New unit profile - Graal Knight

[phred]

enjoy! ~:)

http://www.totalwar.com/community/graal.htm

[Taurus]

Definatly the best unit yet, imo. ~:cheers:

I especially like the helmet face mask. :bow:

[rebelscum]

Is BI a fantasy game>? ~:confused:

[Ianofsmeg16]

I think I'm going to faint....

[scorillo]

Yeah....this unit stinks too...Especially the mask...looks like a pussycat face LOL

[Orda Khan]

Don't like the unit? Simple answer..Don't buy the game.

......Orda

[The_Doctor]

I am scared and confused. ~:confused:

I have never heard of them before.

Where they real?

[rebelscum]

I wonder if the makers of the King Arthur film will do them for plagurism ~D
Oh btw if you haven't seen it, then watch it, its a right rollicking fantasy romp based on a supposed Sarmatian knight around the 4th centry B.C who supposedly sparked the King Arthur legend, supposedly.
You will probably find that 'Lego' (tm) castles has more basis in fact than this unit. Have I mentoned supposedly. :knight:

Hehe, I feel like posting my 2nd fave monty python sketch in honour of the GRAAAL knight ... Ni .. Ni ... (see my city gates post for my Fave monty (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40780&page=1&pp=30) python sketch)

Knights of Ni: Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni!
Arthur: Who are you?
Knight of Ni: We are the Knights who say..... "Ni"!
Arthur: (horrified) No! Not the Knights who say "Ni"!
Knight of Ni: The same.
Other Knight of Ni: Who are we?
Knight of Ni: We are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Ping, and Nee-womm!
Other Knight of Ni: Nee-womm!
Arthur: (to Bedevere) Those who hear them seldom live to tell the tale!
Knight of Ni: The knights who say "Ni" demand..... a sacrifice!
Arthur: Knights of Ni, we are but simple travelers who seek the enchanter who
lives beyond these woods.
Knights of Ni: Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni!
Bedevere: No! Noooo! Aaaugh! No!
Knight of Ni: We shall say "Ni" to you... if you do not appease us.
Arthur: Well what is it you want?
Knight of Ni: We want.....

(pregnant pause)

A SHRUBBERY!!!!

(minor music)

Arthur: A WHAT?
Knights of Ni: Ni! Ni!! Ni! Ni!
Arthur; No! No! Please, please, no more! We will find you a shrubbery.
Knight of Ni: You must return here with a shrubbery... or else you will never
pass through this wood... alive.
Arthur: O Knights of Ni, you are just and fair, and we will return with a
shrubbery.
Knight of Ni: One that looks nice.
Arthur: Of course!
Knight of Ni: And not too expensive.
Arthur; Yes!
Knight of Ni: Noowwwww.... GO!

(music)

Arthur: O Knights of Ni. We have brought you your shrubbery. May we go now?
Knight of Ni: Yes, it is a good shrubbery. I like the laurels particularly.
But there is one small problem....
Arthur: What is that?
Knight of Ni: We are now no longer the Knights Who Say "Ni"!
Other Knights of Ni: Ni! Shh! Shh!
Knight of Ni: We are now the Knights who say "Ekky-ekky-ekky-ekky-z'Bang, zoom-Boing, z'nourrrwringmm".
Other Knight of Ni: Ni!
Knight of Ni: Therefore, we must give you a test.
Arthur: What is this test, O Knights of.....
Knights who 'til recently said "Ni"?
Knight of Ni: Firstly, you must find....
ANOTHER SHRUBBERY!!!

(minor music)

Arthur: Oh not another shrubbery!!
Knight of Ni: (excitedly) THEN... Then, when you have found the shrubbery,
you must place it here, beside this shrubbery, only slightly
higher, so we get the two-level effect with a little path
running down the middle.
Other Knights of Ni: A path! A path! A path! Shh, shhh. Ni! Ni!
Knight of Ni: Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the
mightiest tree in the forest...
Wiiiiiithh.... A HERRING!

[TB666]

They look awesome, can't wait to see them in action.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah....this unit stinks too...Especially the mask...looks like a pussycat face LOL

It's better than the battle priest.

[Afro Thunder]

Err... what exactly is wrong with this unit?

[ScionTheWorm]

I can't understand why they intentionally make so weird units... after seeing what amateur skinners can do it's not really impressive.

the mask reminds me of Morrowwind... the guards in that city with a lot of channels


Don't like the unit? Simple answer..Don't buy the game.

......Orda
~D You really don't like people not 100% satisfied with the units now do you? :hide:

[Colovion]

People want to believe they can "Play with units from the feature film King Arthur" because that's recognizable to the masses.

It's the gameplay that's the most important, but if history could be displayed truthfully people might be surprised at how interesting it is. I wish some company would actually realize that people will enjoy history which isn't dressed up like a whore.

[rebelscum]

As someone once said, history is written by the victor. Nobody won nothing with that unit . If they sell games under the cloak of historical accuracy are they allowed to do this? Why not just release it under the title 'fantasy total war' and get it over with. Look at the guys at total realism and what they have done with the game. :deal:

[lars573]

As someone once said, history is written by the victor. Nobody won nothing with that unit . If they sell games under the cloak of historical accuracy are they allowed to do this? Why not just release it under the title 'fantasy total war' and get it over with. Look at the guys at total realism and what they have done with the game. :deal:
Yeah and makes me sick at how much of a piece of crap they turned RTW into with their travesty of a mod.

Graal knights, nice made up unit. But we are talking about the Romano-Britsh here. Any unit that you give them you could debate until the end of time and still not have a clear idea of how they fought or what they looked like. Wait that makes no sense, that's the codine talking (bad headache). I mean the opinion on the military that the Romano-Britons used vary wildly.

[King of Atlantis]

Man, that unit is beautiful. To bad its not historical, but hey its moddable..

[lars573]

True it's not that historical but it does fit into the design ethic that CA seems to have made for the Romano-Britons. That is that all there units are either the same as the western empires (archers, Sarmation auxilia, commentines) or inspired by (Monks for priests coastal levies for limetines). Graal knights seem to fit into the inspired by category. They appear to be the super heavy elite cavalry like the scholrae palantina.

[NodachiSam]

I think it looks cool. ~Given~ I don't know about the historical part of this. War masks don't seem that much of a stretch. I know the japanese samurai had masks, they add some face protection and aided in the psychological aspect of fighting.

rebelscum: Ah good old Lego...

The monty python quote is unexpected but welcome ~:cheers:

[edyzmedieval]

Excellent graphics. I like it. ~:cheers:

I started to ignore how historical BI is. If it's moddable, then little do I care.

It is fictional, but it's good.

[ScionTheWorm]

I started to ignore how historical BI is. If it's moddable, then little do I care.

Yeah. Just so weird that they choose to be wrong. But since they're choosing it, I think it's a commercial aspect into it, which I can't really debate. If it was 100% historical correct and everything was great, our mods wouldn't be of much use either.


Look at the guys at total realism and what they have done with the game.

I noticed Tyr was removed from the credits in the intro movie at 6.1 ~D
It's a great mod, but I find the unit models a little too vanilla, thinking about what they could achieve with their resources

[edyzmedieval]

Yeah. Just so weird that they choose to be wrong. But since they're choosing it, I think it's a commercial aspect into it, which I can't really debate. If it was 100% historical correct and everything was great, our mods wouldn't be of much use either.


Yeah. True. Maybe that's why they are doing fictional stuff. Anyways, it's a good addition to the game. ~:cheers:

[KSEG]

Seriously, what exactly is wrong with this unit?
For me it looks like some people is just trying to bitch about CA, no mater what the subject is.
And how the hell do you know what is 100% accurate?
We will never know what is 100% accurate.
No one knows how the ancient soldiers looked like except from some writing, some abstract sculptures, and some archaeological research.

[TB666]

Seriously, what exactly is wrong with this unit?
For me it looks like some people is just trying to bitch about CA, no mater what the subject is.
And how the hell do you know what is 100% accurate?
We will never know what is 100% accurate.
No one knows how the ancient soldiers looked like except from some writing, some abstract sculptures, and some archaeological research.
Very true I'm afraid.
This unit could very well have existed when you read the description.
Gotta remember that written sources from this era are few and pretty weak as well(of course it is better then the dark age where there are almost no written sources) ~:handball:

[ScionTheWorm]

I respect CA, they're doing a hell of a job. But it's just so typical and ca-cliche ~D. Don't take it personal though, this is a long awaited expantion pack, and everything in it is just not everybodys cup of tea.

[edyzmedieval]

CA is indeed doing an excellent job. I admire every member of the team that contributes to the expansion pack.

And I'm buying it(BI), no matter what. ~:) ~:cheers:

[antisocialmunky]

You guys might as well be optimistic... It's not exactly productive to yell and scream, CA's not likely to change it. Might as well treat it as a strategic assest that keeps the Romano Brits from sucking from lack of heavy cavalry.

[rebelscum]

Seriously, what exactly is wrong with this unit?
For me it looks like some people is just trying to bitch about CA, no mater what the subject is.
And how the hell do you know what is 100% accurate?
We will never know what is 100% accurate.
No one knows how the ancient soldiers looked like except from some writing, some abstract sculptures, and some archaeological research.
Ok just wait until you are faced by a stack of them, mixed in with vanilla barbarians and then we will hear the screams of 'no way'. Its a bit like having a World War II setting and suddenly you get faced by an F-15. Your spitfire doesn't seem so great then. The so called 'dark ages' were not really that dark. There is a lot of literature detailing what military units exsted at the time. I'm not putting CA down for the game,but they sure can afford to research this properly. I just wish they would look to things like total realism for inspiration rather than make things up.
:knight:

[rebelscum]

You guys might as well be optimistic... It's not exactly productive to yell and scream, CA's not likely to change it. Might as well treat it as a strategic assest that keeps the Romano Brits from sucking from lack of heavy cavalry.
Yes the Romano-Brits did suck, that's why the Anglo-Saxons, the Irish, the Picts all the other warlike tribes invaded and made our islands what they are. If they had units like this, Britain would be very different. Even in the King Arthur film there were 6 of these guys, not stacks of 1000+.

