View Full Version : Ottoman Sipahi
1dread1lahll
04-09-2003, 07:47
Playing a canpaige as Turks, all im susposed to have to build them is a horse breeders guild; ok got it.. so where are they?
What era are you in? If I remember right, they aren't around until the late era, so you'll have to wait until then to see them, or play v 1.0
A.Saturnus
04-09-2003, 13:32
They aren`t usefull anyway. If you don`t mod them, they aren`t worth the costs. In reallity, the Sipahi were elite armoured horse archers, in the game they are weak but expansive light cavalry.
Wow, wait a minute, it's true that in reality they were better, but you can't say that they are weak ...
The camels tend to beat the hell out of them (if on sand, of course), but they are the best medium cavalry you'll ever find ... I like to use them in order to outmaneuvre the enemy ... They are very good at those things, and tough enough to engage the battle on their own ...
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
04-09-2003, 15:31
In SP, I doubt that regular Sipahi are of any interest... Cost is low, but support cost is very high. It is late only. In MP, very valuable cav unit for low fl / late game (Erik opend my eye on that).
I guess A. Saturnus is talking about the Sipahi of the Porte.
Sipahi of the Porte might be a loophole in the game. I have to test that.
If I remember well, one can dismount Sipahi of the Porte in JANISSARY INFANTRY.
Sipahi of the Porte DOES NOT require the Grand Mosque / military academy.
Sipahi of the Porte have the same support cost as JI.
There is no region requirement for Sipahi of the Porte.
Building a lot of Sipahi of the Porte might be a good way to have a second source of janissary troops. Just dismount them. And JI are damn good, really worth building.
Will confirm after test.
Louis,
I really don't think that you can dismount them in JI; it's not realistic and, above all else, strange ... they loose their bows?
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
04-09-2003, 16:15
That's what I remember... And I don't have crusader file here... Need to be confirmed. Pr fire have you chacked, or it just your feeling?
By the way, Janissary infantry has a bow. The strange thing is unit size jumping from 20 to 60.
Can't wait to go home and test that.
Louis,
No, I don't know for sure ... I said "I think" ... but JI have bows? I think those are Janisary Archers, not Janisary Infantry ...
all best, I'll check it too ...
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
04-09-2003, 16:28
JA have a crossbow, JI a bow. I know that for sure.
No offense meant Pr fire... Was just wondering if somebody looking at crusader right now could confirm / or not.
Louis,
ShadesPanther
04-09-2003, 16:37
*puts on crand voice*
no Jan Archers and Jan Infantry both use the Shortbow ie a normal bow so in MP it is better to have JI as they can fight very well so that when an enemy approaches they shower them with arrows then charge them. JI lack a shield so they will lose an acher duel
*takes off Crand voice* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
04-09-2003, 17:36
Panther...
I got to check that too then... I think JA seems to be using a bow, but the stat used is the stat of a crossbow.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Still I would be interested in being able to build 2 janissary troops at the same time by using dismounted Sipahi of the Porte
Louis,
Oh good more Turk discussion. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I don't agree that Ottoman Sipahi are weak. Low initial cost with a heafty support costs actually has some historical merit. These guys were land owners. But they are a decent medium cavalry like pr Fire already stated. They are very disciplined, and in my experience they tend to have good cohesion in battle. Also you can build them in Edessa for a valour bonus. By the time thier available, it's easy to have built up to a Master Horse breeder so you can start churning these guys out with a valor of 2. Now thats worth something. Are they correctly represented in the game? That can be argued.
It would appear everyone has a slightly different historical view on these guys. Here's a quote from the Civ3 site.....
"During the 15th century and beyond the Ottomans imported expertise in firearms and gunpowder. A form of Turkish heavy cavalry, known as Sipahi, became the predominating military unit utilized by the Ottoman Empire. The earliest variations of these soldiers were well-armored men on well-armored horses, who typically used a mace as their primary weapon. During the 17th century the Sipahi replaced their archaic weaponry with sabers and pistols, establishing them as a fearsome presence on the battlefield. While European infantry were more than a match for the standard Ottoman infantry, the Sipahi were far superior to any medieval knights."
And this from the Encyclopaedia of the Orient..
"Feudal cavalrymen in the Ottoman Empire which represented the most important providers for the Ottoman army until the middle of the 16th century. A sipahi was a person who had been granted with a fief, called timar, ziamet or hass. In this county the sipahi could collect all the income in return for military service. The peasants living in the timar were serfs and attached to the land."
And yet another....
"Feudal Sipahis, mounted feudal warriors who served in return for a small fief (Timariot). They had fair armour; at least a helmet, often mail. They fought mostly with bow and hand weapons; lances were rare until later (Late Ottoman). These would have been supplemented by mercenaries, some of whom were even Byzantine. The Cavalry formed the hard-hitting core of the Early Ottoman army."
