Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 3551595" data-attributes="member: 7883">Morale was a big part of it.  I've read accounts in more modern books, as an example, that the reputation the Templars had for being bloodthirsty, and being motivated to capture cities etc. in order to capture treasure, was more of an aspersion cast against them by the lords of the regular, non-Templar troops in the Crusader armies......they had morale issues, whereas the Templars were more of an elite force, due to their experience.  Since they didn't tend to flee as quickly, and were better disciplined, by default they ended up being the first ones into many cities, etc.My understanding was that a big edge the Mongols had was the horse archers.  They had the ability to easily run in at velocity, unleash a wave of arrows, and then get out of range before a counterattack could be mustered.  Because they were more lightly armoured, they could repeat this all day long without getting exhausted, unlike the European troops, who were generally heavily armoured, and couldn't fight for long periods.I saw a show on the history channel which showed that on one hand, men in plate armour were much more flexible, and mobile, than current myth would have us believe....yet at the same time, particularly with their visors down, they really couldn't fight for long periods of time.  Maybe 1.5 minutes or so before exhaustion would set in.  Of course, the guy they used to test it was not in bad condition, but I'm not sure if he was in the condition a medieval knight would have been.Banshee</blockquote>

Verification