[TB666]

Even in the King Arthur film there were 6 of these guys, not stacks of 1000+.
Those were Sarmatians, not Romano-british.

[lars573]

Ok just wait until you are faced by a stack of them, mixed in with vanilla barbarians and then we will hear the screams of 'no way'. Its a bit like having a World War II setting and suddenly you get faced by an F-15. Your spitfire doesn't seem so great then. The so called 'dark ages' were not really that dark. There is a lot of literature detailing what military units exsted at the time. I'm not putting CA down for the game,but they sure can afford to research this properly. I just wish they would look to things like total realism for inspiration rather than make things up.
:knight:
And I think you'll find that CA's historical research puts EB's (or any well meaning TW players for that matter) to great shame. See CA has never said what kind of historical texts/knowledgable persons they draw upon to make there units for the TW games.

[The Stranger]

Wannabe King Arthorius Sarmatian Knights!!! AAAAAAAH RUN FOR THE HILLS

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually King Arthur isn't as bad as you might think, while the detail, setting and politics sucked the thrust of the story is basically sound. There was a Romano-British commander called Arturius who beat the Saxons at Badon Hill. In the film Arturius is a Roman Equestrian, so that fits.

Anyway, about the unit, there certainly were no "Knights" since the word is Norman but Arturius held back the Saxons for fifty years, he must have had something to do it with and my bet would be heavy Cav. He probably didn't have many though as all that chainmail would have cost a bomb in the four hundreds.

[The Stranger]

i never said the movie was bad...i liked it. but the GRAAL KNIGHTS!!! C'MON O_o

[Viking]

An ok unit. Reminds me very much about the cataphracts from RTW, but looks alright. If has only the slightest amount of historically accuracy it`s good enough for me.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

Anyway, about the unit, there certainly were no "Knights" since the word is Norman

No, the word is English. It is from the Old English word Cniht, meaning boy or servant.

[Kraxis]

Ok what do we know?

We know that a number of Sarmatians (5000?) were settled in Brittannia.
We know that a warlord named Artorius held the Saxons back not that long afterwards (generations later).
The later myths and also the tales of a Welsh monk (the first real Arthur-tale, from around 1000) include what seems to be rather heavy cavalry.

We don't know the equipment.
We don't know how many it would have been, though we can expect it to be few.
We don't know what they were called.

Is it so hard to believe that some of the initial Sarmatian men taught their sons the way of the heavy cavalry?

So in essence I would say that the unit itself is nothing we should complain about. The equipment though, is perhaps a good deal too heavy compared with what the Romano-British could afford.
A semi-armoured horse and a mailed rider with a lance would be my vision. But that is just one, others have different views.

History is not a specific fact most often.

[lars573]

Which is what I was trying to say. Saying OMFG knights can't exist in the 5th century! Is a bit short sighted. At the end of the Roman empire we get into a period when good first hand (or even second) accounts out side of the eastern empire are sketchy at best. This is most acute in Britain where for what ever reason written history died out when the Romans left. So really CA could give the Romano-Britions chariots and not be totally wrong.

[ScionTheWorm]

well, then we can make whatever units we want in that game period and say it's historical accurate ~D

Graal Knight - Elven warriors
Sceary Knights - Mighty Horseriders with their underpants over their head
Bard Clubmen - Inspiring nearby troops with guitarplaying
Romano-Briton Cows - Was used in battle when nothing else was avaliable
and so on...

[Kraxis]

well, then we can make whatever units we want in that game period and say it's historical accurate ~D

Graal Knight - Elven warriors
Sceary Knights - Mighty Horseriders with their underpants over their head
Bard Clubmen - Inspiring nearby troops with guitarplaying
Romano-Briton Cows - Was used in battle when nothing else was avaliable
and so on...
Come on... Be reasonable. Why do you deep complainers often retort to this kind of sillyness? ~:confused:

[Steppe Merc]

The Sarmatians would not have been equipped in this manner. Most Sarmatians did not use facemasks, preffering spangenhelms. None would use a spear, since you need two hands to use a kontus, which they used. Only the richest Sarmatians used horse armor, and I'm thinking that the richest would not be in Brittannia, nor would they be members of the Romono British elite like they say.

And while I could see a Sarmatian based heavy horse (more along the lines that Kraxis mentioned - kontus, half bard or un armored horse with spangenhelm and scale armor), this does not mention Sarmatians much at all. The description says it's the elite of the Romano British, who "keep alive the Roman and Christian traditions of militarism and piety in equal measure". That's just foolish. Heavy horse had nothing to do with Romans, all of their horse was poorer copies of Sarmatians or Parthians (though the copies got better as time went on with the Byzantines).

And what is Graal? And why did they use the term knights? I know it has come to represent heavy horse, but they should either use whatever langauge Graal is from for heavy horse, or the Roman Clibanarii, cataphracti, or whatever the Latin term for the Greek kontophoroi (sp). The kontophoroi (sp) would be the most accurate term to describe Sarmatian style heavy horse, especially away from the steppe.

[TB666]

And what is Graal?
Graal means Dish or platter.
A sign of wealth I guess.

[Steppe Merc]

Which brings up another question: why is it in Sweden (I assume), and what's with the dish? ~;)

[TB666]

Which brings up another question: why is it in Sweden (I assume), and what's with the dish? ~;)
If you are talking about the game then that issue has been brought to CA's attention and hopefully the store involved will get punished.
And dish I guess is related to food, a guy that has food which equals a guy that has wealth.
Atleast that's how I look at it.

[Steppe Merc]

Damn, I meant why is it in Swedish... :embarassed:

[TB666]

Graal isn't in swedish.
Probably celtic if I would take a guess.
Someone posted the translation on the .com

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nothing to do with Graal (dish) being related to taking communion and therefore Christian piety then?

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

Cnit just means servant, the Saxons called the Norman cavalry Cnit because they were profesional warriors serving William, his servants. William rewarded them with land and they became elite.

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

[TB666]

Nothing to do with Graal (dish) being related to taking communion and therefore Christian piety then?

Makes sense too.

[Steppe Merc]

And I think you'll find that CA's historical research puts EB's (or any well meaning TW players for that matter) to great shame. See CA has never said what kind of historical texts/knowledgable persons they draw upon to make there units for the TW games.
Do not insult us again. CA either A. has no historians, which we do, or B. ignores them, which we do not. I have not decided which is worse.

[The Stranger]

why is everyone starting bout sarmatians...i never said they were sarmatian knights or had anything to do with them...their look and description just reminded me of the movie

[Steppe Merc]

I think we started talking about the Sarmatians because in the movie, those "knights" are supposedly Sarmatians.
And there were many Sarmatians in Brittania. Not a huge amount, and most probably would not have stayed in Britan. But there could be some Sarmatian style heavy horse (which any heavy horse would be based after), which is what I was reffering to. However, it would not look like this unit.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

surely the "graal" couldn't imply that this unit is King Arthur's Grail Knights could it???

The end of the 6th/start of the 7th century is when the balance finally tipped toward Anglo-Saxon domination of lowland Britain. So, there were roughly two centuries when the Romano British obviously weren't that rubbish.

[metatron]

And what is Graal?It's the thing in the beacon at the Castle Anthrax... ;)

Actually, that's what I'm thinking CA is going for... :(

[metatron]

surely the "graal" couldn't imply that this unit is King Arthur's Grail Knights could it???

The end of the 6th/start of the 7th century is when the balance finally tipped toward Anglo-Saxon domination of lowland Britain. So, there were roughly two centuries when the Romano British obviously weren't that rubbish.I was a second too late. :(

[Steppe Merc]

Hmm. The Sarmatian theory may not work so well either. Most Sarmatians that stayed setteled around Dublin, and they were defectors. The Goidilic kindgom gave them lands and wives as appreciation for their defection.
And I think most heavy horse used by the Romano British were Celtic styled...

edit: PS: I have found out that Graal means Brythonic base word for Grail...

[edyzmedieval]

well, then we can make whatever units we want in that game period and say it's historical accurate ~D

Graal Knight - Elven warriors
Sceary Knights - Mighty Horseriders with their underpants over their head
Bard Clubmen - Inspiring nearby troops with guitarplaying
Romano-Briton Cows - Was used in battle when nothing else was avaliable
and so on...

Excellent list of units. :laugh4:

Steppe, I think that B. is the most appropiate. They consulted Stephen Turnbull when they made STW, but they mainly ignored him.

[edyzmedieval]

Oh, let's see some more units. I propose:

Screeching Lady Guinevere ~D
Arthurian Cataphract
Lancelot Lancers
Galahad Noble Cavalry

~D

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I hope they go with the early literature and have crazed wildmen of the woods units of "Merlins" rather than a zappy wizard unit.

I do expect them to provide for Merlin though.
I will be severely displeased if they do not.

[edyzmedieval]

We were just joking, you know. How can you include Merlin in a historical game?!

OMG... :laugh4:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I was just joking too.
I guess that sarcasm doesn't go over too well when typed.

And there'd better be a rebel faction led by Mordred too. ~D

[Ianofsmeg16]

Ok, I'll admit its an awesome looking being, but i do like my realism, and Romano-British realism especially (seeing as i am working on a 'Dark Age' britain mod)....

for example, the word knight comes fro the SAXON (old english) word cniht meaning Servant, so i doubt the Romano-Brits would be using such a word.

but, again, good looking skin and maybe of great use to modders

[Husar]

Some years ago one of my teachers gave me a lot of books about Prince Valiant and I expected some kind of completely fantasy with magic and stuff, and I was surprised how it displayed Merlin as some kind of modern magician who uses tricks instead of "real" magic, in the end I liked the books, even though they somewhat exaggerated in some parts where the prince and his friends ride hapilly into battle and kill a lot of people on their own just because they´re so 1337. ~;)

I forgot what I originally wanted to say with this, but I generally agree with Kraxis.
I don´t think it´s good for anyone to think he has "THE" insight on history and can judge each and every unit´s historical accuracy.

