Robert de la Challisse

[valvorik]

My first attempt at a character.

Imagined for a medieval France fantasy setting, based on Averoigne (Clark Ashton Smith) leavened with Joiry (C.L. Moore), the conflicts of Raoul de Cambrai, and the House of Coucy (Tuchman), the Europe of Ars Magica.
http://www.gattonero.org/autori/smith/Tales%20of%20Averoigne.pdf
http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/raoul_crosland.pdf

Elements thus include villages, towns, cities, deep forests, cathedrals, monasteries, castles, noble families, private wars, Roman and druid ruins, things from before time and beyond space. The power of faith sometimes works and sometimes inexplicably fails (the Faith attribute affects most people and creatures but things very ancient or very alien are beyond it), sorcery is real (but subject to a Corruption Emotion index), where druid cromlechs can lead to strange woodlands (cf The Enchantress of Sylaire), and stairs into the earth twist in impossible ways to deliver travellers to hellish realms (cf The Black God’s Kiss), plate armour has been invented but not gunpowder. Gnostic heresies (a version of Catharism) are widespread (the world is the creation of a lower power, and the true god is an “Alien God”, cf marcionism see Wikipedia). The Pope and King are distant and weak powers, local bishops and dukes are the true powers.

The tone is a bit more optimistic than most Averoigne stories, open to being defined further by players. PC’s are not expected to always meet the same fates as most characters in those stories, though the “enmity clause” is invoked with that spirit in mind. The GM tends to push in direction of “sin earning evil’s reward unless it has true evil’s favour, then look out”.

Concept: penniless knight of Averoigne, under a family doom

Background: Born to the noble family of Challisse, which has been declining for six decades since being cursed (see below). A younger son, who has been page and squire to veteran knights in wars and now a knight himself. Have fought beyond Averoigne in the armies of Comte Engeurrand, in private wars with other nobles. Wordly in arms and battle, whether his views of society and people are naive or not will be seen.

Character Name: Sir Robert de la Challisse

Lifepaths: Born Noble, Page, Squire, Knight

Age: 25 years old

Stats: Perception B4, Will B4, Agility B6, Speed B4, Fort B5, Power B4

Attributes: Health (athletic and active) = B5; Steel (+1 lifepath +1 killed in battle more than once, +1 competitive childhood) B6, Reflexes B4,
MW 11 Hesitation 6, Circles B2, Resources B2 (spent 3 RP property, 25 rep, 28 ~ 30 using the ‘only couple short’ advice).

Skills: Read B2, Write B2, Ride B2+2, Sword B3+2, Lance B2+1, Crossbow B3+1, Brawling B2, Etiquette B2+2, Intimidation B2+1, Conspicuous B2+1, Command B2, Oratory B2+1, Court-Wise B2, Observation B2, Mounted Combat Training, Shield Training, Armour Training

Gear: Run of Mill Arms (5 RP), sword w. spiked pommel (+1 RP), lance (no, he doesn’t have a warhorse), dirk; Crossbow (7 RP); Chainmail Armour (10 RP); Clothes (1 RP), Shoes (1 RP), Quill & Inks (1 RP)
Riding Horse (5 RP), Dog (1 RP)

Property: Flat (Small Cottage) (3 RP)

Affiliations: 2D Affiliation with Averoigne Nobility (from traits, this means the families of Challisse, Frênaie, Émaux and Venteillon it does not include religious landowners and rulers of the major towns, or the Templar commander of Les Monselles).

Reputations: A Cursed Scion of Challisse (2D regional) - Challise family males are cursed to die by the age of 33, the curse placed by the son of a slain warlock decades ago ~ none has yet beaten it ~ a byproduct of the curse is that everyone expects Challisse men to “burn bright fast” and also to bear no love for sorcerers. The reputation means respect for the courage with which this adversity is born, though it is difficult to win the hand of maid or get a long term loan.

