Art De La Guerre

[Black Prince]

In the feudal English army list Richard the Lionheart is rated as a strategist but the Later Crusader list he is not. Does anyone know why?

[lionelrus]

It's enought to upgrade one time a english. So twice....
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[Hazelbark]

No. But oddities like this crop up in ratings.

I presume its along the lines of the 3rd crusade campaign was remarkable for its normal actions by the Christians. Whereas he really gained his military fame in France and England. Or so the argument would go.

[daveallen]

Certainly not in England where he never fought a battle.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Hazelbark]

[daveallen]

[Black Prince]

"He was such a git" - LOL

Out of curiosity why?

[madaxeman]

[daveallen]

[nikgaukroger]

[Hazelbark]

I thought he earned the nick name before heading east?

In any case, there is always a dissonance between a leader heroic who exposed himself to combat versus a strategist who orchestrated clever engagements and maneuvers.

[nikgaukroger]

Indeed, and it is his performance in the east in relation to the latter that I would think justifies Strategist rather than his performances on that score in the west.

Physical bravery and inspiration he managed in both of course

[AlanCutner]

I'm guessing he's not a strategist in both lists simply through human error when they were compiled.

[Black Prince]

Of course this leads to other question in ADLG how effective/competitive is the Later Crusader army? In previous rule system it always lacks what it takes to be a good army is it the same with ADLG?

[Snowhitsky]