And btw I still think that the movement speeds of vanilla RTW are ok, while the fighting speeds are indeed somewhat fast, but since I tried a mod with slower unit movement, I never touched any other, especially not Total Realism, because I hate the slower movement, it looks foolish and historically inaccurate for units to move like this. ~;)

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Romano-British may well have used "cniht" if:
1. it was a more compact and useful term for a servant/boy who was a heavily armoured horseman than whatever they were using.
or
2. if the word were of non-Germanic origin (loads of Anglo-Saxon words are described by the Oxford English Dictionary as of unknown origin, plenty of these are actually of Celtic derivation).

[rebelscum]

And I think you'll find that CA's historical research puts EB's (or any well meaning TW players for that matter) to great shame. See CA has never said what kind of historical texts/knowledgable persons they draw upon to make there units for the TW games.
And I wonder why ~D . They've probably got some 17 year old college student on the case. His idea of research is watchin DVD's. He might watch 'Alexander', 'Troy' and 'Kingdom of Heaven' next to get more unit ideas.

[King of Atlantis]

I dont think the name really matters. Atleast their trying to be historical with it. The units also seems like it could be somewhar historical, but definatly not that heavy amored. I really like this unit though, I gave up expecting die hard realsim from Ca, and have just learned to like what they give, and then go play realsim mods like RTR..


edit- Im sure CA does have some very knowledgable historians, but they are restriceted by being a game. Im guessing that they go with the units they see will make the most money, just like any other company..

[rebelscum]

Actually King Arthur isn't as bad as you might think, while the detail, setting and politics sucked the thrust of the story is basically sound. There was a Romano-British commander called Arturius who beat the Saxons at Badon Hill. In the film Arturius is a Roman Equestrian, so that fits.

Anyway, about the unit, there certainly were no "Knights" since the word is Norman but Arturius held back the Saxons for fifty years, he must have had something to do it with and my bet would be heavy Cav. He probably didn't have many though as all that chainmail would have cost a bomb in the four hundreds.
Sorry that's piffle, you have gleaned your history from the film subtext.
The text of Gildas' De excido et conquestu Britanniae is the best contemporary record of sixth-century Britain. As such, historians searching for a real historical Arthur often use this source to validate their interpretations and theories of his lfe, even though Gildas does not mention Arthur by name.
We also have several dates for the battle of Badon hill from 582 AD to 500 AD.
So the guy who supposed that Sarmatian knights who were left over from the Roman army who packed up and left almost four generations before were still around. (people didn't live as long then either).
This is the main problem. Young people play this game, who haven't had much learning (like me ~;) ) and I'm sure that they may easily become confused between fact and fantasy especially if something is packaged as fact. Please let myths and stories be such and let the truth stand, or else we all all destined to repeat our mistakes for ever and ever.

[lars573]

Do not insult us again. CA either A. has no historians, which we do, or B. ignores them, which we do not. I have not decided which is worse.
And if I do?

[rebelscum]

The Sarmatians would not have been equipped in this manner. Most Sarmatians did not use facemasks, preffering spangenhelms. None would use a spear, since you need two hands to use a kontus, which they used. Only the richest Sarmatians used horse armor, and I'm thinking that the richest would not be in Brittannia, nor would they be members of the Romono British elite like they say.

And while I could see a Sarmatian based heavy horse (more along the lines that Kraxis mentioned - kontus, half bard or un armored horse with spangenhelm and scale armor), this does not mention Sarmatians much at all. The description says it's the elite of the Romano British, who "keep alive the Roman and Christian traditions of militarism and piety in equal measure". That's just foolish. Heavy horse had nothing to do with Romans, all of their horse was poorer copies of Sarmatians or Parthians (though the copies got better as time went on with the Byzantines).

And what is Graal? And why did they use the term knights? I know it has come to represent heavy horse, but they should either use whatever
langauge Graal is from for heavy horse, or the Roman Clibanarii, cataphracti, or whatever the Latin term for the Greek kontophoroi (sp). The kontophoroi (sp) would be the most accurate term to describe Sarmatian style heavy horse, especially away from the steppe.
I love you, can I have your babies. I agree word for word with everything you say here.
No I haven't finished yet. CA have turned into modders overnight. I wish they would leave the imagination to people who actually have some, eh!

[rebelscum]

This is most acute in Britain where for what ever reason written history died out when the Romans left. So really CA could give the Romano-Britions chariots and not be totally wrong.
Lars really there is loads of literature.
Gildas' De excido et conquestu Britanniae for one.
This lack of literature idea and the concept of a "Dark Age" was first created by Italian humanists and was originally intended as a pejorative sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but a lack of contemporary written history and material cultural achievements in general. (from wikipedia)
*snip*
Do not insult us again. CA either A. has no historians, which we do, or B. ignores them, which we do not. I have not decided which is worse.
*snip*
Anyways, is that 'yes, we have no historians or we do have historians and we don't ignore the historians'. I would say that you should ignore your historians if this is the stuff they come up with.

[Steppe Merc]

And I wonder why ~D . They've probably got some 17 year old college student on the case. His idea of research is watchin DVD's. He might watch 'Alexander', 'Troy' and 'Kingdom of Heaven' next to get more unit ideas.
Who exactly are you refering too, CA, or EB? Because, as edyz pointed out, some historians do help CA, but they just ignore them, at least for STW. As for EB, well there are a whole bunch of historians in our team.


I love you, can I have your babies. I agree word for word with everything you say here.
No I haven't finished yet. CA have turned into modders overnight. I wish they would leave the imagination to people who actually have some, eh!
I don't want babies, they're smelly. ~;)

Scion, the masks do look a bit like the Ordinators in Vivec, but without the crest and the earing. And masks were used by some peoples, though I do not believe the Romano British Elite would have.

[rebelscum]

Ok what do we know?

We know that a number of Sarmatians (5000?) were settled in Brittannia.
We know that a warlord named Artorius held the Saxons back not that long afterwards (generations later).
The later myths and also the tales of a Welsh monk (the first real Arthur-tale, from around 1000) include what seems to be rather heavy cavalry.

We don't know the equipment.
We don't know how many it would have been, though we can expect it to be few.
We don't know what they were called.

Is it so hard to believe that some of the initial Sarmatian men taught their sons the way of the heavy cavalry?

So in essence I would say that the unit itself is nothing we should complain about. The equipment though, is perhaps a good deal too heavy compared with what the Romano-British could afford.
A semi-armoured horse and a mailed rider with a lance would be my vision. But that is just one, others have different views.
History is not a specific fact most often.

Oh give over. Your favourite colour must be white with a subtle hint of bullshit. ~;)
We do know the equipment around as many people have detailed it in this thread. As far as hoiw many, we can expect there to be no GRAAL Knights what-so-ever. We don't need to know what they were called as something that doesn't exist is rarely given a name. If you want to stick a Romano-Brit on a horse and tank him up a bit for the purposes of balancing the game then CA should just call it bloody armoured cavalry and stop insulting our intelligence.

[rebelscum]

Who exactly are you refering too, CA, or EB? Because, as edyz pointed out, some historians do help CA, but they just ignore them, at least for STW. As for EB, well there are a whole bunch of historians in our team.


I don't want babies, they're smelly. ~;)

Scion, the masks do look a bit like the Ordinators in Vivec, but without the crest and the earing. And masks were used by some peoples, though I do not believe the Romano British Elite would have.
CA of course.

[Ludens]

Ok what do we know?

We know that a number of Sarmatians (5000?) were settled in Brittannia.
We know that a warlord named Artorius held the Saxons back not that long afterwards (generations later).
The later myths and also the tales of a Welsh monk (the first real Arthur-tale, from around 1000) include what seems to be rather heavy cavalry.

We don't know the equipment.
We don't know how many it would have been, though we can expect it to be few.
We don't know what they were called.

Is it so hard to believe that some of the initial Sarmatian men taught their sons the way of the heavy cavalry?

So in essence I would say that the unit itself is nothing we should complain about. The equipment though, is perhaps a good deal too heavy compared with what the Romano-British could afford.
A semi-armoured horse and a mailed rider with a lance would be my vision. But that is just one, others have different views.

History is not a specific fact most often.
A very good summary. It is quite possible that this kind of unit existed, though its equipment is probably way too heavy.

But naming it Graal Knights is a blow in the face of the historically-minded fans.

It does have a very nice skin, though.

[lars573]

Lars really there is loads of literature.
Gildas' De excido et conquestu Britanniae for one.
This lack of literature idea and the concept of a "Dark Age" was first created by Italian humanists and was originally intended as a pejorative sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but a lack of contemporary written history and material cultural achievements in general. (from wikipedia)
*snip*
Do not insult us again. CA either A. has no historians, which we do, or B. ignores them, which we do not. I have not decided which is worse.
*snip*
Anyways, is that 'yes, we have no historians or we do have historians and we don't ignore the historians'. I would say that you should ignore your historians if this is the stuff they come up with.
And these days anything not first or second hand by the people in question is not taken very seriously. De excido et conquestu Britanniae, heard of that before written by a Roman from Gaul IIRC. In other words it doesn't count. Also dark age refers to the fact that you had many illiterate peoples moving around not writing down events for us to read about. Most written source come from either the church or from the litterate Germans.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Whether CA is right or not doesn't matter any more.

After the debacle of the Egyptian units, there will be many who will totally reject any and all units put forth by CA.

That blunder means evey new unit will be greeted with shouts of "Rubbish! Inaccurate rubbish!"

I don't know well enough to judge either way. :book:

[econ21]

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

[ScionTheWorm]

And I think you'll find that CA's historical research puts EB's (or any well meaning TW players for that matter) to great shame. See CA has never said what kind of historical texts/knowledgable persons they draw upon to make there units for the TW games.
I'm sorry... :lipsrsealed2: :laugh:

I don't mind the units, really... but these priests and this graal knight, it's not researched at all! I could come up with that! really. I don't mind it's a little fiction within the game, but for gods, or whoevers sake, admit it

[Kraxis]

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


As far as hoiw many, we can expect there to be no GRAAL Knights what-so-ever. We don't need to know what they were called as something that doesn't exist is rarely given a name. If you want to stick a Romano-Brit on a horse and tank him up a bit for the purposes of balancing the game then CA should just call it bloody armoured cavalry and stop insulting our intelligence.
You know, I was rather hoping for this argument.


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

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

[Kraxis]

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

At least I find it important.

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

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

[King of Atlantis]

I personally liked the names in medieval. They were historic enough, though rather generic for catholics.

But, Grail Knights? That doesnt sound very much like King Arthur.., but then again im sure it would be hard to find a "correct" name for the..


but, hey names are EXTREMELY easy to mod, so I dont really care...

[Casmin]

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

They're deriving the name from later medieval French and German Arthurian legends of which some of these stories refer to the grail (graal). The grail itself was originally an ancient myth from the British Isles. It has nothing in reality to do with Romano-British cavalrymen to the point where they would formulate themselves around the said legend. Moreso knights didn't even exist during the time depicted in the game.

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

Lol, I think the guys at CA are reading too much "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Holy Kingdom". ~:)

[King of Atlantis]

I think what everyone here who disagrees with the unit is trying to get across is that it's not so much the consistency of the unit that's incorrect but rather it's name. .

I would disagree with that.. It seems the main problem is that they have way more armor than a british heavy cavalry unit would most likely of had. But, then yes people are also complaining with the name as well..

[KSEG]

So if the name is something like "Brythonic Heavy Cavalry" we are going to havea happy community?

[Casmin]

So if the name is something like "Brythonic Heavy Cavalry" we are going to havea happy community?

Hahaha, yes we are!

Listen my gf doesn't want to go out tonight...I'm stuck in the house with nothing to do but to debate the historical innaccuracy of the name of a unit in a computer game. Cut me some slack KSEG. Unfortunately for me she's watching me typing now and thinks I'm a complete geek.

[Casmin]

I would disagree with that.. It seems the main problem is that they have way more armor than a british heavy cavalry unit would most likely of had. But, then yes people are also complaining with the name as well..

Graal Knights existed about as much as you did Mr. King.

[King of Atlantis]

Graal Knights existed about as much as you did Mr. King.

yes, but as Kraxis has pointed out, there most likely was heavy cavalry unit, possibly based of the sarmation tradition. And of course they werent called Graal Knights, but again I see there equipment as a more important issue.

And on a side note, you exist as much as I do. ~:cool:

[Casmin]

yes, but as Kraxis has pointed out, there most likely was heavy cavalry unit, possibly based of the sarmation tradition. And of course they werent called Graal Knights, but again I see there equipment as a more important issue.

And on a side note, you exist as much as I do. ~:cool:

It's ironic because the equipment issue didn't bother me. Just the name because I felt the name connotated the most about the unit. At any rate, if I don't exist then I'm not going back to work on Monday. ~:)

[Dark_Magician]

Is BI a fantasy game>? ~:confused:

BI is definitly a fantasy game. By allowing player to "rule" an Empire it allows for alternative history. It would be even more honest if it also had a possibility of designing completely own units. Unfortunately it has not.

But still, what army would "Romano-Brits" have if they were, in fact so successful that, unlike their true fate, would last and grow into a large kingdom?

[ScionTheWorm]

So if the name is something like "Brythonic Heavy Cavalry" we are going to havea happy community?
~:cheers: ~D

and maybe we can agree they haven't weigthened historical accuracy that much.

[rebelscum]

Hahaha, yes we are!

Listen my gf doesn't want to go out tonight...I'm stuck in the house with nothing to do but to debate the historical innaccuracy of the name of a unit in a computer game. Cut me some slack KSEG. Unfortunately for me she's watching me typing now and thinks I'm a complete geek.
You aren't a geek. This is important stuff dude. The whole of human history is at stake. Brothers, let us stand together against the CA. We shall not fear their magic hats as I have eaten all their knees.

[antisocialmunky]

Brythronic Heavy Cavalry sounds cooler than Graal Knights. But don't you guys think it's nitpickery to debate endlessly about a crappy name when it's obviously and proven to be anachronistic?

I mean... don't you guys have better things to do, like making the weekly 'RTW AI sucks' thread. That even that seems more productive than arguing over a stupid name...

[Steppe Merc]

I think what everyone here who disagrees with the unit is trying to get across is that it's not so much the consistency of the unit that's incorrect but rather it's name. The name "Graal Knight" connotates nothing real of late Roman Briton. It would be like if they came out with a new Tom Clancy game and they called the Spec Op's troops "Minutemen".
Nah, my main problem is the equipment and the looks. I didn't even know that Graal meant Grail when I first posted. As for names, it's less of a problem with me than the actual looks. I admit, I find it stupid, but if something is called Sarmatian Horse Archer, and it looks and plays like a Sarmatian Horse Archer, it's all good. Even if it's Chosen Archer, and it looks like a real steppe foot archer, it would be find. However, it is often times the case where the silly names go with the silly units. But my main problem is the silly units.




I doesn't matter if the subtext for the "Graal Knights" states that they were originally Sarmatian cavalry. It doesn't add any validity to the name Graal Knight. Sarmatian cavalry in Briton had nothing to do with Arthurian legends that weren't even invented yet.
I believe there was an Arthur, but it is too much to say that there were units of these types of soldiers running about with him.



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

At least I find it important.

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

Thus it is fair to say that this units is suppoed to be related to Sarmatian heavy cavalry. Perhaps not by lineage but by tradition. Is that really that hard to believe in (not directed at you in particular Merc)?
As I already mentioned, it is too heavy, but it's basics are fair enough. Some heavy cavalry forming the backbone of the R'n'B armies.
Yes, I'd agree that a Sarmatian style horse unit would be possible, however it would likely be extremely rare. The Elite of the Elite, probably.

[Sol Invictus]

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

[KSEG]

You aren't a geek. This is important stuff dude. The whole of human history is at stake. Brothers, let us stand together against the CA. We shall not fear their magic hats as I have eaten all their knees.
We also got the support of the owls, so those CA heretics won't even know what hit them.

[lars573]

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

[Mongoose]

*Digs up old post*


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

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

*Please correct me if im wrong.


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

[Steppe Merc]

I take comfort in the fact that within a few days of release, a talented modder will make a quick mod that deals with the most troublesome units. I just have a problem with a few of them.
No offense, but you are far over estimating what can be done with the game. Few people know how to skin, and most are already involved with mods.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

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

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


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

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

Sorry if I sound aggressive. I am not trying to be. ~:)

[Brutus]

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

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

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

[Steppe Merc]

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

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

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

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

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

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

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

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

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

[rebelscum]

Rebelscum, your reply to Kraxis's post was rude (the "your favorite colour must be..." line). Let's keep the exchanges polite.
I'm sure Kraxis took it in jest the way it was meant to be put. You must not know me/read my posts or you would know I am not that sort of person.
Apologies to anyone who found that offensive.
........ :lipsrsealed2:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

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

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

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

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

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

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

[rebelscum]

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

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

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

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


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

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

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

[rebelscum]

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



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

I cannot see the stirrup in the picture, but perhaps I am being blind. As for horses, yeah they were smaller then, but armour like that was used, so they were big enough for it. I changed my post as I looked at the model again for the hundredth time. No stirrups so no heavy barding.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

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

[ScionTheWorm]

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

[Casmin]

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

Sorry didn't mean to assume for everyone. :embarassed: :embarassed:

[Casmin]

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


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

[rebelscum]

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

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

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

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

[rebelscum]

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


You know, I was rather hoping for this argument.


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

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

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

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

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

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

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

[AntiochusIII]

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

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

[econ21]

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

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

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

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

[Steppe Merc]

Also I would assume that the Romans/Sarmatians etc used Friesian horses for heavy cavalry, native to Holland. As far back as Roman times, the Friesian was noted for its value as a powerful utility animal, however the Roman historian Tacitus (AS 55-120) felt compelled to make note of its ugliness! They are always black, and are noted for their thick and luxuriant mane and tail, as well as the feathering on the lower legs. The horse in the model is grey and entirely the wrong shape for any breed of warhorse. Its more like an arabian or racehorse. Maybe its just the stupid innacurate barding thats doing it.
Iranians used many different breeds, mainly varities of the steppe pony bred with larger breeds, although some weren't bred with the steppe pony. The Nisean breed was often used, but many others could be. So no, Friesans were not used by the Sarmatians.


an Arab type of about 14 hands, possibly the imported horse type used by Sarmatian troops;
Sarmatians would have used steppe ponies for the lighter stuff, and I don't think they used Arabian breeds for their heavy horse.


So if they were to convince me they would have to make the horse slightly bigger to be the Arab at 14 hands and bigger still for the only possible horse that could carry heavy barding i.e the Friesan. :charge:
Other horses could carry barding, like the Nisean, and possibley the Akal-Teke (I think that's right). Steppe nomads had armored horses for a very long time, as did other Easterners. Of course, they also were the best horsemen, and had the four pronged saddle that is missing from this unit.

[lars573]

*Digs up old post*


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

*Please correct me if im wrong.


Back to the subject:How does it hurt the gameplay to have units *Look* realistic? Seems more like "Fantasy>realism" rather then "Gameplay>realism".
I read everything I could about RTR. Then when I realized that they intended to butcher RTW, I made a vow never to play ever so long as I shall live.

[Casmin]

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

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

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

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

[Casmin]

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

I guess it's more of a question of fantasy = more sales?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I believe that the historical reliability of the night of the long knives story is debatable (as is a great deal of the info. of this period as it tends to come from much later sources).

I have also read different accounts of how much land was initially taken by whatever German betrayal occurred, ranging from not much to quite alot.

Of course there were also the Germans who remained loyal to the British(can't remember their name but they do appear in the sources, there is an encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England that has a nice little article on them).


