View Full Version : Weak cavalry?
Redtemplar
10-24-2006, 17:26
I and group of my friends have a strange feeling that cavalry will be weaker in Medieval II than in Medieval I. What is with this strength of horses?
Ordinary medium cavalry should easily destroy for example sword infantry with little amount of casualties.
Peasants couldn't do anything to charging knights. Cavalry was the hammer in medieval times which could easily defeat any infantry (only well trained pikeman were difficult enemy and of course another cavalry).
Do you think that in Medieval II cavalry will be such strong?
Bob the Insane
10-24-2006, 17:36
I think cavalry should work well in M2TW...
From my little experiments in the demo that certain effects have been exaggerated for gameplay reasons such as the suicidal nature of charging prepared spearmen. But it seems to work well as using cavalry correctly against the flanks of spear units or a direct charge into light infantry or archers in open ground appear to be very effective...
I don't think cav was weaken, although I believe the way of using cav has changed a bit. You can't just walk over to fight infantry (or caught standing on horses fighting cav 1vs.1). You must charge, disingage, charge again to use maximum charge effect.
So, yes, cav is the hammer of medieval time. But you can't use it as anvil...
Anniep
Furious Mental
10-24-2006, 17:42
Any reasonable infantry formation could hold its ground against cavalry if it was determined enough, especially if dismounted knights were placed in the van. They did not have to be pikemen. This myth that cavalry were for some reason invincible in the Middle Ages is such a tired old cliche. The reason cavalry often won was socio-economic; the military aristocracy spent money on itself whereas states like the Roman empire had spent money drilling professional infantry. However some states, like England, did emphasise infantry warfare and were able to field semi-professional foot soldiers which withstood cavalry charges on multiple occasions, pikes or no.
Knights, when charged into archers should just about break the archer formation and kill many and probably rout the company, yet that doesn't happen at all in the demo. It takes just about the entire battle to take out one archer company with your knights. If this is the way the game plays then cav will be used much less than it was in MTW where cav was used to get behind enemy lines and rout the archers.
I actually didn't do that in MTW (get behind archer lines to route them). They usually are well protected by their fellows.
I guess I need to play more games...
Anniep
Knights, when charged into archers should just about break the archer formation and kill many and probably rout the company, yet that doesn't happen at all in the demo. It takes just about the entire battle to take out one archer company with your knights. If this is the way the game plays then cav will be used much less than it was in MTW where cav was used to get behind enemy lines and rout the archers.
If you are referring to these scottish guards... sometimes they get killed by my general cav, sometimes not. I am thinking that these scottish guards might in fact be hybrids rather than pure missile troops.
Besides that, I find myself very agreeing with Bob the Insane and Lady An on the effectiveness of cav in the demo.
As another note, I enjoyed how cav charging charging cav works as well.
Bob the Insane
10-24-2006, 19:58
Knights, when charged into archers should just about break the archer formation and kill many and probably rout the company, yet that doesn't happen at all in the demo. It takes just about the entire battle to take out one archer company with your knights. If this is the way the game plays then cav will be used much less than it was in MTW where cav was used to get behind enemy lines and rout the archers.
I beg to differ... If you look at my post in the thread linked below (near the end) you will see a demonstration of what a cavalry charge can do to regular longbowmen out in the open (note also these longbowman are 2 gold chevrons for valour too):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70402&page=2
Put simply I think the Scots Guard are a special case and you should not juse the efeectiveness of cavalry against light infantry by them...
Additionally while playing around I had a unit of dismounted knight charge to the rear as I was repositioning them. Normally head on they decimate the cavalry, in this instance the dismounted knight where wiped out neardy to a man very quickly. I think face will have more of an effect than ever...
Defiantly on Pavia I first charged my cav in and was getting trashed until I diverted my landsknechts from attacking the other Scots guard unit in an effort to save my general (it worked and I won in the end). Second time I hit them from the flank with my cav and I killed nearly half the unit in my charge. Face has a huge effect.
Redtemplar
10-25-2006, 08:34
But longbowmen aren't just good adversary in melee combat. I rather thought about heavy, medium infantry which should be defeated with no problem.
How armored troops can stop cavalry? It is impossible for them because they have nothing that could stop about 800 kilo of charging horse with speed of for example 50 km/h (yeah minimum :)). This option should have only special anticavalry units such as pikeman or scotish guards the rests should be completely destroyed (even spearman with their short weapons). The only exception from this could be massive lines of ordinary infantry (about 20 or more) to stop the impact of charge, but casualties would even than very large about 50% or more.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-25-2006, 08:43
But longbowmen aren't just good adversary in melee combat. I rather thought about heavy, medium infantry which should be defeated with no problem.
How armored troops can stop cavalry? It is impossible for them because they have nothing that could stop about 800 kilo of charging horse with speed of for example 50 km/h (yeah minimum :)). This option should have only special anticavalry units such as pikeman or scotish guards the rests should be completely destroyed (even spearman with their short weapons). The only exception from this could be massive lines of ordinary infantry (about 20 or more) to stop the impact of charge, but casualties would even than very large about 50% or more.
I will not even talk about how wrong and unrealistic your argument is... As long as they maintained cohesion, armoured infantry got a fair chance against a cavalry charge. That's the difference between 1v1 and unit versus unit.
If you think in terms of gameplay, I hope you see how damaging your proposal would be. Why would anyone build anything but cavalry? What about unit balance?
Also, after MTW1 1.0, there were a lot of complain about cavalry being too weak, that led to some horrendous balancing decision, and eventually, all spears and pikes became completly useless. I'd urge everybody not to make that kind of judgement with a demo... Actually, not to make that kind of judgement in the first 6 months after game release. We never really recovered from that MTW1 1.0 silly decision.
Louis,
Orda Khan
10-25-2006, 11:10
I will not even talk about how wrong and unrealistic your argument is... As long as they maintained cohesion, armoured infantry got a fair chance against a cavalry charge. That's the difference between 1v1 and unit versus unit.
If you think in terms of gameplay, I hope you see how damaging your proposal would be. Why would anyone build anything but cavalry? What about unit balance?
Also, after MTW1 1.0, there were a lot of complain about cavalry being too weak, that led to some horrendous balancing decision, and eventually, all spears and pikes became completly useless. I'd urge everybody not to make that kind of judgement with a demo... Actually, not to make that kind of judgement in the first 6 months after game release. We never really recovered from that MTW1 1.0 silly decision.
Louis,
Very well said Louis.
MTW v1.0 was a good game and it was thoroughly ruined with v1.1. VI nor the v2.01 patch could help save the gameplay.
Cavalry, like any other unit, can die horribly and the thought that the player now has to use then wisely is music to my ears
.........Orda
Furious Mental
10-25-2006, 11:47
"How armored troops can stop cavalry? It is impossible for them because they have nothing that could stop about 800 kilo of charging horse with speed of for example 50 km/h (yeah minimum :)). This option should have only special anticavalry units such as pikeman or scotish guards the rests should be completely destroyed (even spearman with their short weapons). The only exception from this could be massive lines of ordinary infantry (about 20 or more) to stop the impact of charge, but casualties would even than very large about 50% or more."
It's less about the weapons and more about the fact that alot of big men standing behind big shields constitutes a big obstacle even to an 800 kg horse. Those standing in the front of a formation were likely to be the worse for wear but as long every man stood his ground a cavalry charge was likely to fail because basically the horses, if they charged home, would topple over and their riders would be killed by the generally more numerous foot soldiers. A cavalry charge was, to a large extent, dependent on scaring the unfortunate front ranks of an infantry formation into scattering. Pikes helped but were by no means vital. There are not a few examples of English spearmen and dismounted knights withstanding French royal cavalry in Anglo-Norman times, and this without having to stand in ranks 20 men deep and suffer 50% casualties.
peacedog
10-25-2006, 12:09
a solid formation of men, if they stood there ground, be they unarmed or with pikes, would be like a brick wall to a horse. the horse would stop before contact.
Often people think that those 800kgs of horse are a speeding bullet, heading straight ahead with no thought of its own safety. This is, to put it mildly, not always the case. At very few points in medieval history did heavy cavalry charge an ordered line of infantry unless they had softened it up (or thought they had) with infantry or missile attack first - the more publicized infantry vs cavalry victories always seem to miss some details in the telling: at Courtrai/Kortrijk the cavalry assault failed because the infantry had not disordered the flemish foot enough, and at Bannockburn the english infantry and archers were unable to give support to the heavy cavalry due to the english army not having properly deployed. At Falkirk, 16 years before, the scottish spear formations were subjected to heavy missile fire before the english sent in their heavy cavalry when the Scots were disordered enough to ensure the full effectiveness of the cavalry.
At the Hastings reenactment this year (see http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65591) we saw some interesting horse psychology. When the norman cavalry faced the shieldwall, with spears protruding from every second man, they had no problems making their horses shie away from the infantry - they did it almost naturally. However, after a staged charge into the center that "broke through" the horses almost became truly dangerous as they followeded one another into the infantry - even those that were not supposed to "break through". Let me tell you, horsemen running around in a weakened and split infantry formation are a scary sight and experience - even if the horsemen are only trying not to step on you!
Peasant Phill
10-25-2006, 12:39
[QUOTE=Ringeck] at Courtrai/Kortrijk the cavalry assault failed because the infantry had not disordered the flemish foot enough[QUOTE]
I know this is nitpicking and apart from this sentence I tend to agree with you what you say about Kortrijk isn't entirely true.
