Catholic Faction Army

[Powermonger]

Just wondering what fellow Catholic faction players have in their stacks, for offense and defence through the different eras?

[matteus the inbred]

knights, with more knights on top. maybe knights in reserve too.

Seriously; I like to take a bit of everything and play mainly in early; I like 4 feudal sergeants, two archers, 2-4 FMAA (replaced by Swabian swords if I'm HRE, they kick butt and look great), 2-4 royal knights and 2-4 mounted sergeants/mounted crossbows.

Later on the knights get upgraded to chivalric, the archers get completely or partially replaced by arbs, and I tend to field the latest swordsmen if I can.

I also field occasional mercs to replace knights or FMAA, usually druzhina as they can partly replace either, or Khwarazmians if I'm a bit desperate. They might not be as good as knights or kats, but I find the AI is terrified of them.

As I'm fairly HRE and Italian specific right now, Genoese sailors and Italian infantry replace the FS and Bows, or Swiss Halberdiers replace some/all of the spears/FMAA in High. Only field UM at the beginning or if I'm desperate. Artillery tends to be mostly merc (I hire whenever it's available and retain until it's needed, unless I lack florins) and is kept in one or two big 'siege trains'.

[Ciaran]

Four sergeants, each two swords, polearms (militia sergants or above) and cavalry, and three ranged units (two archers, one crossbow type) are the basis. The three remaining slots get filled by whatever might be needed, usually a General and two extra units, swords or polearms if the army´s going to be attacking, an additional archer and crossbow if it´s likely to be defending. When the demi-culverine is available that´s the weapon of choice for the two free slots.

But, as a matter of fact, in the campaign I usually have more than one army per province, so what actually marches onto the battlefield can vary. For example, I like having an archer-heavy first wave and keep the knights in reserve.

[matteus the inbred]

But, as a matter of fact, in the campaign I usually have more than one army per province, so what actually marches onto the battlefield can vary. For example, I like having an archer-heavy first wave and keep the knights in reserve.

Definitely agree, my offensive and defensive armies vary in the amount of archers and 'killy' stuff...more archers for defence, more swords and cavalry for attack, although I'm rarely given to fielding no cavalry at all, even if it has to be hobilars or viking raiders. Not much of a jav fan, as that really relies on the AI not flanking and basically being so good as to stroll up to your battleline and engage without a care in the world. I'll field them if I have to, but I think a unit of archers is a better investment.
Artillery only features in defence, and then rarely...

Big Fan Of: mounted x-bows, Swabians, Swiss Halberdiers, Italian LI, all sortsa knights (especially feudal)
Not a Big Fan Of: peasants anywhere near a battlefield, Slav anythings, ballistae, jinettes in the opposition army...! Dunno whether early Spanish forces really qualify as a 'Catholic' army (not as in their religion, but the sort of things they field before they get Lancers)?

[Knight Templar]

In general, I 'd put 3-4 swords, 2-3 polearms (in earlier era chiv/feud sergeants), 3 archers, 2 light and 3-4 heavy cavarly.
Of course choice of troops depends on terrain very much: if the terrain is desert, I'll take more archers and lightly armoured troops, if it's bridge, I take less cav, if it's hilly i take more spears/poleamrs who can hold position when fighting uphill, if it's forest, I take more swords and poleamrns and less cav and spears. If I'm defending on forrest terrain, I take more cav as ambush troops.

[Procrustes]

I love dismounted chiv knights once I get to high. I'll bring extra knights and then dismount half of them.

[Boris of Bohemia]

I love dismounted chiv knights once I get to high. I'll bring extra knights and then dismount half of them.

It's easy to mod the foot knights to be buildable if you want them, download the gnome editor

http://www.mizus.com/Tools/Files/

and find the entry in crusaders_unit_prod11.txt

Or else, build the cathedral next to an iron province. A cathedral-trained halberd retrained at a +2 metalsmith is almost a 60-man CFK, less one point of attack and 2 points of morale, and non-elite. Most Catholic factions can arrange this in adjacent provinces by 1205, except probably the French and Sicilians. A militia sargeant so trained is almost a JHI, less the same. It's a neat trick.

[ajaxfetish]

No need to mod them. Chivalric knights can dismount on any battlefield, and so training the mounted version allows more flexibility.

Ajax

[BrSpiritus]

I usually invariably play as the English so:

Early 2 Saxon Huscarles
2 Norman Foot Knights
4 Fyrdmen
3 Archers
2 Hobilars/Feudal Seargents
2 Norman Knights
1 Royal Knight (General's Unit)

High 2 Norman Foot Knights
2 Chiv MAA
2 Billmen
2 Chiv Foot
2 Pav Arbalests
1 Longbow
2 Norman Knights
2 Chivalric Knights
1 Royal Knights (General's Unit)

Late 8 Arqebusiers
4 Serpentines
3 Assorted Cavalry (Whatever I have on hand that is high Valour)
1 Royal Knights (General's Unit)

Castle Busting Early And High
6Trebuchets
8 Swordsmen
2 Cav +General

Castle Busting Late
8 Culverins
4 Serpentines
4 Swordsmen or Halberdiers to mop up the mess :)

Defense Army Early and High
3 Archers (1 Longbow + 2 Pav Arbs high)
4 Spearmen, Chiv Seargents etc. (Halbs or Billmen on high)
4 FMAA or CMAA
4 dismountable cav units
1 General

Defense Late
4 Arquebusiers
6 Pikemen
4 Serpentines
2 Cav +General

Alot of people dismiss the use of Arquebusiers but with a few historically accurate mods they reach their potential. Mine are modded to .5 accuracy, range to 12,000, armour piercing ON. Load time can be modded to 20 but I always use 3 ranks so it doesn't make much difference. Arqs also make decent swordsmen in a melee if they have some valour.

BrSpiritus

[Quietus]

My old MTW configuration (vanilla).

Early:
1 Royal Knight
6-7 Spears (up to Feudal Sergeants)
3-4 Archers
1 or 2 Light Cavalry (Steppe Cavalry preferably).
1 or 2 Militia Sergeants
1 or 2 FMAA
2 Urban Militia or Woodsmen.

[littlebktruck]

Recently I tried to use an army with FMAA as the base (6 fmaa, 3 feudal sergeants, 4ish archers, the rest knights).

Not a good idea. They were just ruined.

[NodachiSam]

I'd probably have something more specific if I did MP so I usually use what is at hand. Usually I have something about 1/3 spear, 1/3 shock infantry, 1/3 archer and later in the game 1/4 spear, 1/4 shock/ 1/4 archer, 1/4 calvary. During defense I use more archers and spears and during offense I use more calv and fewer archers. In any situation when I am in doubt I pick spears or horse archers.

[Scurvy]

normally as english i take (online)

4 chiv knights (including gen)
4 order foots
4 longbows
4 pavise arbelesters

[Loucipher]

Just until recently, I almost exclusively used a 4x4 configuration:
4x missile type (4x Archers in Early, 2x Crossbows + 2x Arbalesters from High on)
4x spear type (4x Spearmen or Feudal Sergeants in Early, 2x Feudal Sergeants + 2x Chivalric Sergeants from High on, yet to play factions which field Gothic units)
4x close combat type (4x Urban Militia, then 3x FMAA + 1x Militia Sergeants in Early, 2x Chivalric Men-at-Arms + 2x Halberdiers from High on, never used Gothic units as said above)
4x cavalry type (2x Feudal Knights / Royal Knights + 2x lighter, usually faction-dependent fast or missile cavalry in Early, from High on Feudal Knights get upgraded to Chivalric Knights, in Late sometimes they get replaced by faction-dependent heavy cavalry, also in Late proportions shift to 3x Heavy Cavalry + 1x Fast cavalry, as the armies basically get more infantry-oriented, slower and more armoured towards the Late period).
Some might say this looks like putting too many eggs into one basket, but it isn't the case. It is a good all-around army, capable of almost any task - whether offensive or defensive.
Recently, I began to build specialized armies:

Overrun Attack army (general composition, not era-dependent):
2x missile type (preferably mounted crossbowmen)
5x heavy cavalry
4x swordsmen
3x armour-piercing troops
2x fast skirmishing cavalry
This army wins offensive battles by simultaneous frontal attack by infantry and flanking manoeuvers by the cavalry (I always try to manoeuvre the heavy cavalry into one of the flanks, so that I roll over the entire enemy battle line). The casualty multipliers are missile fire and pursuit moves against fleeing troops.
Typical attack action ends with a 11:1 kill ratio.

Solid Defence army (general composition again):
5x spear types
5x missile types
2xclose combat types
1x fast cavalry (preferably missile)
(that usually makes up for the 960 men limit)
This army just stands and lasts. Solid spearwalls form the main defensive line as missile troops unleash volley after volley from behind. Enemy archer types are usually attacked by fast cavalry, which also acts as bait for enemy units to stay in the main fire zone. Enemy close combat units that pass the hail of arrows are finished by defending fresh close combat units. Cavalry gets usually beaten by the spearwalls so they are of no concern.
Typical defensive action ends with a 9:1 kill ratio.

Castle Assault army (general composition):
5x siege equipment
7x close combat types (preferably armoured ones)
1x spear type
3x missile type
The siege equipment of this army knocks off the towers, breaks the walls and then the close combat units slaughter any remaining defenders. The spear type is there to provide cover against some oddball cavalry that might have got hemmed inside the castle walls. The missile troops soften the defenders, concentrating their fire on the most threatening units (cavalry, armour-piercing troops etc.) first.
Due to the inherent danger of sustaining losses during castle assaults typical assault action results in a 4:1 kill ratio.

[rvg]

Just wondering what fellow Catholic faction players have in their stacks, for offense and defence through the different eras?

w/ Danes my core army consists of Vikings (+ any leftover Huscarls from Early) and substantial missile support. Some light cavalry to mop up, and maybe a RK General unit.

As a Dane, I never use any spears, swords, pikes, or polearms as axe is better than all of those combined.

Vikes crush anything and everything in melee for a VERY cheap cost, while missile troops keep the ranged combat parity.

[gunslinger]

I usually have several stacks around, so that I can pick and choose the makeup of my army based on that of the enemy. I generally don't have more than 3 units of archers on the field at a time, 2 units of spears spread out 3 1/2 ranks deep, 6 or 7 men at arms and billmen combined (depending on the enemy) and the rest cavalry. I've really fallen for the English billmen trained in Mercia for the valor upgrade and retrained in an iron province with the max weapon and armor upgrade available at the time. Those guys absolutely slaughter any cavalry that gets near them, especially if I am using one of my 8 or 9 star generals. They are so effective that I end up using my cavallry as an anvil to keep the enemy cavalry from running away so that my billmen can act as the hammer and rack up some kills.

I only use crossbows and arbs when I'm fighting those massive stacks of horse archers that the horde sends my way. pavs are the only way to make any headway against them since they are so fast and never sit still to take a beating. I guess I would also use pavs against the big stacks of jinettes except that I always knock out the Spanish before pavs are available because I want all those Iron provinces and because I can defend all that land on the penninsula with just one army in Cordoba.

[Ciaran]

From my experience plain archers are enough to handle the missile cavalry threat, they´ve got a bigger range (than the missile cav) and a high rate of fire, compared to crossbows or arbalests. And there are few heavily armoured mounted missiles, so using crossbow types don´t utilize their AP capability - I rather use them to snipe generals or other heavily armoured units.

[matteus the inbred]

From my experience plain archers are enough to handle the missile cavalry threat, they´ve got a bigger range (than the missile cav) and a high rate of fire, compared to crossbows or arbalests

generally i would agree, but against low morale horse archery types the crossbows can get off one volley that knocks half the regiment off and makes the rest run, whereas vanilla archers kill them three of four at a time. but yeah, basically any foot shooters will do and archers can keep firing once they've been withdrawn behind the infantry. I only use mounted xbows, not foot ones, a combo of arbs and archers works fine, with the mounted xbows hunting and destroying armoured stuff like you say.

[mfberg]

Early
4 x Spearmen, Fyrdmen, or Feudal Sgts
4 x Archers
3 x Attack infantry - Men at arms, Highlander, Swabians, Militia Sgts
2 x Mounted Crossbow or 2 more archers
3 x Holibar, Light, Medium or Heavy/Royal Cavalry - I usually don't use feudal knights for anything

On defense I will include a catapult or ballista or two in place of an attack infantry and archer.

High
4 X Feudal Sgts
3 x Pavise x bow or Pavise arbs
3 x Archers or Longbow
3 x Halbreds, Billmen or Attack infantry
3 x Heavy Cavalry - Chivalric Knights and Royal Knights
Gunpowder and Cannon mercenaries

Late
Wait, there is a Late period in this game? I don't have much experience in late, I have never had to make a late army because all of my enemies are too weak to make up one of their own.

4 x SAP or gold/gold pikemen
4 x Pavise Arbs
2 x Demi-Culvs/Serpentine
3 x Attack Infantry
3 x Chivalric/Gothic/Royal Cavalry

mfberg

[Asmodai]

My armies tends to be rather cavalry, than infantry based..

4-6 units of heavy cav(Knights of any type that are available at the moment)
2-4 units of light melee cav(hobilars, mounted sergeant, steppe cav, whatever is available at the moment)
4-6 units of shooty cav(mainly mounted crossbows, jinetes, heavy steppe...few catholic factions cant have shooty cav, so i pick some swordsmen units and additional heavy cav.
up to 4 foot contigent...depends on faction, enemy and battlefield. Some swordsmen, spearmen, shooters on foot...whatever i need at the moment.

The only exceptions to this rule are English and Germans.

On early the combo above is generaly the same, but in High and late...

4-6 Heavy cav(feudal/chiv/royal/templars)
2-4 hobbys/mounted sergeants
min 4 longbowmen units.
rest for bilmens, swordsmen (usualy gallows/highlands clansmen or CMAA)

Germans are mainly infantry based and defensive armies are dependant on enemy, that borders with them.

2-4 Spearmen type(preferably the best available) or mix with polearm type(MS or Halb/SHalb)
or...2-4 Swiss armoured pikemen.
2-4 shooters on foot(the best available)
2 heavy cav(knights, the best available)
2 light cav(usualy mounted xbows)
Spare "slots" go to swordmen type units(Swabian swordsmen preferably, in late for additional gothic knights)
0-1 organ gun/serpentine.

For assault, i prefer using my cav mix listed above.

Few units i dislike, so i rarely use them:
Peasants of any sort..
Siege engines...well, i build few for opening castles. Nothing more.
Halberdiers...strange, the chiv are far better, good for garrison duty i think.
Handgunners of any sort. Big noise and little effect. And very often it rains.