But yes, violence was undoubtedly a part of it, how much this was divided along ethnic lines in probably impossible to tell.

[rebelscum]

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


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


Other horses could carry barding, like the Nisean, and possibley the Akal-Teke (I think that's right). Steppe nomads had armored horses for a very long time, as did other Easterners. Of course, they also were the best horsemen, and had the four pronged saddle that is missing from this unit.
I'm talking about the so called Sarmatian knights possibly fighting in Britain after the Romans left. The Nisean, and Akal-Teke aren't native to Europe and I very much doubt such stock were brought all the way to Northern Europe after the Romans. I'm trying to explore a 'what if' scenario and piece together what such a unit 'would' have been like. It's a bit like a jigsaw puzzle.
The most obviously available horse was the Fresian and was used as heavy cavalry for a thousand years so I'm going to go with that.
The Sarmatian banded armour was a full covering of small rounded iron plates,
http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/trajan/images/hi/5.40.h.jpg. and we know late roman cataphracts did exist so we will keep that though make it look a little more realistic rather than large sqare bands.

As for the Sassanian Saddle. There were a few types of Saddles used in the Sassanian armies. But the four horned one is shown on wall carvings. So the horse blanket is completely wrong.
For the helm we can go with the spangenhelms mentioned by Steppe Merc.
For weapons, the officer may have carried a Spatha a longer version of the shorter, leaf-shaped gladius used by a legionary, and later on maybe a Lombard spathae. But the kontus is a rather long and heavy lance, most lighter armed cavalry carried the iaculor a javelin like weapon.
The armour may have been fully banded arms and legs and breast, with a chainmail skirt rather than the strange looking banded armour shown. The round wooden sheild, we will drop (You're not going to hold a lance and control a horse and use a shiled to deflect missiles at the same time, all without a saddle or stirrups) add a larger horse and we might actually have a workable unit.

[Steppe Merc]

Ok, you were talking about Sarmatians in England. I thought you meant Sarmatians in general.


But the kontus is a rather long and heavy lance, most lighter armed cavalry carried the iaculor a javelin like weapon.
Probably so, but heavy Sarmatians were kontus wielders primarily. No idea how the Romans expected them to fight, though most Sarmatians also had bows, but again I don't know how they fought under the Romans (though why they would make them change, I don't know).

[Kraxis]

rebelscum, if you notice all the horses of RTW are the same (save the cataphracts and their kin). Why? To save place, worktime and in general the effort. The gains would be too little to reason for the extra effort.
The same goes for the armour and saddle. They make interchangeable equipment for the sake of the easiness. A point I find extremely fair.

I would rather that the units are 80% ok in looks but the AI is that much better, than to have 100% ok units and an AI that is faulty.

The Sarmatian riders' horses would in time have bred into the local population of horses, creating a mix. I don't find it impossible that such a horse could have carried armour. Did it carry armour? I think so, but in a lesser degree.

Also, you do not need a perfect saddle to charge. It is very nice to have, just like the stirrups, but not needed. Neither the Companions nor their lighter compatriots, the Thessalian cavalry used saddles, yet they were lancers that performed rather well in the charge.

Take a look here very interesting article (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.shtml). That goes for everyone that hasn't read it before. Even if you are convinced there was no need for stirrups.

And the debate about the word 'knight'... I do not think it has been argued well enough that it should only be applied to medieval horsemen.
What is a knight? What is his requirements?
He has to be a rider and petty+ aristocrat that serves his lord/state as a heavy cavalryman.
To me that is pretty much what these guys are. And as noted the Equites are often called knights (I don't like it personally) because they fit the bill fairly well (in this case they fit better the social aspect than the military).
One could argue that the Parthian cataphracts to an extent were knights as well. Personally I would never do it. But if these guys are indeed from the lesser aristocracy then I see no fair argument to not call them knights, besides the 'urhh' factor, and that is simply not very good.
Sure we can bitch and whine about that and have our own oppinions on what a knight really should be, but it doesn't seem the convention will change, at least until we have made a small revolution within the historical society. So can we fault CA for not being so deep into the matter that they have chosen to side with us (perhaps they are and simply doesn't agree)? Not at all...
By convention, knight, is perfectly valid. Graal is another matter entirely, but at least it gives a bit of flavour, and I'm sure that there would have been an even bigger outcry if they had simply been called 'Knights'.

Oh and Simon...
I actually had the Jomsvikings as my project at the first year of university. I even went to their 'home'.
I will not bore you with the details, but the result that both I and my teacher (urhh I hate that term for a guy that teaches at university level) agreed on was.
The town of Wolin was Jomsborg. It had many names in Denmark at the time (the best names are Jumne and Julin), but they all gave the same description of the town and its surrounding areas, so there was no doubt about it. That town had succesfully fought the Polish Duke (father of the future king) for a number of years, and Ibn Fadlan visits teh town and speaks very well of its warriors and their capabilities in war. Eventually they got conquered though. The time until the first stories of the Jomsvikings first adventures is an interesting 25 years. The time for a new generation of warriors to grow up (subjugated this time). At the same time the town was influenced by Danish traders and settlers, to the extent that Harald Bluetooth in fact installed a military garrison there (it seems the control had shifted from Polish to Danish in that time). That garrison is then mentioned as being highly effective warriors going back quite far, and they were staunch supporters of Sweyn Forkbeard, the instigator of the war with Norway in which the major battle of Hjörungevåg took place and the Jomsvikings finally lost out (that battle seems to have been historical since a particular fjord was for centuries told to have been the place of most impressive battle at sea and other details that simply fit too well).
In any case the Jomsvikings weren't beaten totally in real history though. They went home and turned their hatred on Denmark (not surprising given Denmark was nearby and its king had just caused a major reverse). And for decades they were a thorn in the side of the Danish kings. The Danish influence and population seems to have been in decline and the locals took over, but carried on the tradition (perhaps it had only been them from the start?). And the town had to be burned several times by Magnus the Good (Norwegian king of Denmark). That was the final straw and the town never recovered, and eventually it declined so much that it was abandoned for some time, and the warriortradition seems to have been lost.

The harbour of Wolin at the time was not capable of 360 longboats, nor did it have stonefortifications and a giant gate. But those are obviously 'just' the usual exaggerations. The use of heavy chains and bridges was very profound, and could have formed the basis for the fortifications. On the other hand the harbour was very much a protected one that could hold many more boats that most other harbours at the time. 60 is not impossible at a time when 20 was the most that the big town of Hedeby could handle. No wonder it was later inflated as it could seemingly hold endless numbers of boats.

So you see the Jomsvikings were not fiction per se, and their name while anachronistic was by far the best there is (the only one really) if we have to name a gameunit after them.

[Doug-Thompson]

It was almost worth reading this whole thread for Kraxis' link to the mounted combat pages. Great, great stuff.

As for the whole "Grail Knight" debate, any game without Egyptian chariots will be an improvement. We can speculate about the weapons and tack of Romano-Briton cavalrymen all day long, but that's nothing compared to the ludicrous sight of people dressed like Pharaohs riding about on chariots in the 3rd Century B.C.

Therefore, BI is going to be a considerable improvement in historical plausibility, even if it can't be called accuracy.

[Steppe Merc]

Kraxis, I have read people calling Parthian and Sassanian heavy horse "knights" because the cataphracts were of the nobility, and they did have a proto feudalistic system. Even so, I don't really like it. But it isn't a huge problem.

And Kraxis I agree that saddles are not required for a lancer. However, Sarmatians and Parthians did use four horned saddles, and especially by this time, most would use it, due to it's helpfulness in archery and charges. But it is not neccasary.

But as member of a mod I can apreciate the fact that each horse is not unique, because of the limited models (not that CA gets even close to the limit, but...), and the need for it to be as wide encompasing as possilbe. However, with barding, a four pronged saddle would be used by pretty much everyone that uses barding. But I digress.

And the articale is quite interesting, though most peoples with heavy horse didn't use the couching tecnique, though for some reason I think Celts did...
And this quote

But possible is not always probable. And the choice of when and how to use a particular type of tactic is after all what wins or loses a battle. Cavalry tactics are chosen battle by battle based on terrain and resource considerations. Just because "Shock Tactics" were known by a given army or commander, does not mean they would be employed at a particular battle. Conversely, just because they were not used, does not mean they were not known. Often the best way to win a battle was to have your cavalry dismount and fight on foot. Many a battle was lost by foolish deployment of cavalry. Cavalry tactics developed as a counterpoint to infantry tactics in a slowly escalating dance for battlefield superiority.
is obviously only towards Westerners, because Easterners long used heavy horse shock tactics, though of course not on its own. And infantry, while not as bad as RTW would suggest, was in the supporting catagory, rather than vice versa.

[rebelscum]

rebelscum, if you notice all the horses of RTW are the same (save the cataphracts and their kin). Why? To save place, worktime and in general the effort. The gains would be too little to reason for the extra effort.
The same goes for the armour and saddle. They make interchangeable equipment for the sake of the easiness. A point I find extremely fair.


Excuse me this is a commercial product, not a mod. Lets say you bought an album from your favourite group and found the songs were half finished, or they sang them in funny voices. Are you going to buy anything from them again? .. I don't think so. Its the same with software. People are fans of RTW for various reasons, I assume there are lots of people who don't really care what the units are and happy to part with £15 just so their fave game is a little fresher.
It's not as if they have re-done the engine, which is why I bought RTW after MTW and viking invasion. I personally would like the game to be a little more accurate. Aren't I entitled to a little of what I want after following the series and purchasing the games. I will just wait for the RTR to do something about it like I did last time. :surrender:

[rebelscum]

This is a very good link to the life of a cavalry officer in second century Britain.
And speculates on whether this Roman was the legendary King Arthur.
http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/halac.htm
It discusses the equestrian class which one would have to belong to before you could even ride into battle.
:charge:
BTW, good link Kraxis. You may have swayed the stirrup debate.

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

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

Brilliant! I didn't realise that the names were similar to those Nords. I only saw that guy's helmet. Well spotted.


