New unit profile - Graal Knight

[Steppe Merc]

I think what everyone here who disagrees with the unit is trying to get across is that it's not so much the consistency of the unit that's incorrect but rather it's name. The name "Graal Knight" connotates nothing real of late Roman Briton. It would be like if they came out with a new Tom Clancy game and they called the Spec Op's troops "Minutemen".

Nah, my main problem is the equipment and the looks. I didn't even know that Graal meant Grail when I first posted. As for names, it's less of a problem with me than the actual looks. I admit, I find it stupid, but if something is called Sarmatian Horse Archer, and it looks and plays like a Sarmatian Horse Archer, it's all good. Even if it's Chosen Archer, and it looks like a real steppe foot archer, it would be find. However, it is often times the case where the silly names go with the silly units. But my main problem is the silly units.

I doesn't matter if the subtext for the "Graal Knights" states that they were originally Sarmatian cavalry. It doesn't add any validity to the name Graal Knight. Sarmatian cavalry in Briton had nothing to do with Arthurian legends that weren't even invented yet.

I believe there was an Arthur, but it is too much to say that there were units of these types of soldiers running about with him.

No not much at all, but what it does say is important.

At least I find it important.

"and draw upon the military traditions and skills the Romans brought to their home islands, in particular the heavy cavalry skills of the Sarmatian auxiliaries who were once stationed in Britannia."

Thus it is fair to say that this units is suppoed to be related to Sarmatian heavy cavalry. Perhaps not by lineage but by tradition. Is that really that hard to believe in (not directed at you in particular Merc)?
As I already mentioned, it is too heavy, but it's basics are fair enough. Some heavy cavalry forming the backbone of the R'n'B armies.

Yes, I'd agree that a Sarmatian style horse unit would be possible, however it would likely be extremely rare. The Elite of the Elite, probably.

[Sol Invictus]

I take comfort in the fact that within a few days of release, a talented modder will make a quick mod that deals with the most troublesome units. I just have a problem with a few of them.

[KSEG]

You aren't a geek. This is important stuff dude. The whole of human history is at stake. Brothers, let us stand together against the CA. We shall not fear their magic hats as I have eaten all their knees.

We also got the support of the owls, so those CA heretics won't even know what hit them.

[lars573]

Just wait until you get a look at the mounted preist unit that the Vandals have. At least it looks like a mounted preist unit. Or the Sarmation tank top wearing virgin units, horse and foot archers plus lancers.

[Mongoose]

*Digs up old post*

Yeah and makes me sick at how much of a piece of crap they turned RTW into with their travesty of a mod.

What i find amusing is that you haven't even played it* Ignorance is not an opinion

*Please correct me if im wrong.


Back to the subject:How does it hurt the gameplay to have units *Look* realistic? Seems more like "Fantasy>realism" rather then "Gameplay>realism".

[Steppe Merc]

I take comfort in the fact that within a few days of release, a talented modder will make a quick mod that deals with the most troublesome units. I just have a problem with a few of them.

No offense, but you are far over estimating what can be done with the game. Few people know how to skin, and most are already involved with mods.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

AmbrosiusAurelianus, Knight is Norman, derived from the Saxon Cnit. Knight means a warrior wealthy enough to outfit himself with horse, armour and weapons for war.

Knight is a Modern English spelling of an Old English word that was applied to William's warriors by the English, so I reserve the right to say that it is not Norman. It is an English word adopted by the Normans.

In any case the word knight has no place in the fith century.

Well, you are playing with words. The English language was not spoken by the Romano-British, so we might as well say they had no horses then: it would be true because they did not use the word horse. The rose by any other name still smells as sweet, and by your definition of a knight as someone who outfits himself with horse, armour and weapons, these guys qualify as well as anyone. The Roman term "eques" is always translated as knight, for instance, even in the Republican period. Besides knights is even given inverted commas in the second paragraph of the link, so CA are at least aware that the term is not a contemporary one.

Sorry if I sound aggressive. I am not trying to be.

[Brutus]

Knight is a Modern English spelling of an Old English word that was applied to William's warriors by the English, so I reserve the right to say that it is not Norman. It is an English word adopted by the Normans.

"Knight" (indeed a 'Saxon' word)is etymologically akin to the Dutch and German word "Knecht" which literally means "servant", as knights were once the prime servants to their master.

By the way, the Dutch ("ridder") and German ("Ritter") words for knight are literally derived from the word for "rider" or "horseman" like the French "chevalier".

[Steppe Merc]

The problem with knight is that it particullary means a feudal vassal who serves as a heavy horseman. It has sadly been now applied to any sort of heavy horseman often, but it is always best to avoid using unless it truly is a "knight".