Relationships
My older brother Etienne de la Challisse, a Rival Knight who wishes me every ill and is senior family member after our father’s death, 1 RP

My former lover, Isobelle de Feuris, widowed wife of the Seigneur de Rabie and keeper of the Inn de Bonnenuit, 1 RP (I assume romance and hate can combine)

My maternal cousin Brother Gerome of the Perigon Benedictine Abbey (Perigon is noted for its library and is built on Roman ruins, Gerome is a former comrade in arms who took up orders after suffering the loss of an arm in battle, he is not a Challisse) 4 RP

Traits: Mark of Privilege, Sworn Homage, Booming Voice (c-o Command, Oratory, Conspicuous), Tidy (Char, always neat and clean).
+1 OB on any Inconspicuous or Falsehood tests if masquerading as someone beneath station

Beliefs:

The practitioners of the devil’s tool (magic) must be brought to trial and execution (magic is a crime, criminals are tried).

I cannot allow the word of a de la Chalisse (even my brother's) to be proven false
Was - My family’s honour is not to be questioned (including my brother’s despite the lies and calumnies he spreads).

I will not deliver unto the Comte's justice any who do not deserve it.
Was - The Comte’s stern will must be tempered by the kindness and mercy of his knights, even as our Saviour’s tempers the judgement of God (in this setting the King is distant, Duke and Counts ~ Comtes are the local powers, the Comte Engeurrand de Venteillon is a ruthless s.o.b.)

Instincts:

- Whenever more than one man I do not know draws near, I Assess my situation.

- I trust clergy and women to be well-meaning, if unworldly.

- I declare my lineage (Intimidate) any foe who threatens me.
(was I never talk quietly -cf trait of booming voice).

Note - originally had better arms and armour, warhorse, but the character was going in a “been beaten up on by life” direction so decided to go with that and that he wouldn’t have such good items, instead the cursed background.

[BobSlaughter]

Overall, he looks good, and ties into your proposed setting well. Beliefs are good, and will pull the character into action and conflict, as will the first two Instincts. The only thing I see as issue-y is the third Instict; the 'booming voice' is already a trait, so it feels fairly redundant.

Given some of the other charater notes, maybe an instinct that has the effect of "given a choice between inaction and action, always choose the action" might work. He's in his final decade if the curse holds, so he shouldn't be wasting time, but be 'burning bright' as you say. Give him an instinct that forwards that. I think that would be better.

[DaGreatJL]

I want to ask about your second and third beliefs.

"My family's honor is not to be questioned." Okay, so what does this mean about what your character is going to do? Does this mean that your character will never question his family's honor? Or does it mean that he will respond negatively to others who do? And if others do question it, what exactly will he do? When answering this question, be clear; you want to create conditions that you can be clearly seen to fufill to get those Persona points.

"The Comte’s stern will must be tempered by the kindness and mercy of his knights, even as our Saviour’s tempers the judgement of God ."
I'll be honest, I'm really not clear on the meaning of this one in general, buy I'm REALLY wondering what it means for your character's actions. What is your character going to do to follow through with this belief? What is the goal? Beliefs need to have a goal.

You know what, let's look at your first belief for a moment to clarify this. "The practitioners of the devil’s tool (magic) must be brought to trial and execution." Okay, we have a goal; bring magic users to trial and have them executed. If you do that, you get Persona artha. Pretty clear cut. Now, your other beliefs speak to the philosophy and character of your PC, but they really need that direction, that goal.

[valvorik]

On instincts, I was thinking they should tie into other aspects, a slightly lapping over one I had been thinking, that fits with the "in a hurry to make a mark" was (instead of talking in booming voice):

I declare my lineage (Intimidate) any foe who threatens me. [not that he's great at Intimidate but fits with character and means not anonymous etc., combines with his c-o trait].

On beliefs, I was strugging with making them "actionable" without too mechanical.

re Family Honour not be questioned, it was about public image not reality/my views or actions within the family (after all there's family rumours of a dirty truth of what went on with that warlock), while dangling a "GM you can have my brother say stuff I can't openly deny because I can't publicly call him a liar", so perhaps:

I cannot allow the word of a de la Chalisse (even my brother's) to be proven false [keeping up appearances even when it hurts].

re Comte etc., I see your point about more "action" specific ~ the more micro goal that is part of chain building grander goal.