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

Alternatively, we could mod all the other units so that they look like people out of Morrowind, and play Morrowind: Total War! Who's going to model the Khajit? that's what I what to know!

[Steppe Merc]

Hmm, ElderScrolls (Morrowind is just a province, after all) Totalwar would be sweet, but I'll just be happy with the upcoming Oblivion.

And rebelscum, actualy mods have a bit more leway with horses because they tend to exploit more model space than CA. However, they (I asumme...) have less modelers and skinners than CA. And unit model spaces are more important than horse ones.

[Kraxis]

Hmm, ElderScrolls (Morrowind is just a province, after all) Totalwar would be sweet, but I'll just be happy with the upcoming Oblivion.

And rebelscum, actualy mods have a bit more leway with horses because they tend to exploit more model space than CA. However, they (I asumme...) have less modelers and skinners than CA. And unit model spaces are more important than horse ones.
That is the point.
I would love to see perfectly scuptured units on their horses. Even if they are anachronistic. It is simply better on the eyes.
But we have to realize that CA is pragmatic. The details are extremely negliable. Not to us perhaps, but that is where the mods come in, and to be honest I prefer better unit models rather than perfect horses. Horses are after all quite similar to the human eye. Size in particular we should simply ignore, as all the men are of equal size anyway.

Steppe, that is the point of the entire 'knight' dispute. The technical term 'knight' is simply not timespecific, since its origin itself is extremely broad (servant). Thus it can be backtracked to a lot of other units, especially since knight is also used as an aristocratic term.
But we are brought up with the knightly visage in varying forms, but they always include the medieval rider. We see a clear line from that medieval man and the word. So the term is also social to us, thus whenever others get called knights we wrinkle our noses, yet it is completely fair to call others knights.
I still don't like to use knight for anything but medieval knights, not even the Carolingan miles, do I like to call knights, eventhough they more than anything indeed were knights, they just had another social term.

[Kraxis]

Oh, and while the article is certainly western in orientation it doesn't mean that his experiences aren't equally applicable to eastern traditions.

A twohanded lance shouldn't be that much less effective at transferring the impact to the horse than a couched lance. The rider would of course twist a lot more, but the slide would be much the same. And as said the Companions rode on blankets (at varying degrees of thickness), and they certainly did charge, as did the Thessalians who didn't even have the blankets.

Teh entire point of this was to say that the saddle of the unit is not important, especially not considering the rather slim pickings we have on its likely historical counterparts.

[HarunTaiwan]

The word knight instantly conjures up the image of medieval knights in plate armour jousting. I don't get an image of Cataphracts. That would be cavalry, plain and simple.

[Hurin_Rules]

A very unhistorical unit and very disheartening.

First off, there are many sources from this period. Rome had not yet fallen and the Eastern Empire kept on trucking, so there are lots of sources around: Jordanes for the Goths, Ammianus Marcellanus, etc. See Walter Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (Princeton University Press, 1988). There is no evidence for Romano-British Cataphracts. There are no mentions of 'knights' amongst the Romano-British (beyond the odd, late usage of 'equites'), nor, in fact, was the Latin language at that point capable of expressing the difference between a soldier and a knight. The distinction simply didn't exist. The word for 'knight' in Latin is miles. Before the turn of the tenth to the eleventh century, 'miles' meant soldier (in the classical usage of the word); after, it also came to mean 'knight', but the word itself is the same. There is therefore no justification for translating the word 'miles' as 'knight' before the tenth century. There is, therefore, also no justification for speaking of 'knights' before this period, because there was no word to call them. The addition of 'graal' is a shortsighted, romantic marketing tool designed to appeal to those who anachronistically misunderstand the nature of late antique Romano-British society, and to cash in on a horribly inaccurate piece of recent hollywood schlock. Very, very disappointing.

Colovion said it best:
I wish some company would actually realize that people will enjoy history which isn't dressed up like a whore.

The Bruckheimer catastrophe 'King Arthur' was so full of historical inaccuracies one wonders whether they even contacted any historians at all. The basic premise was quite good--Sarmatians were indeed stationed in Britain. After that, it was all downhill. The Saxons had outmoded and racist ideas that were antithetical to everything we know about Germanic society. The moviemakers didn't even know the basic chronology: the Romans had pulled out of Britain before 410, decades before the movie is set; Pelagius had been dead for decades when Arthur suddenly 'discovers' he has died; these are only a few of the basic and fundamental errors that could have been avoided had the moviemakers simply picked up an encyclopedia. Apparently, none of them did even that.

[Steppe Merc]

Oh, and while the article is certainly western in orientation it doesn't mean that his experiences aren't equally applicable to eastern traditions.

A twohanded lance shouldn't be that much less effective at transferring the impact to the horse than a couched lance. The rider would of course twist a lot more, but the slide would be much the same. And as said the Companions rode on blankets (at varying degrees of thickness), and they certainly did charge, as did the Thessalians who didn't even have the blankets.

Teh entire point of this was to say that the saddle of the unit is not important, especially not considering the rather slim pickings we have on its likely historical counterparts.
Well yeah, but I was mainly reffering to him calling cavalry a supporting force of infantry before the knights.

[Doug-Thompson]

I wish some company would actually realize that people will enjoy history which isn't dressed up like a whore.

Everybody wants realism. OK. Let's have a little realism.

Rome: Total War was a game that obviously had a lot of development costs. Then it had a lot of marketing costs. After all, R:TW was marketed like a U.S. Presidential candidate.

It got the some of the best press of 2005, including near-unanimous critical raves. Despite the complaints by the core fanbase and some of the game's glaring implausibles — many of which I also deplore and a few of which I helped research — word-of-mouth for this game was good too. Look at reader reviews of it.

Yet it was 10th in overall sales for 2005. Last place on the top 10. The top two or three games in that list probably outsold the rest combined.

After distributing this "hit" game, Activision sold the rights to Sega. Now CA is having to come out with "Spartan: Total Warrior," which is action-packed and downright silly, to help pay the bills while keeping "Total War" going.

What is the most commercially successful historical setting for computer games? World War II, of course. If there ever was a market for accurate simulation games, there is it.

"Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin" is exactly the type of highly detailed, realistically modelled tactical combat game being pined for here. It's sales are trivial — trivial — compared to jokes like "Battlefield 1942" or "Call of Duty." The "Combat Mission" series survives by producing a purely tactical simulation — no strategy map, no detailed economic or management game. Just tanks and machine guns.

Like it or not, folks, CA can't get much more realistic and keep this series going. If there was money in a highly realistic game of the era, the Roman Total Realism mod folks would be sellling shares of stock by now.

[rebelscum]

There is no evidence for Romano-British Cataphracts.
Actually there is. The Notitia Dignitatum lists equites and catapracti in the West Roman Empire.
Here is the latin version for anyone who is interested.
Notitia Dignitatum (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~halsteis/notitia.htm)
Its also a good source for your unit names.
If you need a translator
www.quicklatin.com (http://www.quicklatin.com)

[Casmin]

Actually there is. The Notitia Dignitatum lists equites and catapracti in the West Roman Empire.
Here is the latin version for anyone who is interested.
Notitia Dignitatum (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~halsteis/notitia.htm)
Its also a good source for your unit names.
If you need a translator
www.quicklatin.com (http://www.quicklatin.com)

Thanks for the links, Rebelscum.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

rebel scum: that was a fascinating source.

thanks.

~:cheers:

[Steppe Merc]

Like it or not, folks, CA can't get much more realistic and keep this series going. If there was money in a highly realistic game of the era, the Roman Total Realism mod folks would be sellling shares of stock by now.
Awesome, I wouldn't have to get a job if EB started to pay me, or even had bonds! ~D

[Hurin_Rules]

Actually there is. The Notitia Dignitatum lists equites and catapracti in the West Roman Empire.
Here is the latin version for anyone who is interested.
Notitia Dignitatum (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~halsteis/notitia.htm)
Its also a good source for your unit names.
If you need a translator
www.quicklatin.com (http://www.quicklatin.com)

A great source indeed, and thanks for the link.

But where are the Cataphracti stationed in Britain? I still don't see them. All I see are equites. Equites are not the same as cataphracts. It is clear from the usage of the document that the proper translation for equites would be 'cavalry,' not knights. These were professional soldiers who served for pay. They did not own fiefs; they were not linked to their overlords through bonds of homage and vassalage; they did not constitute a separate social class. Historians sometimes translate the ancient 'equites' as knights, but it is clear that by the later empire, the word had come to mean cavalry; unless you also want to count mounted archers, light cavalry scouts and other auxilia as 'knights'.

[lars573]

Equites litteraly means horsemen, but the word knight in european languages other than english means horsemen too (Ritter in German and Cavalier in French). The reason that the Equites from the pre-Marian system are called knights is because the Romans had a special patrician class called the Equestrian class, they owned estates that could support the breeding of warhorses. So much like medieval knights were a social class that were given land to provide cavalry to an overlord. The (pre-Marian) Roman Equites were a social class that owned enough land to be able to provide cavalry to the state army. So in a sense pre-Marian Equites can be called knights and it isn't a faulty premis.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Intra Britannias cum uiro spectibili comite Britanniarum:
Equites catafractarii iuniores.{?}

is that them?

[Hurin_Rules]

Well, I stand corrected. Looks like some kind of Cataphracts (apparently not Romano-Britons, but some kind of Cataphracts) were stationed in Britain. I also spotted an officer named Morbius, the 'Praefectus equitum catafractariorum' (loosely translated, the 'Prefect of the cataphract cavalry') serving under the general ('dux') of Britain.

I still maintain that translating 'cataphract' as 'knight' is anachronistic--these men did not form their own social class and did not hold fiefs, but were simply another type of soldier. It is also difficult to say what their ethnic makeup was--could they have been Sarmatian? Possibly. Nevertheless, I must retract my statement on the cataphracts of Britain: it does seem that some cataphracts were stationed there.

[Hurin_Rules]

Equites litteraly means horsemen, but the word knight in european languages other than english means horsemen too (Ritter in German and Cavalier in French). The reason that the Equites from the pre-Marian system are called knights is because the Romans had a special patrician class called the Equestrian class, they owned estates that could support the breeding of warhorses. So much like medieval knights were a social class that were given land to provide cavalry to an overlord. The (pre-Marian) Roman Equites were a social class that owned enough land to be able to provide cavalry to the state army. So in a sense pre-Marian Equites can be called knights and it isn't a faulty premis.

Agreed. And of course calling cataphracts 'knights' is problematic for the very same reasons: they did not form their own social class.

[Kraxis]

Agreed. And of course calling cataphracts 'knights' is problematic for the very same reasons: they did not form their own social class.
Depends... In Pathia they were indeed the lesser nobility, in Rome they were perhaps not. And I think that outside the royal troops of the Sassanid army the cataphracts there were also lesser nobility.

[Ciaran]

Like it or not, folks, CA can't get much more realistic and keep this series going. If there was money in a highly realistic game of the era, the Roman Total Realism mod folks would be sellling shares of stock by now.

Well said.
And then there´s something else. Let´s assume they managed to start from scratch, talk banks into financing the project and a publisher to take it on, you know what will happen? A forum like this, with people complaing about some aspects and trying to mod the game, that´s what. Face it, one-size-fits-all doesn´t exist.

[lars573]

Agreed. And of course calling cataphracts 'knights' is problematic for the very same reasons: they did not form their own social class.
I read a description (online) of how the Parthians organized their army. The site was a general Iranian history site so put however much stock in it you want to. Basically the Parthian state was a feudal one like the Persian dynasty that preceeded and followed it. But the Parthians only took cataphracts and horse archers from their vassal kingdoms. Each king was expected to provide a certain number of cataphracts, drawn from the nobility. And a certain number of horse archer in something like a 10:1 ration (1 cataphract for 10 horse archers) probably more. So it could be argued that since cataphracts were only drawn from the nobles that they were knights too.

[Hurin_Rules]

I read a description (online) of how the Parthians organized their army. The site was a general Iranian history site so put however much stock in it you want to. Basically the Parthian state was a feudal one like the Persian dynasty that preceeded and followed it. But the Parthians only took cataphracts and horse archers from their vassal kingdoms. Each king was expected to provide a certain number of cataphracts, drawn from the nobility. And a certain number of horse archer in something like a 10:1 ration (1 cataphract for 10 horse archers) probably more. So it could be argued that since cataphracts were only drawn from the nobles that they were knights too.

Yes, I agree you could make a case for calling Parthian Cataphracts 'knights'. But what I was saying was that I don't see any evidence that the Cataphracts in the Roman army formed a separate social class.

[lars573]

You'll notice that I stayed away from making any parallels between later Roman army units and the term knight. Now for the Romano-British who reverted to a more traditional way of warfare for themselfs. So having a unit called knights wouldn't be out of the question. Basically the nobles of a kingdom drawn by their king to form a super heavy cavalry force in battle.

[The Stranger]

http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/warriorvendel.jpg

a wannabe GRAAL KNIGHT ~:eek:

[Kraxis]

http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/warriorvendel.jpg

a wannabe GRAAL KNIGHT ~:eek:
A Viking rider...

[phred]

sorry, off topic but I couldn't resist.

here's the bane of all graal knights everywhere
http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo.asp?number=TYV15050#LargeImage

[Steppe Merc]

I read a description (online) of how the Parthians organized their army. The site was a general Iranian history site so put however much stock in it you want to. Basically the Parthian state was a feudal one like the Persian dynasty that preceeded and followed it. But the Parthians only took cataphracts and horse archers from their vassal kingdoms. Each king was expected to provide a certain number of cataphracts, drawn from the nobility. And a certain number of horse archer in something like a 10:1 ration (1 cataphract for 10 horse archers) probably more. So it could be argued that since cataphracts were only drawn from the nobles that they were knights too.
Horse archers were taken from nomadic mercanaries, and cataphracts were also taken from Armenia, and neighbouring cities.
But cataphracts were all nobility, whether on the steppe or in Iran (or both for the Parthians), and many horse archers were the petty nobles.
And the Parthians did have a basically feudal government, but there wasn't the whole land giving thing as much. And the 7 clans choose the King, so it wasn't the whole Father to Son thing (though it often happened that way, because the King usually controlled the most powerful clan at that time).

[Kraxis]

Horse archers were taken from nomadic mercanaries, and cataphracts were also taken from Armenia, and neighbouring cities.
But cataphracts were all nobility, whether on the steppe or in Iran (or both for the Parthians), and many horse archers were the petty nobles.
And the Parthians did have a basically feudal government, but there wasn't the whole land giving thing as much. And the 7 clans choose the King, so it wasn't the whole Father to Son thing (though it often happened that way, because the King usually controlled the most powerful clan at that time).
Actually a true Feudal kingdom had the nobles come together and choose a new king. I think you are mixing Feudalism up with Absolutism. In Feudalism the King is merely 'first among equals', in absolutism he gives the nobles the finger if he can (realism plays in as well).
Most feudal kings in the medieval period were indeed elected by the nobles, or even all landowning males. But usually they simply chose the king's son or some other relative. But in Denmark we have a few cases where this has been a bit convoluted, and the person had perhaps less claim to the throne by way of blood than his opponent, yet he was chosen.
All this electionstuff lead to a whole lot of civil wars as either a noble faction didn't accept that their candidate didn't win, or the new king went about to clean up those who had opposed his rise.

So my point was that the Parthian system is becoming more and more feudal as we speak.

[Steppe Merc]

How it can get more feudal I don't quite get, but I get your point. ~;)
And I didn't know that most feudal nation's nobles also elected kings. I knew they often got involved, but I didn't know they had that sort of system.
And Parthians could be called knights, though I wouldn't really agree with it, though I'm not entirely sure why I have such an aversion to calling Eastern heavy horse as knights. I've even heard Persian cavalry called knights, but that would be even less justified (I don't think they were as feudal, and not all of the horse were Persian nobles).

But in the end, I think we're all just debating symantics (sp?) ~D

[rebelscum]

A great source indeed, and thanks for the link.

But where are the Cataphracti stationed in Britain? I still don't see them. All I see are equites. Equites are not the same as cataphracts. It is clear from the usage of the document that the proper translation for equites would be 'cavalry,' not knights. These were professional soldiers who served for pay. They did not own fiefs; they were not linked to their overlords through bonds of homage and vassalage; they did not constitute a separate social class. Historians sometimes translate the ancient 'equites' as knights, but it is clear that by the later empire, the word had come to mean cavalry; unless you also want to count mounted archers, light cavalry scouts and other auxilia as 'knights'.
Hurin_rules
This evidence obviously does not detail what the cataphrats looked like.
My breakdown earlier is what I suppose they may have been.
GRAAL Knight 0 - Late Roman Cataphract 10

[rebelscum]

Agreed. And of course calling cataphracts 'knights' is problematic for the very same reasons: they did not form their own social class.
Actually they did form thier own social class. This (http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/halac.htm) documents the requirements of a cavalryman, social and economic.

[Patricius]

Has any of the BI purchasers faced those knights as yet?

[antisocialmunky]

Actually they did form thier own social class. This (http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/halac.htm) documents the requirements of a cavalryman, social and economic.

For most of the world, cavalrymen corresponded to some sort of social class.

[fenir]

From my understanding, and i maybe wrong...(i have quite enjoyed reading and following a little of this debate).

Is that, Both the Knight/s of their time, and the Cataphracts of their time, are same to similar Soical, military, and polictical Class within there core periods.
As we know Cataphracts continued on into the period of knights, espeically in the Late Roman Empire in the East, Parthians, Armenian, and even Georgia, to name a few.
Cataphracts, All very / heavy Horseman of this Soical, military and polictical Class tended to be of the Aristocrate level.
Same as Knights.

The Core difference is in the Training. Now Now don't raise the eyebrows too much.
I mean this, Both had martial training, very extensive training. They were not feared for nothing by their enemies.
They come from the same Social, military, and polictical Group, within there respective make up's.
The main difference being that Knights were, or supposed to be upholders of the Church, therefore crossing both the secular and spirtual divide.
Whereas, the Cataphract in it's role divides Secular from Spirtual. Thereby presenting a choice for the individual. As opposed to the conformity of the Knight.

Anyway, let me know what you think?



Kraxis, Actually a true Feudal kingdom had the nobles come together and choose a new king

Actually I would disagree there Kraxis.

True feudalism is defined as having given your bond for protection in return for service. Therefore Bowing to one higher up the food chain.
Therefore making the economy serve the needs of the military. therefore a lack of excess goods of an expensive nature. And absolutism, Because one Rules and Reigns. That is absolute.

Electing the King?
France didn't, England didn't, Scotland didn't, Spain didn't, the HRE and most i have looked at never did, exception of course for the titile of HRE, but then again that was a limited number, eg: only imperial holders as Electors eg: Margrave of Saxony, King of Bohemia, King of Bavaria, Palatine Counts, Arch Dukes of Austria, Margrave of Brandenburg.Trouble with this is the Hapsburg House Controlled Austria, Bohemia, and often stuck there hand in Bavaria.
Tho origially, many of the parliments of the Areas had control for some time.
But then again, they where not Nobles, but Rulers in their own right.

same said for the Itialians, the only one that did was Venice, but they didn't have Feudlism. Theirs was from memory, a limited republic. A bit like Roma.

Feudalism.
Feudlism itself, has existed in Europe for about 1000 Years. Which to a large degree is how the Modern languages of Europe and it's culture and traditions have become distinctive from area to area.
As opposed to the almost uniformity of the Roman periods.
Feudlism itself arose from the ashes of the Empire, the crumbling of it and it's restraint released.
The ultimate distinction of western european feudlism does not mean that all where the same, quite the opposite. There are distinctions at ever level, but the fundamentals are the same.
The Transition to feudalism was certianly progressive in nature, this does not mean that people in general had a better life. It simply means that the system of society had changed, and was changing.