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

glad to know that cniht actually does seem to be a germanic word.

I guess the Romano-British would have used a word akin to "gwas" if they felt like referring to their mounted soldiers as servants.

Edit: I should probably add that gwas has the same boy/lad connotations too.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

The problem with knight is that it particullary means a feudal vassal who serves as a heavy horseman. It has sadly been now applied to any sort of heavy horseman often, but it is always best to avoid using unless it truly is a "knight".

Well, we shall have to agree to differ it seems. Academics will continue to refer to the Roman equestrian class as being knights; many mediaeval knights never served as heavy horsemen, because after a point they paid money in lieu of service to avoid having to do so; knight will continue to be used in modern titles such as Knight of the Bath without horses and heavy armour being involved; and of course the Reception children at the school where I teach will still think they are knights just because they ride the hobby horse in the school playground and declare that they are so.

Please excuse my levity at the end of that paragraph. Does anyone else think that the term for the new unit sounds like Grail Knights? Maybe it's to appeal to King Arthur and Monty Python fans, but if they say nee then they have to be modded!

[rebelscum]

Rebelscum, your reply to Kraxis's post was rude (the "your favorite colour must be..." line). Let's keep the exchanges polite.

I'm sure Kraxis took it in jest the way it was meant to be put. You must not know me/read my posts or you would know I am not that sort of person.
Apologies to anyone who found that offensive.
........

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Graal knights is indeed a blatant attempt to make reference to king Arthur's quest for the holy grail.

If it is not then you have permission to slap me and call me Nancy.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

Graal knights is indeed a blatant attempt to make reference to king Arthur's quest for the holy grail.

If it is not then you have permission to slap me and call me Nancy.

Well, you had better be right then! Slapping a Welshman and calling him Nancy - I do not want to see the consequences of that!

[rebelscum]

Knight is a Modern English spelling of an Old English word that was applied to William's warriors by the English ... The Roman term "eques" is always translated as knight, for instance, even in the Republican period.

Please no don't give them feul.... eques equitis : horseman, cavalry man rider (classical).
equitatus : cavalry, horsemen (classical).
derived from equus : horse, steed, mount.
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is the type and size of horse required to carry 'steel' barding armour. Your usual pony sized creature just wont do. Another thing, the stirrup was not used until the early middle ages so there is absolutely no way of staying on that horse. To carry a heavily armoured person in a charge needs a saddle. If the horse stopped abruptly, that guy would go fliying. At least his pointy helmet is aerodynamic.
Also I would assume that the Romans/Sarmatians etc used Friesian horses for heavy cavalry, native to Holland. As far back as Roman times, the Friesian was noted for its value as a powerful utility animal, however the Roman historian Tacitus (AS 55-120) felt compelled to make note of its ugliness! They are always black, and are noted for their thick and luxuriant mane and tail, as well as the feathering on the lower legs. The horse in the model is grey and entirely the wrong shape for any breed of warhorse. Its more like an arabian or racehorse. Maybe its just the stupid innacurate barding thats doing it.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

Please no don't give them feul.... eques equitis : horseman, cavalry man rider (classical).
equitatus : cavalry, horsemen (classical).
derived from equus : horse, steed, mount.

Aw, I know this, rebelscum! I am not trying to give them fuel, just to say that the word knight has been applied to different things that's all.

One thing I don't think has been mentioned is the type and size of horse required to carry 'steel' chainmail armour. Your usual pony sized creature just wont do. Another thing, the stirrup was not used until the early middle ages, doesn't the model have stirrups!

Oh no, not the stirrup argument again! Please do not open that can of worms! People will go on and on about it.

I cannot see the stirrup in the picture, but perhaps I am being blind. As for horses, yeah they were smaller then, but armour like that was used, so they were big enough for it.

[rebelscum]

Aw, I know this, rebelscum! I am not trying to give them fuel, just to say that the word knight has been applied to different things that's all.



Oh no, not the stirrup argument again! Please do not open that can of worms! People will go on and on about it.

I cannot see the stirrup in the picture, but perhaps I am being blind. As for horses, yeah they were smaller then, but armour like that was used, so they were big enough for it.

I changed my post as I looked at the model again for the hundredth time. No stirrups so no heavy barding.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

I had another look at the picture on the link too. Man, they must have got the design of that guy's helmet from Morrowind: he looks like an Ordinator riding a horse!

[ScionTheWorm]

I had another look at the picture on the link too. Man, they must have got the design of that guy's helmet from Morrowind: he looks like an Ordinator riding a horse!

yes exactly what I said

[Casmin]

Nah, my main problem is the equipment and the looks. I didn't even know that Graal meant Grail when I first posted. As for names, it's less of a problem with me than the actual looks.