The idea is a belief that fits with having a belief tied to his liege, but also that his liege is flawed. The Comte is "Raoul" in terms of being bloodthirsty. It's often better for true justice that most offenders don't come to trial (except those devil's magic workers of course) at least in those areas where his personal views directly flavour justice.

How about:

I will not deliver unto the Comte's justice any who do not deserve it.

(thus there are criminals who can't actually be delivered to the Comte's justice because it would lead to a greater injustice still).

Yes that sets up the magician who doesn't deserve it, accused on my brother's word...

BTW (added text) - the curse is modelled on the Lovecraft story "The Alchemist", courtesy of "Worlds of Cthulhu" whose Averoigne articles cleverly saw how this could fit into the Averoigne cycle. It would be up to player/GM combined directions to decide if the facts of the matter were as set there but the basic backstory would the same: Michel Mauvais was slain by my ancestor Henri, and his son Charles le Sorcier proclaimed the curse that slew my ancestor at that time and condemned no male of my line to live past that age.
http://www.yankeeclassic.com/miskatonic/library/stacks/literature/lovecraft/stories/alchemis.htm

[Fourth Horseman]

Here's my universal advise for anyone burning up a knight, work in an axe or mace skill. You'll thank me later.

[TimP]

Fourth Horseman speaks the truth.

There's nothing worse than watching your bad-ass knight's sword bounce off of armor over...and over...and over...and....over. At the very least, spend the RPs for a superior quality sword so you can mow down peasants.

Tim

[valvorik]

Thematically, the knight might not favour crossbow so much, a logical swap?

[Fourth Horseman]

That depends on the theme. If you are playing in a setting of idealized chivalry, sure--using ranged weapons is bad form for knights. In the real world things were a little more pragmatic--for example, Lionheart used a crossbow at the battle of Jaffa, along with a variety of other weapons.

In any event your fighting style should tie to your BITs. You're guy sounds like a bit of a pragmatist when it comes to the bloody business--so he might want to hang on to a ranged weapon skill, especially for range and cover tests. With an agility of 6 any weapon skill you open starts out at a three--threes quickly go up. You could just shave one point from one of your other preexisting weapon skills (I'd advise against nerfing your social skills for this) and just open the canopener skill at a three.

Alternatively you can be a masochist and pick up a canopener skill in game. Buying RoM arms lets you start with SEVERAL melee weapons appropriate to the character. With an ag of six your aptitude will only be four, of course that's four tests that could easily advance a three skill to a four skill.

Choices, choices . . .

And at some point in your game you are going to want to buy, con, or steal a warhorse . . . you're going to really like what the big horsies let your knight do, especially if he gets a hold of a lance.

[valvorik]

Are you saying if he had skill with mace he would get 4 weapons with the standard buy? I was thinking the description indicated 3. I'm something of a literalist/minimalist reading rules, I admit. Now I would still swap lance for mace (the lance doesn't do him much good at present, it's there mostly as 'old war gear' flavour).

I think he would go with that instead of axe, mostly it's just flavour of 1-handed wielding, though also higher VA.

I think he would keep crossbow, the flavour is "gritty reality meets high ideals" and he has fought in several small battles (emphasis small).

[Thor]

Are you saying if he had skill with mace he would get 4 weapons with the standard buy? I was thinking the description indicated 3. I'm something of a literalist/minimalist reading rules, I admit. Now I would still swap lance for mace (the lance doesn't do him much good at present, it's there mostly as 'old war gear' flavour).

You're not limited to three. If you purchase arms, you the weapons that suit your character concept. If your concept includes a lance, dirk, sword and mace, that's what you get. Note that you have to purchase the crossbow separately. It falls under the missiles category.

[valvorik]

I'm honoured that the mighty Thor answers my query.

I've been thinking, my 2nd Instinct about women and clergy, is that really more a Belief than an Instinct?

[Thor]

I'm honoured that the mighty Thor answers my query.

I've been thinking, my 2nd Instinct about women and clergy, is that really more a Belief than an Instinct?

;)

I think something like "Always trust women and clergy" is a great instinct! You'll definitely be able to use it to get yourself into lots of trouble! Just find the most treacherous woman and most scheming priest you can find and do whatever they say.

[valvorik]

The character is designed to be a walking bundle of contradictions/illusions and GM-bait, waiting to see how in play they resolve and how he changes/grows from those events - play is in part a race among these to see which gets burned out of him first.

I've always liked characters like that, part of what I like about BW ~ that the system rewards you for creating such a character.

[larkvi]

Given the setting you indicated, I might question the choice of a crossbow and a spiked pommel. Unless your setting diverges more than I understand, a crossbow is a distinctly non-knightly weapon, and one that would pose a good deal of complication for use in armor from horseback. Lance/spear is essential is you want to be able to charge into battle, mace and brawl to engage armored foes (keep in mind that combatants in plate used their swords essentially as pry-bars in grappling, trying to pull of pieces of armor, or, better yet, knock the other to the ground, pin him, open his visor, and plunge in a dagger). Dirks are not a weapon one would use on armored opponents--much too short--they would be for use in situations where armor is not appropriate and a discreet weapon is called for.

Unless your character's culture is significantly different in terms of aristocratic norms than the sources would suggest to me, a knight who carried a crossbow and had a spiked pommel would be greeted with more than a bit of suspicion. (Not to mention the fact that spiked pommels are real liabilities in real combat, as a common way to gain power to a blow is to put your body weight behind it.)

[valvorik]

I see him as first having picked up the crossbow as a hunting weapon and perhaps then putting it to bloody use in the bitter small unit battles and small scale sieges he has seen.

My understanding it that while crossbow units were not knights, knights did carry and sometimes use crossbows. The Church ban on them was never particularly effective. In the Raoul de Cambrai epic, one leading heroic character declares relief that he is to be reinforced by archers and crossbowmen.

Any online or print sources on this would be appreciated.

[larkvi]

A crossbow is not a hunting weapon--it is a siege weapon. Hunters would use bows if they wished to hunt with a missile weapon. This is not to say that nobles never picked up crossbows, or that your setting does not have a different view towards them, but a crossbow is an expensive, cumbersome, labor-intensive weapon that is associated with Italian mercenary units, and historically perhaps not the best choice for a mounted knight (most crossbows have a winding mechanism or a foot-brace that is used in cocking, necessitating dismounting).

I will get a couple references when I next talk to my friend the medieval arms and armor historian (who also teaches historical fencing techniques straight out of the existing manuals).

[luke]

There are too many museum pieces to dispute the use of hunting crossbows.

And while it may not seem ideal to use from horseback, not all fighting took place from horseback. (Though I am certain I've read about saddles equipped with cocking hooks for reloading crossbows). And while it may not seem to fit into the "knightly tradition," I think the truth of the matter was that the European warrior caste was much more adaptable and skilled than we'd like to give it credit for.

As Rich pointed out above, dear Malik Rik was caught on camera using a crossbow during his time in the Holy Lands. There's a lot of apocrypha surrounding Richard the Lionhearted, but this detail seems odd and out of place enough to be true.

-L

[Fourth Horseman]

A crossbow is not a hunting weapon--it is a siege weapon. Hunters would use bows if they wished to hunt with a missile weapon. This is not to say that nobles never picked up crossbows, or that your setting does not have a different view towards them, but a crossbow is an expensive, cumbersome, labor-intensive weapon that is associated with Italian mercenary units, and historically perhaps not the best choice for a mounted knight (most crossbows have a winding mechanism or a foot-brace that is used in cocking, necessitating dismounting).

I will get a couple references when I next talk to my friend the medieval arms and armor historian (who also teaches historical fencing techniques straight out of the existing manuals).

When are we exactly talking about here? Crossbows have been used regulalry since at least the 4th century BC--and were only supplanted on the battlefield with the rise of gunpowder. Their employment has varied considerably over time. The winding mechanism of which you speak was not employed regularly until the end of the middle ages and beginning of the rennaisance--when steel laths became popular/technically feasable. Before that time, wooden/bone laths were popular which were considerably easier to cock. Indeed, the ease of cocking these lighter crossbows saw them employed in central europe, from horseback by mounted crossbowmen, as a direct response to the eastern mounted archer. These troops were not as succesful as eastern mounted archers--although I would posit that owed as much to the lack of a tradition surrounding their use and a complete lack of tactical finesse in their employment in central europe.

As for your contention that crossbows were siege weapons, again what period of history are you talking about here? Certainly not 342 BC when they were used at the Battle of Ma-Ling by the Qi? Certainly not when Vegetius mentions their use in the 3rd Century? Certainly not the early medieval period when the crossbow was adopted as a missile weapon for urban militia because of its ease of use? It sounds to me like you are concentrating way too much on their employment by Italian mercenaries in the late medieval period and extrapolating that use as some sort of universal example to completely define the weapon. That short changes the diversity of the weapon's use, and the diversity of examples that Robert de Chalisse can draw from to add a backstory for picking up the weapon.

For one, even the Pavise Crossbowmen of the Italian principalities were not primarily used in the siege role. Their repeated employment in set piece battles in the high and late medieval period belies that. Crecy, Agincourt anyone? Indeed the Grimaldi family, current rulers of Monico, gained prominence during this period leading their bands of Genoese crossbowmen in support of the French crown.

For another, while some late types were cumbersome and labor-intensive from a cocking standpoint, they were still incredibly easy to use--point, aim, depress the latch or trigger. That stands in sharp contrast to a bow, which took multiple years to master. And the pull weights on some of the larger English Longbows made them beasts to handle as well. To the point where English longbowmen exumed from battlefield sites have been found to have one arm longer then the other and bone spurs where the string repeatedly hit their arm--thats because it would take years to even work your way up to a heavy pull longbow, and all that training affected the growth of your bones! This might seem beside the point since you aren't arguing exactly that his knight should have a bow instead, but my point is simply that if a western noble were going to pick up a spare missile skill, the crossbow would be ideal, since it wouldn't interfere too much with other training and the demands of court.

This is supported by the odd stories we have of noblemen actually using crossbows. And it wasn't just any odd noble who used the crossbow. Richard Coeur de Leon himself used a crossbow at both the Battle of Jaffa and the Siege of Acre. And I don't recall anyone ever disparaging his honor or prowess as a warrior for using a crossbow in battle. Good enough for the King of England and one of the most celebrated knights in history, good enough for a BW character.

[larkvi]

You will notice that I said that 'most' crossbows (of the period is strongly implied here) have 'a winding mechanism or a foot-brace', not all and not just a winding mechanism. I am aware of the long history of the use of the crossbow, but the period the OP mentioned is the 12th to 15th centuries, so it seemed no more relevant to mention its use in the early medieval period or antiquity than to mention their use in China in the 4th century B.C., as it is essentially irrelevant to the topic.

Crossbows are essentially a siege weapon in the sense that a light artillery piece is a siege weapon, as opposed to a bow, which might be more aptly compared to a musket or rifle in terms of mobility and support. Perhaps 'siege weapon' was a bad choice of words, but the Genoese that you cite would have been using bows that one would have carried with the baggage train, not on one's back.

I do not deny that crossbows saw a lot of use in set-piece angagements, and yes, they were at Agincourt. You might recall that the cumbersomeness and technical shortcomings of the crossbow as an open-field weapon turned what should have been a tactical retreat into a full-on rout, crossbows left behind (the fact that this rout turned into a massacre is another issue). If you are going to quote their use in a set-piece battle, choose one where their use was not disastrous.