Sure the Flemish line wasn't disordered in that you were right but this wasn't the biggest cause to why the French lost. There had been a missile duel between the Flemish and the French but it did little damage. The French infantry didn't even touch the Flemish line before the French cav hit the Flemish head on. So it's true that the French cav hit the prepared Flemish still in a decent formation.
The real battle winner (for the Flemish) was their position. They had set up just behind some streams. The French cavalry had little trouble crossing these but were as a result somewhat disordered and lost a lot of momentum. They didn't have the space left to get back to top speed and were therefor easily (at least easier) stopped by the Flemish pikemen and then killed by others who were wielding goedendags ( got a horrendous reputation because of this battle).
There was more room to recover at the center of the Flemish lines and as a result the French general and the cav he commanded were able to break the Flemish formation, they were however surrounded and killed after that.
So I agree with you to some extend, however the Flemish won mostly due to position (and the impetuousness of the French knights). If the French infantry was ordered in first, the battle would probably have gone different.
Don't worry, I'll nitpick back! :beam: At least according to Verbruggen, the french infantry was sent in after the archery duel had died down, but was called back for some reason. The Count of Artois should have known better (he wasn't inexperienced, after all, having faced the flemish at Furnes in 1297) but it can be theorized that he either misunderstood the situation or thought the flemish had been sufficently disordered. That being said, the minor breakthroughs in the centre in the inital attack, and the Count's breakthroughs in the last phase before the french rout, were relatively minor - no mass breakthrough.
Peasant Phill
10-25-2006, 13:38
I'm really hijacking this thread and I'm sorry for it (I wont do it again I swear)
I'm aware of the whole French infantry issue (I said that they didn't touch the Flemish lines before the cav).
What the charge of the cavalry is concerned . I think the Brugse metten (where people from Bruges killed the French garrison in their sleep) had something to do with it. The French knight probably felt wronged by these peasants. This is however just a hypothesis
Possibly. All this gets very speculative anyway, so...back on topic!
Peasant Phill
10-25-2006, 13:45
Right you are Ringneck.
On topic, I'm rather pleased that knights aren't overpowered killing machines(regarding gameplay). It would just be boring that some units could stroll around on the map and kill with impunity. Whether this was historically so or not (which it wasn't). Their charge will still make them battle winners, you just have to time and direct it more carefully.
People seem to think that Cavalry are weak but with the exception of Henry V's machine gunners, they are one of the most powerful units in the game. In the Demo if you hit a unit in combat in the side with a cavary charge they break, everytime and suffer 50% casulties, that is probably realistic and providing you are sensible and use infantry to fix enemy units Cavalry can still be battle winners and the core of your army. They just need a bit of help. A Cavalry heavy French army is not going to be difficult to win with!
Orda Khan
10-25-2006, 15:34
A Cavalry heavy French army is not going to be difficult to win with!
Against a well ordered, balanced army I hope it will or another game bites the dust
......Orda
Not if you use it sensibly. All MTW units can be put into four groups, missile(incl missile cav), cavalry, spear infantry(pikes, billmen, spearmen etc.), sword infantry. If you use missile units to bleed the enemy and then fix them frontally with spear or sword infantry, then you hit them from the back or side with cavalry, if you do it sensibly no unit can stand being bleed, fixed and flanked unless it is vastly better than your units and even then it shouldn't stand up to you.
Edit: For example the English are going to have good missile troops and infantry, but their cavalry are going to be weaker. The French will have great cavalry but weaker missile units so you will just have to put more emphasis on that aspect.
There are also hybrids (Archer-Infantry, Horse-Archers)
Annie
Against a well ordered, balanced army I hope it will or another game bites the dust
......Orda
I hope so too. Don't want the "20 cataphracts cav on wedge running around" like in RTW. We were able to defeat these armies with a balanced army, but it is a pain and is so ridiculous and brainless that it took much of the fun out of playing.
Annie
If you want to know the real power of heavy cavalery, look the battle of Patay, English longbowmen are routed in some minutes by a heavy cav charge.
the only issue to counter the cav charge are missiles,pikemen, stackes, good positions.
If you want to know the real weakness of cavalry look at Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt, that's a really silly comment.
Bob the Insane
10-25-2006, 17:41
If you want to know the real power of heavy cavalery, look the battle of Patay, English longbowmen are routed in some minutes by a heavy cav charge.
the only issue to counter the cav charge are missiles,pikemen, stackes, good positions.
Well that example fits perfectly into the test I refered to above... Unprepared archers out in the open riden over by cavalry. I saw exactly this in the demo so I do not see what the issue is?
Redtemplar
10-25-2006, 17:43
I will not even talk about how wrong and unrealistic your argument is... As long as they maintained cohesion, armoured infantry got a fair chance against a cavalry charge. That's the difference between 1v1 and unit versus unit.
If you think in terms of gameplay, I hope you see how damaging your proposal would be. Why would anyone build anything but cavalry? What about unit balance?
Also, after MTW1 1.0, there were a lot of complain about cavalry being too weak, that led to some horrendous balancing decision, and eventually, all spears and pikes became completly useless. I'd urge everybody not to make that kind of judgement with a demo... Actually, not to make that kind of judgement in the first 6 months after game release. We never really recovered from that MTW1 1.0 silly decision.
Louis,
Hm. I think that you see medieval times from the infantry side. But I will tell you something. If you think infantry was so great with these shields why Gengis Khan used only horses? (the most of his opponents used them and even than they lost) Why the cavalry was the main force in Europe and America during medieval times and even after.
Someone said that shield wall was good against horses. Good joke. Maybe shields about 2 on 1 meter maybe would be good but i think this was rather rare :) .
Some interlocutors had forgotten that this horses were battle horses (i don't know if France but I talk about my region). They were trained in attacking shield walls, pike walls etc.. They were also learned to kick and ram targets. Heavy cavalry had often armors to protect horses in time after impact.
I understand that the creators are trying to make balance but the weak cavalry shouldn't be so expansive as in Medieval I. The other way is to make them strong as in history it was.
You neglected to mention the tactics of the Golden Horde.
1. Gengis Khan's army was not a pure heavy cav army we were talking about. These were cav archers. Excellent archers by their own right even firing on the move, they could rival any archers on foot. Their composite bows give them short drawn with same range, an excellent range weapon. They discovered they could shoot while none of the horse's hooves touch the air, thus have more accurate aim. They could shoot standing on the stirrup, forward, backward. They were accomplished horse riders, capable of leaning on the side of a horse to pick up items on the ground.
2. Genghis Khan army would not charge infantry formation front, side or even rear. They just made several passes then disappear in a cloud of dust then reemerged from a different direction, rained down hail of arrows, made several passes, then disappeared again. They demoralized, wore down and decimated opponents who were not capable of chasing them. They only charged opoonents in disarray, chased down routers or deserters.
3. The Golden Horde won the wars at strategic level. Their scouting units were capable of fighting and vice versa, and they could quickly disperse and regroup. Being on horses, they often could quickly find the enemy's army, skirmish and disengage, so they could chose their own terrain for battle. Their enemies were described always try to find the Horde army, always unsure of where it was. That fact alone was enough to tilt the battle toward Horde victories.
4. The Golden Horde could quickly pillage and/or maintain supply routes. The enemies cannot. Their superiority in speed allowed them to disrupt supplies routes, while it was much harder for the enemies to do the same. In fact, three of the rare wars the Mongols lost were due to terrain which doesn't permit a landbased supply route, and the Mongols supply ships were raided.
Anyways, I think it suffice to say Mongol Army were not similar to Western Catholic heavy cav army.
Annie
Vladimir
10-25-2006, 18:10
I'm sorry RedTemplar but I think you're a bit naive about history.
The Mongols won so many battles for MANY reasons. Their superior archery destroyed the relatively poor steppe peoples, and their superior tactics (feigned retreats, ambushes, etc etc) benefited them as much as their cavalry. They used so many of them because they had so many of them; they were a steppe people!
You're also forgetting about the prevalence of *light* cavalry used by the Mongols. You're bringing light cavalry into a heavy cavalry discussion. The greatest advantage that horsemen bring to the battlefield is mobility. This allows for the above tactics, blitzkrieg warfare and in an emergency...additional food supply (horses).
You can see examples early on of intact shieldwalls holding back frontal cav charges. Just what I can remember from reading a Military History magazine shows that unbroken, disciplined infantry can stop horses cold. Even troops with smaller shields and few longarms.
Show me where it is said that cavalry was the main force in Europe. Cavalry was the most *important* force mainly because, as I said, it added mobility to the battlefield. Heavy horse was also expensive and therefore societies focused on ways to increase their availability. Infantry was the main force but cavalry was the most valuable.
Also remember that horses aren't stupid. They're quite crafty and don't want to die. Yes they were bread for war but no they didn't like charging into solid objects (trees, rocks, PEOPLE) making a lot of noise and waiving things at them.
You can see this in MTW, especially in VI. Once you are able to train large amounts of horsemen, the battlefield opens up to you.
Also, after MTW1 1.0, there were a lot of complain about cavalry being too weak, that led to some horrendous balancing decision, and eventually, all spears and pikes became completly useless.
Louis,
Spears and pikes were not made weaker so cavalry could become stronger. Spears became more expensive because people complained about how weak the swords were. As the upkeep stayed the same it had hardly any effect for SP but for MP it had a devastating effect.
CBR
Furious Mental
10-25-2006, 18:20
"If you think infantry was so great with these shields why Gengis Khan used only horses?"
