Printable View
Whether something is used or not for centuries is not evidence of the intelligence of those using it. What is mounted on that camel is a gun ie a muzzle loading firearm but by no definition could it be considered "a cannon" unless one would consider a large caliber rifle such as the Sharps model 1874 "a cannon".
Que??
Am I the only one here who is getting somewhat annoyed at how whenever we get new screens or other news, someone has to say some smart-mouth comment on how CA will include completely outrageous units? *Glares at the guy who made the Iraq: Total War comment*
All the more reason for me to wait for Medieval 2 Barbarorum or Medieval 2 Total Realism.:2thumbsup:
Well, considering that elephant bombards and turkish monster siege gun (s) have been touted, and lamented, since we heard of them half a year ago, It's hardly new, is it? The point of the Iraq:Total War joke is the following:
While something might be mentioned a few times in the sources this doesn't mean it was common, and including it as a rank-and-file unit is therefore rather silly
...some people need all the explanation. I thought the Wikipedia 2050 link should have done the trick.
Amen, brother!Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Still, I am less dissapointed than I would be have been had there been no historical references. At least CA aren't making it up as they go along.
From the latest podcast the dev mentioned the cannon, and the fact that there was only one in history. Hopefully that means it will be extreemely rare (if not unique)
As I was discussing MTW2 with the SEGA guy I asked if I can't play all factions but he said its impossible... I told him that it takes me 1 min to change the file but I could not convince him :(
The point is that the big cannon was taken from skimrish ...
PS. Btw he was surpriesd as well to see the elephants ... but thats because the big guys were in the bussnis center and the small ones on the floor. I knew more about the game than they did ;)
Wonderfull photo! :medievalcheers:
Definitions change. I read somewhere that in the middle ages artillery included all missile weapons (handgunners, cannons, archers, crossbowmen, etc.). I believe that handguns were also called cannons. So when a medieval description says something about cannon being mounted on elephants or camels then it doesn't say anything about the size or callibre.Quote:
What is mounted on that camel is a gun ie a muzzle loading firearm but by no definition could it be considered "a cannon" unless one would consider a large caliber rifle such as the Sharps model 1874 "a cannon".
Definitions is not something that fits well in the ancient and medieval (and early modern) period - a lot of the things we call older equipment is the creation of historians rather than what people actually called it.
Well, in my opinion, the Total War series is about playing history the way you want, that's why it is a game and not a movie. The rest is up to how well the recruitment pools and the recruiting AI work. Maybe those units will indeed be very rare, we don't know, noone of us has played a full campaign, right?
The game simply leaves you a lot of freedom, so you can go and fight your enemies with a usual medieval army or play the crazed commander who went nuts and swarms the enemy with screeching women. One could also say if the ratio of normal units:"fantasy units" was kept from RTW, we can now expect a whole lot of nice units which we never saw on screens. The screenshots are mostly to get new players to the series I'd guess while some of the older players will never stop complaining anyway as long as they won't get exactly the same as in MTW it seems.:inquisitive:
I agree that definitions change but the thread topic is "cannon elephants". If we are to discuss the level of reality/fantasy of such a unit and it's implications for MTW2 we have to define it first. Clearly, camels were equipped with (what appears to be) something like a .5 cal gun. We can guess that an elephant might have been equipped with a 1" swivel gun but the use of "cannon" in the context of this thread is deceptive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
The historical sources I've seen (wikipedia :wink:) make a definite reference to 'culverin', which is cannon as we see them, not handguns.Quote:
So when a medieval description says something about cannon being mounted on elephants or camels then it doesn't say anything about the size or callibre.
culverin n. An early, crudely made musket. A long heavy cannon used in the 16th and 17th centuries. (Answer.com reference)
Culverin were usually the smaller caliber, longer bore cannon. If the unit description says they were firing 8 lb. shot then we can pretty safely label them fantasy, if they fire 1/4 lb. shot (the size for a swivel gun) then it may be appropriate. I want to see the elephants carrying these start out normal, but have to make fright/amok checks every time it fires.
mfberg
True -- but again: representativity. Just because old Timur experimented wildly with things that would never be anywhere near as effective as an army of horse archers and heavy horse, should people be able to run around with hordes of horrendously overpowered cannon elephants -- or war dogs?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia
I suspect that once artillery becomes widespread the effectiveness of elephants will plummet, so they may not be of much consequence.
Except they aren't overpowered(that we know of atleast).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Burebista said they weren't very accurate and I can imagine them having a high chance of going amok and by the looks of the artillery you can only fire from the front and maybe even explosion.
And not to mention that the range will probably not be long either so you can blow them away with your bigger cannons before they get in range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I'm only saying what i know. That Timurlane used artillery and naptha launchers mounted on elephants during siege warfare. I don't think they will be an uber missle unit, at least i hope not, just handy in siege warfare and they should not be moving whilst firing. Maybe if it is smaller artillery pieces not heavy cannon that would be alright i suppose.
I wouldn't want Timurlane running around with dogs either but also not cavalry dominated armies as a good portion of his forces were mercenaries and did fight as infantry.