Much of your post seems to argue against a strawman version of my post: English longbowmen and an ill-fated Central European mounted crossbow initiative are not really related to the point at hand. The practice of issuing lighter crossbows to untrained troops does not speak to the training practices of armed mounted noblemen (though, for example, quoting the plate in the 15/4 talhoffer mss. of mounted self defence would work), nor to the social issues of their use of crossbows. Odd uses by noblemen of crossbows are just that: odd. Richard I's use of a crossbow demonstrating its place as a noble weapon is a horrible misuse of the source; when Richard was using the crosssbow he was on the walls of the city and so sickly that he could not walk on his own, but rather had to be carried on a litter--a crossbow was the only weapon with which he could engage the foe, because it took little in the way of strength to pull the trigger. On top of that, the statment that no one questioned Richard's honor is absurd: questions of Richards honor have existed from his day to ours, and Runciman's famous quote states that 'he was a bad son, a bad king, and a bad father,' keeping in mind accusations of rape, his fathering of an illegitimate child, and his history of trying to overthrow his father and younger brother.

While I hope that I have responded adequately to your post, I would also like to point out the pointlessness of this whole extended discussion. Trying to obfuscate generalist advice relating to the 12th-15th c. with examples from 342 BC, discussion of longbow regimes totally irrelevant to both crossbow and (short)bow training, and poorly chosen examples does not help create a genre-appropriate character any more than rigidly insisting on historical accuracy helps create an exciting fantasy character. Given that the stated campaign also includes sorcery, one can hardly expect that it is entirely comparable to our world in any event, but, within the outlines he gave, I was trying to provide some simple and general advice which was and is both historically and genre-appropriate. As someone who is extolling the literary virtues of Richard 'the Lion' (many) as opposed to his historical virtues (few), I thought you might understand genre-appropiate.

[larkvi]

There are too many museum pieces to dispute the use of hunting crossbows.
-L

I suspect it is really more of a question of periodization (edit: this kind of highly ornamental hunting crossbow seems to be come a fad towards the end of the 15th century, continuing in the 16th c., putting it at the extreme end of the period discussed). I never meant to deny that they had been used at all, but neither do I recall seeing any when browsing the illustrations in the facsimiles of hunting manuals, for example (edit: there are three plates in Phoebus' Hunting Book 14/4). If you have the chance, I would be genuinely interested if you could give me some references, that I might look up some of these museum pieces.

[larkvi]

Trying to get back on topic and reply to the OP, look to see of your library has Edge and Paddock's 'Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight' (out of print)or anything by R Ewart Oakeshott--these should be good basic references.

[Fourth Horseman]

You will notice that I said that 'most' crossbows (of the period is strongly implied here) have 'a winding mechanism or a foot-brace', not all and not just a winding mechanism. I am aware of the long history of the use of the crossbow, but the period the OP mentioned is the 12th to 15th centuries, so it seemed no more relevant to mention its use in the early medieval period or antiquity than to mention their use in China in the 4th century B.C., as it is essentially irrelevant to the topic.

Crossbows are essentially a siege weapon in the sense that a light artillery piece is a siege weapon, as opposed to a bow, which might be more aptly compared to a musket or rifle in terms of mobility and support. Perhaps 'siege weapon' was a bad choice of words, but the Genoese that you cite would have been using bows that one would have carried with the baggage train, not on one's back.

I do not deny that crossbows saw a lot of use in set-piece angagements, and yes, they were at Agincourt. You might recall that the cumbersomeness and technical shortcomings of the crossbow as an open-field weapon turned what should have been a tactical retreat into a full-on rout, crossbows left behind (the fact that this rout turned into a massacre is another issue). If you are going to quote their use in a set-piece battle, choose one where their use was not disastrous.

Much of your post seems to argue against a strawman version of my post: English longbowmen and an ill-fated Central European mounted crossbow initiative are not really related to the point at hand. The practice of issuing lighter crossbows to untrained troops does not speak to the training practices of armed mounted noblemen (though, for example, quoting the plate in the 15/4 talhoffer mss. of mounted self defence would work), nor to the social issues of their use of crossbows. Odd uses by noblemen of crossbows are just that: odd. Richard I's use of a crossbow demonstrating its place as a noble weapon is a horrible misuse of the source; when Richard was using the crosssbow he was on the walls of the city and so sickly that he could not walk on his own, but rather had to be carried on a litter--a crossbow was the only weapon with which he could engage the foe, because it took little in the way of strength to pull the trigger. On top of that, the statment that no one questioned Richard's honor is absurd: questions of Richards honor have existed from his day to ours, and Runciman's famous quote states that 'he was a bad son, a bad king, and a bad father,' keeping in mind accusations of rape, his fathering of an illegitimate child, and his history of trying to overthrow his father and younger brother.

While I hope that I have responded adequately to your post, I would also like to point out the pointlessness of this whole extended discussion. Trying to obfuscate generalist advice relating to the 12th-15th c. with examples from 342 BC, discussion of longbow regimes totally irrelevant to both crossbow and (short)bow training, and poorly chosen examples does not help create a genre-appropriate character any more than rigidly insisting on historical accuracy helps create an exciting fantasy character. Given that the stated campaign also includes sorcery, one can hardly expect that it is entirely comparable to our world in any event, but, within the outlines he gave, I was trying to provide some simple and general advice which was and is both historically and genre-appropriate. As someone who is extolling the literary virtues of Richard 'the Lion' (many) as opposed to his historical virtues (few), I thought you might understand genre-appropiate.

If a pissing match is what you want I'll hapily oblige. The fact of the matter, is that there are few solid technical facts about either the Battles of Agincourt or Crecy, beyond what has been exhumed from graves, etc. Indeed, the archeological evidence for the battle of Agincourt is pretty sparse, its not as if the battle or the gravesites of the fallen were as well preserved as other medieval battlefields like Visby. Hell, no one is even certain how the respective battle lines were drawn up for those two battles. What we are largely left with are the biased chronicles of the observers--like Froissart. Yet from those chronicles and other written observations a few objective facts can be ascertained, that most reputable historians agree on.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=P1327~per=41

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=P9662~ser=CAM~per=41

For one, many historians agree that the disastrous defeats of the French at Crecy and Agincourt (and Poitiers for that matter) owed more to the tactical inflexibility of the French--which was dictated by the presence of royalborn princes or kings at each of these battles who overuled the counsel of their military experts--than the percieved technical inferiority of the crossbow over the longbow. Indeed, in many respects the heavy crossbow fielded by the genoese crossbowmen in both those battles was superior to the longbow--range and striking power. The longbow only outperformed in rate of fire. In one battle that technical superiority was compromised in part due to weather conditions--at Crecy a rain squall before the battle drenched both battle lines. The English were able to unstring their bows and keep their strings dry while the genoese crossbowmen could not. The concomitant reduction in string tension on the genoese crossbows from being exposed to the rain gave the English bowyers a decided advantage in the battle. In both battles, French distrust of their foreign, lowborn, mercenary contingents caused them to misuse them. For one, the genoese were forced to deploy without their pavises. For another, in both battles the French actually charged through the genoese to get at the English--plowing down your own heavy infantry is not the hallmark of a well coordinated battleplan or trust.

And as for battleplans, at Agincourt Boucicault, who had a well thought out battleplan, influenced by his expereinces at Nicosia, was overulled by the Princes of the Blood who thought it unmanly. Their own plan--if you can even call it that, played right into the English strengths while negating their own. The "cumbersomeness" of the crossbow did not turn these defeats into routes, charging in echelon repeatedly through your own ranks and into well prepared defences did. In later battles like Patay and Chatillon where there was unified, COMPETENT command the French would be much more succesful. And for some reason the cumbersomeness of the crossbow didn't seem to limit French effectiveness at either of those battles.

As for your statements on Lionheart. That's a nice little description you have of him using a crossbow at the siege of acre when he was sick with dysentary. What about his use of a crossbow at Jaffa? It must have been real hard storming a defended beach from a litter. Its always a pleasure when someone accuses you of Cherry picking and does it himself in the same paragraph. Lionheart was maligned for a lot of things real and imagined, including his homosexuality. Last I saw his infamous use of a crossbow in battle was not ranked with buggery as one of his main vices by his detractors.