First of all, Genghis Khan didn't use "only horses". Where did you get that? Do you think he took all those Chinese citadels with cavalry? Of course not, he had to use Chinese siege engineers and Chinese infantry. Second of all, in so far as Mongol field armies were often comprised entirely of cavalry, the example is quite irrelevant to the discussion because Mongols were so different to Europeans in terms of culture and tactics.
Mongols, being steppe people, naturally tended towards mounted warfare. How could a warlord control the vast plains without horses? He couldn't. In the European context the relative slowness of foot soldiers was less problematic- take the example of a very warlike period in England, 1135-1154: any army was likely to be marching a very short distance to besiege one of the several hundred castles then in existence.
Notably Mongols also did not rely solely on the frontal charge; the charge generally came last after an enemy had been worn down with arrows and often coaxed into pointless and tiring attempts at pursuit, which often placed them in a vulnerable position.
"If you think infantry was so great with these shields why Gengis Khan used only horses? (the most of his opponents used them and even than they lost) Why the cavalry was the main force in Europe and America during medieval times and even after."
Your view of medieval warfare is simply wrong, there are no two ways about it. Infantry were the main component of the average medieval European army. Most medieval generals followed the strategy of the Roman theorist Vegetius, which was to avoid the risks entailed in pitched battles and instead try to force the enemy to abandon a campaign by gaining control of food supplies. In doing this one of the most important things to do was gain control of castles, so sieges were far more numerous than pitched battles. Cavalry are relatively useless for sieges. Where cavalry did fit into this sort of logistical warfare was chiefly using their mobility for foraging and harrying. They were certainly important in pitched battles when such battles occurred but were generally neither the predominant portion of the army nor could they just trample down any opposition. As is the case with any tactical unit, they were best in conjunction with others.
"Someone said that shield wall was good against horses."
Go and read the account of the Battle of Hastings in the Gesta Willelmi, which was written by William of Poitiers, who was William the Conqueror's chaplain and therefore can be taken to have gotten his information straight from those who were at the battle. He was unambiguous in stating that stating that a couple of thousand of the best cavalry in France could make little impression on the English shield wall, and only won by hours of skirmishing (in conjunction with archers and crossbowmen on foot) and tactical ruses. In other words- they fought like Mongols (and some historians theorise that in fact the knowledge of this style of warfare was derived from Frankish contact with the Magyars). And after the Battle of Hastings there was no small number of battles where the English fyrd, then at the service of the Anglo-Norman kings, withstood charges by continental cavalry again and again. Notably, on a number of occasions, the Norman knights in fact dismounted to strengthen the infantry formation; in other words the king guessed (correctly the results of the battles show) that his cavalry were worth more on foot than they were mounted.
Horses weren't the tanks that people seem to think they are.
Imagine a line 10 men deep (not unusual in fact rather thin), then imagine horsemen charging it. Front line of infantry are in trouble, unless they can keep the horses away with pikes they are gonna be hit by 800 pounds of man and beast. The second line is also in trouble, they are gonna be hit by lances. Third line are untouched apart from being pushed backwards. Now the Cavalry first line is in trouble, their horses have just run into a solid wall of men, they have run onto spears and swords etc, and then had the men behind them hit them in the back. Now the charge is over the front lines of both sides have been mostly wiped out. Now you have a heavily armoured man on a horse using a sword, mace etc (his lance will have broken very quickly). He is packed in between his fellows and the enemy front line, his horse is very vulnerable, because while you can armour his breast against a pike how do you armour his knee joints or hamstrings? Thus our infantry can deal with the horse pretty easily providing they avoid the horseman's sword (and they outnumber him and he can only really use his sword on his right side (if he is right handed). Now once the horse has gone down (and it will with cut hamstrings) he is screwed. He is wearing 100 pounds of armour and while he might be able get up unassisted in normal conditions this is a battle, he might have fallen under his horse or be trapped under one of his comrades. He is screwed.
The only way a cavalry unit can break infantry is fear, if the rear ranks react to the front rank getting trampled by turning and running then the cav has one, otherwise their only hope is to retreat, which is a lot harder than it sounds, after all there are corpses scattered everywhere, you are pressed between the men behind you and on either side not to mention the enemy.
Edit: This assumes horses who have no sight, sense of smell, or generally emotion, in all probability you couldn't even get them to charge.
Marquis of Roland
10-25-2006, 21:39
I think CA is just adjusting from RTW, where they made cavalry too strong.
Wonder if you guys tested charges on various depth of the formation and also the morale of the unit.
Realistically speaking, the majority of troops in medieval era armies probably had low morale, perhaps resulting in european heavy cav's reputation. I know I wouldn't want to stand in front because my landlord told me to :laugh4:
Thanks for the link Bob_the_Insane. I hadn't seen that post in the earlier thread and I like what I see.
And LadyAnn, having been killed by you a few times in multi in the early days of MTW, I have lots of respect for your skills. But being a weaker player than you means I got to play weaker opponents than you probably usually played and I could, on occasion, get cav into the rear of an enemy and decimate their archers. And of course, the AI was particularly weak in preventing this sort of attack so I was successful with it while playing campaigns.
*blushes*
I just like to have units closer, mainly because of the morale penalties for having detached troops. Plus, the opponent will likely rush either the detachment or the main army and I am not good enough to prevent it.
Annie
Watchman
10-26-2006, 07:05
Realistically speaking, the majority of troops in medieval era armies probably had low morale, perhaps resulting in european heavy cav's reputation. I know I wouldn't want to stand in front because my landlord told me to :laugh4:Well, feudal aristocraties always had reservations about commoners properly trained and equipped to fight for some fairly readily obvious reasons. And pretty much the whole point of feudalism (okay, one of many) was always and everywhere the raising and maintenance of the invariably hideously expensive heavy cavalry, which duly drew the lords' attention and resources away from infantry.
For quite a while the most effective infantry forces in medieval Europe came from regions for one reason or another not "properly feudalized" - much of Scandinavia proper was flatly too agriculturally poor to support much in the way of landed aristocracy for example, as well as geographically rather unsuited for heavy cavalry dominance - and the numerous urban communities that existed in practice separately from the feudal system (and made a point of maintaining both proper fortifications and decent military forces to keep it that way). While the feudal lords naturally had and needed some capable infantry among their pool of military manpower and vassals (to man the assorted fortifications for example - no point in getting all of them horses too), when decent infantry was required in large numbers they usually turned to allies and mercenaries from the aforementioned "infantry heavy" regions.
blahblahblah
10-26-2006, 07:31
Wow. I guess calvary isn't as dominant in the medieval times as I thought.
Watchman
10-26-2006, 07:43
Depends entirely on what part of Europe and which time period you're talking about. Much of Italy, particularly the northern part, was heavily urbanized and the local knights really just provided a mobile striking arm to complement the solid shieldwalls of the communal infantry; ditto for the Low Countries; in the Iberian peninsula lighter cavalry played a greater part due to the geography and the hit-and-run characteristic of many conflicts fought, and the difficult terrain probably kept infantry comparatively valuable too; Fennoscandia was absolutely rotten with dense forests and never good "cavalry country" anyway, as well as so poor proper feudal chivalry were comparatively few in number for economic reasons. France and England, as well as some areas of Central Europe, were relatively open country and prosperous enough to support extensive feudal structures, and it was really there the knights dominated. Germany (as a geographical region) I know less about, but would suspect the trend varied considerably by the specific circumstances and terrain of a given area.
Obviously once you get to the wide open steppes of Eastern Europe and southern Russia, the natural domain of the horse, cavalry becomes rather overwhelmingly dominant for the obvious reason its mobility can be exploited to the fullest; access to traditions of mounted archery and composite bows no doubt further helped in this.
Orda Khan
10-26-2006, 10:46
Using Mongol cavalry as an example of the superiority of mounted troops is quite a good argument, they were very successful, even in Europe (Poland, Hungary, Transylvania, Bulgaria) However, in the Civil War between Qubilai and Ariq Bukha, the limitless inclusion of infantry available to Qubilai was one deciding factor in his eventual victory
........Orda
Redtemplar
10-26-2006, 13:16
Exactly (I didn't write everything about tactics of Mongols because it is not theme in this discussion - sorry for history fans :) - fact is that Mongols used cavalry). But true is that waves of horses one after another is very hard to defend against.
If charge was unsuccessful they turned around and attack another time. Infantry had weak mobility and low defense values against cavalry (exception are pikes and some weapons). Imagine to stand in one place with your battle colleagues (about 500, armored with swords and round shields, flat terrain) against 100 medium heavy cavalry units. You couldn't have a chance to survive this.
Battle horses were trained to kill and were not afraid of enemies. Even if they had number superiority. When you fight in battle you want to survive, the same does the enemy. I really doubt that you could stop cavalry with ordinary infantry. When order to charge was executed there was nothing to stop this (some of you say that horses were afraid of dying- it very funny but the soldiers were too and none of them was stopping suddenly in battle).
I repeat again battle horses were trained to fight and had huge courage - when you talk that these horses could run away - it is nonsense (much sooner would run away enemies infantry).
IMHO medieval times are ages of cavalry supremacy.
Bob the Insane
10-26-2006, 13:55
Well the point is not so much about the agressiveness of the horses or them running away, as it is about them being convinced they should run head long into an apparantly solid object... This is more an issue of inteligence rather than aggression, even a trained and aggressive animal will not run headlong into a solid object...
Now if you break up the infantry formation so that they do not look so solid but has gaps or better still looks like individuals I will grant you the horse will charge into those gaps and knock down and trample those individuals...