Ok, there are:
Ottoman Sipahi. A medium cavalry for the Turks. Not armed with bows. 40 men.
Sipahi of the Porte. A heavy cavalry (Royal) for the Turks. Armed with bows. 20 men. Dismounts into Jannisary Infantry (still 20 men, just like Royal Knights dismounting into 20 Foot Knights).
Jannisary Archers are shown to have crossbow stats at the assembly, but they use bows. Just like the other archers and the Jannisary Infantry.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
04-09-2003, 23:55
Ok, Kraxis thanks for the precision...
Damn 20 JI are not really worth the trouble of going top of the tech ladder and build Sipahi of the Porte... No loophole.
Thanks,
Louis,
Hakonarson
04-10-2003, 01:40
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ April 09 2003,13:44)]Ottoman Sipahi. A medium cavalry for the Turks. Not armed with bows. 40 men.
this is plain wrong - sipahi's were archers, mostly without lances or horse armour.
they were very ordinary as far as cavalry archers went.
Man, you are plain wrong ...
Historicaly, Sipahi were the owners of Timars, and were the feudal ottoman nobility; they were very well armed ...
You probably refer to the Akinci akin means pillage in turkish and thez were a verz mobile force, using bows, swords, short spears and some kind of lasso (sp) called, I think, arkan ...
all best
A.Saturnus
04-10-2003, 12:46
The reason I said Sipahi are weak is that they are no match for AHC. You can have AHC with +2 valour as well when you produce them in Armenia and Sipahi have no advantage over AHC. Though the stats of Sipahi are decent for a medium cav, others get comparable cav for less money.
Ok, in a direct stastic comparison, I would have to agree it appears you get more for you hard earn bucks with the AHC than the Ottoman Sipahi. This could also be argued against the Ghulam Cavalry as well. It's unfortunate as it leaves little use for either Ghulam or Sipahi. Sipahi aren't bad but AHC are clearly better.
I think I'm going to make some changes in my crusader file because it just doesn't seem right. They don't appear to have lances in the game, so I'm considering lower the ottomans charge by one, and adding it to melee. I think after the charge, a sword would be more of an advantage in melee so they should be better at melee than the AHC. Any one have any thoughts on that?
Hakonarson
04-10-2003, 23:35
Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ April 10 2003,03:33)]Man, you are plain wrong ...
Historicaly, Sipahi were the owners of Timars, and were the feudal ottoman nobility; they were very well armed ...
You probably refer to the Akinci akin means pillage in turkish and thez were a verz mobile force, using bows, swords, short spears and some kind of lasso (sp) called, I think, arkan ...
all best
Being feudal and cavalry is no guarantee of quality, and no I'm not thinking of the akinjis.
both Sipahis and Akinjis were horse archers. Akinjis were minimally equipped with little or no armour, bow and sife arms as yuo mention. Sipahis usually had mail armour & a helmet, but lacking lances unless elite (Sipahis of het Porte) or much later than the period of MTW.
So Sipahis weer well equipped compared to Akinjis, but not in the wider historical sense when compared with other medium-heavy troops - they were pretty ordinary for such troops.
As far as cavalry archers go they were average - they were "heavier" than light horse archers by virtue of their armour, but there's no evidece that they were as well trained as Mameluke or Sassanid cavalry archers.
They were not especially ferocious, their charge wasn't feared, their archery doesn't seem to have ben all that notable - their main quality was numbers - often a singel wing of Sipahis would outnumber an entire opposing army
Eg at Varna vs Hungarians in 1444 there were 20,000 Sipahis on each wing of the Turkish army, and about 18,000 Hungarians total. Compared to maybe 1000 Akinjis in that battle.
Despite this disparity of numbers one Turkish wing was broken and the other one nearly so.
Ian Heath has a discussion of the sipahi in his Armies of the Middle Ages, volume 2, and quotes sources that mention a variety of arms, several Western assessments being disparaging. But he concludes, as Hakonarson says, that the bow was clearly their primary weapon.
So for "game" purposes, would they be more sought after if they were say a heavier form of Turcoman horse? That actually don't sound too bad to me. Something like a Mameluke or Byzantine cavalry perhaps?
Hakonarson
04-11-2003, 03:07
I haven't used Turkomans very much, but I'd say the they should probably be something like horse archers with a higher armour level and better morale, and a marginally better attack value.
I just went home for lunch & got my copy of Armies of the Middle Ages too - I'd been paraphrasing it.
As Simon says the westerners who saw Sipahis on campaign were often unimpressed - one comment is that "there is not 1 in 10 that had both bow and sword", while others were "poorly armed, some had lance, while others ahd bow or sword"
May I say that, at Varna, there was an army of 30.000-40.000 hungarians, transilvanians, wallachians, moldavians and other knights from across Europe (indeed, not many, but they began that stupid charge led by the hungarian king); believe me, the numbers are corect, I have no interest in decreasing the bravery of my own people ... Iancu of Hunedoara was romanian, after all ...
As for the Sipahi, the books I read show them as heavy cavalry, even if they were no match for western european knights in open field ...
Read Halil Inalgick, he details the ottoman military organisation ...
Hakonarson
04-12-2003, 05:11
The numbers I have come from a couple of sources - there's a nice veb-site on Eastern European battles 1350-1500 but I only have the URL at work - it gives details of how many banners were in each Hungarian formation (2 wings and centre) and where they were from, and it comes to about 18,500 (I used it as a source for wargaming the battle a few weeks ago).
Ian Heath in "Armies of the Middle Ages", which I do have here, says Christian eye-witnesses say there were 16,000 Hungarians (which includes Germans, Poles, & others) and 4000 Wallachians plus artillery. Some eyewitnesses apparently said there were only 12,000 Hungarians, which looks like the 16,000 figure minus the Wallachians.
So you can be even more proud of your ancestors if you want - although personally I find such feelings a bit foolish.
Europeans were always seen as iresponsible and crazy, infatuated and reckless, but may I say that their culture and way of thinking are the ones you all follow today ...
Anyway, I'll look and try to come with some reliable sources ...
All best
As far as building JI in more than one province, I was able to just destroy my grand moque then rebuild it in another province. This allowed me to have a Military Academy in more than one location, and to therefore build JI in multiple provinces. Maybe this has changed since the patch, I don't know.
Hey, it's a good ideea, anyway http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ShadesPanther
04-20-2003, 13:08
It still exists because the Military academy isnt limited to one. I use it sometimes because really you only build JHI and never the other 2 but JI are good fighters and the JA are probably the best archers in the game (hey look cool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif )
Crandaeolon
04-20-2003, 13:57
Quote[/b] ]*puts on crand voice*
no Jan Archers and Jan Infantry both use the Shortbow ie a normal bow so in MP it is better to have JI as they can fight very well so that when an enemy approaches they shower them with arrows then charge them. JI lack a shield so they will lose an acher duel
*takes off Crand voice* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
But... but they _do_ use the same bows I'm not crazy D'ya hear, _not_ crazy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Using JI in shootouts is not really a clear-cut choice. They get tired when they shoot and they'll probably lose men from enemy fire, meaning they aren't as effective in the following melee fight. IIRC, JI do have small shields but against the cheese-arbalesters those aren't that useful. Arbas really are either too powerful or too available in MP. Too bad archers won't get much of a boost in VI... I think I remember Longjohn saying that he has made some tweaks to the archers' ability to hit moving targets, but stats remain largely the same.
ShadesPanther
04-20-2003, 18:44
Yeah i hate pavs. I only bring them to counter my opponets but usually i only bring a few. Sometimes i Bring none at all and find a nice forest and laugh at them trying to fire at me in the forest http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Michael the Great
04-20-2003, 19:08
Sipahis,hmmm don't these have maces?(AP)
Leet Eriksson
04-20-2003, 21:48
they be mamelukes,sipahis carry swords.
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ April 09 2003,19:40)]
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ April 09 2003,13:44)]Ottoman Sipahi. A medium cavalry for the Turks. Not armed with bows. 40 men.
this is plain wrong - sipahi's were archers, mostly without lances or horse armour.
they were very ordinary as far as cavalry archers went.
Notice how I used:
"There are", not "there were", meaning I referred to the game. I was merely cleaning up a continuing misunderstanding between members. And by the way wasn't this thread until then a thread about the Sipahis in the game?
The way you present the Sipahis in terms of horse archers is indeed the Turcoman Horse. They are better in Armour due to shields and are better in melee due to both shields and sabers, but they are not good in morale. Try them, they are great fun and you can actually send them into a fight.
Michael the Great
04-21-2003, 17:12
Quote[/b] (faisal @ April 20 2003,15:48)]they be mamelukes,sipahis carry swords.
Mamelukes have axes.
Btw,how do u ppl use mameluk cavalry?(not cavalry archers).
ShadesPanther
04-21-2003, 17:14
You use them as anti cav
Two horsemen charge each other. One is armed with a lance & sword, the other mace & sword.
Upon initial impact the mace wielding horseman should be dead, if he survives the charge impact of the lance, and hand 2 hand ensues. The mace wielding horseman may have an edge over the "lancer's" sword.
Possibly but not certainly.
Hakonarson
04-22-2003, 05:52
Kraxis I know you were/are refering to the game, and that's what I'm complaining about - there's just no reason for such a massive mistake.
As for sidearms - well virtually everyone carried whatever they liked. Individual siphis and Mamelukes might carry axes or maces - really they should be represented as the same thing - an armour piercing sidearm as opposed to a sword.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.