[rvg]

From High on, the composition of my Catholic army is very, very simple:

4 Pavise Arbalests, 6 Chivalric Knights (Dismounted), 6 Chivalric Knights (Mounted).

[antisocialmunky]

Personally a Knight spam army is really boring. I personally like to stick with the 5 Spears, 3 MMAs, 4 Knights, 2 Arbs, 2 Light Cavalry(Jinettes).

However, I usually play English so its more like: 2 Arbs, 6 L-Bows, 2/3 CS, 2/3 MAA/Billmen, 2 Knights, 1/2 Jinettes.

[rvg]

[QUOTE=antisocialmunky]...Personally a Knight spam army is really boring...
[QUOTE]
Well yeah, it certainly isn't the most creative army setup, but it is very effective. What I enjoy is seeing this army take on thousands and live through it.

Another one I like, is an all-mounted Army. Usually with Poles or Hungarians, with a CK/MtXbow/Steppe HCav and CK/MtXbow/Szek combos respectively.
Tons of fun.

[antisocialmunky]

Well.. if you want to see something go through thousands of enemy. Fight the mongols in a river battle as the English with 3 backup stacks of L-Bows. Better yet, just turn limitted ammo off. But then again, you could always make a Jassinary Spam Army or Gothic Knight Spam Army.

[Asmodai]

Well, historicaly, medieval armies were mainly composed of knights, cos they believed, that mounted man is worth more than 100 foot men.

Good infantry units were rare, and they appeared mostly in regions, that cavalry actions were difficult(switzerland for example).

Also, as long, as the pike were not invented, cavalry ruled battlefields. (with few exceptions but in general, knight was the best weapon available in medieval era)

[rvg]

Well.. if you want to see something go through thousands of enemy. Fight the mongols in a river battle as the English with 3 backup stacks of L-Bows. Better yet, just turn limitted ammo off. But then again, you could always make a Jassinary Spam Army or Gothic Knight Spam Army.

Speaking of Gothic Knights, are they really that good? I have yet to play a German or an Italian game, are those units really worth the wait?

[antisocialmunky]

Gothic Knights are pretty much super Kataphractoi and their dismounted counterpart is the only sword unit that can beat Jassinary Heavy Infantry man per man. Not really worth up, but oyu can get a nice +1 Valour in Saxony.

@Asmodoi - I don't know where you learned your history but Knights never did compose most of an army... ever except in those rare occassions. Knights were not that great, they were devastating but people found ways to get around that. Just look at the 100 Year's war.

And as for the pike being 'uninvented,' they are some of the oldest weapons in existance. The pointy thing on a stick idea is second only to the heavy thing on a stick idea in age.

[Loucipher]

Antisocialmunky: I'd say that medieval army compositions might have been resembling those known all too well by us - a little bit of everything. Mounted Knights are by no means a "universal weapon", supposed to flush everything else from the battlefield.
Yet, you must admit that until the Scottish Wars (and the ignominous defeat at Bannockburn) English armies were relying upon heavy cavalry shock to decide the outcome of battles. This must have stemmed from the tactics they had adopted during the earlier French-English wars, where clashes of iron-clad mounted warriors were not that uncommon... Only after the Scottish period (somewhere along the Early to High transition, speaking in game terms) the English army began fielding predominantly infantry, much of that polearm-equipped.
As far as the Central European wars are concerned, the terrain there was well suited to cavalry tactics, and as we progress geographically east, local people were increasingly more accustomed to horseback life. Thus most of the eastern nations' armies was composed predominantly of cavalry and had to be countered also with cavalry.

[Roark]

Pikes used in a cohesive unit of men was a relatively late development though, Munkyman...

To echo an earlier sentiment: Yes, Gothic knights are worth it. Destruction ahoy.

[antisocialmunky]

That's only if you ignore everything before the fall of Rome along with the rest of the world.

[Roark]

4 metre spears used in Roman times?

By whom?

[Loucipher]

The only example springing to my mind at the moment is a Macedonian long spear called sarissa ~:) It was used by Macedonian foot soldiers fighting in a phalanx formation. Typical length of sarissa could be 5 to 7 metres. Due to its unwieldiness it could only be useful when fighting in tight formations - upon breaking the line sarissoforoi (literally: sarissa bearers) were almost defenceless... which is what the spear-armed troops actually are in MTW when their line gets disrupted ~:)

[Ciaran]

Pikes are even worse, Chivalric sergeants can continue to fight in disruoted formation for a while, but vanilla pikes get slaughtered once they´re no longer in their neat formation. Swiss Armoured Pikes can last longer, but only a little. I´ve once beaten a 133-man Pike unit with no more than 40 Feudal Men at Arms.

[Asmodai]

Antisocialmunky, i didnt wrote, that good infantry was unknown in medieval times.