Furious Mental
10-26-2006, 14:34
"France and England, as well as some areas of Central Europe, were relatively open country and prosperous enough to support extensive feudal structures, and it was really there the knights dominated."
Actually the English had a predilection to fighting on foot which they passed on to the Norman aristocracy after their conquest. Plentiful infantry were an objective necessity of the siege warfare which dominated almost every campaign in England and Normandy and most field armies were probably comprised of two thirds infantry as William the Conqueror's is thought to have been (and in many pitched battles even the cavalry component was dismounted for tactical advantage). Also, the "extensive feudal structures" you refer to were in fact the least important of the English system of military obligations. Far more important were
- The knights of military households whose service was chiefly stipendiary
- Other knights and infantry whose service was entirely stipendiary
- The infantry levy of English land owners (i.e. the fyrd)
Leaf through contemporary sources from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries and you can find about a zillion references to armies being raised by these means. On the other hand (and I'm not joking here) there are only three references to a feudal host being summoned. And records of government show pretty clearly that kings and barons had a preference for having their vassals commute feudal obligations for a money payment which could be used to hire mercenaries. In fact the process of subinfeudation (division of knights' fees amongst several sub-tenant) meant that in practice there were frequently no feudal knights to summon.
Exactly (I didn't write everything about tactics of Mongols because it is not theme in this discussion - sorry for history fans :) - fact is that Mongols used cavalry). But true is that waves of horses one after another is very hard to defend against.
If charge was unsuccessful they turned around and attack another time. Infantry had weak mobility and low defense values against cavalry (exception are pikes and some weapons). Imagine to stand in one place with your battle colleagues (about 500, armored with swords and round shields, flat terrain) against 100 medium heavy cavalry units. You couldn't have a chance to survive this.
Battle horses were trained to kill and were not afraid of enemies. Even if they had number superiority. When you fight in battle you want to survive, the same does the enemy. I really doubt that you could stop cavalry with ordinary infantry. When order to charge was executed there was nothing to stop this (some of you say that horses were afraid of dying- it very funny but the soldiers were too and none of them was stopping suddenly in battle).
I repeat again battle horses were trained to fight and had huge courage - when you talk that these horses could run away - it is nonsense (much sooner would run away enemies infantry).
IMHO medieval times are ages of cavalry supremacy.
See my above post for my counter reply. :wall:or:book:
IMHO medieval times are ages of cavalry supremacy.
Am not so quick to come to this conclusion at all. The Middle Ages are so diverse and evolutionary in military doctrines that it is very hard to just say that.
When someone says "Heavy Cavalry should win all", we could cite numerous examples where they fell the task. Not only in France, but also in Iberian Penninsula. One could point out that at certain point in the 14th century, the knights started to fight on foot, prefered to dismount before battle. Yet, if someone said "Cavalry should be weak" one could point out the success of Polish cavalry, of Mongol light cavalry, of Spanish cavalry, of Cavalry in Crusade Era (on both sides).
Anniep
Orda Khan
10-26-2006, 19:16
Mongol discipline as much as their cavalry won them their victories. Ask any military historian for an opinion and it will be that generally it was the 'grunts' who did the hard work
....Orda
Eaglefirst
10-26-2006, 20:25
I'm no medieval war period expert but kngihts charging frontally shoul;d work on weak troops but not on any sort of experienced infantry. I would imagine If I was a peasent and a knight ran at me I'd run away, once I run I'm toast, the formation is gone and we get ridden down but if we hold still the horses will either refuese to charge trhough the spears and shields or charge and get bogged down and cut to pieces. Also someone more knowledgable can correct me but I think knights did not charge at full gallop which would make the momentum less of a factor. Overall the cavalry in MT2W seems good not the overpowerd garbage in RTW.
Redtemplar
10-26-2006, 20:28
Yes LadyAnn it depends on many parameters. But I really doubt in so called "solid wall from humans" - i never have seen that surviving a battle in middle Europe. Polish cavalry had an experience in destroying even such formations (only carts? and special walls from wood - shield haha - for infantry could protect them - but still this wasn't good protection :)). They simply made charges one after another (and used some interesting tactics - :book: ). The infantry was weakened enough to make final charge and game over :).
I think it is experience different in every nations (:smash:) but I am writing this topics from my point of view (and I am not saying cavalry can destroy everything, but in good hands can destroy almost everything :).
Peace and love - remember war is cruel - let it be only in games.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-26-2006, 21:12
IF cavalry can destroy almost anything, do you think this game is going to be of any interest at all?
Just buy cavalry and win... That's going to be very poor gameplay...
Louis,
Redtemplar
10-26-2006, 21:24
Not completely (I was writing about history arguments not gameplay).
Well than you just buy cavalry to attack cavalry, there are also pikes, castles etc.. I think it has little to do with gameplay.
Orda Khan
10-27-2006, 17:06
Cav versus cav, that's fair enough but strange how Julius Caesar deployed infantry amongst his cav to defeat the cav of Pompei......
......Orda
Furious Mental
10-27-2006, 17:19
"i never have seen that surviving a battle in middle Europe."
I actually just gave you an example of frontal cavalry charges being explicitly stated to be useless against a solid wall of humans by a contemporary source.
Da_Funkey_Gibbon
10-28-2006, 23:19
Yeah, that was interesting, but it raises the question of how far tactics changed from the mid 11th century to the mid 15th century in terms of calvary tactics in north west Europe. Specifically the influence of the classical knight in full plate armor, which I believe deleloped throughout the middle ages.
I think cavalry should roll over most infantry on a bowling green, but when it comes to the misfortunes of grapevines, hedges, woods etc. they should have more trouble.
It isn't easy for cavalry to charge, circle around and charge again. After a charge, horses need a wide area to turn around and run away so they can charge again. Even if they knock over humans, there's still the matter of them tripping over. Try running over something half your height and a tenth your weight. You'll knock it over but you'll probably trip, too. Physically, the difficulty of knocking down humans rises exponentially the more there are behind them, especially if they have a low center of gravity and are braced for impact. Hitting them would mean the horse would stumble.
Frontal charges just don't work against experienced, high-morale troops in a tight, deep formation, pike or no pike. Obviously, the Mongols had lots of success but horse archer combat is vasltly different from charging knights.
ProudNerd
10-31-2006, 06:02
Cav seems very weak to me especially conquistadors. they died very quickly against the Aztecs as did cortez's bodyguard. It was crushed in seconds.
Horatius
10-31-2006, 17:04
At Hattin and Varna knights charged headlong against walls of infantry who did not retreat but still broke the lines, although in both battles it was over when they did it and .
Cavalry was the king of the Middle Ages not because they had to charge a flank or from behind but because in reality they decimated whatever they faced 90% of the time.
I see that you guys like to mention the few examples of cavalry not being able to charge home, however what you neglect to mention is that there happen to have been thousands of Medieval Battles in Europe and the Middle East and cavalry charges determined just about all of them.
I had almost no use for cavalry in MTW1 and rarely ever built them, and the few times I did I was dissapointed by the fact that they lost to just about everything apart from peasants, archers and other cavalry and so I just built archer infantry armies for the sake of effectiveness.
If MTW2 Cavalry follow MTW1 Cavalry instead of the more realistic RTW I just won't build them when I could have effective archers and infantry instead, especially considering that there will be limits to what you can recruit.
Cav is by no means weak in the game. It depends on how you use them. The French cav is capable of annihilating pikes. I have even seen the Ai do it.
4 badly damaged units of cav, probably half their strenght, whacked 3 units of pikes and two german halbadiers by attacking them from all sides simultaniously.
If you keep your cav concentrated, not bogged down in melee and flanking or attacking from behind cav in the demo can be devastating for infantry.
Frontal assauts are usually fatal for cav, although the AI on one occasion charged billmen at agincourt and destroyed them before I could do anything.
x-dANGEr
10-31-2006, 20:38
I hope so too. Don't want the "20 cataphracts cav on wedge running around" like in RTW. We were able to defeat these armies with a balanced army, but it is a pain and is so ridiculous and brainless that it took much of the fun out of playing.
Annie
Maybe if you sticked around for a bit more till the patches came out you would've been able to.. ~:)
I'm sure CA learned their lesson, and I hope they don't do that again.
Though, to the Cavalry VS Organised Disciplined infantry.. Didn't some Cavalry units at some point blind their horses?
Horatius
10-31-2006, 20:50
Cav is by no means weak in the game. It depends on how you use them. The French cav is capable of annihilating pikes. I have even seen the Ai do it.
4 badly damaged units of cav, probably half their strenght, whacked 3 units of pikes and two german halbadiers by attacking them from all sides simultaniously.
If you keep your cav concentrated, not bogged down in melee and flanking or attacking from behind cav in the demo can be devastating for infantry.
Frontal assauts are usually fatal for cav, although the AI on one occasion charged billmen at agincourt and destroyed them before I could do anything.
I haven't played the demo yet so correct me if I'm wrong, but can't just about any unit you could build instead of knights eliminate anything when they flank them? So are french cavalry the same as anybody else's cavalry again?
In MTW 1 cavalry was utterly worthless in my opinion, and on the historical knights rarely ever flanked the knights are the Medieval answer to Achilles not Odysseus.
M:TW cavalry is utterly worthless? I am proud to field an all cav army and confident enough to field it against good MP players. Even 3/4 cav army would fare well. Of course, it won't be able to win 1vs1 battles, but it is far from worthless.