What does this have to do with Robert de Chalisse? Absolutely nothing. But it does have a lot to do with responding to this statement, "If you are going to quote their use in a set-piece battle, choose one where their use was not disastrous." Which is kinda the same tone you took in repeatedly poo-pooing this person's approach to arming his character with a crossbow. Maybe the chinese use of crossbows in the 4th century BC doesn't have a lot to do with a medieval knight's use of the crossbow a thousand years later. Fair enough, but we are still talking about 300 years worth of examples spanning a continent to draw from here. I am no expert on this subject, and evidently neither are you. I'm only an interested amateur, but I know there is enough diversity in the historical record to justify burning the exceptional noble character with a crossbow and not mandating that the GM throw in a bunch of social hogwash surrounding its use. Enough there to help a person realize their character concept without shiting all over it.

[Fourth Horseman]

Back to topic. Some inspiration for your crossbow armed nobleman who picked up the skill from hunting:

http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=244737&search=nude&images=&c=&s=

[larkvi]

You were right that my area of specialty is not military history. It is in fact manuscript culture and aspects of agricultural technology and daily life. As I said earlier, I was simply trying to present advice in a general way when it was solicited, and I never suggested that it needed to be accepted, qualifying it with 'might' and 'perhaps.' What I said can hardly be called 'shitting on his idea,' and the point about crossbows was one of about six points I made, none of which should have been particularly contentious.

Had you replied like Luke did, and pointed out some simple relevant facts, then the whole exchange would have been along the lines of "we're looking at different ends of the century range here" and I would have gotten a couple of good references to museum collections and there would be no real reason to disagree, because I was looking at the earlier materials than say, Luke was, and I hardly contest that what he says is correct. A little qualification of the other points could have enhanced the answer with extra detail if you felt that was necessary. Instead, you latched onto small weaknesses in the post in a barely on-topic manner arguing every which way against a strawman, which provoked a reply out of me, which I agree was a mistake; as per the old truisim, I seem to have made the pig mad.

When you study a technical subject, you find that technical answers bore people, so you get in the habit of giving easy, general answers to questions that don't really call for any technical detail. I readily admit that when I went back to the section I remembered about Richard using a crossbow from crusades readings I did back in undergrad, I picked the wrong battle. There are fair points in both of your posts, but were we scripting this in a Duel of Wits, there would be more Obfuscates than Points. Should I post again, I will be sure to add Chicago-style footnotes and endless situational qualification to every claim I make, on the off-hand chance I might run afoul of some rabid fanboy, but I think it is more likely that it is simply not worth posting.

[TimP]

Wow! This is better than an after-keg party drag race at 2 a.m. on a Friday night!

[Fourth Horseman]

Wow! This is better than an after-keg party drag race at 2 a.m. on a Friday night!

A pleasure to be of service. I try hard you know. Actually this whole thread has finally given me an idea for the personalized "title" I've been looking for. I think it suits me, no?

[valvorik]

Hoped to get some discussion going but not all of this!

Can the "historical accuracy" issue be moved to its own thread and discussion refocused in an IBIS (for those familiar) sense not of "Is So" "Is Not" to "support for this position is", "support for this opposing position is" rarther than "this shows you're wrong" etc.?

In terms of the setting, it's a question of feel balanced by game meta logic of balance etc. For example, an "exact year" has not really been picked for the setting but 13th Century is generally the idea ~ which is before full plate armour is historically available.

[luke]

Look, I'm a moderator
Rich, Larkvi: Quit it. You're both obviously very well informed on the subject. Shake hands. We're all friends here.


Personally, I just think crossbows are cool! Especially like the ivory-infused one that Rich linked to. So much more ornate and beautiful than a bow (IMO). That one just screams "magic item!" too. Hell, I threw a "magic" crossbow into one of our games once based on the beautiful ivory carved piece they have at the Met. This powerful Prince carried it into battle. My players coveted it, but they also lived in fear of it!

-L