I only wrote, that knights was main component of medieval army. To be precise, catholic army.
Writing about knights and in general, medieval cavalry may took whole essay.

Looking at medieval warfare, we cannot estimate economy. Many knights had problems in equiping properly. Horse, armour and weapon was expensive.
If knight cannot aquire properly equipment, he had chance to loose his knightly status. War, was the main task of the knights. From childhood, they practise the battle skills, so they were good "killers".
And their motivation and morale...two things we must have in mind.
Not only courage and fame, motivated knights to battle. Visions of ransoms and plunder were also good motivation to the knight.
Knight errant, or chivalrous knight was at least that rare, as mariage with virgin today.(not offence to anyone)

So, keeping econowmy in ming, look at the infantry.
Recruited from commoner class mainly, so having poor morale. Also, poor motivation to fight. Thier skills are poor also, cos the main task of the commoner was to work at the fields and gather resources to their feudal masters, rather fight to their business.
Poor equipped, cos they cant afford as good equipment, as knights, or even their mounted servants.
Exceptions exsisted, but good infantry was rare. Mostly mercenaries were have better equipment than "feudal infantry". Militia troop quality also varies. If city was particularly rich and more importantly, particularly independent, militia were good equipped (although their trainning quality was difficult to measure). Many infantry was castle or city garrisons, household guard, militia or other servant type troop, rather independent formation.

Antisocialmunky - In 100years war, England have army, called by french "peasant army". Their innovation in this war was missile shock, caused by longbows, and better command.
Also, French defeats were caused by lack of command, so rush attacks were so costly to them. (they even lose own king at Poitiers in 1356, when English took French king into captivity). Longbows were not better than knights. French troops rarely used missiles and when they do, they used them wrong, from tactical point of view. Wars are win not by superior trooper, but by superrior commander. Strategy used later by Charles V was very good and stopped English raid without decisive battle.

Antisocial, your egsample is 100years war, i may throw other, Great War with Teutonic order. Main battle(Grunwald - 1410, so late period actualy) was mainly cavalry battle. Only infantry that may participate in, was camp sergeants from both sides, and uncertain number of mercenaries on both sides also. But cavalry outnumbered infantry at Grunwald about 6:1. Both sides had infantry, but Teutonic Order had most of them in castle garrisons, and the main task of Polish infantry was taking that castles from Teutonic hands.
I may have insufficient sources about France and England(and other christian kingdom) history, but about Poland and Teutonic Order i have several good books, and most of them agree with each other in composition of christian armies. Being Polish, French, English or other christian also dosnt make the difference, cos Polish and Teutonic armies were composed similarly to French, German or English armies.
Maybe sources cannot measure exact number of infantry, cos being not noble, they dont deserved for mention in historic documents.

[antisocialmunky]

I didn't say anything about crappy infantry, I just said that cavalry usually didn't compose the majority of armies.

Cavalry, especially the luxuriously armoured knight was usually not the staple troop type in most Western armies except the really rich ones. Of course the amount of horsemen that was trained was based on cultural and military history and nessecity.

As for my example of the 100 years war, its just the prime example that came to mind with regards to armour piercing weapons and armour evolution - from the daggers and the bows to the iron plate and gothic armours.

[Loucipher]

I didn't say anything about crappy infantry, I just said that cavalry usually didn't compose the majority of armies.
Then you must have meant infantry forms the rest of the army. What else could serve this role? Siege engines? ~:)

Cavalry, especially the luxuriously armoured knight was usually not the staple troop type in most Western armies except the really rich ones. Of course the amount of horsemen that was trained was based on cultural and military history and nessecity.
It depends a lot on who these armies belonged to. Although raising vast numbers of knights was very costly, as Asmodai points out (not to mention that only nobles could form knight units, and there were certainly not enough nobles to raise big armies), the rulers generally could afford at least a decent unit, and sometimes a particularly wealthy local prince or landlord could also field a small retinue. The 20 Royal Knights unit in MTW attached to all royal line members at no cost portrays just this very fact.
As for the percentage of mounted troops in any European army, the sources often give conflicting information, and the values given vary wildly both on the source and the country basis. Therefore I'd stick to general tendencies rather than point out definite, yet uncertain, values.
It is a general tendency that the farther you go east, the bigger percentage of the army was made of cavalry. Vast eastern steppes and Middle East sand dunes were particularly well suited for cavalry - especially light cavalry - tactics, and the rulers of those territories used these features to their extent. It is not to be said that English and French armies during the 100 Years War were totally bereft of cavalry - just that the percentage of cavalry was a little bit smaller.
This is also reflected in the catholic army compositions found in MTW. Western armies are made predominantly of infantry units - some of the Western nations were island-based or maritime-oriented (like Sicilia, Denmark, Italy or England), others positioned in or close to the mountains (France, Spain, HRE), thus the role and usefulness of cavalry was somewhat limited. The most shining example of this philosophy was the Holy Roman Empire - being a confederation of city-states united under one ruler, they could rarely afford much cavalry, and what they had would be severely restricted in operational terms. On the other hand, unique position in the centre of Europe, with proximity to the steppes and lack of high mountains (unless we take the Carpatha Mountains into account) have enabled Polish and Hungarian armies, especially with VI installed, to have access to many more cavalry units than any other catholic faction. The steppes of Russia is the only place where Steppe Cavalry (and its heavier variety in VI) can be raised. Moldavia is home to the fearsome Avar Nobles, whose last descendants were called upon by King Jan III Sobieski as late as 1683, during the Relieve of Vienna. Armenia is yet another place where heavy cavalrymen can hail from. Add to this the Golden Horde, arriving predominantly on horseback... and you get the full picture.


As for my example of the 100 years war, its just the prime example that came to mind with regards to armour piercing weapons and armour evolution - from the daggers and the bows to the iron plate and gothic armours.
The evolution of weapons and their armour counterparts is quite a different tale to tell, and it has only limited impact on army composition. This evolution was simply caused by technological progress of the humanity at that date. The invention of more advanced metallurgy techniques enabled the armourers and blacksmiths to make more advanced and crafty weapons as well as heavier, but more durable armour. As the armours advanced from furs, leathers and wooden shields through ring mails and reinforced shields to full plates and metal shields, so did the weapons - the "pointy thing on a stick", as you have put it, evolved to be able to cleave through these stronger armour elements. Apart from polearms (which have by far evolved the most), also ranged weapons (from bows through crossbows to arbalests) and their armour (like bodkin arrows used by Welsh longbowmen) evolved, albeit to a lesser degree. Less evolved groups of personal weapons were swords - their only evolution being size (two-handers and bastards) or blade and its function (from typical straight-bladed sword to curve-bladed sabre and scimitar, or from sword to thinner and nimbler rapier and the like). Even less - axes (their evolution involved mainly size and mass parameters).
It is worth noting that plate armour (and body armour in general) reached the peak of it's evolution with the advent of Gothic age - anything later was just aesthetic refinements of the same plate. Elements of then refined armour were used far into the XVIII and XIX century - in Napoleonic times heavy French cavalry, the cuirassiers, were equipped with breastplates, called cuirass, that became their namesake. Even as late as WWII, German soldiers were using helmets resembling those of Teutonic foot knights - only without faceplates! It took over four centuries from Medieval times on to make personal body armour what it is today - accessibility of new materials, like ceramics, Kevlar and the like, enabled construction of personal protection able to withstand the firearm bullet - a weapon as common today as the sword in Medieval times.
On the other hand, the weapon never stopped evolving - it's evolution constantly driven by the desire to pierce even the strongest armour. Even the early pole-axes (wielded by Urban Militia in MTW) were quite good at cleaving the ring mails of early knighthood. Given the absence of powerful ranged weapons at that time, theirs was the primary role to kill armoured opponents. The very idea of a pole-axe involves two abilities - to reach the body of a mounted opponent and to make a swing powerful enough to cleave through his armour. This weapon was later refined into various forms of halberds, enhancing their anti-armour capabilities against new suits of armour, mainly made of plates or combining mail and plate elements. The role and importance of polearms slowly declined as armies throughout the world began shifting their fighting style - slogging, iron-clad warriors gave way to nimble, lightly dressed soldiers who were winning by skill, not by force. Another reason was that heavy armour, being cumbersome, was also expensive - only particularly wealthy individuals could afford full Gothic plate mail, not to mention respective barding for their horse. The advent of the first firearms, which were generally able to pierce every armour of that date, added to this tendency. Therefore, towards the Late Period, the typical army composition of the Catholic Kingdom began to shift towards infantry. The Pikemen, once used to guard the army against cavalry charges, now fulfilled their role with regard to the firearm equipped troops. The crude early Siege Engines gave their way to ever craftier Cannons, being the first artillery component, of rapidly growing importance. Cavalry began to change - heavy shock troops, which used to decide the outcome of early battles, were now more of a rarity, and the primary roles of cavalry changed to reconaissance, screening, charging shooters (the same role that light cavalry fulfills in MTW) and tactical manoeuvres against the flanks and rear area of enemy formation. The swordsmen evolved into professional fencers, relying more on their skills rather than brute strength. The unwieldiness of heavy polearms in close combat and continued withdrawal of heavy armour from the battlefields marked the end of armour-piercing melee weapons. Therefore, towards Late Period, armies in MTW tend to include more infantry than cavalry units - and even then, the cavalry is usually fast, light, low in numbers and given supplementary role (pursuing, scouting, charging on flanks/rear). Who needs shock cavalry when 2-3 well placed blocks of Pikemen can easily stop the whole mounted army, and the remainder can be shot full of holes by arquebusiers at point-blank range?
A personal hindsight: usually when playing Poland, my armies tend to get quite cavalry-heavy. In Early and High Periods, the cavalry indeed dominates the battlefield. In Late, however, things get different. The appearance of Janissary Heavy Infantry, Pikemen and better firearms make the life of a mounted knight very miserable. Even though many of the strongest cavalry units make their appearance in late (Gothic Knights, Gendarmes, Lancers), these are not the option for Poland, which has nothing to wait for in Late. Since the best they can get are Chivalric Knights available in High Period, it is better to switch towards better equipped infantry in Late Period.
I hope that my prolonged treatise will add to the general discussion - I tried to stay on topic as much as I could.

[Asmodai]

I agree with you brother, that cavalry rule in high and early.It is also historicaly true.

I wrote in previous post, that armies consited mainly of knights.
For better understanding this point of viev, i must describe(in general obviously), how feudals recruited their armies, basing on feudal system.

As egsample, i wrote short story about feudal lord, who wants to take others land.

Our feudal lord is baron, so he is independent vassal of the king.
He rule domain, that may be one of the M:TW provinces. So, he wants to make private war with his neighbour, so, he needs a huge army.

First and most important troops at his disposal are his vassal knights. Each vassal must provide single(or more) "lance" unit. Lance consisted of one armoured "lancer" or "helm"(usualy the knight), and few armed men for support. Their number varied from 2 to even 12, depending mainly of wealth or position of the knight. That troops served their lord for certain period of time, and they were paided monthly for each lance. We pick average 3 (one knight and 2 support men), in calculating number of mounted men in each lance.

In our egsample, our baron had muster 80 lances from vassal knights, so he have efectively about 240 mounted men.

Also, in his domain are 2 cities, and for their privileges, they must provide additional lances, in this case 20. So, additional 60 mounted men supports baron army.

Knights will stay for 2 months.

Second hand troops is levy. Levy was called from cities and villages. Average, one trooper per 50 men was called to service, armed from village or city treasury. He may be paid off, and in that case, money was taken by baron or other high officer.

Beeing lord of 70 villages, 2 small towns and 2 cities, he rule over 50k thet are ready to service (between 12 - 60 year), so he can call up to 1000 levies, poor armed and barely trained. About 25% men called for service was paided off by their families, so 750 men supports barons army.

Mercenaries were not hired, cos our baron simply have not enough money.

Finaly, baron attacks his neighbour with 300 cavalry and 750 men, having 100 knights.

If he will have luck, he may crush his enemy in battle, but its rather possible, that his neigbour will hide in castle, and siege can lasts much longer than 2 months. So, he probably withdraw, plundering his neigbour lands. He additionaly risks commoner revolt, cos he raised the taxes before the campaign begins, to raise the army. So, he have hole in treasury, and angry commoners in homeland.

But we assumed, that the enemy hide in castle, and our baron will siege that castle. Knights will most certainly refuse any bigger offensive actions, interested rather in tournaments or duels for glory and ransom with sieged knights, or most probably plundering the counrtyside. And the poor infantry will do all the dirty job. Beeing poor armed and trained, they probably take heavy losses in few unsuccesful assaults.:wall: So siege will last longer. After two months, knights are not obligued by their feudal duty, so (having plunder from neigbourhood) they wants to return home.:furious3: Baron, gives them his last money prolongs their duty for additional 2 months. But after that preiod, castle is still in enemy hands, and baron have no money to pay the army. So he withdraws. And when he return, he face a commoner revolt, becos he raised additional taxes for that unsuccesfull campaign:oops: ........:sweatdrop:

That was the reality of medieval times.

We think from modern point of viev, that in feudal armies was file and rank troopers (called men at arms), unificaly armed, dressed and trained. Wrong. Infantry was supported(levies) by their villages and cities, so their equipment was rather collorfull mix. Also, mercenaries were not exception.
Knoghts was only unific type of unit. Their equipment was generaly the same(qualities may varry, depending on individual wealth of knight) and they played similar tactical roles on battlefield.
Id never wrote, that cavalry always outnumbered infantry in medieval armies, but i wrote, that the knights was the bulk of any. For any feudal ruler, army without knights isnt an army at all.

That "lance" system ended in 15 century, and from that time, we can agree, that infantry was "core", not the knights. I must agree, that development of the armour piercing weapons and anticavalry weapons(pole arms, pikes, gunpowder weapon) have very much to say in composition of the armies, but this problem was more complex. It was generaly downfall of the old feudal system, and that matter is not in our discussion.

I`m sorry for that long and boring post, and for huge generalisation of this problem, but analysis of every aspect of medieval feudal warfare may take whole book(or several if we go into hardcore, digging out every source possible).


Hmm, i almost forget.......

As the armours advanced from furs, leathers and wooden shields through ring mails and reinforced shields to full plates and metal shields,

Where did you see metal shields with gothic armour, bro? All battle shields(used in real fight) are made from wood. Differences are shape, size, and quality. Metal shields were used for heraldic display. Buckler is the only metal shield used in combat.
Knights in gothic armour usualy had no shields at all, using polearm weapons(or any other anti armour weapon) or longsword. Wearing that much armour is save enough, and when faced with indenticaly armoured oponent, you need some killing power, instead of additional protection.