Flank attack was always the hallmark of any respectable cavalry corp, from the time Philips II of Macedonia to modern time.
About your question of French cavalry: since I have not seen the complete stats, I am not able to say if French cavalry is best or not. It is not true that any unit you can build when flank another unit would win. Cavalry does have the charge bonus, combining with flanking (and you need speed to flank, which is another advantage that cavalry could have), would make cavalry the ideal unit for playing hammer in a hammer-anvil tactic.
Anniep
M:TW cavalry is utterly worthless? I am proud to field an all cav army and confident enough to field it against good MP players. Even 3/4 cav army would fare well. Of course, it won't be able to win 1vs1 battles, but it is far from worthless.
Flank attack was always the hallmark of any respectable cavalry corp, from the time Philips II of Macedonia to modern time.
About your question of French cavalry: since I have not seen the complete stats, I am not able to say if French cavalry is best or not. It is not true that any unit you can build when flank another unit would win. Cavalry does have the charge bonus, combining with flanking (and you need speed to flank, which is another advantage that cavalry could have), would make cavalry the ideal unit for playing hammer in a hammer-anvil tactic.
Anniep
How about the Norman cavalry of the 11th-12th century. They just went straight through Byzantine and Arabic armies consistently with no trouble at all (except at Durazzo) - without flanking. I can't really find any real situations of cavalry flanking in the medieval era. If anyone could dig some up, I'd be grateful.
Polemists
10-31-2006, 22:39
I don't know how this got so historical but anyway here is my two cents.
I agree with that most of the history buffs said. Were calvary powerful? Yes, this wasn't do to fact you just had man on horse but do to fact that your basic grunt was not that well equipped. Calvary are generally better just because they have better gear.
Now onto game, Calvary are vital. Yes they do not demolish every infantry formation. Still they are very effective in battle, do push back lines, and kill men rather quickly.
If anyone thinks calvary underpowered I dare them to try playing the battles of onumbia or pavia without calvary and win. You should see a difference, at least in demo 2 for sure.
My calvary cut down the scotts guard rather quickly, the only time it takes all day is when they charge a group of 100 crossbow men, and yes cutting down 100 men does take a bit lol.
Horatius
10-31-2006, 22:43
I am proud to field an all cav army and confident enough to field it against good MP players.
Why don't you try that in the Grad Campaign?
Even 3/4 cav army would fare well. Of course, it won't be able to win 1vs1 battles,
lol
Flank attack was always the hallmark of any respectable cavalry corp, from the time Philips II of Macedonia to modern time.
Tell that to the Normans who slaughtered Arab and Byzantine like lamb just by charging home.
How about the Norman cavalry of the 11th-12th century. They just went straight through Byzantine and Arabic armies consistently with no trouble at all (except at Durazzo) - without flanking. I can't really find any real situations of cavalry flanking in the medieval era. If anyone could dig some up, I'd be grateful.
My point exactly, would it not bring glory, but it wouldn't be practical to start with, and was not even neccessary because charging home head on worked most of the time apart from a few times when British Armies gave nasty surprises.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-01-2006, 00:37
I can foresee a future with great gameplay... Select your cav, charge straight at the enemy, win... CBR, you'll like that :laugh4:
Most MTW army were already very heavy on cavalry (typical would be 4-7 cavalry unit for MP / 16) which is already way more than was displayed historically speaking. And you want even more cavalry in there?
How are you going to keep the game balanced if one unit destroys it all? Not to mention to keep army with some semblance of historical composition?
I guess that you can multiply cavalry cost by 10 :laugh4:
Horatius: Campaign is a joke... a pretty good player won it with Pontius using only Pontic Light Cav. Is that good enough? It's doable with Equites. In BI, it's even worse...
Louis,
Horatius
11-01-2006, 03:24
Most MTW army were already very heavy on cavalry (typical would be 4-7 cavalry unit for MP / 16) which is already way more than was displayed historically speaking. And you want even more cavalry in there?
Nope I just want them to be worth building since I could build infantry and archers for lower cost and more efficiency. Besides what are you worried about when CA has already announced that recruitment will not be what you want but will be what is available so there will definately be variety in armies, or did you miss almost every announcement they made about the campaign?
How are you going to keep the game balanced if one unit destroys it all?
Same as the historical, Knights destroy all but there are limited numbers of them and you will need lesser units to support them or you will lose the battle.
Not to mention to keep army with some semblance of historical composition?
Considering the British Army was the only one not wholly dependent on Knights in Western Europe and even British Armies made very heavy use of knights it would be historical for Western European Armies to depend on their knights but need other units to support them, and I do not mean by distracting while knights go off to the side, since knights were tanks of the battlefield, not assassins.
I guess that you can multiply cavalry cost by 10
Along with their likely availability that would be good
Campaign is a joke... a pretty good player won it with Pontius using only Pontic Light Cav.
You switched from talking MTW to RTW but that is ok because as Greeks Pontian Cavalry is easily countered by a square of Hoplites with Archers in the middle shooting any horse archer, what's your point?
It's doable with Equites. In BI, it's even worse...
See above.
I built tons of knights when playing M:TW and found them powerful so I don't know where you got the idea that they were useless. Keep in mind that they are knights, not Panzers.
Kavhan Isbul
11-01-2006, 07:07
I can't really find any real situations of cavalry flanking in the medieval era. If anyone could dig some up, I'd be grateful.
I believe the battle of Nicopolis in 1396 was in the medieval era. It was decided, reportedly, by a flanking move of the Serb heavy cavalry (fighting on the side of the Ottomans) under Stefan Lazarevic.
Also, in the battle of Varna the Crusaders had an army composed primarily of heavy cavalry - the result of the battle is well known, and it only comes to prove that a cavalry charge is not all that it took in the Middle Ages to ensure victory. Heavy cavalry did have battle winning charge, but only if used properly - simply throwing it at the enemy did not work all the time.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-01-2006, 08:34
Nope I just want them to be worth building since I could build infantry and archers for lower cost and more efficiency. Besides what are you worried about when CA has already announced that recruitment will not be what you want but will be what is available so there will definately be variety in armies, or did you miss almost every announcement they made about the campaign?
The ultimate test of unit balance is MP. If MPers thinks cavalry are worth it, then indeed, they are. Believe me, I have seen a lot of af all cavalry army, but I have seldom seen army with no cavalry: most of the time they run in the 4-7 cavalry range; that tells me cavalry are hardly worthless... If you're looking at worthless in MTW, look at spear&pike; those were truly worthless, noone would take them...
Recruitment pool are not a MP feature. Remember that you also needs MP balance...
Same as the historical, Knights destroy all but there are limited numbers of them and you will need lesser units to support them or you will lose the battle.
How will you limit knight number in MP? If they are so powerfull, why would any MPer field anything but them?
Can you think about the gameplay? Just once? Have you ever played online?
Considering the British Army was the only one not wholly dependent on Knights in Western Europe and even British Armies made very heavy use of knights it would be historical for Western European Armies to depend on their knights but need other units to support them, and I do not mean by distracting while knights go off to the side, since knights were tanks of the battlefield, not assassins.
I am not aware of any medieval army of significant numbers were knights (am not talking seargent or hobilar here) would make half of the army; it's a situation we already have today, your proposal would make it worse...
Along with their likely availability that would be good
:wall:
It's now fairly obvious you have no idea what this would do to the MP side of the game
You switched from talking MTW to RTW but that is ok because as Greeks Pontian Cavalry is easily countered by a square of Hoplites with Archers in the middle shooting any horse archer, what's your point?
Ok, let me sum it up:
- in MTW MP cavalry are good, players use them a lot, we see all cavalry army, and most of the time an army will have in the 4-7 cavalry units. On the other hand, you'll seldom see a pike or spear unit -> for MTW MP cavalry is already very powerful
- in RTW MP: balance is non existant to start with... and cavalry is very very clearly overpowered
- in MTW SP campaign: I can win with cavalry units only, with no archer or infantry whatsoever. I think anyone can. If you read guide, for France or England it often starts with "build hobilar"... The maintnance cost for cavalry in MTW is fairly low compared to their effectiveness. if you think cavalry is useless in SP, you're missing something
- in RTW SP campaign, you can win building nothing but Pontic light cavalry, or nothing but equites. It's so easy it's almost sick: you're not going to see a square of phalanx in SP because 1: AI will not think of it, and 2: you're going to blitz the map so fast that AI won't have the time to build up enough for it anyway...
Louis,
Something that will stop people from fielding all cavalry armies in M2Tw MP is the reintroduced MTW feature that after you've chosen 4 of a unit in your army the cost of the unit increases for every unit of that type you pick after that.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-01-2006, 14:39
Something that will stop people from fielding all cavalry armies in M2Tw MP is the reintroduced MTW feature that after you've chosen 4 of a unit in your army the cost of the unit increases for every unit of that type you pick after that.
That feature had not stopped all cavalry army in MTW, it won't stop it in MTW2...
Louis,
because charging home head on worked most of the time apart from a few times when British Armies gave nasty surprises.
I think that view has been shown to be rather outdated (not to mention anglocentric like hell). Are there many examples of this that you actually can put forward? Verbruggen could not, and neither could Contamine, which led them both to reevaluate the notion of the frontal charge being the only, or even main, tactic of medieval cavalry.
When I said all cav army won win 1x1, I meant I won't be sure to have 50% chance of winning against the best players out there. In campaign against AI, all cav army always won (played with stinky Russian Step Cavs in the mix no less).
Anniep
That feature had not stopped all cavalry army in MTW, it won't stop it in MTW2...
