Oh Bllx!

[Tone]

What a disappointment.

The age of noble knights rescuing fair monsters from the clutches of ravenning princesses.

Running around banging coconuts together.

Attacking Castles with wooden rabbits.

What are the different troop types going to be? A knight is a knight whether he is wearing black & white robes, red & white robes or a pink tutu. The only real difference is in discipline (and whether they dance around singing under a full moon, shaking hands by rubbing their thumb on the other blokes second knuckle).

Likewise a retainer is a retainer whether he simply helps put the knights armour on or whether he has to remember to bring the ceremonial antlers and remind the knight which secret handshake his order is using this month.

Finally, a peasant rabble is a peasant rabble whether they are there because they've got nothing better to do or because they really believe that crap about smiting the infidel.

What differences are CA going to invent in order to provide different units?

How will seiges work? Historicaly every besieged force surrendered when there was no relief force available. Attackers simply waited around, threw a few rocks about with their Trebuchet and waited for the defenders to surrender. No General was stupid enough to mount a scaling ladder assault, that is the preserve of Hollywood films.

The one area that looks promising is the diplomacy. This is one period where politics and alliances really swung the course of history.

Right let's hear some of you enthusiasts defend CA's choice.

Oh and BTW my alternative wasn't Rome.



[This message has been edited by Tone (edited 08-31-2001).]

[Kurando]

heh, Tone; good to see you again bud + I know you are just joking in most of what you have just said. Seriously though, I was hoping for Romans too, but only so Mariko would come back.

[Bohemond]

Hey Tone!
CTW has potentially much more different units than STW. The reason is that there are many different countries, which all had basic troop types (cavalry,infantry,archers) of variing quality (noblemen, mercenaries, military orders, peasants)
Christian mounted turkopole would be just an example of possible diversity (light cavalry fighting oriental style) whereas a turkish Janissary is another (footsoldier from the christian provinces of the turkish empire). Or ever thought about assassins? Templars? Tafurs?


[This message has been edited by Bohemond (edited 08-31-2001).]

[Anssi Hakkinen]

Welcome back!

[Hosakawa Tito]

Good to hear from you Tone.I like the Crusader's choice because I'm interested in the history of that time period.What would have been your choice if it was up to you?

------------------
Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell so that they look forward to making the trip.

[Tone]

Hello all.

K-Man, Mariko left just after promising me a hug for getting a Shakespeare quote in one of her posts. Perhaps if you drop by her site and tell her she doesn't have to put herself through that, she might come over and say hello to us all.

Thanks for the welcome Anssi.

I'll have to get posting to catch back up with you Defender of the way, it's obviously been busy around here since i've been away.

OK, for you and Bohemond who are pro Crusades.

Most of what I posted was tongue firmly in cheek. There are a few genuine reservations though. The period of the Crusades is of most interest to me for the politics and social change. This was the era in which genuine nationalism and the idea of statehood in a modern sense were born. It marks the end of expansion by migration and the beginning of conquest for exploitation. Something Western and Northern Europe had only experienced at the height of Roman power.

Similarly in the Middle East we see the final end to any chance of a reestablishment of the Arab empire, and a split in power resulting in two distinct hubs of political influence that had a profound effect on modern demographics in the region.

However the one thing this period in Euroupean and Arab history is not noted for is military tactics. Generalship was almost exclusively the preserve of Kings, who can at best be described as tacticaly naive and at worst incompetent.

The lack of standing professional armies led to a distinct split between a small military elite of mercenaries and the wealthy and a large mass with little or no military training and experience. The General who usualy won being the one who didn't need to commit his infantry to any real fighting.

My concern is therefore how CA are going to balance the overpowering superiority of European Knights and Mameluke Cavalry to the other troop types available.

In STW we have a large mass of Samurai infantry who used wisely can survive against WM and HC. But what will happen when that large mass of infantry is even weaker in comparison to the elite units?

[Bohemond]

Very good post, tone. I think I totally agree. I would like to add that surprisingly little is known about strategy during the Crusades, what remains is mostly surmise and conjecture. I think the most popular strategies were shooting arrows from afar or headlong charges into your enemy.
The era is colourful and arouses my imagination greatly, however. I will wait how CA manage to present this period to us. And I also have the feeling that CTW will be not obnly about Crusaders.

[solypsist]

AFAIK, what the christian crusaders did best was die at the swordtips of the Arabs.

[Peter the Hermit]

Sorry I've got to take issue with some of this stuff.

Incompetant generals and generalship the preserve of kings. An incompetant military leader would never survive the endemic warfare of the period. As to them being ignorant - most leaders were at least partially literate - especially the Byzantines and Southern Italian Normans. Its likely that they had read Roman military writers. If not they had advisor who had. These guys just aren't ignorant warlords. It's just a different type of warfare from the age of standing armies and gunpowder. A good book on the subject is 'Latin Siege warfare of the 12th Century' - author forgotton. For a look at a sample nobleman - how about Roger II of Sicily or his nephew Bohemond of Taranto.

Back to the First Crusades. This campaign succeeded despite being run by a commitee of noblemen and clergymen. The crusaders themselves adapt to their circumstances -Strategically and operationally. After near disaster at Dorylaem ... they don't split the main army, organise van and rear guards. Plundering expeditions ... ceasefires with local potentates. They are without doubt an organised army.