Sorry didn't mean to assume for everyone.

[Casmin]

You aren't a geek. This is important stuff dude. The whole of human history is at stake. Brothers, let us stand together against the CA. We shall not fear their magic hats as I have eaten all their knees.

Sniff, sniff. Thank you Rebelscum. You've given me my life back. Where's my gf?! I'm gonna let her have it!

[rebelscum]

Also I went as far as measuring the model ( I am the ultimate geek )
The rider is 20mm from waist to head, the horse is 45mm.
I took an average height of 5 ft 4 inches for average human height for the day.
Yep those Romans were small.
Converted to centimetres, and I took 2 5ths of the total height for waist to head, which worked out about 65 cms. I then converted this to a ratio of 1 to 3 20 mm goes into 65mm about 3 times (converting cms to mm). I then appiled this to the horse and converted to hands. It worked out about 13 hands.
Now Archaeologists have deduced that there were several types of horses in use in Northern Britain in Roman times. Excavations on the site of the Roman fort at Newstead, near Melrose, yielded a Shetland type under 11 hands; a larger 12 hand Celtic type, probably the wild pony of northern England; a 12 to 13 hand pony with slender bones; a thickset, long backed lowland animal; an Arab type of about 14 hands, possibly the imported horse type used by Sarmatian troops; and a "coarse" 15 hand animal that was, again, probably imported from the Continent (Edwards), possibly from Frisia where the Romans recruited auxiliary troops, and where there were merchant traders whose ships could carry horses.
So if they were to convince me they would have to make the horse slightly bigger to be the Arab at 14 hands and bigger still for the only possible horse that could carry heavy barding i.e the Friesan.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

Also I went as far as measuring the model ( I am the ultimate geek )
The rider is 20mm from waist to head, the horse is 45mm.
I took an average height of 5 ft 4 inches for average human height for the day.
Yep those Romans were small.
Converted to centimetres, and I took 2 5ths of the total height for waist to head, which worked out about 65 cms. I then converted this to a ratio of 1 to 3 20 mm goes into 65mm about 3 times (converting cms to mm). I then appiled this to the horse and converted to hands. It worked out about 13 hands.
Now Archaeologists have deduced that there were several types of horses in use in Northern Britain in Roman times. Excavations on the site of the Roman fort at Newstead, near Melrose, yielded a Shetland type under 11 hands; a larger 12 hand Celtic type, probably the wild pony of northern England; a 12 to 13 hand pony with slender bones; a thickset, long backed lowland animal; an Arab type of about 14 hands, possibly the imported horse type used by Sarmatian troops; and a "coarse" 15 hand animal that was, again, probably imported from the Continent (Edwards), possibly from Frisia where the Romans recruited auxiliary troops, and where there were merchant traders whose ships could carry horses.
So if they were to convince me they would have to make the horse slightly bigger to be the Arab at 14 hands and bigger still for the only possible horse that could carry heavy barding i.e the Friesan.

I take my horse-riding hat off to you sir! You measured the model in mm and did all those calculations just to prove that the horsie ain't big enough!? This is above and beyond the call of duty.

[rebelscum]

We do not know it. We can reason that it was somewhere around here or there, but the time saw quite a big deal of different equipment. Even within the Sarmatian ranks. In this case buffing them up to the heaviest possible case within reason (meaning what could be accepted) would be the best. People get he Arthur feeling and it isn't exactly against the possibilities.


You know, I was rather hoping for this argument.


Oh you wanted to know why? Well, I remember plainly the good old EB guys ranting their tounges out about the bland names the units in RTW had among the barbarian factions. I agreed with them on that point. I mean Chosen Swordsmen simply isn't anything I find impressive (I could have made that up myself). Now CA has actually made an effort to remove such blandness and guess what, they get the axe again. Yes, it isn't particularly great, but certainly better than Armoured Horsemen.

Perhaps they should ship their games with no names for the units so that people could insert their own preferred names. That should save them a whole lot of trouble, seeing that whatever they do they get with the big complainingstick.

Well "Late Roman Cataphracts" might be a little more flavoursome.
I just can't get the word GRAAL out of my head now. And Knight, well that's been discussed intensively.
So what do we know so far:
The Romans buggered off from Britain about 410 AD and took their army and most of their equipment with them. I'm sure they didn't leave their elitle cavalry behind to rot when the German barbarians were knocking on Romes door.
Whomever was left, Sarmatian or otherwise were probably completely integrated into Romano-British society.
Whatever equipment they may have used probably came from local resources.
No late Roman large iron foundries in the British Isles I'm afraid, only small local enterprises, barding like this would have to be imported.
The horse would have to be native breeds, shetland, or celtic. A little small for a warhose so the horse too would have to be imported. You would then have to pay for all this and keep it up for a hundred years as horse die and armour rusts.
One hundered years later the Saxons came along and kicked the stuffing out of them.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I'm sorry that I'm away from all my books and such but I believe there is some evidence of Roman training/tactical/whatever manuals (or something like that) being in the possession of the Romano-British.