Do you have a reference for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia
You know I'm fairly sick of all this. A cannon mounted on an elephant isn't going to be that useful anyway, nor will rockets. Any kind of slow artillery in a battle is usually toast fairly early on.
As to wardogs, great for breaking shieldwalls. Look at some of the modern german and celtic breeds and tell me those aren't really warhounds. That said the dogs are never more than a niussese to a good general. So they are in-effective anyway. The pigs are the same, they only really cause havoc with elephants.
None of these units have a truely earth shattering effect on gameplay. You try them, see how ther work and then you use something cheaper and better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Actually, I've found it very hard to counter them, aside from trying to lead them into my heavy units, because you cannot target the dogs! You can only target their handlers, so units that are in combat with the dogs often "don't know it", and only individuals will fight back.
Which is horrendously unrealistic. Ever seen a drilled and experienced cohort being decimated by a horde of mutts?
I can only hope that CA makes this what it's supposed to be: an elephant carrying a platform upon which is mounted a "cannon" which by today's standards would be a large carbine. I do not want to see what comes first to my mind: an elephant with two siege cannons strapped to his sides. Neither do I want to see something akin to RTW's war dogs as to the balancing of this unit.
This is from "Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire" by Caroline FinkelQuote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
"Schiltberger wrote that Tamerlane had thirty-two trained elephants from the backs of which he is reported to have launched the legendary liquid incendiary agent known as 'Greek fire' at the Ottoman army"
The Schiltberger reference is
Johannes Schiltberger. "The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427."
The battle in question is the Battle of Ankara July 20, 1402.
It's not proof positive but at least its a contemporary reference.
Elephants were definitely used as platforms from which vessels of naptha were launched. I know this because I have seen very clear contemporary depictions of it.
To be honest, no I haven't seen a legionary cohort get destroyed by war dogs. It's usually the other way around. I just tell them to hold still when they get attacked and eventually they kill all the dogs on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Dogs do butcher warbands though. I quickly gave up using them as Romans because they were so hideously effective (it's the way they respawn after the battle that is the real kicker).
Personally, they are a number 1 target for my archers if the AI deploys them. They have few handlers and low morale. If that fails, I find they don't like heavy cavalry but then in RTW that's a counter to almost everything.
You all seem to be over looking one important fact. The cannon elephants (and more than likely elephant units period) will be available to the Timurids, and not very likely anyone else. Save as mercs.
Ok, so we know that something very similar to it happened.
But from where could they get Elephant Rocketeers and other crackajack?
Thanks for the reference, it sent me on a search for more info.Quote:
Originally Posted by phred
Unfortunately, the text of Schiltberger's book does not appear to be available online. So I have to accept the comment by Finkel "as is".
The next best reference, and the only one online from Project Gutenberg (etext) and other sites (scanned), is Gibbons "The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire". Gibbon's main source is Timurs secretary (Sherefeddin) but there are only a 5 references to elephants by Gibbon.
"and the elephants, destroyers of men!"
"and one hundred and twenty elephants, whose tusks are said to have been armed with sharp and poisoned daggers. Against these monsters, or rather against the imagination of his troops, he condescended to use some extraordinary precautions of fire and a ditch, of iron spikes and a rampart of bucklers; but the event taught the Moguls to smile at their own fears; and as soon as these unwieldy animals were routed, the inferior species (the men of India) disappeared from the field."
"why wilt thou seek to provoke the elephants? Alas! they will trample thee under their feet." In this case the "elephant" refers to the Ottomans not to actual the animals per se.
"Timour's front was covered with a line of Indian elephants, whose turrets were filled with archers and Greek fire:"
"The conqueror of Hindostan ostentatiously showed a line of elephants, the trophies, rather than the instruments, of victory; the use of the Greek fire was familiar to the Moguls and Ottomans; but had they borrowed from Europe the recent invention of gunpowder and cannon, the artificial thunder, in the hands of either nation, must have turned the fortune of the day. [43]
[Footnote 43: The Greek fire, on Timour's side, is attested by Sherefeddin, (l. v. c. 47;) but Voltaire's strange suspicion, that some cannon, inscribed with strange characters, must have been sent by that monarch to Delhi, is refuted by the universal silence of contemporaries.]"
So there’s not much to go on. Clearly, the Timurids used greek fire in conjunction with elephants since that is attested to by two contemporary sources. How it was used is unclear though. Small catapults (ballistae) are plausible IMO but it may also have been thrown by hand once the elephants were engaged with the enemy (after all an elephant that is half-crazed while fighting isnt gonna get too much crazier seeing fireballs exploding nearby).
There is no reference to cannon of any sort mounted on elephants. Indeed, from the last comment and footnote (which refers to the battle of Ankara and what appears to be an absence of cannon on either side), I think there is some question whether the Timurids had or used such weapons at all.
"Cannon" may have been mounted on elephants at a later date (after all we have the camel example) but they would have been useless. If CA were looking for a spectacular unit then "greek-fire elephants" would have been a better choice.
I've never had problems with dogs, nor have I ever gotten them to do anything significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Really interesting research SpencerH, thanks :thumbsup: