I would disagree with that.. It seems the main problem is that they have way more armor than a british heavy cavalry unit would most likely of had. But, then yes people are also complaining with the name as well..Quote:
Originally Posted by Casmin
Printable View
I would disagree with that.. It seems the main problem is that they have way more armor than a british heavy cavalry unit would most likely of had. But, then yes people are also complaining with the name as well..Quote:
Originally Posted by Casmin
So if the name is something like "Brythonic Heavy Cavalry" we are going to havea happy community?
Hahaha, yes we are!Quote:
Originally Posted by KSEG
Listen my gf doesn't want to go out tonight...I'm stuck in the house with nothing to do but to debate the historical innaccuracy of the name of a unit in a computer game. Cut me some slack KSEG. Unfortunately for me she's watching me typing now and thinks I'm a complete geek.
Graal Knights existed about as much as you did Mr. King.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
yes, but as Kraxis has pointed out, there most likely was heavy cavalry unit, possibly based of the sarmation tradition. And of course they werent called Graal Knights, but again I see there equipment as a more important issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casmin
And on a side note, you exist as much as I do. ~:cool:
It's ironic because the equipment issue didn't bother me. Just the name because I felt the name connotated the most about the unit. At any rate, if I don't exist then I'm not going back to work on Monday. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
BI is definitly a fantasy game. By allowing player to "rule" an Empire it allows for alternative history. It would be even more honest if it also had a possibility of designing completely own units. Unfortunately it has not.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
But still, what army would "Romano-Brits" have if they were, in fact so successful that, unlike their true fate, would last and grow into a large kingdom?
~:cheers: ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by KSEG
and maybe we can agree they haven't weigthened historical accuracy that much.
You aren't a geek. This is important stuff dude. The whole of human history is at stake. Brothers, let us stand together against the CA. We shall not fear their magic hats as I have eaten all their knees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casmin
Brythronic Heavy Cavalry sounds cooler than Graal Knights. But don't you guys think it's nitpickery to debate endlessly about a crappy name when it's obviously and proven to be anachronistic?
I mean... don't you guys have better things to do, like making the weekly 'RTW AI sucks' thread. That even that seems more productive than arguing over a stupid name...
Nah, my main problem is the equipment and the looks. I didn't even know that Graal meant Grail when I first posted. As for names, it's less of a problem with me than the actual looks. I admit, I find it stupid, but if something is called Sarmatian Horse Archer, and it looks and plays like a Sarmatian Horse Archer, it's all good. Even if it's Chosen Archer, and it looks like a real steppe foot archer, it would be find. However, it is often times the case where the silly names go with the silly units. But my main problem is the silly units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casmin
I believe there was an Arthur, but it is too much to say that there were units of these types of soldiers running about with him.Quote:
I doesn't matter if the subtext for the "Graal Knights" states that they were originally Sarmatian cavalry. It doesn't add any validity to the name Graal Knight. Sarmatian cavalry in Briton had nothing to do with Arthurian legends that weren't even invented yet.
Yes, I'd agree that a Sarmatian style horse unit would be possible, however it would likely be extremely rare. The Elite of the Elite, probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I take comfort in the fact that within a few days of release, a talented modder will make a quick mod that deals with the most troublesome units. I just have a problem with a few of them.
We also got the support of the owls, so those CA heretics won't even know what hit them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
Just wait until you get a look at the mounted preist unit that the Vandals have. At least it looks like a mounted preist unit. Or the Sarmation tank top wearing virgin units, horse and foot archers plus lancers.
*Digs up old post*
What i find amusing is that you haven't even played it* ~D Ignorance is not an opinion :tongue:Quote:
Yeah and makes me sick at how much of a piece of crap they turned RTW into with their travesty of a mod.
*Please correct me if im wrong.
Back to the subject:How does it hurt the gameplay to have units *Look* realistic? Seems more like "Fantasy>realism" rather then "Gameplay>realism".