Louis,
In MTW, you can field 4 units of one type, 4 units of another type, etc. Each faction has enough variety to field 4 types and still has all cav army.
It is important to see that all cav in MTW is a handicap. You have only 640 men total and you can't easily hold ground. On RTW, all cav is not a handicap. Thus I wouldn't play all cav on RTW.
(also important to separate out MP and SP).
Anniep
andystyle
11-01-2006, 17:12
in all probability you couldn't even get them to charge.
I agree with everything you say up to this point...warhorses were trained to charge. No cavalry unit would go into the field if they weren't confident their mounts would actually charge when required.
Something that will stop people from fielding all cavalry armies in M2Tw MP is the reintroduced MTW feature that after you've chosen 4 of a unit in your army the cost of the unit increases for every unit of that type you pick after that.
That is a bad feature because it's a crutch used to compensate for poor balance in the units. It suggests that they haven't balanced the units well enough. I wish we could get rid of that feature in Samurai Wars because it's not needed.
Orda Khan
11-01-2006, 17:27
easily countered by a square of Hoplites with Archers in the middle shooting any horse archer, what's your point?
I faced that formation with Scythian HA, the formation died. Switch off FAW, target archer units, when all dead or so low in number as to offer no threat, target the BACKS of each pike wall and watch them drop
.......Orda
First of all there is a big diference between SP and MP not just in the oposition you have but in the effectiveness, exactly because of the oposition.
In SP you can play whatever style you prefer as long as you want. In most cases you wont recognize the weakness of your style simply because the AI is not that good to exploit it. Thus you can play infantry heavy, cav heavy, archer heavy styles forever, and accordingly you might be complaianing that cavs, infs, archers are weak/strong etc.
However, in MP your opponents will quickly show the weakness of your style (simply because of the competitve nature of MP) and thus you will be forced to change, unless you are prepared to lose all the time, which none of us prefers. All in all in MP you will be quickly chanelled to play the most efficient style with the most efficient armies (add a small variation here and there).
For the above reasons I am a bit sceptical about gamebalance suggestions coming from SP, simply because there is no way to know whether your style is efficient/unefficient in SP. On the otherhand, MP is a much better measure of game balance as even the smallest expliots will be found and used/abused very quickly.
Thus, as far as the above statement concered that cavs were weak in MTW, it is safe to say that it is not likely to be true. Almost half of the armies in MP consisted cavs, most notably heavy cavs (chiv knights) and in the light of the above argument it is not likely that people would take them if they were that weak. For example a tipical MP army was 3 pavies x-bows, 5 MAA and 8 Chiv knight (or it is equivalent: Hospitaller knights, Teutonic knights, Templars, upgraded feudal knights, etc). Would anyone deploy such an army if cavs were that weak? No way.
The very problem of MP was that spears were not good enough or to be precise were to costly. There were spears that could hold cav charges, like v2 orderfoot, but they were even costlier than the cavs and even costlier than the MAA that could beat them. IMHO a small change in cost could have changed things, as if lets say v2 orderfoot would have been the same cost as v3w1 FMAA then I am sure some people would have used at least 1 or 2; and if v2 orderfoot would have been cheaper than v3w1 FMAA, let say around 700 florins, then I am sure it would have been a standard addition to MP armies.
Anyway, it was not and cav was a dominant force in MTW (except the early days before the 1.1 patch).
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-01-2006, 18:22
What Cheetah say :yes:
This is exactly the kind of topic that killed spear as a part of a balanced army in MTW moving from 1.0 to 1.1 ...
Louis,
Interesting historical debate. My point of view:
1. It is possible to train horses in a manner that they run against and crush in a firm obstacle like a dense body of men with or without spears, pikes and shields. It would be obviously not very good for the horses health and might be their one and only battle but it is possible.
2. It must have been a fairly seldom event at any ancient, medieval or modern battle that there were together enough horses well trained in the described manner to achieve a contact or break against a firm infantry formation.
My opinion is based on the fact that in war horses fade away very quickly even without actual fighting (desease, starvation, accidents) and at a far higher percentage than men. Maybe some of the supposed breaks were achieved by knights with such trained horses but imho it happened not so often to take it as a rule (unfortunately I could only list incidents where medieval cavalry was unable to break massive formations but I hope for enlightenment).
3. The reports of frankish knights breaking through their byzantine and islamic enemies should not be taken too seriously. My explanation for this strange hint, if it isn't mere exaggeration, is that it is meant for cavalry against cavalry. In this case heavier cavalry has a big advantage. Maybe another example for this effect: in some battles of the 30-years-war the imperial Kürisser/cuirassiers in heavy armour are said to go through lighter swedish cavalry "like a knife through butter". That was not the case against infantry.
4. For me the mongols greatest advantage was not the bow or horse or mobility but the very good organisation and discipline which equalled those of modern european armies. And it's not a miracle that steppe people performed so pitiable against modern european troops of equal or better discipline from the 16th century on.
5. Cavalry in MTW reflects knightly combat not in every instance. It behaves more as modern cavalry fighting in seperate bodies and being able to charge, summon, withdraw and recharge several times. Medieval cavalry was not always able to do this in a similar manner. So I would appreciate if cavalry wouldn't be as strong as in RTW where sometimes balance is ridiculous.
6. Even if cavalry wasn't able to break massive formations from 350 BC till 1890 AD frequently battles were won by cavalry and that will be also the case in M2TW, I presume.:2thumbsup:
7. sry for my english:no:
Horatius
11-01-2006, 19:46
I think that view has been shown to be rather outdated (not to mention anglocentric like hell). Are there many examples of this that you actually can put forward? Verbruggen could not, and neither could Contamine, which led them both to reevaluate the notion of the frontal charge being the only, or even main, tactic of medieval cavalry.
On what the British Armies stopping overwhelming odds like at Agincourt or the Knights charging home to unexpectedly win the day like Simon de Montfort the Elder's Knights did at Muret?
The ultimate test of unit balance is MP. If MPers thinks cavalry are worth it, then indeed, they are. Believe me, I have seen a lot of af all cavalry army, but I have seldom seen army with no cavalry: most of the time they run in the 4-7 cavalry range; that tells me cavalry are hardly worthless... If you're looking at worthless in MTW, look at spear&pike; those were truly worthless, noone would take them...
Recruitment pool are not a MP feature. Remember that you also needs MP balance...
Never played multiplayer or beyond patch 1.00 so could you explain how mp works in terms of unit selection?
How will you limit knight number in MP? If they are so powerfull, why would any MPer field anything but them?
Can you think about the gameplay? Just once? Have you ever played online?
Limited recruitment pools?
I am not aware of any medieval army of significant numbers were knights (am not talking seargent or hobilar here) would make half of the army; it's a situation we already have today, your proposal would make it worse...
I never said Knights had a majority or even close to one in the army, they still did decide most of the battles.
It's now fairly obvious you have no idea what this would do to the MP side of the game
To answer the next thing you said at the same time I never played MP
Ok, let me sum it up:
- in MTW MP cavalry are good, players use them a lot, we see all cavalry army, and most of the time an army will have in the 4-7 cavalry units. On the other hand, you'll seldom see a pike or spear unit -> for MTW MP cavalry is already very powerful
- in RTW MP: balance is non existant to start with... and cavalry is very very clearly overpowered
- in MTW SP campaign: I can win with cavalry units only, with no archer or infantry whatsoever. I think anyone can. If you read guide, for France or England it often starts with "build hobilar"... The maintnance cost for cavalry in MTW is fairly low compared to their effectiveness. if you think cavalry is useless in SP, you're missing something
- in RTW SP campaign, you can win building nothing but Pontic light cavalry, or nothing but equites. It's so easy it's almost sick: you're not going to see a square of phalanx in SP because 1: AI will not think of it, and 2: you're going to blitz the map so fast that AI won't have the time to build up enough for it anyway...
I generally allowed the computer to build up but would intervene against bullies like Egypt untill I had an ideal army to conquer all in RTW.
I faced that formation with Scythian HA, the formation died. Switch off FAW, target archer units, when all dead or so low in number as to offer no threat, target the BACKS of each pike wall and watch them drop
Impressive, although by a square I meant with no back, so wherever you order fire you are firing at the front.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-01-2006, 20:00
Never played multiplayer or beyond patch 1.00 so could you explain how mp works in terms of unit selection?
Limited recruitment pools?
Limited recruitement pools are not a MP feature. MP battle are just like a custom SP game. So start M/RTW, select custom battle and see for yourself. Initial cost is all that matters + upgrade cost. There is no pool, and you have access well, to pretty much all units available to your faction in SP (there are a few oddities but it's a good general rule)
I never said Knights had a majority or even close to one in the army, they still did decide most of the battles.
Right now, knights are so good in MTW that they make up the biggest part of most army fielded: ie, even if you think they are weak, players take a lot more of them than what historically happened.
In their current "weak" (according to you) version, knights are already over represented; so what will happen if they become even more powerful?
I generally allowed the computer to build up but would intervene against bullies like Egypt untill I had an ideal army to conquer all in RTW.
Well, if you impose yourself some Ironman rule, that sure tells something about the game... The point stands: in SP, you can choose to build cavalry and only cavalry, and still win, actually it's so easy it's not even fun. And it's probably going to be easier than if you wished to do that with infantry only
Impressive, although by a square I meant with no back, so wherever you order fire you are firing at the front.
Nope, if units are in square formation, then you do not hit the front unit, you hit the back unit in the back... If you got time, one day we fet online, you take a square, put archer in (although for the sake of showing what the inner back of a unit is, you don't need the archer part), and you'll see how it goes...
Louis,
On what the British Armies stopping overwhelming odds like at Agincourt or the Knights charging home to unexpectedly win the day like Simon de Montfort the Elder's Knights did at Muret?
No, that the frontal charge was somehow the dominating all-battle winning technique of the day that could effortlessly run down any infantry. Muret was a charge of Simon de Montford's knights against King Peter of Aragons's own knights, so that's a pretty bad example of the case. The anglocentrism I was referring to was the fact that formed infantry repelling cavalry assaults was something that happened all thorough the middle ages, all thorough Europe, not just the british isles.
Orda Khan
11-02-2006, 18:44
Impressive, although by a square I meant with no back, so wherever you order fire you are firing at the front.
You described a hoplite square formation with archers placed inside it. Each hoplite unit can be targetted in the back. You don't shoot the unit facing you, you shoot over them and into the backs of the hoplites on the other side
.......Orda
The other way of defeating the hoplite square is to highlight its other weakness: that 1/3 of your units and 1/2 of your elite and expensive hoplites are facing the other way. The attackers could pin down two edges and attack the "corner" where two edges meet. And you don't have to even use 1:1 ratio to pin down: usually you could pin down 3 hoplites using only two phalangites.
You just push on the corner strong enough to have a gap and let your units inside the square. Now, all for fronts became all four backs and the square quickly dissolves into a blurry routing mass.
I was in a battle where both attackers and defenders form squares and sit there and tout each others. That's quite infantile, juvinile or plain retard.
Anniep
DukeofSerbia
11-02-2006, 19:30
Ordinary medium cavalry should easily destroy for example sword infantry with little amount of casualties.
Not so simple as you think. Depend on what type terrain and various other conditions.
Peasants couldn't do anything to charging knights.
True.
Cavalry was the hammer in medieval times which could easily defeat any infantry (only well trained pikeman were difficult enemy and of course another cavalry).
Partly true. Good infantry will always destroy group of knights.:smash:
Watchman
11-02-2006, 19:50
The Northern Italian urban infantry seem to have made something of a habit out of giving knights a bloody nose (as in, "from running headfirst into a wall").
Not that the Anglo-Saxon infantry militia appears to have had tremendous problems holding the Norman cavalry at bay at Hastings, either.
Actually, if knights really were able to plow aside everything, one has to wonder at the standard Medieval practice of using heavy infantry spearmen as a solid fallback/reform base for the cavalry, and for shielding your own knights while they switched to their proper warhorses from the riding horses they normally rode ("got on their high horses", as they saying goes)...
Or how for example Middle Eastern cavalry, once the novelty of the massed couched-lance charge wore off, could readily enough take knights head on and not get pulverized.
Horatius
11-02-2006, 22:00
Middle Eastern Cavalry (Unless you count the Byzantine Heavy Cavalry) always got pulverized when facing Knights head on, for example at Dorylaeum which featured Knights at not their heaviest armor (It was still chainmail during the First Crusade) the eastern cavalry really was not able to stand up to the Knights when facing them head on.
Ann and Orda that if very clever, although I guess it will depend on the strength of the to sides when it comes down to it.
Louis maybe we could do a MP game with each other some time.
To Louis and Ann did MTW get a major upgrade after patch 1.00 because that is all I played of MTW.
After MTW 1.0, there are major patches:
MTW 1.1 quickly followed
then MTW/VI 2.0
then MTW/VI 2.01
MTW1.0 has a lot of bugs
MTW1.1 made cav more powerful, making MP imbalanced. There are several exploits in MTW 1.0 and 1.1 that MTW/VI fixed: the "swipe".
I think there's probably a couple of things that are getting confused here:
1) Big pitched battles were RARE. Even the best generals only fought one or two. Perhaps that's why they were the best. Far too much is at stake. You could lose everything in one swoop. Therefore actual big, organised charges wouldn't have happened often.
2) The quality of the opposing troops. Knights were soldiers (essentially, trained from childhood etc), equipped with the best equipment, and keen to show off their bravery to their peers. They might be charging untrained peasants, armed with a stick. Of course they are going to win. But maybe not against a motivated and trained block of well equipped men on foot. Probably not in fact. How many cavalry charges worked against well equipped, trained and positioned pikemen?
Kavhan Isbul
11-02-2006, 22:41
Middle Eastern Cavalry (Unless you count the Byzantine Heavy Cavalry)
What makes you think that the Heavy cavalry of the Eastern Roman Empire was significantly different than the Muslim cavalry of say, for example, the Seljuks? After all, the Byzantines modelled their cavalry on the cavalry of the Persians, Avars and Bulgars. It can also be said that the Avars influenced the French themselves. And judging on contemporary iconography, the Eastern heavy cavalry from the times of the first Crusade was probably heavier than the Western European.
Back to Middle Eastern cavalry - the Mongols themselves were similarly equipped, if not identically as the Muslims the Crusaders faced. After their successfull campaign in Central Asia and the destruction of the Khwarezmid Empire, the army that Subodei had at Khalka was equipped with trophies, taken from Persia. The Russian cavalry he faced was equipped in predominantly Western fashion, but was defeated handily when the Mongol Heavy Cavalry center charged it. Then two tumens of light Mongol cavalry defeated a combined Polish and German army, supported by order knights sent from the Pope. And finally, the Mongols were able to defeat the Hungarians at Mohi, where on the side of the Christians fought Knights Templar.
I do not think all these victories prove anything about what cavalry was better or worse. It all came down to tactical skill, good discipline (this one was crucial) and sometimes even bravery, such as the one shown by Batu at Mohi, which is believed to have saved the day when the Mongols were nearly rooted. Making a broad general statement that Western heavy cavalrymen were much better than their Muslim counterparts is not only inaccurate, but over-simplified and biased.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-03-2006, 00:30
Middle Eastern Cavalry (Unless you count the Byzantine Heavy Cavalry) always got pulverized when facing Knights head on, for example at Dorylaeum which featured Knights at not their heaviest armor (It was still chainmail during the First Crusade) the eastern cavalry really was not able to stand up to the Knights when facing them head on.
Oddly enough...Eastern cavalry did better later versus more armoured knights :inquisitive:
Louis maybe we could do a MP game with each other some time.
Sure, PM me anytime, take an hoplite square and see for yourself :beam:
To Louis and Ann did MTW get a major upgrade after patch 1.00 because that is all I played of MTW.
What Ann said. With 1.0, people complained that cavalry was too weak, not able to push back spear and swipe (:clown: ) infantry . 1.1 patch gave pushback for cavalry, increase the cost of spear... And basically, overnight, nobody played spear anymore in MP.
1.1 patch is acase study of players asking the wrong thing, getting it, and breaking the game balance they had.
That's pretty much why that kind of topic is ... not a welcome sight for me... We've been there, done that, and screwed up badly.
Louis,
Watchman
11-03-2006, 01:08
The European practice of using the couched lance in massed linear charges initially took the Eastern armies by surprise. Once they learned to appreciate its capabilities and limitations, and more importantly were no longer caught off guard, they could deal with it on more even terms.
"Eastern" cavalry doctrine emphasized rather different aspects than the "Frankish" one however, even for armoured shock cavalry, so in terms of pure impact power the latter were always readily recognized as the top dogs. That, however, didn't mean eastern heavy cavalry could not clash with their "Frankish" colleagues head on and win; on the contrary both sides developed a healthy respect for each other's main fighting techniques and put some serious effort into trying to exploit their respective strenghts and weaknesses.
Cavalry should not be able to annihalate infantry after the charge. Heavy Infantry that is.
I think cavalry is good in the demo, maybe a bit of a beef when they charge the front of units but other than that they decimate light infantry and break ranks easily when flanking.
Horatius
11-03-2006, 05:15
Louis that is one funny thing when you think about it, since the Knights of the First Crusade definitely had much lighter armour then the Knights who got slain at Nicepolis (SP).
Kahvan
What makes me say that is the fact that Muslim Armies relied on mobility every time they faced Byzantine Armies up untill the 14th century, which is when the Byzantine Armies really start to become less and less of a serious fighting force. Persia was not the standard of Muslim Cavalry, nor was it especially significant in comparison with the Seljuks, or the Arabs. Had the Arabs and Turks had cavalry capable of standing up to what the Byzantines could have fielded head on then why didn't they just do that instead of using Horse Archers, remembering that this is indeed a warriors age?
The Mongols can not be counted as standard because they usually had extrodinary leadership which was normally lacking in the armies that they faced, and their organization was not rivaled, let alone matched.
Watchman
11-03-2006, 12:03
The Persians, Arabs (at least after they'd already taken over most of Middle East) and the Byzantines actually used relatively similar cavalry techniques. Small wonder, as they were constantly butting heads in similar conditions and on ultimately fairly similar resource bases.
The Turks and other nomads had a rather different approach, but this is hardly anything new. Steppe nomads have a quite different recruitement and ecological base than sedentary peoples. Although they too tried to get as much armoured cavalry to the field as they could muster.
Anyway, the horse-archer was a staple among all Eastern cavalry. The nomads tended to employ them as loose-order skirmishers, the sedentary peoples who lacked the vast horse herds needed to support that tactic as close-order multipurpose cavalry instead and preferred to shoot standing. The latter were also typically able to armour their soldiers rather better and give them more thorough hand-to-hand combat training, which made theirs a by far rather more all-purpose troop type than the light steppe skirmishers.
One gets the impression that the difference between the horse-archers and more dedicated heavy shock cavalry among the sedentary nations tended to be blurry indeed, and the types were in practice often one and the same. Heck, the Mamluk horse-archers were trained to use their bows as close assault weapons, and probably weren't the only ones...
Anyway, as a side effect of the fairly extreme proliferation of composite bows and archery in the region since ancient times heavy armour was popular - the massively armoured cataphract developed among the archery-crazy Central Asians and spread rapidly in all directions, remember ? Being able to outlast the other guy in an archery fight by virtue of sheer resiliency, or ride through his missiles with impunity, is an obviously useful ability for soldiers.
Kavhan Isbul
11-03-2006, 18:38
Horatius - the Persian cavalry was always representative of the cavalry in the Middle East, since both the Byzantines and the Arabs copied it. You are right that the Seljuks used their mobility against the Byzantines, as did the Arabs initially, but it is interesting to note that all sides tried to get as much heavily armoured horsemen as possible and throw them against each other. The Byzantines of course, had plenty of Turkic mercenaries themselves, even before Manzikert. I think you place too much importance on equipment, which was fairly similar throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and even Eastern Europe, as weapons and armor spread through trade and wars. For example, after the Kievan Knyaz Svetoslav's second campaign in the Balkans was defeated by the Byzantines and their Pecheneg allies, it is reported that the Pechenegs took almost all of the Variangians' armor and swords as trophies, which might change completely the picture of a Pecheneg warrior from the end of the 10th century - they probably looked like the mounted retinues of the Kievan princes. The Rus themselves were quick to adopt the equipment of their steppe foes.
You seem to think that there was huge difference between the heavy cavalry of the Crusaders, the Byzantines and the Muslims in the 12th and 13th centuries, but I personally think such a clear difference exists only in Hollywood movies and computer games. In the open steppes and deserts in the East the bow gave a clear advanatge, which does not mean that Eastern cavalry could not use other weapons - the Mameluks for all accounts were quite expert at close quarters.
Horatius
11-04-2006, 03:37
I stand corrected on Arab Cavalry then, although on the Crusaders I am sure that their equiptment was (As far as the Knights go) almost always different. Crusader Knights simply had too much efficiency to think that they did not have a major advantage.
Even at Hattin when the Knights had a leader who could not possible have been more inept the Knights made a great account of themselves, very nearly breaking through the Muslim lines. I do agree that infantry would have looked the same, however I think that the Seljuks emphasized mobile horse archers, while Arab Cavalry emphasized light cavalry, although I do acknowledge the heavy cavalry of both would have looked the same.
satchef1
11-04-2006, 13:14
Cavalry are as strong as they should be.
Regardless of the charge, if mounted units get caught in a prolonged mellee they will loose. Being mounted reduces manuverability and increases the size of the target people have to shoot/stab.
Charging is all about scaring the enemy into running, and therefore stopping that mellee from happening. If the infantry stand, and are in a significant number then the Knights are in trouble.
ProudNerd
11-04-2006, 15:23
https://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c371/Darkestfear2/owned.jpg
Look at this i had 2 bodyguards and the king left in a custom demo battle from TWC and they by themselves routed 2 unit of about 50 aquebusiers and the lanchnekst (sp?) they had 27 pikes left and when body bodyguards died there were 14 left and the French king proceeded to slaughter all of them to the last man you can see just him by himself the sole survivor standing on the pile of pikeman corpses.
Redtemplar
11-04-2006, 15:34
Yes it will be very hard to balance cavalry in SP and in MP. In medieval times numbers of cavalry units depended on part of Europe and time.
For example in 10 century cavalry was armored (most of them) with mail and there were in practise no units against it (spearman are good but they would fall after the charge). In middle Europe infantry was the main force but it changed in 15 century when Poland and Lithuanian used only cavalry units. In MP would for England (15 century) hard to stop cavalry army when they had small amount of horse units and anitcavalry units - historically speaking they would lost with polish army from 15 century (a lot of cavalry with many groups - crossbows, heavy, medium, with longbows -mongol improved Mongol standards). But to make game interesting it is needed to give every nation some of units than can counter enemy units.
The only ways to stop cavalry units are:
- small manoeuvre territory,
- well trained pikeman or something like them - morale of infantry was often weaker than cavalry,
- special barricades made before battle (and war wagons) - yes in game - this is huge plus for Med II.
Watchman
11-04-2006, 20:05
I stand corrected on Arab Cavalry then, although on the Crusaders I am sure that their equiptment was (As far as the Knights go) almost always different. Crusader Knights simply had too much efficiency to think that they did not have a major advantage.
Even at Hattin when the Knights had a leader who could not possible have been more inept the Knights made a great account of themselves, very nearly breaking through the Muslim lines. I do agree that infantry would have looked the same, however I think that the Seljuks emphasized mobile horse archers, while Arab Cavalry emphasized light cavalry, although I do acknowledge the heavy cavalry of both would have looked the same.At Hattin after the Crusaders had retreated to their hilltop last stand positions the knights tried to break through the Muslim lines (either to flee, or to get at Saladin). At least three times. Downhill. And were repulsed every time.
"Arab" cavalry (among whom were many Turkish, Kurdish and Armenian mercenaries) of the period was typically relatively heavy compared to the typical light horse-archer of the Turkic nomads. They typically had composite bows too - although used them in the so-called "Persian" doctrine - but were better mounted on larger and stronger warhorses, and had considerably more armour.
Bedouin or Turkish mercenaries and allies tended to supply the actual light cavalry.
The personal Ghulam formations of all lords and princes naturally had the best war-gear their masters could afford.
For example in 10 century cavalry was armored (most of them) with mail and there were in practise no units against it (spearman are good but they would fall after the charge).Yeah, well, around those times infantry had degenerated into unreliable rubish in many parts of Europe and heavy cavalry became the dominant arm. The Anglo-Saxon system hadn't, and their fyrd militia and huscarles had no serious troubles repulsing the Norman horse throughout the day at Hastings - although one has to allow that Harold, who had seen the power of the knights on the mainland, had specifically picked a location particularly well suited for the purpose. Nonetheless well-motivated and trained infantry that could form proper solid shieldwalls was extremely cavalry-resistant everywhere it was around. The urbanized regions like northern Italy and the Low countries - which could not well support feudal heavy cavalry, but had lots of proud and self-assertive citizen on foot - also relied heavily on solid infantry forces and besides being quite capable of taking on cavalry-heavy feudal armies also hired out reliable infantry for others' wars. Fennoscandia in turn could not support much in the way of agricultural estates required to maintain large formations of feudal heavy cavalry plus the terrain was mostly near-impassable forests, so a relatively high degree of quality among the infantry arm also had to be maintained (the knights often acted as elite mounted heavy infantry rather than shock cavalry).
That's pretty much why that kind of topic is ... not a welcome sight for me... We've been there, done that, and screwed up badly.
Couldn't agree more. And I have been testing the demo with 0 valor infantry against cav charges. Nothing can withstand a cav charge. The heaviest knights on foot vaporize, pikes, spears. You need at least a valor 2 upgrade to be able to beat a cav charge point blank. The orignal demo had all high valor infantry, english archers were valor 9 I think. That's the reason cav appears to be weak.
Orda Khan
11-05-2006, 23:15
That's pretty much why that kind of topic is ... not a welcome sight for me... We've been there, done that, and screwed up badly.
The orignal demo had all high valor infantry, english archers were valor 9 I think. That's the reason cav appears to be weak.
Spot on
........Orda
Redtemplar
11-06-2006, 19:01
That's pretty much why that kind of topic is ... not a welcome sight for me... We've been there, done that, and screwed up badly.
Couldn't agree more. And I have been testing the demo with 0 valor infantry against cav charges. Nothing can withstand a cav charge. The heaviest knights on foot vaporize, pikes, spears. You need at least a valor 2 upgrade to be able to beat a cav charge point blank. The orignal demo had all high valor infantry, english archers were valor 9 I think. That's the reason cav appears to be weak.
Good news, but if I will see in game peasants stopping charge I will be sick :)
Horatius
11-07-2006, 02:09
At Hattin after the Crusaders had retreated to their hilltop last stand positions the knights tried to break through the Muslim lines (either to flee, or to get at Saladin). At least three times. Downhill. And were repulsed every time.
"Arab" cavalry (among whom were many Turkish, Kurdish and Armenian mercenaries) of the period was typically relatively heavy compared to the typical light horse-archer of the Turkic nomads. They typically had composite bows too - although used them in the so-called "Persian" doctrine - but were better mounted on larger and stronger warhorses, and had considerably more armour.
1. At Hattin the Crusader Knight happen to have been in the desert for days without having anything to drink, wearing the heavy Chain Mail, and having endured the fires that Saladin ordered lit which got the infantry to surrender very quickly. The fact is that despite these trials (enough to knock out almost all people today) the Crusader Knights made a great show of themselves at the last stance, true they did get repulsed, however each time the repulse barely happened, and not all knighta failed to charge out, Raymond III and his knights managed to cut through the lines and live to fight another day (Apart from Raymond who according to William of Tyre died "of shame" after the battle).
2. Relatively heavy but again and again European Knights bested them, especially Richard the Lionheart and his army of Britons.
Bedouin or Turkish mercenaries and allies tended to supply the actual light cavalry.
The personal Ghulam formations of all lords and princes naturally had the best war-gear their masters could afford.
True although you would probably be able to tell a Ghulam from a Templar or a Cataphractii.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.