Please don't bite my head off because I can't remember the source.

I also reckon that alot of Anglo-Saxon control came about through politics rather than violence (Rheged and Elmet went peacefully to Northumbria, Anglo-Saxon leaders with Welsh names, warriors fighting for the Gododdin with German names, Bernicia retaining its Welsh name under Anglian control, certain Welsh laws that lasted longer in parts of Northumbria than they did in Wales all point to a far more confused picture than simply Germans-violently-beat-Britons-commit-genocide-and-create-England as the standard story of it goes).

[AntiochusIII]

I don't know the root word of "Graal" but that's the name of the ugly undead Nords in Solstheim (Elder Scrolls III expansion Bloodmoon...) So, we can safely assume that this Ordinator of Morrowind, named after the undead beings of Solstheim, are the knights of...Vivec!!!

Anyway, I'm sure they won't be THAT much of a problem with all the modders around to remove their armour and give them proper weaponry and name.

[econ21]

I am afraid this is another Bull Warrior/Sherwood Forester/Jomsviking type unit. Didn't exist, won't be in the modded game I play.

But I can't get too upset about it - it adds character and flavour to the game for those looking for an "Age of Empires" type experience[1], rather than a strict historical game like RTR or EB. If it boosts CAs sales (and hence allows more TW games), fine.

I'll just be grateful that CA continue to allow modders to substitute something more plausible.

[1]I was about to tell my nine year old about the unit, but first I had to explain about the Romano-British. I mentioned King Arthur and then asked him to guess the unit. He guessed it pretty much right ("Knight of the Roundtable") first time.

[Steppe Merc]

Also I would assume that the Romans/Sarmatians etc used Friesian horses for heavy cavalry, native to Holland. As far back as Roman times, the Friesian was noted for its value as a powerful utility animal, however the Roman historian Tacitus (AS 55-120) felt compelled to make note of its ugliness! They are always black, and are noted for their thick and luxuriant mane and tail, as well as the feathering on the lower legs. The horse in the model is grey and entirely the wrong shape for any breed of warhorse. Its more like an arabian or racehorse. Maybe its just the stupid innacurate barding thats doing it.

Iranians used many different breeds, mainly varities of the steppe pony bred with larger breeds, although some weren't bred with the steppe pony. The Nisean breed was often used, but many others could be. So no, Friesans were not used by the Sarmatians.

an Arab type of about 14 hands, possibly the imported horse type used by Sarmatian troops;

Sarmatians would have used steppe ponies for the lighter stuff, and I don't think they used Arabian breeds for their heavy horse.

So if they were to convince me they would have to make the horse slightly bigger to be the Arab at 14 hands and bigger still for the only possible horse that could carry heavy barding i.e the Friesan.

Other horses could carry barding, like the Nisean, and possibley the Akal-Teke (I think that's right). Steppe nomads had armored horses for a very long time, as did other Easterners. Of course, they also were the best horsemen, and had the four pronged saddle that is missing from this unit.

[lars573]

*Digs up old post*


What i find amusing is that you haven't even played it* Ignorance is not an opinion

*Please correct me if im wrong.


Back to the subject:How does it hurt the gameplay to have units *Look* realistic? Seems more like "Fantasy>realism" rather then "Gameplay>realism".

I read everything I could about RTR. Then when I realized that they intended to butcher RTW, I made a vow never to play ever so long as I shall live.

[Casmin]

I'm sorry that I'm away from all my books and such but I believe there is some evidence of Roman training/tactical/whatever manuals (or something like that) being in the possession of the Romano-British.

Please don't bite my head off because I can't remember the source.

I also reckon that alot of Anglo-Saxon control came about through politics rather than violence (Rheged and Elmet went peacefully to Northumbria, Anglo-Saxon leaders with Welsh names, warriors fighting for the Gododdin with German names, Bernicia retaining its Welsh name under Anglian control, certain Welsh laws that lasted longer in parts of Northumbria than they did in Wales all point to a far more confused picture than simply Germans-violently-beat-Britons-commit-genocide-and-create-England as the standard story of it goes).

Well, you're right and not to split hairs but it was still violent. The Germans in Briton under British control effectively launched a coup known as the Night of Long Knives. The Germans got the local chiefs together under the guise of a meeting and had them all killed ala Braveheart. This is what , afaik, essentially wrestled control of the land from the Britons.