Wanna share some research? [Archive]

View Full Version : Wanna share some research?

Uesugi Kenshin

02-09-2005, 04:42

Hi, I am the new team leader at the Citadel: Total War mod and we would like to know if you would like to share some research. We have a few things we would like to know if you can help us out with and if you ever need a bit of research we would be glad to tell you what we know. Here are our questions:

Hospitaller knights: we need info on 16th century Polish-Lithuanian and Russian infantry, names, equipment and pics if you have some.

Russian Gusary - are they relevant for our mod (1402-1600). How did they look like? Did Russians and Poles have Mounted Arquebusiers in the 16th century?

Cossack - a few cav units, and a few infantry units to have available as mercs. I have no info whatsoever on them

Poles - when did the Pancerni unit appear (I'm not sure whether it's within our mod's timeframe, 1400-1600)

Eastside Character

02-09-2005, 10:25

Sharing info is IMHO good, so:

-Gusary: I think they appeared later, second half of the XVIIc. So it seems there is no place for them in your mod.

-Pancerni: They existed in relatively the same form in period around 1550-1700.

-Mounted Arquebusiers: There were cavalry armed with pistols, but they were not arquebusiers by western standards. For example Pancerni would often carry two pistols to battle. They used them, but as a secondary weapon, mostly relying on their melee weapons and also compositve bows.

Hospitaller knights: we need info on 16th century Polish-Lithuanian and Russian infantry, names, equipment and pics if you have some.

Hospitaller knights and Polish-Lithuanian and Russian infantry? Kinda confusing. :dizzy2:

If you want to learn about Polish-Lithuanian military in period around 1450-1795 see this link. (http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/develop/dev01.htm) There's info on infantry types and all other things you asked.

Regards
EC

Yggdrasill

02-09-2005, 11:47

Yeah it is kind of confusing but that's a typo it should read

Hospitaller knights , we also need info on Polish....

So two separate things...Thanx for the link.

As for mounted arquebusiers you are both right and wrong. At first (late 15th, early 16th) mtd arquebusiers actually used arquebuses, before pistols were invented, and were classed as light cav, skirmishers. Later with the arrival of pistols, soldiers that were called mtd arquebusiers actually wore quite a lot of armour and were medium/shock cavalry. The uise of rifles on horseback fell into disuse, and soldiers either dismounted to fight (dragoons) or some elite units would fire rifles on horseback, but only elite and very skilled riders could master it (eg. the Croats).

For our mod, Mtd Arquebusiers are probably going to be mounted rifle armed cav, light cavalry. Demi-lancers, Reiters and Armoured Arquebusiers are our shock cavalry.

cegorach

02-09-2005, 12:09

The new leader you say...

I can help you with this - in return I need more ideas for the French army ( 1480-1700) check the unit thread + possibly more historical heroes for any faction ( except Poland) you think it should have them.

answers ( more detailed):

We need info on 16th century Polish-Lithuanian and Russian infantry, names, equipment and pics if you have some.

--------> Poles and Lithuanians - generally like western infantry - more details later, same with Russians.

Russian Gusary - are they relevant for our mod (1402-1600).

------->> No, appeared around 1630.

Did Russians and Poles have Mounted Arquebusiers in the 16th century?

-------> Poles yes, Russians rather no, except some mercenaries.

Cossack - a few cav units, and a few infantry units to have available as mercs. I have no info whatsoever on them

-------> I have more, but if you need only units which appeared before 1600 there are not many - around 2-4 I believe.

Poles - when did the Pancerni unit appear (I'm not sure whether it's within our mod's timeframe, 1400-1600)

-------> They are from later period.

---------->>> Hospitalliers later.

Regards Cegorach

Ignoramus

02-09-2005, 22:22

I will help you with this.

Uesugi Kenshin

02-10-2005, 04:36

Thanks for the help P&M guys. :bow:

Yggdrasill

02-10-2005, 10:34

French Armies

Cavalry

1. Compaignes d'Ordonnance – each a 100 lances strong, each lance consists of
Gendarme – heavily armored men-at-arms, often complete horse bards
2 mounted Archers (Chevaux-Legers) – less heavily armored men-at-arms, in the mid 16th century they rejected the lance and used firearms
Coustillier – light cavalry, but of very poor quality, barely a combatant

Compaignes existed throughout the 16th century, only declining in efficiency as time passed. In late 16th century (I'm not sure when), they changed their equipment, less armor for the Gendarmes

2. 17th century – see

http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/Others.html#French

Infantry

1. Very poor infantry in 15th and 16th century, best infantry were Swiss and Landsknechts mercs. Most were armed with crossbows at first, later arquebuses. They were really skirmishers rather than infantry of the line. Some native pike, but again poor quality. Best native infantry was from Gascony, equipment probably the same as other infantry forces of the era, mostly crossbows/arquebuses, some staff weapons and pikes.

Franc archers – French equivalent of a mass levy, commoners pressed into service, mostly archers, relevant in the 15th century.
Scott Guard – a mercenary guard of the French king, armoured in plate armour for the limbs, brigandine or plate for torso. Heavy infantry unit.

There was an attempt in the 16th century to create native reliable infantry force, modeled on the Spanish and German infantry, and also on the organization of the Roman legion, basic unit was, IIRC, a 6000 strong legion. Pikes, Arquebuses as weapons. It failed because of lack of funds.

2. In the 17th century reforms succeeded, infantry was organized into regiments of the line, cavalry into line and guard. See this

http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/Others.html#French

I’ll post info on various leaders as I think of them.

