Does cowboy Marshall suffer from PAX-12?
2 Likes
Has to be the fungus plague.
3 Likes
Most likely lol
2 Likes
Unbeknownst to everyone, the inside of the crown was covered in black mold and the Marshal’s hat got into direct contact with it when he usurped the throne. Sadly the warm moist air inside the cowboy hat made it the perfect environment for mold to thrive which means he is now even more infected than Sobik and Belos ever were. The crown is now stuck to his head. Ever wondered why the Usurper Marshal seems to be more paranoid in ITUO? It’s because of the mold.
If the hat head is ever punctured it will unleash all the mold trapped in his hat head like tear gas and kill everyone around him.
7 Likes
I hope everyone had a great Christmas! I took yesterday off, but I’m back to work. This month in particular has been bad for my writing schedule, but I am definitively still working. About waist-deep in the opening battle scene at the moment.
I’ll be releasing another Patreon short story toward the end of the upcoming weekend, but other than that, I’ll be focusing on ITUO to hit my goal daily. Sorry I don’t have anything more concrete, but I also wanted to let everyone know I wasn’t dead, either.
47 Likes
I think December in general is bad for any kind of work schedule for anything usually. It’s a very irl busy month usually. lol
10 Likes
That type of fungus inside the Marshall must have maxed out most, if not all of the plague inc symptoms lol.
2 Likes
Writing the “battle” scene of Chapter 3, and it’s flowing super well. Wrote an extra five hundred words without even realizing it, which is a fantastic sign. I’m actually really excited for you guys to see, and I haven’t even gotten to the Janowitz reunion or the F/F RO introduction yet. This book is so much words to write lol.
I think after this chapter, I’ll perform “Spring Cleaning” to fix bugs, add achievements, fix typos, and spruce up a lot of the writing of Chapter 1. Critically, add more routes… which is only going to compound the whole “too much writing issue” but I suppose I wasn’t going to spend the next eighteen years of my life doing anything more exciting, so…
I’m still actually managing to find time to work on my other writing/creative projects, which is good to keep the writing of ITUO feeling fresh. I won’t dare touch another IF until ITUO is done, though.
49 Likes
Not really true the main advantage of crossbows is ease of use not range. Long bows had greater range and range of fire which was demonstrated by their superior performance over mercenary Italian crossbowmen. The idea that longbow archers were poorly trained is not really born out given that England had mandatory weekly practices mandated by law.
Donatter posted sources, do you have any to back up your argument?
1 Like
Ultra is right, read the sources I posted, as they explain in greater detail my points, alongside refuting your claims.(which I recommended everyone in doing since only a fraction of people did)
The English population were required to spend some time on the range after prayer on Sunday, by doing so, the English state obtained a virtually unlimited, self-sustaining supply of archers that did not cost the state anything. Fines related to the enforcement of the archery laws made them, in fact, a source of revenue.
(Plus, said “practice” didn’t have any standards or enforcement beyond just practicing itself. So the average archery practice more resembled a couple good ol’ boys going outside of town, drinking some ale and shooting some arrows at random shit, than a disciplined, serious practice.
Besides, there was always a substantial amount of the population that simply didn’t participate and instead paid the fines, which became a very large and even critical source of revenue for the English crown in the late Middle Ages, and early modern period)
Particularly this one for any questions or ideas of the training, skill, equipment or etc about the English longbows/militia(I also recommend buying the book, but I understand hardback versions of it can be very expensive(I got mine for $90 bucks)
Irregardlesss I wish y’all much love
3 Likes
Yea the battle of Crecy where the English shot dozens of volleys by every single report and had a range that easily out distanced 5000 professional crossbowmen.
I expect you’ll say the crossbow strings of the Genovese were wet but that is an assumption that relies on professional soldiers being retarded which doesn’t hold up to any real scrutiny. It assumes professional crossbowmen didn’t understand the effect of rain unlike wise English archers.
That is a source on English archers two hundred years after their prime.
It is still relevant however.
Besides, what are you basing your claims on?
Again, what are your sources? What are you basing these claims on?
Especially the volley part, as Bowmen did not use volley fire, It was a tactic developed for and alongside firearms.
Chrisbat just mentioned the battle of Crecy as their source, they haven’t posted a source itself but you could simply just research if what chrisbat said is true.