[antisocialmunky]

That's alot of good information there, though I'm slightly puzzled at why you two have posted it since I'm not challenging those points and your information doesn't really contradict me. Do you think I don't know the basic facts of that time? Are you trying to 'educate' me or something?

But if I'm mistaken at your purpose or if we're not arguing, then my bad.

There's one point I'd like to make. Wood might have been prefered because of the fact that weapons could get stuck in them thus allowing the shielder a window to attempt a critical attack on the opponent. Small shields like bucklers were used mostly by knights.

[Asmodai]

Antisocialmunky, i`m not trying to educate you(off course, if my post is in any part valuable to you, it is good to both of us, i think), but i tried only protect my point of view. I never intendet to attack you either. If you feel offended or threatened, i`m sorry for that.

[QUOTE=antisocialmunky]
@Asmodoi - I don't know where you learned your history but Knights never did compose most of an army... ever except in those rare occassions. Knights were not that great, they were devastating but people found ways to get around that. Just look at the 100 Year's war.[QUOTE]

Yes, you have right, that Knights were not invincible. Few battles(Cortrai 1302 for egsample) can give our some insights about that.
But Knights were first available troops in feudal arsenal. Beeing mounted and armoured, knight was profesional warrior, rather levy or conscript type.
And notice, that in late medieval, non knightly troopers tried to equip themselves similarly to the knights. So, if we may talk about basic troop type in medieval army, surely knight will be on top. That is however, a dangerous theory

[antisocialmunky]

I hope you took no offense to that last post then.

You are right, they and their supporting retinue were the professional soldiers in the early feudal era. But if you expand the term knight to include Men At Arms who could not afford a horse, then they would fill a good amount of an army. But the mounted heavily armoured knight was still not the most common type of soldier.

[Loucipher]

antisocialmunky: don't be afraid ~:) As long as we two (I mean Asmodai and Loucipher) love historical debates, we are far from "educating" anyone or arguing with anyone. Just sharing our individual insights and trying to build some kind of theory underlying the composition of catholic armies in the game we all love so much - and that's about it.
Asmo, I think we have already had this conversation about shields elsewhere, so without further ado - thanks for straightening me out on that :bow:
Antisocialmunky, I'd agree that MTW describes Men-At-Arms as professional soldiers, or even lesser nobles, only too poor to actually have horses (in Medieval times, a good horse might have been worth two or three villages). And it is true to be said that quantitatively, the knights were never a majority. Qualitatively though, it was entirely different matter.

[Asmodai]

Hmm, i think, that men at arm was armed men ready for fight. It is not neccesary armoured man with good skills.
Anyway, i do not see any purpose, that buying armour and weapon makes better warrior than buying horse and ordinary spear. Mounted warrior with ordinary spear was better than armoured warrior with sword. If knight was poor, he can use textile or leather armour, spear instead of lance, but horse was his mark as a proffesional warrior.
Also, there is no tactical purpose, why recruit or arm good any infantry unit. Foot man with shield and sword, even armoured, cannot stand against mounted knight with lance. So, against what enemy they can be usefull? Agains non armoured rabble? Knights can kill them in dozens already. Also, any mounted warrior with spear can be davastating against footman.
Furthermore, what feudal lord was able to upkeep regular units of fully armoured, battle ready warriors? Man in fully armour must be paid, feeded, and his equipment needed to be repaired and storaged. Except for castle garrisons, servants and personal bodyguards of the lord, i cannot imagine units of those...men- at - arms. And medieval system of recruitment isnt a shop with shelves, and nobles couldnt buy any trooper that they like.
Knights served cos they had too many to lose. Their lands may be taken back, if they ignore their feudal duties. Peasant served as levy also cos that was his feudal duty. Mercenaries served for money. Sergeants and bodyguards served particular man or family.
And poor noble, who cannot buy a horse, was no longer knight. And his land was taken back, so he was not longer part of the feudal duty. What he become then? Outlaw? Mercenary? That is very important question. Did you all know, that mercenaries were excommed? By both popes. Did you know, that we haved two popes? That is another story to be told. Poor knight, that loosed his knightly status was thrown outside feudal society. He was free, but being armed, and having no land and wealth he usualy ended as robber, bandit or other outlaw or he become mercenary. He may die, or became rich. If he was lucky, he may return to the knightly status. Having horse was neccesary, and that was obviously to anyone.

So, i say, that those men at arms was levies or mercs, or dismounted knights, or husehold guards, or armed sergeant...you see, that many posibilities egsists. Depends on what source you have.

Finaly, if we talking about feudal period of the medieval in M:TW, we talk about early and high, and that is 2/3 of the campaign time. Late period displays downfall of the knightly class and rising of good quality commoner and urban infantry. If we talking about late medieval, you have right, that infantry is core, base and so on.

But knights were never exotic, rare troops. They where usual sight on battlefield, being most important unit in the army.