The system by which feudalism represented itself, is one upon which the collaspe of Roma left it.
That of Volence, fanatical and acute struggles. in many cases just for survival. Where the wimps of the "faction leader" Count, earl Duke, margrave, King et cetera... desided to rest.
Out of this is the protection racket. By giving your bond, or word, you became bonded to a leige.
In return for your Bond, you got protection, from the individual, or from a group. You did not get voting rights. Rights are prima genetia.
In your return, you gave military assistance. When you got large enough, you became a loose state.
And, in time a country.
First among these is England, for it's records and it's example.
There is not an election held to ask the nobles their opinions upon who should take the throne, or rule. Espeically when the Nobles are subjects of the King.
It was a forgone conclusion, and you generally speaking had to be part of the blood of the rulers to acsend to rule. Opposition to this often meant distruction. Whether from within, or externally in a weakened state.
Feudalism is infact a state of absolutism. Because one Rules and Reigns.

Therefore by definition, feudalism is absolutism
The best way to describe Feudalism, is that of a large gang of zealous thugs with to much time on their hands. And the boss is absolute.
This is why it's referred to as "rule by the sword."


Kraxis ....King is merely 'first among equals'....

This only happened when Corpus Civilis was used as a weapon by the Kings to keep the Nobles in line.
Roman law became the "tool of Kings" in there later periods to define there measure to Rule.
In truth, they where absolute, that is part of what defines Feudalism.
I say part, because you can be absolute in rule with out nobles, and even in a republic, see Roman Republic or Roman Empire. Even King Louie of France with a parlement was absolute, King George III I think was also absolute with a parlement, so to say that absolutism is in anyway not feudalism, is not absolute.


PS: this is just a run down, as i am to tired to write the transition from latifundia and the villas that where broken up into holdings for coloni and liberti, and holders of Precarium. et cetera...


oh bugger

I am off to bed, my head still hurts

fenir

[rebelscum]

I think this is all straying from the fundamental points and questions.
The evidence for Cataphracti in Britain around 275 AD is strong. Them still being there in 400 AD isn't.
Were these later Cataphracti actually mercenary troops brought in by the Romano-British to defend against the Picts, Scots, Celts, Vikings and pirates or were they decendants of the Sarmatian units we know existed.
Some sources say the Angles and Saxons were brought over as mercenary troops. Other sources maintain the Saxons invaded.
The Saxons were not known for their heavy cavalry.
The King Arthur legend brings nothing but confusion to this whole argument and that is what really angers me about this unit in the game. It is re-enforcing ideas that are known to be just mere speculation.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

fenir:
re England as a feudal power: it's a bad example as England tended to be unusual in that it had an overpowerful monarchy compared to contemporary states like Scotland, France, the more succesful Welsh kingdoms/principalities, the HRE etc..

[rebelscum]

Guys, stop it with the OT posts, I think you want the MTW forums for discussing feudal systems and the HRE. :bow:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

er, yeah, sorry.

So what is the evidence for Romano-British military stuff?

I like Ken Dark's (I think it was him) theory that the lack of identifiably Romano-British weapon remains may be because the RBs adapted Germanic looking weaponry for the sake of fashion: maybe they looked, in weapons terms at least, quite like the Anglo-Saxons.
Why would they adopt the look of their enemies? because the late Roman army was full of Germans and they were looking back to that, I don't know.

Your thoughts RS?

[Hurin_Rules]

Actually they did form thier own social class. This (http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/halac.htm) documents the requirements of a cavalryman, social and economic.

Rebelscum,

The document you mentioned shows that there was an equestrian class. No one disputes that. However, are you asserting that the cataphracts were of this class? I don't think there is any evidence for that: the cataphracts in the Roman army, it seems to me, were auxilia or mercenaries from the East, not native Romans. Moreover, there are problems with calling late Roman equestrians 'knights'. As I said before, they did not own fiefs, the most basic requirement for being considered a knight. They did not take vows of homage and vassalage. Their social standing was based on wealth rather than training in a specific type of warfare. Note that the equestrian with which the article deals was trying to become the top centurion (primus pilus) in the legion. This, apparently, is an infantry position: centurions were infantry officers, and the great victory he apparently won over the Iazyges was a victory of infantry. Can infantry too, then, be called knights? This seems a rather odd usage of 'knight'.

[The Stranger]

A Viking rider...

i know ~;) but it looks like a graal knight.

[rebelscum]

Hey, I originally denounced the use of the word knight in all forms, the addition of the word GRAAL was ridiculous to the extreeme. I suggested as a compromise and for any gracious modders out there, to keep the unit but call them Late Roman Cataphracts and change the damn model.
As far as the class issue, firstly we don't know if these Cataphracti were Romano-brits or mercenary troops. If they were indeed Romano-brits, then they 'may' have kept the tradition of equestrianism, passing it from generation to generation via a nobility who could afford the upkeep of such an elite unit. Most people seem to forget that having a unit of heavy cavalry like this would be in todays terms like having a squadron of F15's. We do know that there were a lot of extremely rich Romano-brits around the 4th century by the evidence of villas and palaces built before and around that time.
RTW's rubbish about these so called knights keeping alive Roman and Christain traditions of militarism and piety is just pure fantasy.
These guys probably behaved very like todays jet pilots, living life fast and hard and leaving a pretty corpse.

[Ludens]

Rome: Total War was a game that obviously had a lot of development costs. Then it had a lot of marketing costs. After all, R:TW was marketed like a U.S. Presidential candidate.

It got the some of the best press of 2005, including near-unanimous critical raves. Despite the complaints by the core fanbase and some of the game's glaring implausibles — many of which I also deplore and a few of which I helped research — word-of-mouth for this game was good too. Look at reader reviews of it.

Yet it was 10th in overall sales for 2005. Last place on the top 10. The top two or three games in that list probably outsold the rest combined.

After distributing this "hit" game, Activision sold the rights to Sega. Now CA is having to come out with "Spartan: Total Warrior," which is action-packed and downright silly, to help pay the bills while keeping "Total War" going.

What is the most commercially successful historical setting for computer games? World War II, of course. If there ever was a market for accurate simulation games, there is it.

"Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin" is exactly the type of highly detailed, realistically modelled tactical combat game being pined for here. It's sales are trivial — trivial — compared to jokes like "Battlefield 1942" or "Call of Duty." The "Combat Mission" series survives by producing a purely tactical simulation — no strategy map, no detailed economic or management game. Just tanks and machine guns.

Like it or not, folks, CA can't get much more realistic and keep this series going. If there was money in a highly realistic game of the era, the Roman Total Realism mod folks would be sellling shares of stock by now.
Very good points, Doug-Thompson. Yet this raises the question: how much would profit drop if CA had not chosen to include Graal Knights? Or Head Hurlers?

I don't think it would have made a difference. People buy this either because of the battlefield simulator or because of the graphics. Fringe units that appeal to Hollywood-sentiments are not important in the game, and likely not very important for sales. There are plenty of games that provide that, and the addition of "Graal Knights" is not enough for CA to muscle into that market.

[Kraxis]

Graal Knights of Head Hurlers are in their own right not important, I don't think that is Doug's point. But it is the general inclusion of the units.

We buy the game for its engine, as seen by the many mods. We care 'little' for the contents. But if you are trying to get hold of those who have yet to experience the wonders of the TW gamestyle, then you need something else to draw them in.

I remember when I was about to buy STW, I was anything but impressed by the package, and was close to no buying it. That woul have been one damn mistake by me. The people that did put it back are those the units appeal to.

Remove the Graal Knight or Head Hurlers, no biggie, remove them all (them being those that 'we' disapprove of) and it might be a mistake saleswise.

It might even be argued that 'we', the diehard fans will simply mod out everything anyway, so no point in catering to our very narrow needs. And to be honest I agree with them on that. If CA had gone to extreme lengths to get it 'right' (matter of subjectivity) then we would have praised them just before we modded the hell out of the game, for as we all know there is this little matter here, or that model that doesn't fit perfectly with our view (though the CA model might be perfect acording to others) over there.
Yup, very great usage of resources.

[Doug-Thompson]

Yet this raises the question: how much would profit drop if CA had not chosen to include Graal Knights? Or Head Hurlers?

I don't think it would have made a difference. People buy this either because of the battlefield simulator or because of the graphics. Fringe units that appeal to Hollywood-sentiments are not important in the game, and likely not very important for sales.

That's a valid argument. I wish I had the market research available to answer it. Frankly, it was confusing to see the Graal Knight landed in an unplayable faction, too, which seems to undercut the argument that the unit is there to draw new players in. Why would they be drawn by a unit they can't command?

Still, I think "weird" units draw more buyers than they drive off. Otherwise, all game companies, not just CA, would stop designing them. Look at the "Age of Empires" series. I can't count the number of threads spent in Age of Kings forums talking about the relative merits of "unique units" like the Mongol Mandugai and Goth Huskarl, when most multiplayer games were settled long before any of those units were built.

Then there's another very valid point:

If CA had gone to extreme lengths to get it 'right' (matter of subjectivity) then we would have praised them just before we modded the hell out of the game ...

Good shot, Kraxis.

[Ludens]

Still, I think "weird" units draw more buyers than they drive off. Otherwise, all game companies, not just CA, would stop designing them.
Not necessarily. What do people (or at least: those people that are attracted to "weird" units) expect from a game like R:TW? They expect Roman Legions facing off half-naked barbarians. Which can be done in a way that does history justice. With the exception of the Egyptians, most of the units that really violate historical knowledge are unimportant.

However, there is no way my point can be proven, so...

Kraxis made a very good point, and 100% historically acurate is impossible, but I think that does not entitle CA to call Briton heavy cavalry "Graal Knights".

[screwtype]

enjoy! ~:)

http://www.totalwar.com/community/graal.htm

Just testing here...

Edit: Okay, the messages are working again. They were disappearing yesterday :)