For what little it’s worth, the wikipedia summary of that battle mentions that: the English were positioned on a higher ground (further increasing the base range advantage) and many of their archers were hidden; the Genovese mercenaries lacked protection of their tower shields they’d typically carry to the battle. And the wet ground would make already slower reloading of crossbows slower still. As such, it’d be a reasonable conclusion that the mercenaries made only a token effort before breaking ranks and fleeling, and their loss wouldn’t necessarily require nor indicate highly superior training of English archers – even a half-competent force would be likely to emerge victorious with this level of advantage.
The same advantages (higher position and muddy ground) similarly made it easier to withstand charges made on the English positions. Again, this doesn’t necessarily prove quality of the English archers.
4 Likes
A) I haven’t found a credible source that states “The English shot Dozens of volleys”, and “Easily outdistanced 5000 Professional crossbowmen”
B) again, volley fire was not a tactic used with the longbow, or any bow. It was a tactic developed for, and alongside firearms
C) you shouldn’t ever take historical numbers of soldiers in an individual battle, army, campaign, war, or polity, they’re more estimations or educated guess’s that are then affected by propaganda, biases, agendas, lack of accurate information, and lack of genuine interest in getting it exactly right. It’s more likely there were 2000/3000-ish “crossbowmen” in the French force, at Crecy. Who were a mix of French militia, semi-professional men at arms and mercenaries(and some might have been actually Genovese, but it’s impossible to know). This also relates to the English forces as well.
D) there’s also the issue of mislabeling that was rife in pre-modern militaries. As the scribes/bureaucrats of the period often classified soldiers not by what weapons they individually used, what armor they wore, or even if they rode a horse or not, but rather what role they performed, what their commanders/lords said they were, or what they imagined they were based on multiple contradictory second hand stories of what they did. Plus, the idea of not wasting ink/time to specify pvt.dumb fuck used a longbow or crossbow, wasn’t seen as something important enough to warrant such a action. When you could just as easily call them “archer/skirmisher/bowman/crossbow man/etc” and move on. So these French “crossbowmen”, and English “longbowmen”, might’ve not actually used crossbows or longbows(this is almost certainly true, and in reality, both sides likely incorporated large amounts of bows, crossbows, war darts, and even early firearms. As uniformity was not a strong point or considered necessary “important” of the Middle Ages.), or only used their ranged weapons for the opening of the battle, or during the brief pauses in the pulse of melee when both sides rested and recovered energy(as a form of harassment), and outside of these instances, fought in the melee or along the flanks of the melee, acting as lighter infantry, harassers, messengers, and/or scouts.
E) crossbows and longbows are not “better” than each other, they’re very similar weapons that perform a very similar function, with very similar effects. The difference between them, is that a crossbowman is able to shoot for longer, but initially slower than a longbowman, due to the bow relying on pure muscle power, and in turn, quickly gassing out the user, whereas the crossbow has mechanical leverage to assist the User’s muscles, which limits the energy required to use it, alongside the “slow” pace of fire, also allows brief periods of rest for the muscles, further limiting felt exhaustion of the User. The obvious downside, is that you don’t have as large or constant hail of arrows/bolts flying towards an enemy, and because of the rather “short” range of these weapons, can cause a smaller “effect” of exhaustion, anxiety, fear, or trepidation in the targeted enemy formation/group.
F) read the sources of my initial comment, it relates to every comment of yours so far
Irregardless, I don’t wish to continue going back and forth with this shit, so much love, pimp
1 Like
Froissart specifically describes the archers all firing together and over whelming the Genovese and the Genovese having to come within the range of the longbow men to fire. But sure be annoyed I didn’t read your blog post.
Can you please link it then?
while Froissart is a very important source for many of the battles of the Hundred Years’ War, he’s also very heavily biased towards the English(seemingly unintentionally), and his works contain contradictions and just continuity errors in general(which again, tend to favor/paint the English in a better/more effective light. Alongside using flowery and complimentary language to a degree when discussing the English, that’s simply isn’t present when he discusses the French)
Plus, Froissart was not at the battle of Crecy, and so relied on official reports, and personal accounts form participants in the battle, or second hand from their families and friends. The potential issues with accuracy should be apparent, as the factors of mislabeling I mentioned in a previous comment, and people intentionally or unintentionally lying and/or exaggerating details to better fit an image of the event they have in their head, or one they’d rather have acknowledged than the truth, all come into play.
(To be clear, I’m not disparaging or implying Froissart intentionally wrote biased history/works, rather he did the best using the very problematic sources he had at his disposal, and his known(which he attempted to limit as much as possible) and unknown to himself, personal biases. Which are problems every historian throughout history and even today, has to struggle with)
Much love though
5 Likes