangerous because they had an archer, they were dangerous because they were extremely mobile. They could only be used in certain terrains, but then they had the same effect that the Mongol archers did -- they weakened the line for melee forces to exploit. The chariot was used to hit the weakest spot in the opposing force, either causes it to rout, which the chariots would then press, or become disorganized for the infantry advance. </p><p></p><p>And, again, the Egyptians of the time faced opponents that didn't field heavy infantry but instead light forces. Ranged weapons are good against lightly armored forces.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What? Bayonet charges often won many small engagements during the civil war. Even during the battle of Gettysburg, a decisive bayonet charge by the Union captured a large chunk of Confederate forces. Here, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Round_Top" target="_blank">Battle of Little Round Top</a>. </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Bayonets carried trenches in WWI. By WWII they'd become used only in close quarters fighting while carrying fortified positions or in close ambushes. But, then, I've already said that they were out of favor by the 20th.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it was cannon that replaced the reliance on melee on the battlefield. At the same time that troops were being switched over to muskets, melee troops were still common -- pikemen and cavalry especially -- and cavalry was the bane of any kind of massed fire formation. Bayonets were originally developed to allow musket formations to defend themselves against cavalry by turning the musket into a very short pike. But it wasn't until cannon made the use of cavalry very hard (grapeshot is murder on horses in a way even a massed volley of muskets isn't) that the common use of cavalry on the battlefield was abandoned.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7296391, member: 16814"] They, um, weren't. They were very good, but not because of the fact that they were missile troops. Archers had been tried often before against the armies the Mongols rolled up with little success. No, it wasn't that the Mongols used vastly superior missile troops, it's that the Mongols used vastly superior tactics and strategies that took advantage of the fact that they had mobile missile troop. Mongols never settled in for long bombardments of the enemy. Instead, they adopted and perfected a set of practiced very reminiscent of the modern US military -- high trained and drilled troops under independent commands. The Mongols could split their forces into independently maneuvering forces of whatever size they needed to accomplish their objectives. They used extremely sophisticated deception and psychological warfare. They conducted extensive and details long term reconnaissance of their targets (I believe they scouted Europe for over a decade before invading and had excellent intel on the political and military capabilities of the various targets along with detailed maps and routes). THEN they applied their strengths to the weaknesses of their enemies. Whatever it took was what they did. They recruited surrendered enemies into their armies and utilized siege experts and engineers at a level previously not seen outside of the Roman Empire. When the Mongols attacked you, they often did from the flanks or rear, making lightning raids with archers to disrupt and disorganize the foe, but the final blow was, now get this: heavy cavalry with lances and armor. That's right, the Mongol tactics were to use advanced maneuvers to outflank and disrupt the enemy with archers, but finish the job with a heavy cavalry charge. It had never been seen before, was exquisitely executed at a level of professionalism not seen again until modern times, was driven by a unified cultural concept, and it was devastating. However, it wasn't because missile weapons were superior. The Mongols relied heavily on missile troops, and very good missile troops, but it was their overall tactical employment (they only attacked where they wanted on terrain they assisted them when they were well informed about the enemy) that carried the day for the Mongols. Do you know how I know you don't shoot? You say things like this. Hitting a stationary target in the calm and safe environment of a range when that target is close isn't [I]hard[/I], but it does take practice and skill. Hitting a stationary target when your best friend just died next to you in a bloody and horrifying way and the guy that did it is aiming back at you and you're freezing and hungry and scared is freaking [I][B]hard[/B][/I]. If the other guy is running, it's even harder. Battlefield accuracy is surprisingly low, even for highly trained troops like the US Marines using modern firearms. It wasn't better for strength powered weapons. Briefly, from the reign of Edward the III through the 100 years war, but, by the end of the war, the supremacy of the English archer was broken by the adoption of battlefield tactics that outmaneuvered them and let unit grapple with the longbowmen, and event that uniformly went very badly for the archers. The French in the skirmishes after the 100 Years War closed proved very adept at countering the English longbow and won decisive victories against them. This and the cost of maintaining the archers didn't survive the reversals of the black death and the iron control of the House of Plantagenet. It was effective against other auxiliaries forces, like skirmishers and light cavalry. It wasn't effective against the heavy infantry units of the day. Egyptian chariots weren't dangerous because they had an archer, they were dangerous because they were extremely mobile. They could only be used in certain terrains, but then they had the same effect that the Mongol archers did -- they weakened the line for melee forces to exploit. The chariot was used to hit the weakest spot in the opposing force, either causes it to rout, which the chariots would then press, or become disorganized for the infantry advance. And, again, the Egyptians of the time faced opponents that didn't field heavy infantry but instead light forces. Ranged weapons are good against lightly armored forces. What? Bayonet charges often won many small engagements during the civil war. Even during the battle of Gettysburg, a decisive bayonet charge by the Union captured a large chunk of Confederate forces. Here, the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Round_Top"]Battle of Little Round Top[/URL]. Bayonets carried trenches in WWI. By WWII they'd become used only in close quarters fighting while carrying fortified positions or in close ambushes. But, then, I've already said that they were out of favor by the 20th. No, it was cannon that replaced the reliance on melee on the battlefield. At the same time that troops were being switched over to muskets, melee troops were still common -- pikemen and cavalry especially -- and cavalry was the bane of any kind of massed fire formation. Bayonets were originally developed to allow musket formations to defend themselves against cavalry by turning the musket into a very short pike. But it wasn't until cannon made the use of cavalry very hard (grapeshot is murder on horses in a way even a massed volley of muskets isn't) that the common use of cavalry on the battlefield was abandoned. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
Top