Eastside Character

02-10-2005, 12:13

Thanks for the info Yggdrasill! ~:cheers:

Yggdrasill

02-15-2005, 14:03

Eastside Character

02-15-2005, 20:31

I've done a lot of reaserch concerning the Polish faction and I've come up with a huge number of Polish cavalry for the period and I can't make sense of it. What I need is a not too long list of 1400-1600 period cavalry, with possibly Winged Hussars added (even though they are from a later period, they are way too cool to ignore). So this is what I have so far:

1. Knight (basic unit, common for many factions, something to open the campaign with).
2. Szlachta (I've looked in your unit thread and there is another Szlachta unit, the Kresowa Szlachta – what the hell is that, is it relevant for our mod?)
3. Strzelcy – mounted crossbowman unit
4. Towarzysze – a medium/heavy cav, appeared in late 15th century as a mercenary unit, a precursor to husaria.
5. Pocztowi – retainers to number 4, bow armed, light cav
6. Racowie - turn of the century light cavalry, shield and lance armed, also precursor to hussaria
7. Lithuanian boyars
8. Lithuanian retainers
9. Tatar light horse
10. Wallachian light cavalry
11. Hussaria

All right, I'm a bit confused with the Szlachta unit (why do you guys have two types of it). Also, some other names for cavalry that I came across but I can't actually define their role or equipment:

1. Petyhorcy, Czeremisy – apparently some kind of Lithuanian cav, is this true? What was their equipment like? Are they even worth modeling (seeing how I already have 10+ cav units)? Did they use bows or lances?
2. Pancerni – when did they appear, and what is their connection with Cossack cav with which they are sometimes linked? Are they one and the same? Did they use bows?
3. Cossack cav – how many different types were there, I found referneces to both armoured (which is sometimes linked with the Pancerni cav, and sometimes to the Czeremisy), and unarmoured. What equipment did they use?
4. Who the hell are Wolosi and Lisowczycy?

Finally, I need ideas for several Cossack units to be available as mercs, 1400-1600 period. 6 or 7 at the most. Both infantry and cavalry. Pictures would be nice if you have any. :help:

Anyway, I really hope you can shed some light on this issue as I am quite frankly lost. Ahh, those crazy Poles ~;)

Pancerni
The whole things about Pancerni being sometimes reffered to as Cossacks it due to the fact how they originated. First there were no Pancerni as such, as they didn't use so much chainmail and armor. At that time they were light cavalry and since light cavalry were usually called Cossacks (called by the Poles that is), Pancerni were called Cossacks as well (even after they became armored-word 'pancerni' means armored). So that's why Pancerni are sometimes called Cossacks (or Kozacy, Kozaki etc.).

They wore chainmail shirt and eastern type helmed with chainmail linking it with the shirt. They primary hand to hand weapon was a deadly warhammer (there were three different types used), the warhammer was very deadly as it could easily pierce any armor and chainmail.

To walk around with a warhammer was a crime in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since early 1500s, as a warhammer was only meant to be used on the battlefield, other usages were strictly prohibited. Nobleman who attempted to assasinate king Zygmunt III Vasa, tried to kill the king with a warhammer exactly.

But Pancerni were also armed with sabers, bows, later pistols. Bows were used very often before the encounter and also when retreating.

Petryhorcy
They are Lithuanian variation of Pancerni who used lances as their primary weapon. Otherwise they were armored and armed like Pancerni described above.

Both Pancerni and Petryhorcy became important at the end of your mod's timeperiod.

Racowie
They would be quite important for your period and they were what much later became Husaria.

Wolosi and Lisowczycy
Wolosi are just Wallachians, light, bow armed cavalry from Wallachia (since 1396 Turkish vassal state). They didn't use armor, probably also had sabers.

Lisowczycy are very colourful and interesting mercenary cavalry formation, but as I read in my book on the period they first appeared as such around 1605 during Polish-Swedish wars in Livonia and Estonia. So they are not from your period. Lisowczycy fought in many places; in Polish-Russian wars around 1611/1612 their units went all the way to the White See fighting Russians (whom they were supporting before), while in 1619 Lisowczycy defeated, in the proximity of Vienna, Duke of Transilvania Gabor Bethlen who wanted to capture the city. At that time they acted as mercenary for the HRE Emperor who called them. They were light cavalry and could travel very long distances as they didn't use no wagons. Lisowczycy were infamous as when during campaign they killed anyone on their way to prevent the news of them approaching reach their enemies. If you like to know how they looked like, you can check Rembrandt's "Polish Rider" as that's actually Lisowczyk.

Szlachta
Szlachta is just Polish regular nobles. historically there was sth called "Pospolite Ruszenie" which was a kind of a coutry wide call to arms and there were people organised to gather nobles. The nobles would always (the only exeptions being sieges) fight on horsebacks and everyone of them would come to the gathering with all he could. Wars were very often money bringing exnerprises and so there were many nobles who were willing to go. Their equippment and training were very different and it could happen that in some areas there were "Pospolite Ruszenie" composed of good quality troops like Pancerni, while most of nobles, that is 'szlachta' were mostly armed with a saber and probably some pistols, and didn't rather use armor. They mostly appeared in battles in big numbers, sometimes exceeding 100.000, but they didn't fight well and often routed.

Kresowa Szlachta
This unit represents the nobility of the eastern territories who were more hardy and experienced by wars. They are equipped the same way as Szlachta, only that they fight better.

Actually, I personally wouldn't here agree with making that second type of Szlachta as it's simply untrue that eastern nobility made better soldiers. This, however, is a matter of taste.

Cossacks
Cossack cavalry mostly used light lances and sabers and no armor, they also could use bows or pistols.

But Cossacka cavalry was strong mostly for its numbers and the great fighting spirit of the Cossacks themselves, the true power of Cossacks were the infantry: hardy Zaporozhyan pikemen and riflemen, as well as Tabor infantry. Cossack infantry defeated even otherwise undefeated Husaria, and they did that quite a few times. Still, they appear at the end of your mod as well as most of the units you're asking about.

Pocztowi, Towarzyrze, Husaria
The three terms above refer to Husaria.
Huasaria was organised into "choragwie", that is units, and any such unit then brakes down into smalled units - "Poczet"s. Poczet is a unit of 4 ussually, out of which 1 is Towarzysz (means Comrade) is the nobleman who fields his own "Poczet". "Pocztowi" are the three other men in "Poczet", who are also nobles but on their own they wouldn't be able to fight as Husaria and so they act as support of that "Towarzysz" guy. During battle, the formation of Husaria was that the first row was Towarzysze only, then other rows Pocztowi only. Making different units for Pocztowi and Towarzysze makes no sense, as all that differed them was the prestige as who stands where in a battle formation, thats all. That the armors and weapons or other gear of Towarzysze was more elaborately designed was only good show for the ladies, in battle they all (Pocztowi and Towarzysze) fought the same and were capable of pretty the same things.

Regards
EC

Yggdrasill

02-16-2005, 09:41

Greast eastside, thanks a bunch! Any info you need, feel free to ask. I am working on a few leaders right now, mostly Hungarian, and Croatian. I will post it once I have 5-10 of them.

I'm fairly close to finishing the unit selection, just a few more factions. 50% Spanish and Russian units are done and Hungarian light cav to go.

By the way is With Fire and Sword by Sienkiewicz any good? Many people seem to be devoted fans, the book is apparently a legend in Poland, however, having read both Quo Vadis and The Crusaders (never liked those books especially the Crusaders which IMHO falsifies history), I'm a bit suspicious of Sienkiewicz's writing. It's a bit too much 19th century for my taste, too nationalistic (as all historical novels written back then had an agenda of raising the spirits of the people), the Cossacks are apparently portrayed as savages etc. Are the battle descriptions and the landscape portrayed accurately?

Eastside Character

02-16-2005, 12:01

With Fire and Sword is a novel that has two main acpects to it; one is the lovestory plot, the other one is connected with Khmelnystki's uprising and the whole historical turmoil.

While the story is mostly told from the Polish perspective, the general historical facts and descriptions of battles or soldiers are quite accurate. Poles loose battles at Zolte Wody, Korsun and so on and it isn't really enjoyable read for that part (for a Pole that is) when the Polish are getting their ss kicked, but the historicall accuracy is there.

Cossacks are portrayed as savages, but those are times of war, and a very bloody war too and both sides are in fact very cruel. So savage Cossacks have to deal with the fearsome Duke Jeremi Wisniowiecki, who should probably be nicknamed "Impaler" rather than simply "Jarema". On the other hand the Cossacks, and particularly Zaporpzhyan Cossacks were kinda wild and when in wartime they were cruel as anyone at that time.

But for historical facts it makes no sense to read With Fire and Sword, as it simply doesn't deal with much interesting aspects of it, making the historical events background for the main plot which after all remains the lovestory. :dizzy2:

If I were you I wouldn't read it probably.

Regards
EC

cegorach

02-16-2005, 13:05

@Yggdrasill

Unfortunatelly I know the source about the French. I hope you know another one.

Here come the Hospitalliers.

Quote:
"As with the Teutonic Knights, the armies of the Knights of St. John had a relatively small proportion of actual members of the Order, acting as officers, NCOs and spearhead troops. They wore a scarlet supravest—a tabard type garment—over-their armour in battle, marked with a square-ended white cross. Such was its reputation that on one occasion in the 16th Century a Turkish attack was defeated by the simple expedient of dressing up all available civilians in it—the sight of what appeared to be an unexpected reinforcement of knights proving too much for the enemy. The ordinary soldiers appear to have worn just the white cross as a field sign on back and breast.

At Rhodes, the garrison consisted of 500 brethren, 1,000 men-at-arms, 800 Cretan mercenaries and some thousands of local militia (the Cretans had retained their ancient reputation as mercenary archers, but their weapon was now the crossbow; they were under Venetian rule and were usually to be found in Venetian armies - indeed the Venetians had forbidden them to take service with the knights). In addition to heavy guns, the defenders had some light sakers and falcons on wheeled carriages, which could be moved up to cover breaches.

At Malta in 1564, the garrison comprised 541 brethren and servants at arms (later rising to 700); 3,000 Maltese militia (later rising to 5 or 6,000); 1,200 Spanish and Italian mercenaries; and about 1,500 others, including Greek residents, galley slaves used for labor, etc.

The mercenaries were pikemen and arquebusiers, normally equipped for the period, with morions or burgonets, and corselets and tassets for the pikemen. The militia had only helmets and leather jerkins and was probably mainly armed with firearms. They demonstrated a staunchness and loyalty similar to that for which their island was later awarded the George Cross.

The knights may in some cases have worn full armour, but as they were fighting on foot would be more likely to wear half-armour or brigantine. They carried various officer-type weapons, useful in siege warfare, such as halberds, half-pikes, two-handed swords and so on, and to judge by near-contemporary prints many of them bore oval bucklers, red with the white cross. The Grand Master, Jean la Vallete, betrayed his 70 years in his white beard, moustache and curly hair, but played an active role; he was armed with a two-handed sword and was distinguished by a supravest of cloth-of-gold and the shield shown.

Some interesting special siege weapons were also employed by the defenders, including "cercles" of blazing wadding which were dropped over groups of attackers, fire-grenades in earthenware pots with four spouts, each containing a fuse, and "Trumps", a sort of short-range flamethrower on a pole. They were very effective against the Turks, who retaliated with sticky-bombs of incendiary type, hurled by the Janissaries; the knights kept large tubs of water behind the ramparts, into which anyone hit by one could hastily jump!"

I think you will like it.

Do you need something about the Teutonic Order as well ?

Regards Cegorach ~;)

cegorach

02-16-2005, 13:16

I will add something more to the EC's answer.

Racowie
They would be quite important for your period and they were what much later became Husaria.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes called Ussaria. Were quite diverse - the real serbian mercenaries, armoured Racowie much similar to later hungarian hussars, native polish Ussaria more popular after the battle at Kleck in 1506.

Wolosi and Lisowczycy
Wolosi are just Wallachians, light, bow armed cavalry from Wallachia (since 1396 Turkish vassal state). They didn't use armor, probably also had sabers.

>>>>>>>>> Wolosi was the general term used to call polish light cavalry from later XVIIth century. Sometimes they were real Wallachians/Moldavians but often were not.

Regards Cegorach ~;)

Yggdrasill

02-17-2005, 09:21

Eastside,
too bad about the book, I was hoping it might be worth a read. The thing is, I'm getting pretty desperate as far as historical novels are concerned, for most are either very inaccurate or bore me to death (which would probably be the case with the love plot of the With fire and Sword). Do you know of any other book you could recommend perhaps? Something available in English?
Also, I've read somewhere that a film or a series was filmed in Poland based on With Fire and Sword. Just out of curiosity, is it any good?

Cegorach, tell me exactly what you need and I'll see if I can get it for you. The 15th and 16th century French units are as I described them, there's nothing more to add, except maybe some merc units (Swiss, Landesknechts, Flemish pikeman maybe). Just a lot of crossbows, some handguns, some pikeman, a lot of archers, and a few more heavily armed and armoured foot soldiers (Scott guards, other mercenary units without any particular name or region of origin thus difficult to make into a specific unit – try something along the lines of Foot sergeants or Town guard as urban contingents tended to be well equipped). Also the cavalry, the Compaignes d'Ordonnance were the only cavalry available to the French for most of the period other than mercenary Italian light cavalry and Condottieri contingents. In the 16th century there were some changes, but very few, mostly in the equipment (less armor for the Gendarmes, firearms for the Chevaux-legers). The French were really conservative when it came to their cavalry, and were never able to create a reliable native infantry. As for the 17th century, I admit to knowing very little about the infantry forces of the period, that’s why I just posted a link (which is quite detailed). I do however, have a book that discusses cavalry organization in the 17th century French armies at some length (including names and uniforms of some more famous and prestigious regiments including some pictures), so if you need more info on that, I can provide it. By the way, what exactly do you have under the name Enfants Perdus and Argoulets for the French?

Teutonic order would be great thanx!

Where Racowie armoured? I saw several pictures of them from early 16th centrury and they seem not to wear any armour apart from a shield, not even a helmet. Did they use a bow, a lance or both?
Another thing that confuses me is often heard referance to Serbian mercenary cavalry, which were supposedly predecessors of hussars. First of all, Serbia was seriously defeated back in 1389, and by 1450 disappeared as a state. Any merc units would be long gone by 1500, as Serbia would no longer be able to offer merc units to anyone. Also, Serbian armies of the era were mostly feudal, with noble heavy cavalry and infantry levies and mercenaries. Serbia itself is very mountainous, and wouldn't provide that many horseman, but rather infantry.
Also, the role of Hungary here is often overlooked. The word husz means twenty and it was probably that word, denoting one horseman in every 20 households, that gave us hussar. Plus, the Panonian plain is excellent breeding ground for horses and horsewarriors. Definitely more suitable than Serbia.
According to this I have a following unit list for Hungarian light cavalry:

1. Hungarian Hussar - 15th century, bow armed, no armour
2. Szekely horse archer
3. Renaissance hussar - unit that is going to be available to a wide number of factions as a merc, dressed in a renaissance costume, lance armed
4. Banal Hussar - a 16th century hussar from Croatia, maintained by ban (sort of an elected primeminister of Croatia), armoured in mail and helmet, shield, lance armed

I still don't have any info on 16th century Hungarian hussars, how (if at all) they differed from the 15th century version. What are you planning for Hungary?

cegorach

02-18-2005, 11:09

If you want a good ( although not so accurate) book from the Sienkiewicz's trilogy try 'Potop' (the Deluge) it is far more enjoyable to read.
The film and tv series based on 'Ogniem i Mieczem' is fairly good, although I know it is extremely popular in Ukraine ( not bad for so called anti-Ukrainian film) as it is its director.
Still I really love 'Potop' it has everythin you need in a historical, adventure movie with notable battle recreations including a siege and an entire battle ( Prostki 1656).

The Teutonic Order

Quote
"the Order of the Teutonic Knights who, at the beginning of the period, were still highly influential in Northeast Germany and more or less governed their own lands in the Baltic areas of Latvia, Livonia and Estonia.

In the area of Prussia the order seems to have broken up in 1525, when the Grand Master Albrecht von Hohenzollern turned Lutheran, but further east the Order survived until 1562, when its defeated remnants were disbanded after the Russian invasion of Livonia.

Nor were these "Medieval storm-troopers" a negligible military force over these years. Under the Grand Master Walter von Plettenberg, one of the greatest leaders of their order, they took a very active and successful part in the war of 1499-1503, in which the Grand Duke of Muscovy, supported by the Khan of the Crim Tartars, fought the Grand Duke of Lithuania, the Tartar Khan of the Volga, and the Order. In this war, the knights' strength lay in a skilful combination of heavy cavalry charges interspersed with artillery fire; with such tactics Plettenberg won, for instance, the battle of the Seritsa River, where an Order army of 8,000 foot and 4,000 horse defeated 40,000 Muscovites. An earlier Order army has less infantry but may give an idea of the more detailed composition of their forces: 1,000 heavy cavalry (full armour) and 600 light cavalry plus 1,300 infantry militia and 400 infantry mercenaries.

The brethren themselves were a relatively small proportion of the forces of the Order—in general they seem to have acted as officers and NCOs over forces of mercenaries and levies, though they probably formed a higher percentage of the heavy cavalry. All professed brethren had to wear a beard, and were also distinguished by a black-enamelled silver ritterkreuz hanging round their necks (rather like the iron crosses of a much later generation of German officers), and bore a black cross edged in silver on their tunics.

Other men serving under the Order may have worn its surcoat, which was white with a narrow black cross. Leaders, including the Grand Master, would be distinguished by more elaborate equipment—at Tannenberg, 1410, the Grand Master wore gilt armour and a white cloak. Trumpets and drums were used and the usual battle-cry or field-word was Gott Mit Uns.

The final war of the Order was against the Russian invasion of Livonia (1557-62). By this time they could only raise 2,000 cavalry plus some infantry. The latter were armed with arquebusses and pikes, and may have been Lansknechts, though as early as 1454 the Order had been replacing its crossbow-equipped infantry with handgunners.

One of the standards carried in this war was that of the Lithuanian Master of the Order, which showed the Virgin Mary in glory; standards captured by the Poles from the Order at Tannenberg are illustrated, and similar ones were probably also carried in the 16th Century."

Also if you look at edited unit list you will see Knechtsspissen which were peasant militia pikemen of the Order of quite good quality.

For Hungarians.

I have real problems with them as with the French. Partly its translating problem - I need their unit names in Hungarian , but I don't know it and don't know anyone who could help with this.

Presently they have:

1. Rac (for now they share them with the Polish and the Moldavians, the second won't be present in the RTW edition)- they were unarmoured (only shield) with lances and sabres only,

2. Szekely Hussars - I gave them bows, but usually they had some mixed equipment - lances, shields, bows,

3. Hungarian Hussars - for high+ in the MTW and after-Marius reforms in the RTW edition - the represent armoured, lance armed;

4. Haiduks - for all independent and mercenary hungarian footmen armed with muskets;

5. Harami - rather my speculations - cratian infantrymen similar to these Haiduks;

6. other units which they share with other factions:
- Ostea Mica Boyars - Transylvanian/Moldavian nobles present in Hungarian armies, especially after the partition of Hungary i.e. when the only semi-independent or independent part of Hungary was Transylvania,
- Ostea Mica Vitei - Moldavian retainers,
- Uskoki - regional anti-turkish guarillas,
- Ostea Mare Cavalry - Moldavian mounted infantry,
- Wallachian Cav. & Wallachian Horse Archers - lance/bow armed cavalry
- Panduks - ottoman Pandours - but I gave them to the Hungarians as well,
- Wagonburg infantry - was possible in the MTW, but if in RTW, we will see...

I'd like to have more units for our brother folk (to the Poles) , but I can't find any.

Regards Cegorach

Yggdrasill

02-18-2005, 19:16

Thanks for the Teutons Cegorach ~:cheers:

As far as the book is concerned, I actually planned on reading the whole trilogy, including Deluge and that Pan something. I just wanted to start from the beginning. Should I skip With fire and Sword altogether?

Quote

Still I really love 'Potop' it has everythin you need in a historical, adventure movie with notable battle recreations including a siege and an entire battle ( Prostki 1656).

Didn’t know they made a movie based on Potop as well? Or did you mean to write book instead of film?

Hungary

I can help you with this a bit, I actually went through my collection of sources and solved the problem, I now have what I believe to be a very good unit list... However I don’t have unit names in Hungarian. In any case, I think you'll be hard pressed to find names for them since the situation in 16th century Hungary was very caotic, no uniform units like in the rather more streamlined 17th century order of battle. Even calling cavalry Hussar is a bit too early then.

Just one suggestion for now, uskoks are far more important than just regional guerilla fighters. They were essentially just that, but their effectiveness meant that they were employed througout Croatia as mercs, they were much more important than Haiduks (which were either rebels in Turkish teritorries or just bandits, not that effective). Uskoks were very good, and caused a lot of friction between Habsburgs and the Venetian Republic, including a war in early 17th century, and had to forcibly removed from their strongholds in Dalmatia after they became too much too handle. Haramies are not just your speculation, they were real, existed throughout the 16th century, no armour, arquebus, sabre or handzar or an axe, very good guerilla fighters, not infantry of the line (loose order like for skirmishers).

cegorach

02-23-2005, 13:21

[QUOTE=Yggdrasill]Thanks for the Teutons Cegorach ~:cheers:

As far as the book is concerned, I actually planned on reading the whole trilogy, including Deluge and that Pan something. I just wanted to start from the beginning. Should I skip With fire and Sword altogether?

>>>>>>>>>>>>It is not necessary to read this book.

Quote

Still I really love 'Potop' it has everythin you need in a historical, adventure movie with notable battle recreations including a siege and an entire battle ( Prostki 1656).

Didn’t know they made a movie based on Potop as well? Or did you mean to write book instead of film?

>>>>>>>>>>>> There are films for each book from the trilogy and 'Potop' is the best one.

Thanks for Hungary ~:cheers:

Yggdrasill

03-31-2005, 19:13

Hi it's me again, and this time I need some help with the Golden horde.
So far I've got 3 units (one light horse archer, very little armour, one medium horse archer with armour, and a heavy cataphract type cavalry). Anything else that should be included?

Also, I have no info on Tatar infantry (I guess they must have had some).
Did the Tatars adopt firearms before 1600? I am not sure they did, bows were their weapon of choice...

Is it true that MTW version of the Pike and MUsket is out? Is it stable (no bugs and crashes)?

Eastside Character

03-31-2005, 20:38

Welcome Yggdrasil,

Hi it's me again, and this time I need some help with the Golden horde.
So far I've got 3 units (one light horse archer, very little armour, one medium horse archer with armour, and a heavy cataphract type cavalry). Anything else that should be included?

I was responsible for preparing info about Tatar units, so I think I can help you here a little.

Generally, for your timeframe it isn't a good idea to include cataphract type cavalry, as they were not used by that time. Golden Horde, and later Tatar army's organisation was based on tribal structure of their society. Begs (or later because of the Turkish influences: Beis) were the tribal aristocracy and formed the heaviest units. Armored in chainmail shirts and helmets, armed with bows and sabers. But the majority or GH/Tatar army was fast light bow armed cavalry. Some of them were also armed with "arkan"s, kinds of lasso thing used to capture slaves (Crimean economy was based on slave labor). Crimean forces were organised into hordes (ordas) and smaller units called "chapul"s (or czambul, or chambul). Some of the Beis (Begs) were chosen to be "Ser Asker"s (commander-in-chief).

Also, I have no info on Tatar infantry (I guess they must have had some).

They didn't use infantry. The only infantry unit featured in P&M for Tatars are Keffe Bekci, which aren't actually even Tatar, but more Turkish (garrison of Keffe was rifle infantry). Tatars (or earlier GH) relied on the flexibility and speed of their cavalry (I don't mean the speed on the battlefield itself, but rather how fast such army could travel). All of Tatar raids were aimed at capturing slaves, and so they were very much feared. Their strikes were swift and fast. Tatars were very troublesome for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not because they were some exeptionally good warriors (as the Commonwealth had better, and more units anyway), but because of the tactics Tatars used and how fast their armies acted. Many times it was that Poles-Lithuanians were too late with their army, and the Tatars were already gone with the prisoners (on occasions they captured huge numbers of people, like 100,000!).

Did the Tatars adopt firearms before 1600? I am not sure they did, bows were their weapon of choice...
Bow was their weapon of choice, and that's it.

Is it true that MTW version of the Pike and MUsket is out? Is it stable (no bugs and crashes)?
It is true, and as far as I'm concerned, I haven't had any problems/crashes/bugs. But its not "bugged out" completely yet. It will be tho.

Hope I shed some light on Tatars/GH. If you need any names I can translate you them into Tatar language.

Regards
EC

Yggdrasill

04-01-2005, 08:36

Eastide thanx for a prompt response! ~:cheers:

In a way I'm glad there aren't too many units for the GH, but on the other hand, they are a faction, and having a faction with maybe 3 cavalry units plus guard and an infantry or two is a waste of a slot. Oh well...

This is a question for Sword Master... As I said, I made my Spanish unit list, and here it is ready for you inspection, translation and (hopefully) approval!

Units marked with * need authentic spanish names (translation) or a correction of my own translation and spelling

Spain

1. Knights (15th century heavy cavalry, also early guard unit) *
2. Jinetes *
3. Celades *
4. Mtd arquebusier
5. Caballo Ligero *
6. Hombre de armas - early with horse bard *
7. Hombre de Armas - late without horse bard *
8. Archeros (late guard unit) *
9. Herreruelos *
10. Herguletiers (mtd arq unit) *
11. Mtd crossbowmen
12. Mounted sergeant

1. Lanceros – Spanish late 15th century pikeman *
2. Ballesteros – arbalesters *
3. Crossbowmen *
4. Rodelos – sword and buckler *
5. Aragonese infantry – early sword and buckler unit *
6. Gentlemen adventurer *
7. Musketeers *
8. Hand gunners *
9. Hermanadad city militia: Hermanadad Lanceros *
10. Hermanadad Ballesteros *
11. Hermanadad arbuceros *
12. Guardia Real *
13. Foot sergeants
14. Spanish Arquebusiers *
15. Armoured arquebusiers *
16. Armoured pikemen (Corselets) *
17. Picas Secas *
18. Pikemen (Piqueros) *
19. Archers as merc only
20. Infanzon

I just have one question - why did the Picas Seqas use only 3 m long pikes (kind of defeats the purpose of having one in the first place) and what armour did they use?

Cheers
Ygg

SwordsMaster

04-01-2005, 11:46

I just have one question - why did the Picas Seqas use only 3 m long pikes (kind of defeats the purpose of having one in the first place) and what armour did they use?

They were much more maniobrable and flexible. They used them for more "close cuarters" fighting. They still had more reach than a man with a rapier and could hold off reasonably a cavalry attack. They shouldnt be in the roster until 1530s anyway as it was a somewhat "advanced" tactic.

Usually these guys had pretty much the same armour as arquebusiers, and sometimes, depending on the circumstances, arquebusiers were used as picas secas if the circumstances were suitable.

Your list:
1 Knights - Call them Guardia Real, and make them dismountable.
2 Jinetes
3 Celadas
4 Arcabucero a caballo
5 Caballo ligero: I´m not quite sure if this was a portuguese unit and not spanish, but If you´ve done your research I might be wrong...
6 Hombres de Armas - I´m not qute sure about this one either. Literally means "men with weapons" or Men at Arms. This was more of a social group rather than a military unit. Every soldier was a man at arms. If you do decide to implement this unit, however, they should most definitely be heavy medieval infantry with sword, shield and a mix of plate and mail armour (italian lanze spezzate).

Alternatively, every knight was called hombre de armas.

7 Archeros
8 Herreruelos
10 This is a french unit, you have a mtd arquebusier unit already, so why would the king want another one?

11 Ballesteros a caballo
12 You dont need this unit. Its function is covered by the Jinetes and Celadas, as medium-light cavalry.

1 piqueros - All pikemen are piqueros. Lanceros, in Spain was cavalry armed with lances. You might want to use the name for the early knight unit (assuming they are armed with lances)

2 Ballesteros are crossbownmen, but the same word was used for arbalesters. There were very few arbalesters eer in Spain though, because the Pope forbid the use of the arbalest as it was armour piercing, and the spanish followed the prohibition.

4 Rodeleros - sword, bucler, morrion and breastplate.
5 You have one, why have another identical one?

6 what?? Can you really field a battlefield unit of these?
7 Mosqueteros
8 Arcabuceros for all pre-musketeer gunpowder units
9 I dont think this unit is worth producing. See, one particular town´s city militia are just that, and are not a large-scale regimental unit.
You could use a generic type city militia - Alguaciles - armed with 2 pistols, sword and dagger, and with helm and leather breastplate.

12 Guardia Real are Archeros, remember?
13 This is what you want the infanzon unit for.
14 Arcabuceros
15 Armoured arquebusiers? They were never really armoured, they had a breastplate in the early period and then swapped for a leather one, but that was it, don´t know if its worth a slot.
16 Corseletes
17 Picas secas
18 Piqueros
19 Infanzones

Hope this helps.

Yggdrasill

04-01-2005, 15:00

First of all thanks for replying you P&M guys rock! :bow:

Now, concerning Knights – they are not guard units per se, they are normal, recruitable units. The early guard is based on that unit in the sense that a generals model is attached to that unit to form a separate general’s bodyguard (unlike Archeros which I plan on making as only a guard unit, ie not recruitable in a normal way). They are only guard units for the period 1400-1500, before the formation of distinct Guardia Real unit. In those days, according to some books I have, royalty were protected by ad hoc units of retainers. This is what this unit is for. So I’m not going to name them Guardia Real because they are not that. And dismounting – I’d love to, but talk to the good people at CA for that. It’s seems they didn’t think it necessary to include this great option from MTW in RTW... so that, I’m afraid, won’t be possible.

Caballo Ligero – Portuguese? That’s a new bit of info for me! Is the Caballo Ligero Portugese word? have to confess I have only sketchy info on this particular unit. My reasoning goes like this... First of all, I found a picture online showing a Caballo Ligero soldier alongside an Old guard of Castille soldier. Also, I found references to Lancers, a lighter variation of heavy men-at-arms (hombre de armas here), as a distinct formation in battle that existed alongside them well into the 17th century. Finally, every organized company of heavy cavalry in late 15th , early 16th century Western Europe included a heavy men-at-arms as a point man, often riding barded horses, and at least one, sometimes up to three less armoured riders as support, the only difference being slightly lighter armour (no horse bard, sometimes only three quarters armour) of lower quality. For example, the French and Burgundian Companies of Ordinance, or the German Gleve etc. The basic lance division. So this is where this unit comes from. I think, if the name Caballo Ligero really is in Portuguese, I can simply rename them Lanceros as you suggested for heavy cavalry (after all, that name was used in a rather good article on Spanish armies of the period).

Hombre de armas – I’d love to name them in a different way, if I only knew what. Men-at-arms is an accepted word denoting heavily armoured rider, not necessarily of noble birth. At least in English. Other ideas for the unit would be Lanceros (which opens the problem of a different name for Caballo Ligero), Bandes d‘Ordonance (two such formations existed in Spanish armies, one for Burgundy, one for Flanders) – but only because Burgundy became a territory of the Spanish crown, also Flanders and they adopted the existing military formation. This may not happen in the game. Also, there was the Old Guard of Castille with 1500 heavy cavalry. So that is one way to go... But unless Hombre de Armas sounds stupid in Spanish, I’m sticking with it. Alternatively, the Old Guard of Castille is the way to go, or a variation of it.

Generic Mounted arquebusiers unit is mercenary only – I forgot to mention that. Normal, recruitable unit of mounted firearms is the Herguletiers. That does sound very similar to Argoulets, you are right, so I’ll change it to Escopetero, how’s that? In fact, it was a coin toss which one of the two names to use, I chose herguletiers for no reason in particular, easily fixed...
The same goes for Mounted crossbowmen.

Mounted sergeants are out.

Infantry

Lanceros are out, no problems. I would like to keep the arbalesters. Other factions have them, so why not Spain. After all, the rules of war were never really obeyed to the letter, even today (Iraq anybody?), let alone in those days; the Pope could have easily been an enemy. :duel: Especially when fighting Muslims.

Aragonese infantry – well, they are available in early 15th century before rodeleros. This shows in their equipment (both in graphic appearance of the unit and in the stats figures it gets). Sort of predecessors of true rodeleros of the Italian wars. Plus, since there is no Aragon as a faction ( ~;) don’t start, I know they were independent at the time, but due to limited number of faction slots, and the fact that 16th century would look like cr@p without unified Spain, with either Castille or Aragon, we decided to have a unified Spain from the start), this is a compensation. Plus we already have a really great model for it, just needs some polish!

Gentlemen adventurers – well there were almost 400 present out of 18000 in the Great Armada invasion army... I don’t know, I like the idea of a really elite, heavily armoured (corselet, morion, arm protection, shield) shock troops. Maybe a bit of a strech... The jury’s still out on this one. Maybe instead of this unit we could include Encamisados, but we need pistol infantry animation for that... which we don’t have, and as I recall, they didn’t use that much armour, just leather jerkins right?

Guardia Real – Archeros were mounted guard, Guardia Real infantry guard. Apparently, Guardia real wer mounted sometimes, but you told me if I had to chose to go with the Archeros as the mounteed guard unit. So the Guardia Real is kind of unnecessary, but I regret tossing them away, so I think we just may keep them. Maybe i don't know.

Foot sergeants – good point.

Hermanadad – Alguaciles unit presents the same problem as does the Encamisdos – no pistol animation. As for Hermanadad, according to Osprey book, they were extremely important in the struggle with the Moors, later after the fall of Granada declining and finally disappearing. And remember, Citadel starts in 1402, not 1485-ish as does P&M. So we need them. Alguaciles, when did they appear? If they used pistols they must be a late 16th century creation.

Arqubusiers – well that’s the point, arquebusiers are the ones with no armour, just leather jerkins the later kind, and the armoured kind are those with a morion and a breastplate and I guess a backplate as well. SO nothing really heavy.

Finally the Corseletes – what was the extent of their armour? Obviously they would have a helmet (morion), back and breastplate, and possibly arm protection? What about tassets or some other kind of thigh protection?

QUOTE
'The main force for home defense and the support of the Civil Power was the militia of the fortified cities, the Hermanadad (Brotherhood), which included both cavalry and infantry. It was reorganized into battalions of ten 50 man companies each, those of Andalusia (1490) having seven percent with firearms, 33 percent crossbowmen, 42 percent spearmen or pikemen, and the rest pioneers and craftsmen. A sort of uniform was worn, consisting of a white woolen over-tunic with a hood, sleeves tight at the top but flaring out widely from the elbow, and a red cross back and front. Trousers (probably tight hose) were also red; boots or sandals were worn. Helmets were commonly of sallet type, much favored in Spain (and, indeed, generally) at this time. Provincial militia served throughout the period, mainly against rebellions—in 1567 they were one-third crossbowmen, two-thirds arquebusiers, while the cavalry had lances.'
This is after the fall of Granada, they declined to antirebellion unit, but before they fought the Moors on a regular basis.

New list

1. Knights -
2. Jinetes
3. Celadas
4. Mtd arquebusier * - merc only so no need to translate
5. Caballo Ligero – Lanceros
6. Hombre de armas early ? new name
7. Hombre de Armas late ? new name
8. Archeros
9. Herreruelos
10. Escopetero (before Herguletiers) - mtd arq unit
11. Mtd crossbowmen * - merc only

1. Ballesteros – arbalesters
2. Ballesteros ? - Crossbowmen
3. Rodeleros – sword and buckler
4. Aragonese infantry – early sword and buckler unit - translation necessary
5. Gentlemen adventurer ???
6. Mosqueteros
7. Hand gunners - no translation necessary
8. Hermanadad city militia: Hermanadad Lanceros
9. Hermanadad Ballesteros
10. Hermanadad arcabuceros
11. Guardia Real ???
12. Arcabuceros
13. Armoured arcabuceros - what name to give to this unit?
14. Corseletes
15. Picas Secas
16. Piqueros
17. Archers * as merc only
18. Infanzones

SwordsMaster

04-01-2005, 15:55

Ok, then make the knights to Hombres de Armas, It makes sense as a recruitable heavy cavalry unit that will become Lanceros later (lighter armour, etc..)

Portuguese name is Cavallo Legeiro, if my rusty portuguese is correct, But Ligero means light in spanish, and if you found the picture I think you´ve found, that guys anything but light cavalry.

Escopetero sounds fine to me or you could use the arcabucero a caballo as i told you before.

If you want to keep arbalesters, the my advice is to remove the crossbowmen and call the arbalesters ballesteros.

The Aragonese infantry. You can use your model for the Rodeleros straight away, as Rodeleros were just an evolution of the Aragonese infantry, used to fight against the italians. They were used as an assault troop in sea combat, on galleys and the like. Anyway, if you still want to use them the translation is "Infanteria de Aragon" or "Infanteria aragonesa".

Gentlemen advanturers. The most similar thing of which I have accounts are high noblemen that went out seeking some fame before returning to the Royal Court and doing nothing the rest of their lives.

They didnt have a military rank, and were called "favorecidos", they were usually wel accepted in the Hedquarters as it was desirable for any general to be nice to the nobility. I cant remember any heroic actions in which they were present, except 1626 in Breda where I have accounts that a "favorecido" was killed duelling a Dutch officer.

Even if they wanted to fight, they would do so as heavy cavalry, probably with their grandad´s heavy plate armour and full equipment.

Arquebusiers: yeah, they did drop the armour, but they were still called arquebusiers as they just evolved and weren´t a different unit.

Corseletes: breast and back plates, morrion, thigh protection, chainmail arm protection.

Alguaciles appeared with the cities. They were the town guard of the spanish cities, a militarized police of sorts. They were pretty decent h2h fighters but lacked the organization and drilling of coordinated grand-scale military actions. If you cant outfit them with a pistol, they can use an arquebus, specially in siege and war situations.

Hermandad: I´ll come back to this later.

Ok, hope that clears it out a litle.

Yggdrasill

04-02-2005, 16:48

I can't make Knights into Hombre de Armas as that name is reserved for later period (from circa 1495 when the reorganization of heavy cavalry took place, resulting in the formation of the Guard of Castille and later on the Burgundian and Flemish lances). What I need is a direct translation of Knights into Spanish - this will reflect that this unit is not yet the evolved professional company of heavy cavalry but rather the semi-feudal, or completely feudal, collection of knights tied not by the later period's military professionalism and idea about a unified kingdom they serve, but rather by a system of vassalage.

About Gentlemen Adventureres - i didn't know they were that 'effective' ~;) . In this case, you are right, there is no place for them in the mod. So goodbye you arrogant aristocrats :duel:

Have you ever heard of a Hidalgo heavy cavalry? A Spanish guy told me they existed, but I have yet to confirm this in any of my sources.

Finally a little clarification (and this is the last bit of trivia about Spain I shall need I promisee :embarassed: ) - corseletes, is that mail arm protection or plate arm protection?

Cheers from
a very grateful renaisance enthusiast!

SwordsMaster

04-02-2005, 17:04

What I need is a direct translation of Knights into Spanish

Caballeros. The thing is, this word also means getleman.

Hidalgo heavy cavalry?

Hidalgos were lesser nobility, usually landless or with very little land. They were the lowest of the nobility classes. Many of them served in the army, and most moved to the cities selling their lands as they were not enough to live properly.

Technically, every soldier called himself hidalgo, as he carried a sword and served the king, both privileges of nobility.

Hidalgo heavy cavalry was any cavalry force composed by soldiers, i.e any cavalry force. So no, it is not a unit you could implement.

corseletes, is that mail arm protection or plate arm protection?

Mail arm protection.