Historical Battles

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I've always had some problem with certain historical battles in MTW. Some of them just don't feel right.

Take Bannockburn for instance.

The battle as CA depict it, is formed of 250 Highland Clansmen (80+70+70), 200 Spearmen (100*2), 100 Peasents and 35 Chivalric Knights on the Scotish side. Total = 585 men.

On the English side the army is composed of 738 Feudal Knights, 150 Feudal MAA, 200 Crossbows, 150 Peasents and 60 Spearmen. Total = 1298 men.

A ratio of 1:2.2 in number of men.

My concern with this is the following:

-According to different sources, the Scotish army at Bannockburn numbered between 6000 and 15000 men. The English army outnumbered it by a ratio from 3:1 to 5:1. Meaning that the English numbered from 18000 to 75000 men.
-The Scotish Schiltrons were composed of something more like Pikemen than Spearmen (sources say from 12 foot = 4 meters to 15 foot = 5 meters spears).
-Where are the Welsh and English Longbows? They were in the real battle.
-Where are the numberless English MAA? They were much more percent-wise than those represented in the game.
-Where were the English Billmen? They too were in the real battle.


According to several sources, the Historical Battle of Bannockburn was comprised of the following:

-Scotish side: 8 Schiltrons divided in 4 groups, totaling 5000 men, 500 light cavalrymen plus Highland Clansmen, Ettrick Archers and peasents, totaling 9500 men.

-English side: Edward II's 400 Bodyguard Knights (the flower of English chivalry), plus about 2000 to 4000 Knights and other cavalry, from 10000 to 30000 infantry (Bilmen, MAA, Spearmen) and an unknown number of Welsh and English Longbows (probably 2000).

So, I'm going to make this battle with about 10% of the forces involved in real life. I'll make do with maybe 1200 Scots (4 Schiltrons) and about 4000 English. It will be a little slow in older PCs but worth the trouble... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

You can find more info about the Battle of Bannockburn and Robert the Bruce in here:

The Bruce Bannockburn and Beyond (http://members.aol.com/skyelander/bruce1.html)

Bannockburn (http://home.gci.net/~airloom/bannockburn.htm)

Battle of Bannockburn - 20th June 1314 (http://www.livgenmi.com/gardiner68.htm)

Battle of Bannock Burn (http://www.ttforumfriends.com/battlefields_bannockburn.htm)

Battle of Bannockburn (http://www.caledonia-net.co.uk/Documents/B/bannockburn.htm)

ROBERT THE BRUCE AND THE BATTLE OF BANNOCKBURN (http://www.historic-battles.com/Articles/BANNOCKBURN.htm)

With the great colaboration of TheSilverKnight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif , which will make battle maps based on faithfull descriptions, we intend to make some Historical Battles as close as possible as they were in their own time. Specially significant battles, not depicted in the original game and not covered by the guys at the ORG, will take priority and a recieve a historically correct map. Existing ones will be improved unit-wise.

With all of this, we would like to ask everyone interested, to describe us what they think, or what battles you believe are important to depict.

So, please, feel free to describe the battle that you think it's important, with the following:

-A brief description of the events that led to the battle.
-The most correct tactical and unit description that you can get based on real, non speculative information.
-A brief detail of the battle as it unfolded.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Not one reply? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

I didn't thought it to be that bad of a subject... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[Monk]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 31 2004,23:08)]Not one reply? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

I didn't thought it to be that bad of a subject... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
I'm not really in the battles area, i'm more of the story telling area http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif . But i like your idea of depicting historical battles. give it a day or two, i'm sure somebody will come forth with one they would like to see, and if not then i will http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

But good luck to you both Prince Aymar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Thank you, your Holiness http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

Much obliged... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Gregoshi]

This is actually a great idea Aymar. I've not a battle to contribute, but I'm sure there are several people out there who'd love to play their favourites in the game.

I do have a suggestion for these battles you will make. One of my pet peeves about the historical battles is how quickly most of them play out. Nearly all of them start with both armies almost on top of each other and it becomes more of a reflex issue than thinking. It also doesn't feel natural and makes the battles play out too fast. I like the ones where there is some room to maneuver before the battle is joined. Give me the battlefield and the army and let me do it my way. I don't know how much control you have over this when creating the battles, but it would be nice to some more flexibility in deployment.

Your biggest challenge is going to be one of balance, especially if you want to maintain a very accurate order of battle (numbers and troop types). That may be why CA's battles are not as accurate as they could be. But good luck with this effort. I'll certainly check them out as you finish them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[PrinceBrobex]

Great idea and good luck I find the historical battles pretty lacking.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]This is actually a great idea Aymar.
Thank you very much, Lord Gregoshi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif




Quote[/b] ]I do have a suggestion for these battles you will make. One of my pet peeves about the historical battles is how quickly most of them play out. Nearly all of them start with both armies almost on top of each other and it becomes more of a reflex issue than thinking. It also doesn't feel natural and makes the battles play out too fast. I like the ones where there is some room to maneuver before the battle is joined. Give me the battlefield and the army and let me do it my way. I don't know how much control you have over this when creating the battles, but it would be nice to some more flexibility in deployment.
Not to worry. Unit placement is a non-existent problem.

Except when the real historical battle was an ambush, in which we will be faithfull to the real events, all others will have preparation time. Bannockburn is one of those that will be changed. After all, Robert was waiting for Edward II, not the other way around.





Quote[/b] ]Your biggest challenge is going to be one of balance, especially if you want to maintain a very accurate order of battle (numbers and troop types). That may be why CA's battles are not as accurate as they could be. But good luck with this effort. I'll certainly check them out as you finish them.
Preciselly. I might had:

-ALL battles will be playable on both sides.
-We will try to be faithfull to the difficulty level of the real battle. Of course, it will be winnable by both sides, but not equally difficult.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Great idea and good luck I find the historical battles pretty lacking.
Thank you, PrinceBrobex http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

Much apreciated... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Gregoshi]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif Excellent Aymar

[Quessa]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Gah, nice idea. When I was reading that post which concerned a little the armies balance I just had to laugh a bit. I still remember times when I first got my hands into the M:TW Demo and was playing that final test against those countless Muslim armies (during those times, it seemed so). I had so much great time when I tried to struggle thru that battle. Nothing I tried seemed to work and everything looked like to be in vain.
Then I accidentally sent my armies to flank them (oldest trick that one can imagine, but I was so excited for playing this new Total War that I had forgotten it). Imagine that joy in my eyes when my knights charged in the back of the Muslim camels and my infantry wall charged onwards from it's defensive positions (phew, those guys had to make their way through wave-deep body carpet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) and literally broke the lines of the Muslims.
That joy, that joy..

/http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

But really, I find this idea of yours as quite interesting (while I tend to prefer Custom Battle or Default campaign instead of historical battles) and look forward to playing them (those Scottish battles begin to taste like wood after a year or two).

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ] When I was reading that post which concerned a little the armies balance I just had to laugh a bit.
Sure, I understand that. But, if we really want to aproximate the battles to the historical corresponding one, we have to try to make it like it was.

In the Bannockburn example, we can see that Edward II's blunders, can be compared to an Easy game played with the Scots.

In this particular battle, it will be easier to win if we're playing the English. But it will not be impossible for the Scots in ANY difficulty level.

Although I hope to make some of you guys, to SWEET A LOT trying to win in Expert, with the Scots... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink3.gif




Quote[/b] ]But really, I find this idea of yours as quite interesting and look forward to playing them (those Scottish battles begin to taste like wood after a year or two).
Yeah, I know the feeling... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

Let's hope we can make something really challenging http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[kiwitt]

Regarding Unit placement.

For a historical recreation, having them 2-3 minutes from engagement would be good. This would allow for a good simulation of the real battle.

However, as Gregoshi says, the opportunity of using a different placement will change the outcome of the battle and the impact of a different General.

Will you be re-creating the Battle or giving the opportunity to re-write history.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Regarding Unit placement.

For a historical recreation, having them 2-3 minutes from engagement would be good. This would allow for a good simulation of the real battle.

However, as Gregoshi says, the opportunity of using a different placement will change the outcome of the battle and the impact of a different General.

Will you be re-creating the Battle or giving the opportunity to re-write history.
Let's us say that we will recreate the battle as close as possible to the original. The assumed deployment will be also as close as possible the historical ones. However, depending on the specific conditions of each particular historical battle, there will be or not time for re-deployment.

Obviously, on those battles where there is time for redeployment, with the same starting situation, a good general can make the difference and alter the expected result, rewriting history.

Then again, nobody expected in 1314 that the Scotish could, in such inferior conditions, crush the English.

But that is for you to decide, when you play both sides of the battles... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Ludens]

You are very ambitious, prince Aymar, in trying to create historical accuracy and playability. But I sincerely hope you will succeed. I wish you luck.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]You are very ambitious, prince Aymar, in trying to create historical accuracy and playability.
Well, guys like Barocca, Duke John, WesW, BKB, Re Berengario I and alike, have achieved far more ambicious goals. So, I'll try not to get unmotivated by the difficulties... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif




Quote[/b] ]But I sincerely hope you will succeed. I wish you luck.
Thank you very much, Lord Ludens http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Random Ronin]

I am surprised by the lack of the specialist units in that battle you exampled, but in general, you have to remember that the way numbers in olden times and today are perceived were vastly different (Most people felt lucky to accurately get beyond 100). More accurately, you have to watch those zeroes, for it was not uncommon to see 50 become 500 and 7,500 become 75,000, because it was the way the people who wrote of such things tended to do. The great battle between Rome and the Huns at the fields of Cate... (Whatever the rest of the spelling is) is often recorded to have had 300,000 dead, despite the fact that 300,000 was roughly the size of the ENTIRE Roman Army throughout the entire empire at the absolute height of its power, several centuries earlier, and the Huns could not field half that number of soldiers in their wildest dreams. The reasons for this gross, almost insane, exaggeration is simply that 30,000 (thirty thousand is the more likely number) men scattered over a few square kilometers is a very messy affair, especially with the brutal Hun and Roman swordsmanship which often resulted in severed limbs. The sight is so much that it seems to be far more that it is. It is a common misconception that armies were tens of thousands strong in the medieval era, or most eras previous to the 18th century, as the logistical burdens were generally beyond the means of most people.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]More accurately, you have to watch those zeroes, for it was not uncommon to see 50 become 500 and 7,500 become 75,000, because it was the way the people who wrote of such things tended to do. The great battle between Rome and the Huns at the fields of Cate... (Whatever the rest of the spelling is) is often recorded to have had 300,000 dead, despite the fact that 300,000 was roughly the size of the ENTIRE Roman Army throughout the entire empire at the absolute height of its power, several centuries earlier, and the Huns could not field half that number of soldiers in their wildest dreams.
I know. That is one of the reasons, and CPU capabilities, not to use the maximum possible number of men in the field:

8*200*16 = 25600 men

For Bannockburn, I will only use 1200 (Scots) + 4000 (English) = 5200 men.

IMHO, not an exageration... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[TonkaToys]

Great idea Sir Aymar, I quite fancy fighting as / against El Cid, having seen la Tizona during a visit to Madrid last year. I'll see if I can find out any info about his battles, and get back to you.

Keep up the good work.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Great idea Sir Aymar, I quite fancy fighting as / against El Cid, having seen la Tizona during a visit to Madrid last year. I'll see if I can find out any info about his battles, and get back to you.
Great. Go right ahead. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif



Quote[/b] ]Keep up the good work.
I will... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

[Ja'chyra]

Best of luck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

I for one would love to see the Bannockburn battle Oh flower of Scotland http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But maybe I'm biased. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Sun Tzui]

Lord Aymar I'm surprised http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

I stop coming here for a while, and you start posting novelties about your work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif This still has something to do with that mod you were developing or is something new? **methinks me just made stupid question....**

keep up the good work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-nice.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Best of luck
Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif



Quote[/b] ]I for one would love to see the Bannockburn battle Oh flower of Scotland http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Don't worry, in the end, the field will be full of flowers, you'll just have to decide about the colors... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif




Quote[/b] ]Lord Aymar I'm surprised

I stop coming here for a while, and you start posting novelties about your work This still has something to do with that mod you were developing or is something new? **methinks me just made stupid question....**
Independent from the MOD.

As for my MOD, it has taken a delay due to the acidental overwrite of one of the files. But, I already rewrote most of the changes back again... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Norseman]

Hey Aimar, one thing I would have liked to see is an improved English 100yrs war campaign(the one made by CA).
Historically more accurate maps and army lineups would have been great

Anyway, no matter what battles you make, I'm looking forward to play them. I somehow never liked those made by CA, they just didn't give me any historical feel.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Hey Aimar, one thing I would have liked to see is an improved English 100yrs war campaign(the one made by CA).
Historically more accurate maps and army lineups would have been great
Well, we are not doing the Historical Campaigns. Not now, anyway. It's more complex and takes a lot more time.



Quote[/b] ]Anyway, no matter what battles you make, I'm looking forward to play them. I somehow never liked those made by CA, they just didn't give me any historical feel.
Good to know. Let's hope we can make them good enough to give you some historical feeling. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[jimmy]

Kalka river/1223 genghis khan invades russia.

this may make a great battle there is a book by osprey publishing covering this battle/maps deployements etc.
maybe this would make a good battle?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[NightHawkAOL]

I want to make a mod on the movie BraveHeart, but i think it would work better as a Campagn rather that a Battle but if i find an actual battle that happened and is worth doing in that story then i will post it here.
Im starting research on the mod now.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Kalka river/1223 genghis khan invades russia.

this may make a great battle there is a book by osprey publishing covering this battle/maps deployements etc.
maybe this would make a good battle?
I forgot to warn everyone. I have VI and Kalka is covered on the VI's Mongol Historical Campaign. So, we will not cover that part, since it has already been made. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[jimmy]

liegnitz? mohi [sajo river] http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif maybe?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]liegnitz? mohi [sajo river] maybe?
The Golden Horde Historical Battles are:

-Kalka
-Kiev
-Leignitz
-Mohi

Does that answer your question? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[jimmy]

i always play the campaign so havnt been paying attention. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif but? what about the battles with the chinese jin/song etc or the khwarazm empire feel free to insult me if i am wrong on this as well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif [joke]


PS should pay more attention really. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]but? what about the battles with the chinese jin/song etc or the khwarazm empire feel free to insult me if i am wrong on this as well.
About Kharezm sure. Get me some info on those battles and I'll see what I can do... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

About Song and Jin, no way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif I'm not going to make specific units for Chinese Armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[jimmy]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 07 2004,06:37)]About Song and Jin, no way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif I'm not going to make specific units for Chinese Armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

what about modifying availiable units i am pretty sure some parts of STW are avaliable to use in MTW or the units may be already modded and are avaliable.who knows?



as a map guide i have posted this earlier. but the information regards making a map of the khwarazm empire should be on this link or alternative links on this site. hope this is a start. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/index.html

ps give us a bit of time regards the armies etc and lets see what i can do. hope this is a start for you in the meantime you could actually link it to a campaign its that big http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


couple of more links

http://www.Kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsFarEast/AsiaKhwarazm.htm

http://www.Kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsFarEast/AsiaMongols.htm


there are other links to this period as well on this site or i can point you to a few good books as well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]what about modifying availiable units i am pretty sure some parts of STW are avaliable to use in MTW or the units may be already modded and are avaliable.who knows?

Sorry. Nope. Medieval Europe, Middle East and North Africa only.




Quote[/b] ]as a map guide i have posted this earlier. but the information regards making a map of the khwarazm empire should be on this link or alternative links on this site. hope this is a start.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/index.html

ps give us a bit of time regards the armies etc and lets see what i can do. hope this is a start for you in the meantime you could actually link it to a campaign its that big


couple of more links

http://www.Kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsFarEast/AsiaKhwarazm.htm

http://www.Kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsFarEast/AsiaMongols.htm


there are other links to this period as well on this site or i can point you to a few good books as well.
Go right ahead... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Seven.the.Hun]

yeah, i had wondered about the braveheart battles too and the whole sterling and bannockburn battles...historical accounts are sometimes accurate and sometimes sketchy so i suppose you never can tell...i've read about some of those large scale troop movements in britain...
and the roman times and historical accounts are sometimes quite epic ones too, like there are accounts of the huns marching on Metz or Thrace with something like 700,000 cavalry, now that's gotta be exaggerated...i mean i'd be blown away to even see an army of that magnitude marching on something, too bad we cant really know for sure what's exaggerated and what's not

[jimmy]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 10 2004,09:58)]
Quote[/b] ]what about modifying availiable units i am pretty sure some parts of STW are avaliable to use in MTW or the units may be already modded and are avaliable.who knows?

Sorry. Nope. Medieval Europe, Middle East and North Africa only.




Quote[/b] ]as a map guide i have posted this earlier. but the information regards making a map of the khwarazm empire should be on this link or alternative links on this site. hope this is a start.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/index.html

ps give us a bit of time regards the armies etc and lets see what i can do. hope this is a start for you in the meantime you could actually link it to a campaign its that big


couple of more links

http://www.Kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsFarEast/AsiaKhwarazm.htm

http://www.Kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsFarEast/AsiaMongols.htm


there are other links to this period as well on this site or i can point you to a few good books as well.
Go right ahead... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
i assume you were happy with the map site. as far as books go try osprey/abe books or amazon. any problems let me know or what you require please and i will try to help out.

[The Programming Dragon]

I have tutorials explaining how to create single player campaigns and how to rename factions. If you require any help, i will try my hardest to help. It sounds like it will be a great mod

[jimmy]

i have been to your site but for some reason will not let me download mods or view tutorials? by the way welcome back also if you read back through some off the early post [1week ago ]i posted a site address for tons of freeware programs tools/utilities give a try.~:wave:


heres the link http://www.thefreecountry.com/programming/index.shtml

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]i assume you were happy with the map site. as far as books go try osprey/abe books or amazon. any problems let me know or what you require please and i will try to help out.
Very helpfull indeed. Thank you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Relating to your help, I'll just need specific info on the specific battles. Terrain features, unit and number of men involved, etc...

I'll keep searching for it too.




Quote[/b] ]I have tutorials explaining how to create single player campaigns and how to rename factions. If you require any help, i will try my hardest to help. It sounds like it will be a great mod
This is not a MOD, just several alterations to the Historical Battles that are in the game to enhance the Historical feel, as well as some new ones that we (me and TheSilverKnight) will create from time to time. As for help, only info will be needed, thanks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

The battles will be released on this order:

Improved ones:

-Bannockburn (Scotish - big alterations to type and size of units)
-Bannockburn (English - big alterations to type and size of units)

-Hastings (William - minor alterations to type and size of units)
-Hastings (Harold - minor alterations to type and size of units)

-Stirling Bridge (Wallace - some alterations to type and size of units)
-Stirling Bridge (John de Warenne - some alterations to type and size of units)

-Stamford Bridge (Harold - some alterations to type and size of units)
-Stamford Bridge (Harald Hadrada - some alterations to type and size of units)

New ones (VERY early stage):

-Aljubarrota 1385 (Portuguese)
-Aljubarrota 1385 (Castillian)

-Empire of Khawarezm (still in evaluation and gathering of info)

I'm still researching some important battles of the Middle Ages period that haven't been covered in the HB or HC.

And, with your help, hopefully some more to come...

[vonNichts]

Not that I think it is very important, but isn't the default definition of the units in MTW a problem for historical accuracy? The equipment was hardly as homogenuos as in MTW. Less elite units, at least, fought with whatever weapons they took with them from home, or had picked up on the way to the battle. Were there really groups of, say, 60 men who all had axes, but no other weapons?

On this swedish site there is a picture from an English-Danish manuscript in Bibliotheka Bodleiana, Oxford. It illustrates a Nordic soldier from the 11th centurey. He carries both spear (or javelin?) and sword. What MTW-unit corresponds to that?

http://www.smb.nu/svenskakrig/1050_1222.asp


I have (had) a big interest in history, although in periods later than the medieval era. If I find some good data on an interesting battle, I will give it to you for inspiration, and translate it if necessary.

I think your ambition is exscellent and look forward to following your progress
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Not that I think it is very important, but isn't the default definition of the units in MTW a problem for historical accuracy? The equipment was hardly as homogenuos as in MTW. Less elite units, at least, fought with whatever weapons they took with them from home, or had picked up on the way to the battle. Were there really groups of, say, 60 men who all had axes, but no other weapons?
Yes, because CA didn't make specific unit armies for all factions. Some units are general, which can be understood if we take in to account that some were very similar (militias, archers, etc...).
But it was a matter of lack of time on their part.

On the other hand, the fact that the engine doesn't allow multi-purpose units, except the obvious (bow/sword or axe and javelin/short spear) which in effect is just a trick, and the fact that each soldier in a unit is a copy of the next, makes it impossible to accuratelly reproduce such Historical armies. However, the battles can be improved on a more accurate scale and with more accurate unit types.




Quote[/b] ]On this swedish site there is a picture from an English-Danish manuscript in Bibliotheka Bodleiana, Oxford. It illustrates a Nordic soldier from the 11th centurey. He carries both spear (or javelin?) and sword. What MTW-unit corresponds to that?
A lot of them mixed together. But, as I've explained above, it's just not possible in the game.




Quote[/b] ]I have (had) a big interest in history, although in periods later than the medieval era. If I find some good data on an interesting battle, I will give it to you for inspiration, and translate it if necessary.
Thank you. That would be great. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif




Quote[/b] ]I think your ambition is exscellent and look forward to following your progress
Once again, thank you very much for your support... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[vonNichts]

The uniform unit issue isn't very important anyway, I suppose. Differentiating every single soldier would be too high a price for such pedantery... But who knows, in version 5 or 6, TW might have developed into a massivly multiplayer game where each soldier is a live player... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif


Is there anything in the following description which makes this battle unsuitable for MTW? If not, what further information would be required for making it happen on the screen (either you get interested enough to make it happen, or if I get the time needed to learn how to make it myself, which I probably won't...)? Maps is not a problem. Types of units? Well, I think there is enough data to solve that. The placement of units? Not too difficult to make qualified guesses about that. The sizes of units? Yeah, I think that is a great unknown... However, given all the other variables, one could always choose size to balance things and make it interesting to the player, couldn't one ;) No of course not, as the point of history is to be acurate, not interesting Maybe recent research has given some answers to that issue.


The battle of Brunkeberg, the battle field of which is located inside central Stockholm of today, would be number one on my wish list. I'm sure it is almost completely unheard of internationally... It's THE great patriotic battle in Swedish history, as Swedish rebels tried to break the Danish siege of the Swedish capital Stockholm. The Danes had basically ruled Sweden for a century plus. National liberation, however (to a long-lived and dictatoruous Swedish king, as it would turn out) would have to wait for another half a century...

The battle took place in 1471, would that be too late for MTW?

While in more developed countries, the renaisance had already been established, in Sweden few written sources remain even from this late era... The battle events are not 100% clear, so to say.


The scenario involves mainly the following components:

- A professional Danish army, including some 200 arquebuisers and many knights, besieging the Swedish capital Stockholm.

- A less qualified Swedish rebel army, including X peasants and 2000 urban militias, lets say, inside the besieged town of Stockholm, and one flank of knights (the rebel leaders) and some smaller gunpowder units as well. But there exists a general Swedish moral bonus. Call it patriotism or no-retreat or whatever.

- An island, on which the besieged and fortified city of Stockholm (under Swedish rebel control) is located.

- A bridge.

- A long ridge with modest slope, on top of which the Danes are fortified to defend their siege of Stockholm.

- Three consecutive mixed infantry/knights charges uphill that ridge.

- Army leader issues 1) The personal retirement of an army leader who was wounded in the face by a bullet. 2) A secondary or flank leader who was seriously ijured and retired (basically routing his flank. 3) A secondary or flank leader who was slayed, severly puninshing the morale of his flannk. Each of these events affected morale. (so there is the issue of secondary leaders...)

- An infantry charge from a conceiled forest position in late battle (one of those things which really cannot be simulated, since the player will know about this and adapt her position in a way that is very unhistorical...) However, this ambush might not be decisive for the battleOne of those issues which an MTW simulation just might provide some clues...


Morale playes a MAJOR role here. And the MTW algorithm seems to capture several important aspects. If anything, there should be a greater swing in morale. When in apparant advantage, morale should be automatically reenforced. If the apparant advantage/disadvantage suddenly changes, then morale should shift out of proportion I believe that psychology, of any group, generally enforces the perception of actual events, and hence indirectly enforces the actual events... An army which goes from perceived advantage to perceived disadvantage (or vice versa) should experience a disproportionate morale shift.

[Boulis]

Hi everyone. Great discussion and fantastic idea Aymar.

My own idea for a historical battle to re-create would be the Battle of Ayn Jalut or the Battle of Goliath's Spring as it is sometimes translated in English. Although many people might not know this, this was one of the most significant battles in world history. It was between the Egyptian Mamelukes and the Mongols, and represented, for all intents and purposes, the first ever defeat suffered by the Mongols at the hands of an enemy - any enemy. The Egyptian forces were led by Emir Baybars the Panther who later became Sultan of Egypt and who a few years earlier had crushed a French-led crusade to Cairo led by none other than St. Louis (King Louis IX Artois). The Mongol forces were led by Hulagu Khan (technically - I don't think he was at the actual battle but I might be mistaken) grandson of Ghengis Khan and nephew of Ogatai who just a few years before had easily crushed the Russians, Poles, and Germans (those battles are in the game).

Yes, those are the same Egyptians (and the same Golden Horde) represented in the game. Recent accounts have both sides evenly matched (12k to 20k or so each) mostly cavalry and cavalry archers on both sides. The battle occured in 1260, two years after the destruction of Baghdad (and the Abbasid Caliphate) by Hulagu and its importance as the first Mongol defeat is underestimated. If Hulagu had not been checked, he probably would have finished his uncle's job and conquered not only Egypt and North Africa but Europe as well. Of equal importance is the fact that he might also have wiped out Islam as a major religion. For some good detail without a lot of research effort (libraries etc.) just use the internet search terms Mongols and Ayn Jalut and you should have no problem.

BTW, Baybars went on to beat the Mongols twice more after that, basically ending any real Mongol threat to Europe and North Africa -- and re-taking Syria and Mesopotamia.

Good luck on a great project

[Boulis]

Ugh...slight correction...St. Louis' dynastic name was, of course, d'Anjou not Artois - I happen to like the latter beverage so that must of mixed me up... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Boulis]

Quote[/b] (Boulis @ Feb. 12 2004,17:40)]Ugh...slight correction...St. Louis' dynastic name was, of course, d'Anjou not Artois, sorry - I happen to like the latter beverage so that must have mixed me up... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Also, is the Battle of Manzikert included in the Viking expansion? I have the game but have not installed it. A friend told me it has the Battle of Hastings (1066) so it might have Manzikert (1071). This is another significant battle in world history and involved the (losing) Byzantines versus the (victorious) Seljuk Turks. It was the reason why the Pope called for the First Crusade in 1097 I think, after he was asked for help by the desperate Byzantine Emperor.

[TonkaToys]

Quote[/b] (Boulis @ Feb. 13 2004,12:41)]Also, is the Battle of Manzikert included in the Viking expansion? I have the game but have not installed it. A friend told me it has the Battle of Hastings (1066) so it might have Manzikert (1071).
Battle of Hastings is in the vanilla MTW isn't it... although you can't play as Harold.

[Boulis]

Quote[/b] (TonkaToys @ Feb. 13 2004,08:20)]
Quote[/b] (Boulis @ Feb. 13 2004,12:41)]Also, is the Battle of Manzikert included in the Viking expansion? I have the game but have not installed it. A friend told me it has the Battle of Hastings (1066) so it might have Manzikert (1071).
Battle of Hastings is in the vanilla MTW isn't it... although you can't play as Harold.
Thanks TonkaToys, you are of course absolutely right - it is in the vanilla version...that's embarassing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif

So if they have Hastings then I would think Manzikert should be on there for sure. I guess that is now officially my second suggestion.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]The uniform unit issue isn't very important anyway, I suppose. Differentiating every single soldier would be too high a price for such pedantery...
I agree... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif




Quote[/b] ]The battle of Brunkeberg, the battle field of which is located inside central Stockholm of today, would be number one on my wish list. I'm sure it is almost completely unheard of internationally... It's THE great patriotic battle in Swedish history, as Swedish rebels tried to break the Danish siege of the Swedish capital Stockholm. The Danes had basically ruled Sweden for a century plus. National liberation, however (to a long-lived and dictatoruous Swedish king, as it would turn out) would have to wait for another half a century...

The battle took place in 1471, would that be too late for MTW?
I will accept. But I'm going to impose some limits.

Let me explain:

-Most battles will be for MTW with VI, because of specific unit types in some of them.

-Battles can only be in Europe (including the Russian steppes), Middle East and North Africa (effectivelly the area of the main MTW map). If it is justifiable (as in the case of the Khwarazmian Empire - Persia) I will include some variations. This is because of time and unit availability.

-Time from 1071 (Manzikert) to 1453 (Fall of Constantinople). If it is justifiable (as might be the case of the Swedish national liberation) I will include some variations.




Quote[/b] ]The scenario involves mainly the following components:

- A professional Danish army, including some 200 arquebuisers and many knights, besieging the Swedish capital Stockholm.

- A less qualified Swedish rebel army, including X peasants and 2000 urban militias, lets say, inside the besieged town of Stockholm, and one flank of knights (the rebel leaders) and some smaller gunpowder units as well. But there exists a general Swedish moral bonus. Call it patriotism or no-retreat or whatever.

- An island, on which the besieged and fortified city of Stockholm (under Swedish rebel control) is located.

- A bridge.

- A long ridge with modest slope, on top of which the Danes are fortified to defend their siege of Stockholm.

- Three consecutive mixed infantry/knights charges uphill that ridge.

- Army leader issues 1) The personal retirement of an army leader who was wounded in the face by a bullet. 2) A secondary or flank leader who was seriously ijured and retired (basically routing his flank. 3) A secondary or flank leader who was slayed, severly puninshing the morale of his flannk. Each of these events affected morale. (so there is the issue of secondary leaders...)

- An infantry charge from a conceiled forest position in late battle (one of those things which really cannot be simulated, since the player will know about this and adapt her position in a way that is very unhistorical...) However, this ambush might not be decisive for the battleOne of those issues which an MTW simulation just might provide some clues...


Morale playes a MAJOR role here. And the MTW algorithm seems to capture several important aspects. If anything, there should be a greater swing in morale. When in apparant advantage, morale should be automatically reenforced. If the apparant advantage/disadvantage suddenly changes, then morale should shift out of proportion I believe that psychology, of any group, generally enforces the perception of actual events, and hence indirectly enforces the actual events... An army which goes from perceived advantage to perceived disadvantage (or vice versa) should experience a disproportionate morale shift.
Good info Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

Do you know any Historical links relating to this battle?

I think we're getting somewere with this one. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]My own idea for a historical battle to re-create would be the Battle of Ayn Jalut or the Battle of Goliath's Spring as it is sometimes translated in English. Although many people might not know this, this was one of the most significant battles in world history. It was between the Egyptian Mamelukes and the Mongols, and represented, for all intents and purposes, the first ever defeat suffered by the Mongols at the hands of an enemy - any enemy. The Egyptian forces were led by Emir Baybars the Panther who later became Sultan of Egypt and who a few years earlier had crushed a French-led crusade to Cairo led by none other than St. Louis (King Louis IX Artois). The Mongol forces were led by Hulagu Khan (technically - I don't think he was at the actual battle but I might be mistaken) grandson of Ghengis Khan and nephew of Ogatai who just a few years before had easily crushed the Russians, Poles, and Germans (those battles are in the game).

Yes, those are the same Egyptians (and the same Golden Horde) represented in the game. Recent accounts have both sides evenly matched (12k to 20k or so each) mostly cavalry and cavalry archers on both sides. The battle occured in 1260, two years after the destruction of Baghdad (and the Abbasid Caliphate) by Hulagu and its importance as the first Mongol defeat is underestimated. If Hulagu had not been checked, he probably would have finished his uncle's job and conquered not only Egypt and North Africa but Europe as well. Of equal importance is the fact that he might also have wiped out Islam as a major religion. For some good detail without a lot of research effort (libraries etc.) just use the internet search terms Mongols and Ayn Jalut and you should have no problem.

BTW, Baybars went on to beat the Mongols twice more after that, basically ending any real Mongol threat to Europe and North Africa -- and re-taking Syria and Mesopotamia.

I think that you all need to understand something. If you want a battle to be made, you have to provide the info. Not suggest it and tell me to go and look for it...

Other than that, Ain Djalut is of unknown quantity. Very little is known about it. Most sources are inconsitant. So, you have to provide specific accurate info. I really have to be sure of the Historical veracity.




Quote[/b] ]Good luck on a great project
Thank you indeed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Also, is the Battle of Manzikert included in the Viking expansion? I have the game but have not installed it. A friend told me it has the Battle of Hastings (1066) so it might have Manzikert (1071). This is another significant battle in world history and involved the (losing) Byzantines versus the (victorious) Seljuk Turks. It was the reason why the Pope called for the First Crusade in 1097 I think, after he was asked for help by the desperate Byzantine Emperor.
In fact the appeals of Byzantium had started more than a century earlier. It were political reasons more than anything, that influenced the Pope in that call to arms to the Catholic Crusaders. A show of political force and influence...

About Manzikert, once again good sugestion. Now I only need detailed info... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink3.gif

[Boulis]

I must apologize for failing to note the initial request for accurate tactical descriptions - I will try to find some accurate sources for Ain Jalut and Manzikert and get back to you on that.

Nevertheless, I believe your second post points to some of the pitfalls associated with historical research of any kind. It is a fact that numerous books have been written by many historians arguing about the true motivations behind Pope Urban II's appeal to Western Christendom for a Crusade to recapture the Holy Lands. Was it to demonstrate his power to his Orthodox rivals in Constantinople (many and you apparently), was it to siphon off a bunch of violent young knights who were not inheriting any land due to a recent European demographic explosion and thus alleviate a pressing social problem (Sir Steven Runciman for one), was it because he was greedy and short-sighted and wanted to start an empire of his own (Edward Gibbon and many modern Muslim historians), or was it because for the first time in memory it seemed that the Byzantine Empire would fail to do what it traditionally always did -- beat back the Muslims for the benefit of Western Europe (many Eastern European historians and me)? All these are potentially valid reasons, so I am not arguing with your specific interpretation. However it is just that: an interpretation. It could be that it was combination of all the reasons I cited above and maybe a dozen more. Or it could be another reason altogether. But what is the truth - where does the veracity lie?

As historians, all the real evidence we have is what he said in his speech - the rest is pure speculation. For Urban (and for the Emperor Alexius) the loss of the Anatolian heartland of the Empire to the Seljuks -- the result of Manzikert -- was a devastating blow that could potentially have spelt the end of the Eastern Roman Empire. Christianity East and West was now ostensibly open to easy Islamic incursion. The traditional balance of power was shattered. Was that the real reason? I don't know - no one really knows for sure. But most historians that I am familiar with agree that Manzikert was certainly an important (if not the most important) proximate reason for the Crusades.

Again, I am not disagreeing with you. But it is obvious from your first post that you are concerned with veracity, as am I. Given your opinion on sources concerning Ain Jalut, however, I am curious to know what you would consider a true or authentic account? Would it be something written at or near that time (by Europeans, Mamluks or Mongols -- the latter not known for their extensive literature?) or the opinion of one of many modern historians who have studied those same sources?

In any case, I will give you what I can without judgement on its veracity. So I might give you a few contradictory accounts and you can judge their relative accuracy.

BTW, I think this is a great idea and the game really needs it. Good job so far, and good luck.

I'm off to the library http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[jimmy]

Quote[/b] (Boulis @ Feb. 13 2004,06:41)]
Quote[/b] (Boulis @ Feb. 12 2004,17:40)]Ugh...slight correction...St. Louis' dynastic name was, of course, d'Anjou not Artois, sorry - I happen to like the latter beverage so that must have mixed me up... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Also, is the Battle of Manzikert included in the Viking expansion? I have the game but have not installed it. A friend told me it has the Battle of Hastings (1066) so it might have Manzikert (1071). This is another significant battle in world history and involved the (losing) Byzantines versus the (victorious) Seljuk Turks. It was the reason why the Pope called for the First Crusade in 1097 I think, after he was asked for help by the desperate Byzantine Emperor.
i have a book on the byzantium and its army 284-1081. i actually have two copies so if you are interested you can have one the books FOC just post in the link to let me know and we will sort it from there [open to anyone] http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Boulis]

Thanks for the offer, that's very kind. I have access to a university library so I probably won't have a problem getting the info if I can find the time.

Looking at my quoted answer I see that my standards of accuracy are lacking. Louis IX was of the Capet dynasty. His next oldest brother was Robert of Artois. His other brother was Charles of Anjou (hence the confusion) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif

Charles later became King of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Robert was killed in Louis' failed crusade.

Thanks again jimmy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Update: I am in the process of getting some good info on Ayn Jalut - hopefully will be able to post it soon...

[jimmy]

thats the problem with history.? accuracy is one of the hardest aspects as regards what were went on there are so many differant varations especially covering the ancient world and a lot off the articles are written well after the events. the mongols as an examaple were seen to rely on horse archers when the truth is contaray in respect to other units heavy cavalry especialy etc. they were made up off plenty off other units but have nearly always been depicted as primlary horse archers which is untrue.
and most off the time you are dealing with untrue bias information. i know a lot of modern books try to counter this but there sources are limted as well as regarding historical accurate information.
secret history of the mongols is a fine example in the sense its been translated that many times each translator tends to put his own mark on it and the translation spelling also makes it difficult. this also is only one of two books written by the mongols about the mongols [the other being book of gold]and this work becomes corupted.
so trying to get accurate historical information is nearly impposible. in the sense that some books depicit the mongols as savages and others as heroes depending on which side off the fence you are.trying to get accurate information is one of the hardest jobs to do i wish you ALL good luck in this venture http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif i know i have been http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif a couple of times.

[The Proconsul]

I'd very much like to see some historical battles from the Swiss (although I realize they're not really interesting for everyone, probably).
Here's a description of the Batte of Morgarten. It's rather long, and probably badly translated by me ;). I'll try to find a map, and perhaps a more specific description...

The battle of Morgarten should be seen in the environment of the emergence of the Swiss Confederation, and the disputes between various noble houses, predominantly Habsburg-Österreich and wealthy landowners where Switzerland is today. The assault of the Schwyzers on the monastery of Einsiedeln, which was under Habsburgian protection in three-king night of 1314 and their support of King Ludwig the Bavarian and against King Frederick the Beatiful of Austria after the double-election in fall 1314 have contributed to the outbreak of armed conflict.
The County of Schwyz was protected by so-called Letzinen (fortifications) in the region of Arth, at Brunnen and on the Altmatt. The struggles of the Schwyzers were important enough to assume an insecure constellation and skirmishes before the Battle of Morgarten. The ground at Morgarten was easily defensible, and needed no fortification for now; the Letziturm was constructed in 1315.

The Habsburgian army assembled at Zug in the early morning of November 15th of 1315, and marched in the direction of Ägeri and Sattel. The goal of the operation may also have been, besides the valley of Schwyz itself, the region of Altmatt, which was contested between Einsiedeln and Schwyz.
The Schwyzers were aware of the route of the austrian army; an arrow message by one Knight of Hünenberg, or the warnings of the Count of Toggenburg, who was friendly to the Schwyzers, may have some ground in historical fact.
On the shoals of the Finsterfluh and Finglenfluh and at both sides of the way to Schaftstetten, the about 1500 Schwyzers and allies awaited the 3000-5000 Habsburgians, about a third of which were probably mounted.
The ambush-melee must have been short and brutal. With great handstones http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif (no idea what that is...) and halberds, the Schwyzers surprised the knights, who were at a disadvantage in the narrow battlefield, who had almost no space for a counter-attack. The flight of the heavily decimated knights was probably quickly followed by the habsburgian footmen, who were still marching along the Ägerisee.

[The Proconsul]

Here's a nice map:
Map (http://www.jop-kriegskunst.de/mor/MorK.jpg)
Unfortunately in German and not very detailed, but it should ne decipherable ;).

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Boulis wrote:


Quote[/b] ]I must apologize for failing to note the initial request for accurate tactical descriptions - I will try to find some accurate sources for Ain Jalut and Manzikert and get back to you on that.

Nevertheless, I believe your second post points to some of the pitfalls associated with historical research of any kind. It is a fact that numerous books have been written by many historians arguing about the true motivations behind Pope Urban II's appeal to Western Christendom for a Crusade to recapture the Holy Lands. Was it to demonstrate his power to his Orthodox rivals in Constantinople (many and you apparently), was it to siphon off a bunch of violent young knights who were not inheriting any land due to a recent European demographic explosion and thus alleviate a pressing social problem (Sir Steven Runciman for one), was it because he was greedy and short-sighted and wanted to start an empire of his own (Edward Gibbon and many modern Muslim historians), or was it because for the first time in memory it seemed that the Byzantine Empire would fail to do what it traditionally always did -- beat back the Muslims for the benefit of Western Europe (many Eastern European historians and me)? All these are potentially valid reasons, so I am not arguing with your specific interpretation. However it is just that: an interpretation. It could be that it was combination of all the reasons I cited above and maybe a dozen more. Or it could be another reason altogether. But what is the truth - where does the veracity lie?

As historians, all the real evidence we have is what he said in his speech - the rest is pure speculation. For Urban (and for the Emperor Alexius) the loss of the Anatolian heartland of the Empire to the Seljuks -- the result of Manzikert -- was a devastating blow that could potentially have spelt the end of the Eastern Roman Empire. Christianity East and West was now ostensibly open to easy Islamic incursion. The traditional balance of power was shattered. Was that the real reason? I don't know - no one really knows for sure. But most historians that I am familiar with agree that Manzikert was certainly an important (if not the most important) proximate reason for the Crusades.
Good analysis. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

I agree that most of those reasons had a certain validity. But we'll never know. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-huh.gif




Quote[/b] ]Again, I am not disagreeing with you. But it is obvious from your first post that you are concerned with veracity, as am I. Given your opinion on sources concerning Ain Jalut, however, I am curious to know what you would consider a true or authentic account? Would it be something written at or near that time (by Europeans, Mamluks or Mongols -- the latter not known for their extensive literature?) or the opinion of one of many modern historians who have studied those same sources?
Let's say that the most aggreed upon numbers and facts will suit me just fine. No need to burn the little grey cells over this... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif




Quote[/b] ]In any case, I will give you what I can without judgement on its veracity. So I might give you a few contradictory accounts and you can judge their relative accuracy.
No problem. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif




Quote[/b] ]BTW, I think this is a great idea and the game really needs it. Good job so far, and good luck.
Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif




Quote[/b] ]I'm off to the library http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif
Good research... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Boulis wrote:


Quote[/b] ] I am in the process of getting some good info on Ayn Jalut - hopefully will be able to post it soon...
Good to know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif



jimmy wrote:


Quote[/b] ]thats the problem with history.? accuracy is one of the hardest aspects as regards what were went on there are so many differant varations especially covering the ancient world and a lot off the articles are written well after the events. the mongols as an examaple were seen to rely on horse archers when the truth is contaray in respect to other units heavy cavalry especialy etc. they were made up off plenty off other units but have nearly always been depicted as primlary horse archers which is untrue.
and most off the time you are dealing with untrue bias information. i know a lot of modern books try to counter this but there sources are limted as well as regarding historical accurate information.
secret history of the mongols is a fine example in the sense its been translated that many times each translator tends to put his own mark on it and the translation spelling also makes it difficult. this also is only one of two books written by the mongols about the mongols [the other being book of gold]and this work becomes corupted.
so trying to get accurate historical information is nearly impposible. in the sense that some books depicit the mongols as savages and others as heroes depending on which side off the fence you are.
Yes, the different tales and reports really bug someone investigating it. Specially if they are enhanced troughout the years. But the Mongols weren't has bad or has good as the most radical historians claim them to be. Surelly something in between. To what degree we'll never know. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif




Quote[/b] ]trying to get accurate information is one of the hardest jobs to do i wish you ALL good luck in this venture i know i have been a couple of times.
Thank you very much. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif



The Proconsul wrote:


Quote[/b] ]I'd very much like to see some historical battles from the Swiss (although I realize they're not really interesting for everyone, probably).
In fact, I'm quite interested in depicting the Historical battles of the Swiss and the Flemish, like Morgarten and Courtray. If you notice the 1st original (not improved) battle that I will release, is a battle of the Portuguese-Castillian war of 1383-1385: Aljubarota (1385). A somewhat unknown battle, except for the Spanish and the Portuguese. In fact, most people in the ORG only care or know about British Battles... I wonder why?... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif

So, keep them coming. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif




Quote[/b] ]Here's a description of the Batte of Morgarten. It's rather long, and probably badly translated by me ;). I'll try to find a map, and perhaps a more specific description...

The battle of Morgarten should be seen in the environment of the emergence of the Swiss Confederation, and the disputes between various noble houses, predominantly Habsburg-Österreich and wealthy landowners where Switzerland is today. The assault of the Schwyzers on the monastery of Einsiedeln, which was under Habsburgian protection in three-king night of 1314 and their support of King Ludwig the Bavarian and against King Frederick the Beatiful of Austria after the double-election in fall 1314 have contributed to the outbreak of armed conflict.
The County of Schwyz was protected by so-called Letzinen (fortifications) in the region of Arth, at Brunnen and on the Altmatt. The struggles of the Schwyzers were important enough to assume an insecure constellation and skirmishes before the Battle of Morgarten. The ground at Morgarten was easily defensible, and needed no fortification for now; the Letziturm was constructed in 1315.

The Habsburgian army assembled at Zug in the early morning of November 15th of 1315, and marched in the direction of Ägeri and Sattel. The goal of the operation may also have been, besides the valley of Schwyz itself, the region of Altmatt, which was contested between Einsiedeln and Schwyz.
The Schwyzers were aware of the route of the austrian army; an arrow message by one Knight of Hünenberg, or the warnings of the Count of Toggenburg, who was friendly to the Schwyzers, may have some ground in historical fact.
On the shoals of the Finsterfluh and Finglenfluh and at both sides of the way to Schaftstetten, the about 1500 Schwyzers and allies awaited the 3000-5000 Habsburgians, about a third of which were probably mounted.
The ambush-melee must have been short and brutal. With great handstones (no idea what that is...) and halberds, the Schwyzers surprised the knights, who were at a disadvantage in the narrow battlefield, who had almost no space for a counter-attack. The flight of the heavily decimated knights was probably quickly followed by the habsburgian footmen, who were still marching along the Ägerisee.
Great info. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

I had read something about the stone throwing and the entrapment of the knights in Morgarten on a book I haven't bought yet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif
In Courtrai, the Flemish used disguised holes with pointed wooden stakes to brake the charge of the french cavalry.
Then they proceded to chop the fallen knights with their famous Guten Tag (halberd style poleaxe). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-behead.gif




Quote[/b] ]Here's a nice map:
Map
Unfortunately in German and not very detailed, but it should ne decipherable ;).
Thanks again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Boulis]

Allright, after some exhaustive research I have compiled some accurate descriptions of Ayn Jalut based on the most credible sources. The major sources I use make an attempt to cover all the available bits of information on units, tactics, composition, and strategy by using all extant primary source material, whether Mongol, Mameluke, or European.

1) Events leading up to the battle

As stated previously, in 1258 the near 500 year-old Islamic empire of the Abbasid Caliphs was destroyed along with Baghdad, by Hulegu Khan (grandson of Ghengis) who then, a year later, sent a letter to the Egyptian Sultan (the other Islamic Empire in the area) demanding the handover of Syria and Egypt and his submission. Fearful of Mongol power he was going to say yes but was then assasinated by one of his slave-generals (Mamelukes were slave-soldiers trained from childhood in warfare) who then became Sultan in his stead, Qutuz. Qutuz killed the Mongol emissaries, thus openly declaring war on Hulegu. Although long-time enemies, Qutuz enlisted the help of another Mameluke general, Baybars, and the two agreed to put aside their differences because of the Mongol threat. Meanwhile, Hulegu had to leave because of an intra-Mongol civil war and he left the conquest of Syria and Egypt to his must trusted general, Kitbogha. Both armies advanced to Palestine where they met in the decisive battle of Ayn Jalut. At stake was the future of not only the last independent Islamic state, but also the future of Islam as a major religion, since Hulegu had demonstrated (he himself was Buddhist, his wife Christian his troops mostly pagan) that he hated the Islamic religion. The Mongols had, of course, never been defeated in battle up to that point.

2) Troop composition, unit placement and the battle

According to the most authoritative accounts, both armies were around the same size, with the Mamelukes having perhaps an advantage (not decisive though) in numbers. Hulegu had left Kitbogha with command over one tuman (i.e.10,000 soldiers) and maybe a few more Mongol regulars for a total of about 12,000. In addition, the Mongols had a few Armenian and Georgian auxiliaries (the number given for the Armenians is usually around 500 or so and the Georgians were comparable). The Mameuke/Egyptian army was composed of about 10,000 regular Mameluke soldiers but had an unknown number of auxiliaries (refugees from Islamic lands -- Kurds and Syrians -- taken by the Mongols, Turkmen nomads and some Bedouin volunteers all considered inferior to the Mamelukes in quality -- some sources say the Mamelukes also brought some Nubians from Upper Egypt along). All told (no specific details exist) the army could have been anywhere from 12k to 20k, highest estimate. Some say 120,000 but that is an exagerration caused by a mistranslation. The problem is they were all mounted troops (either heavy and light cavalry or cavalry archers) on both sides. Some sources say Mongol troop composition was around a 40/60 ratio of melee cavalry to cavalry archers. The Mongols could and would dismount during a battle but not the Mamelukes though. But who can say if the Egyptian/Syrian and other Mameluke auxiliaries dismounted?
The site of the battle was a narrow plain running roughly east-west and hemmed in by a high hill to the north (Hill of Moreh) and a mountain to the south (Mt. Gilboa). However, the northern section of the plain was a little more elevated. The Mongols came in from the east and the Mamelukes from the west. Most accounts agree that Baybars (in command of some elite Mameluke cavalry) saw the Mongols first as he was scouting probably from the Moreh hill. He engaged but eventually withdrew (maybe routed but probably not - just careful). Both armies set up north-south, the Mameluke right wing against Gilboa (the mountain ended right behind the Mameluke right flank where the plain opens up) and facing the Mongol left also against the mountain. Baybars did NOT feign a retreat as some accounts say.
The Mongols attacked first basically crushing the Mameluke left wing and beginning an encirclement. But Qutuz ferried troops and reinforcemnets from the center and right and went personally to stop the bleeding with his elite bodyguards. The Mamelukes had a slight overall advantage close quarters. Eventually, the bleeding was stopped and due to Qutuz's and Baybars's personal courage the tide turned. Kitbogha was apparently very brave as well but his horse was shot out from under him (he was eventually either captured and killed or just killed during the battle) and Mongol morale broke, precipitating a general rout. Most of the Mongols were chased down and killed and the battle was won by the Mamelukes.
Both armies used cavalry archers to soften the other up, until a charge by the light and heavy cavalry was feasible. Mongols had light cavalry but also some heavy as well. Mameluke melee cavalry was slightly heavier (like it is in the game) than Mongol light cavalry.

NOTES: Basically, I think the existing units as they are in the game (high period) are quite accurate for both sides. The Mongols should be the attackers as they attacked first but that is up to you guys if you have to change that to improve balance. The Mongol player can dismount at will of course and he should have all the Golden Horde units available (Mongol heavy, Mongol light or steppe cavalry, and Mongol cavalry archers). Mameluke cavalry and cavalry archers cannot dismount, however (and that is actually accurate, see above), so that seems like a disdvantage there in terms of game balance. The Mameluke player could then maybe start off with a few infantry and foot archers representing the non-Mameluke auxiliaries to offset that disadvantage. Qutuz's contingent sounds like Ghulam bodyguards since he was the Sultan. Armenian cavalry is Armenian cavalry but the Georgians were very good mounted archers so they might be represented as Byzantine cavalry I think. Turkmen of the high period are not the same as Ottoman Turkmen so maybe Turcopoles as a substitute? Bedouins are Bedouins - one unit of camels would be fun.
Finally, I have a map but I'm not sure about copyright laws etc. If you are interested in references I can provide them. I also include a link to a site about the battle but it is riddled with inaccuracies -- stil it has a good overview of the politics and grand strategy. If you have further questions, I can try to answer them. Phew... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Boulis]

I forgot to include the link: http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif

http://www.strategypage.com/article....tactics (http://www.strategypage.com/articles/default.asp?target=mongol.htm#tactics)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Thanks for the great info, Boulis http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

I'm still analyzing other possible ones, but this looks promissing.

[Cebei]

Ahhhh.. too late.. I was on horseback rushing to suggest Ayn Jalut. Thats a kickass battle. Turks against Turks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_charge.gif But I also fear that it is an extremely crowded battle.

[Senta]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 17 2004,15:49)]Thanks for the great info, Boulis http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

I'm still analyzing other possible ones, but this looks promissing.
hello there...

i'm yet to try historical battles, as i played campaign only for the last month or so.
but there is one battle that i'd love to see recreated, if it's not already in, battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald 1410 (http://www.kresy.co.uk/grunwald.html)in Poland between Teutonic Knights and Polish-Lithuanian allied forces...

i could provide all the info you possibly need, just let me know if that's interesting to you. The link i provided is just general info about the battle :)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Ahhhh.. too late.. I was on horseback rushing to suggest Ayn Jalut. Thats a kickass battle. Turks against Turks But I also fear that it is an extremely crowded battle.
Another supporter for Ain Djalut? OK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

As for crowded battles, no problem with that either, although you must take into consideration that I'm not simulating the actual numbers involved in the real one... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif




Quote[/b] ]hello there...

i'm yet to try historical battles, as i played campaign only for the last month or so.
but there is one battle that i'd love to see recreated, if it's not already in, battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald 1410in Poland between Teutonic Knights and Polish-Lithuanian allied forces...

i could provide all the info you possibly need, just let me know if that's interesting to you. The link i provided is just general info about the battle :)
Yes, I'm interested.

Good link but, by all means, please do supply any available info. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Senta]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 25 2004,21:38)]Good link but, by all means, please do supply any available info. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif
Yes sir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif
here goes:
first link is a site of the battle reenaction pictures, there are four galleries, and that should give you pretty good idea of what the fields of Grunwald look like:

http://www.grunwald.olo.com.pl/galeria/albums.php

these links have some very good info as well:

http://www.arms-armor.cz/battles/grunwald/index.php3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg_(1410)

http://grunwald.iatp.by/eng1.htm

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~koby....ld.html (http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~koby/political/chapter_05/0513grunwald.html) (this one is more of a fun fact http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

shall you need any more info, i'd be more than willing to provide that. But i hope that should give you a very good idea about forces that took field that day, course of the battle, and all that.

oh, and something very important, troop deployment, and battle map:

http://www.arms-armor.cz/battles/grunwald/2.htm

thanks for taking interest in this battle (one of the biggest of the Medieval Europe)
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Yes sir
here goes:
first link is a site of the battle reenaction pictures, there are four galleries, and that should give you pretty good idea of what the fields of Grunwald look like:

http://www.grunwald.olo.com.pl/galeria/albums.php

these links have some very good info as well:

http://www.arms-armor.cz/battles/grunwald/index.php3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg_(1410)

http://grunwald.iatp.by/eng1.htm

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~koby....ld.html (this one is more of a fun fact )

shall you need any more info, i'd be more than willing to provide that. But i hope that should give you a very good idea about forces that took field that day, course of the battle, and all that.

oh, and something very important, troop deployment, and battle map:

http://www.arms-armor.cz/battles/grunwald/2.htm

thanks for taking interest in this battle (one of the biggest of the Medieval Europe)
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif Talk about information overload http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

Good links If I need more info about the battle, I'll post in this thread. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Senta]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 27 2004,12:59)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif Talk about information overload http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

Good links If I need more info about the battle, I'll post in this thread. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
appreciate you taking interest in this, kind Sir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[MadKow]

Hi Aimar

I was wondering in the Entrance Hall about precisely how to build something like Aljubarrota. Good to know someone is on it.

(BTW im not sure many Spanish know about Aljubarrota... Like we don't know quite a few where the portuguese had their butts kicked...those are the ones that didn't shape history...)

I bought the first volume of História Militar de Portugal so soon i may have other suggestions. (I don't have the book yet)

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[SwordsMaster]

Hi guys,really good idea to map real battles.Heres a suggestion:
Navas de Tolosa, 1212 Its a town in the center-south of Spain.
Almohads vs Spanish.

I cant be more concrete,cos I simply dont know the numbers of men envolved and types of troops.Sorry about that.

[SwordsMaster]

Just forgot, the king of Navarre was the hero of the battle.His name was Sancho VII the Strong He reached with his men to the tent of the Almohad general defended by slaves and elite troops.And he freed all those slaves.

Hope that will be helpful.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (MadKow @ Mar. 19 2004,05:56)]Hi Aimar

I was wondering in the Entrance Hall about precisely how to build something like Aljubarrota. Good to know someone is on it.

(BTW im not sure many Spanish know about Aljubarrota... Like we don't know quite a few where the portuguese had their butts kicked...those are the ones that didn't shape history...)

I bought the first volume of História Militar de Portugal so soon i may have other suggestions. (I don't have the book yet)

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
Well, I do have some details about the Fernandin Invasions of Leon, Galicia and Castile. Believe me, they weren't exactly sucessefull... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

Al-Khazir Kibir wans't either... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

I might have a sugestion for your reading:

Colecção Batalhas de Portugal da editora Tribuna da História

Several authors (all Historians), one for each book. Each of them is specialized in the historical analysys of a particular battle. All illustrated, with paintings, maps and several deployement graphics. Top notch analysys.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ Mar. 19 2004,10:54)]Hi guys,really good idea to map real battles.Heres a suggestion:
Navas de Tolosa, 1212 Its a town in the center-south of Spain.
Almohads vs Spanish.

I cant be more concrete,cos I simply dont know the numbers of men envolved and types of troops.Sorry about that.
Shades Wolf has already covered that battle. It's available in the downloads page at the ORG.

I might have a go at improving it in the future, though.

[Imperial Buffoon]

I was thinking about Navas de Tolosa as well. I don't have my playing machine here and am not a great fan of historical battles so apologies if it's already there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

I'll try and find some more info but it involves some 60k spanish, including mostly:
- kings' knights - the kings of Castille, Aragon and Navarre were there -
- crusader order knights (templars, hospitalers and calatrava)
- urban militias from several castillan cities

vs 100k Almos:
- light troops (skirmishers, both with bows and javelins, as well as archers, of which some turks according to some accounts)
- a set of mercenaries (will have to do some research on this) from captured lands and fanatics in jihad
- the almohads themselves.

The Almos had a slight terrain advantage and were on the side of a hill, with the general in a slightly fortified position at the top, surrounded by slaves (these are believed to be chained and buried knee-deep not to escape).
More importantly, the Cristians were armored and tired after having had to find a way around almo forward positions.

I'll try to dig up some more info (and a map) if you are interested

IB

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Update on the Historical Battles:

I'm sorry for not having released the first few reworked battles that I've been tweaking. I have been pretty busy this last few weeks. Besides, most of my free time for MTW as been focused in helping WesW in his MedMOD and making flags for BKB's SuperMOD. Soon, i will release a pack of the 4 reworked HB of MTW (Bannockburn, Stirling, Hastings and Stamford). I'm tweaking final details in Stamford. The others are ready. Don't think I'll modify them further, but still need time to see if they are balanced enough.

Thank you for your patiente. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[SwordsMaster]

Oh,i´ll give a try to that one,thanks for the details anyway.

[Kansas Bear]

Ugh...slight correction...St. Louis' dynastic name was, of course, d'Anjou not Artois - I happen to like the latter beverage so that must of mixed me up... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif


Louis IX's dynastic name was Capet.
http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo?lang=en;i=81155

His brother Charles held the title comte d'Anjou.