No offense, but you are far over estimating what can be done with the game. Few people know how to skin, and most are already involved with mods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
Knight is a Modern English spelling of an Old English word that was applied to William's warriors by the English, so I reserve the right to say that it is not Norman. It is an English word adopted by the Normans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Well, you are playing with words. The English language was not spoken by the Romano-British, so we might as well say they had no horses then: it would be true because they did not use the word horse. The rose by any other name still smells as sweet, and by your definition of a knight as someone who outfits himself with horse, armour and weapons, these guys qualify as well as anyone. The Roman term "eques" is always translated as knight, for instance, even in the Republican period. Besides knights is even given inverted commas in the second paragraph of the link, so CA are at least aware that the term is not a contemporary one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Sorry if I sound aggressive. I am not trying to be. ~:)
"Knight" (indeed a 'Saxon' word)is etymologically akin to the Dutch and German word "Knecht" which literally means "servant", as knights were once the prime servants to their master.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmbrosiusAurelianus
By the way, the Dutch ("ridder") and German ("Ritter") words for knight are literally derived from the word for "rider" or "horseman" like the French "chevalier".
The problem with knight is that it particullary means a feudal vassal who serves as a heavy horseman. It has sadly been now applied to any sort of heavy horseman often, but it is always best to avoid using unless it truly is a "knight".
glad to know that cniht actually does seem to be a germanic word.
I guess the Romano-British would have used a word akin to "gwas" if they felt like referring to their mounted soldiers as servants.
Edit: I should probably add that gwas has the same boy/lad connotations too.
Well, we shall have to agree to differ it seems. Academics will continue to refer to the Roman equestrian class as being knights; many mediaeval knights never served as heavy horsemen, because after a point they paid money in lieu of service to avoid having to do so; knight will continue to be used in modern titles such as Knight of the Bath without horses and heavy armour being involved; and of course the Reception children at the school where I teach will still think they are knights just because they ride the hobby horse in the school playground and declare that they are so. :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Please excuse my levity at the end of that paragraph. Does anyone else think that the term for the new unit sounds like Grail Knights? Maybe it's to appeal to King Arthur and Monty Python fans, but if they say nee then they have to be modded!
I'm sure Kraxis took it in jest the way it was meant to be put. You must not know me/read my posts or you would know I am not that sort of person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Apologies to anyone who found that offensive.
........ :lipsrsealed2:
Graal knights is indeed a blatant attempt to make reference to king Arthur's quest for the holy grail.
If it is not then you have permission to slap me and call me Nancy.
Well, you had better be right then! Slapping a Welshman and calling him Nancy - I do not want to see the consequences of that! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
Please no don't give them feul.... eques equitis : horseman, cavalry man rider (classical).Quote:
Originally Posted by AmbrosiusAurelianus
equitatus : cavalry, horsemen (classical).
derived from equus : horse, steed, mount.
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is the type and size of horse required to carry 'steel' barding armour. Your usual pony sized creature just wont do. Another thing, the stirrup was not used until the early middle ages so there is absolutely no way of staying on that horse. To carry a heavily armoured person in a charge needs a saddle. If the horse stopped abruptly, that guy would go fliying. At least his pointy helmet is aerodynamic.
Also I would assume that the Romans/Sarmatians etc used Friesian horses for heavy cavalry, native to Holland. As far back as Roman times, the Friesian was noted for its value as a powerful utility animal, however the Roman historian Tacitus (AS 55-120) felt compelled to make note of its ugliness! They are always black, and are noted for their thick and luxuriant mane and tail, as well as the feathering on the lower legs. The horse in the model is grey and entirely the wrong shape for any breed of warhorse. Its more like an arabian or racehorse. Maybe its just the stupid innacurate barding thats doing it.
Aw, I know this, rebelscum! I am not trying to give them fuel, just to say that the word knight has been applied to different things that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
Oh no, not the stirrup argument again! Please do not open that can of worms! People will go on and on about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
I cannot see the stirrup in the picture, but perhaps I am being blind. As for horses, yeah they were smaller then, but armour like that was used, so they were big enough for it.
I changed my post as I looked at the model again for the hundredth time. No stirrups so no heavy barding.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmbrosiusAurelianus
I had another look at the picture on the link too. Man, they must have got the design of that guy's helmet from Morrowind: he looks like an Ordinator riding a horse!
yes exactly what I said ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by AmbrosiusAurelianus
Sorry didn't mean to assume for everyone. :embarassed: :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
Sniff, sniff. Thank you Rebelscum. You've given me my life back. Where's my gf?! I'm gonna let her have it! ~:)
Also I went as far as measuring the model ( I am the ultimate geek ~D )
The rider is 20mm from waist to head, the horse is 45mm.
I took an average height of 5 ft 4 inches for average human height for the day.
Yep those Romans were small.
Converted to centimetres, and I took 2 5ths of the total height for waist to head, which worked out about 65 cms. I then converted this to a ratio of 1 to 3 20 mm goes into 65mm about 3 times (converting cms to mm). I then appiled this to the horse and converted to hands. It worked out about 13 hands.
Now Archaeologists have deduced that there were several types of horses in use in Northern Britain in Roman times. Excavations on the site of the Roman fort at Newstead, near Melrose, yielded a Shetland type under 11 hands; a larger 12 hand Celtic type, probably the wild pony of northern England; a 12 to 13 hand pony with slender bones; a thickset, long backed lowland animal; an Arab type of about 14 hands, possibly the imported horse type used by Sarmatian troops; and a "coarse" 15 hand animal that was, again, probably imported from the Continent (Edwards), possibly from Frisia where the Romans recruited auxiliary troops, and where there were merchant traders whose ships could carry horses.
So if they were to convince me they would have to make the horse slightly bigger to be the Arab at 14 hands and bigger still for the only possible horse that could carry heavy barding i.e the Friesan. :charge:
I take my horse-riding hat off to you sir! You measured the model in mm and did all those calculations just to prove that the horsie ain't big enough!? This is above and beyond the call of duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
Well "Late Roman Cataphracts" might be a little more flavoursome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I just can't get the word GRAAL out of my head now. And Knight, well that's been discussed intensively.
So what do we know so far:
The Romans buggered off from Britain about 410 AD and took their army and most of their equipment with them. I'm sure they didn't leave their elitle cavalry behind to rot when the German barbarians were knocking on Romes door.
Whomever was left, Sarmatian or otherwise were probably completely integrated into Romano-British society.
Whatever equipment they may have used probably came from local resources.
No late Roman large iron foundries in the British Isles I'm afraid, only small local enterprises, barding like this would have to be imported.
The horse would have to be native breeds, shetland, or celtic. A little small for a warhose so the horse too would have to be imported. You would then have to pay for all this and keep it up for a hundred years as horse die and armour rusts.
One hundered years later the Saxons came along and kicked the stuffing out of them.
I'm sorry that I'm away from all my books and such but I believe there is some evidence of Roman training/tactical/whatever manuals (or something like that) being in the possession of the Romano-British.
Please don't bite my head off because I can't remember the source.
I also reckon that alot of Anglo-Saxon control came about through politics rather than violence (Rheged and Elmet went peacefully to Northumbria, Anglo-Saxon leaders with Welsh names, warriors fighting for the Gododdin with German names, Bernicia retaining its Welsh name under Anglian control, certain Welsh laws that lasted longer in parts of Northumbria than they did in Wales all point to a far more confused picture than simply Germans-violently-beat-Britons-commit-genocide-and-create-England as the standard story of it goes).
I don't know the root word of "Graal" but that's the name of the ugly undead Nords in Solstheim (Elder Scrolls III expansion Bloodmoon...) So, we can safely assume that this Ordinator of Morrowind, named after the undead beings of Solstheim, are the knights of...Vivec!!!
Anyway, I'm sure they won't be THAT much of a problem with all the modders around to remove their armour and give them proper weaponry and name.
I am afraid this is another Bull Warrior/Sherwood Forester/Jomsviking type unit. Didn't exist, won't be in the modded game I play.
But I can't get too upset about it - it adds character and flavour to the game for those looking for an "Age of Empires" type experience[1], rather than a strict historical game like RTR or EB. If it boosts CAs sales (and hence allows more TW games), fine.
I'll just be grateful that CA continue to allow modders to substitute something more plausible.
[1]I was about to tell my nine year old about the unit, but first I had to explain about the Romano-British. I mentioned King Arthur and then asked him to guess the unit. He guessed it pretty much right ("Knight of the Roundtable") first time.
Iranians used many different breeds, mainly varities of the steppe pony bred with larger breeds, although some weren't bred with the steppe pony. The Nisean breed was often used, but many others could be. So no, Friesans were not used by the Sarmatians.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
Sarmatians would have used steppe ponies for the lighter stuff, and I don't think they used Arabian breeds for their heavy horse.Quote:
an Arab type of about 14 hands, possibly the imported horse type used by Sarmatian troops;
Other horses could carry barding, like the Nisean, and possibley the Akal-Teke (I think that's right). Steppe nomads had armored horses for a very long time, as did other Easterners. Of course, they also were the best horsemen, and had the four pronged saddle that is missing from this unit.Quote:
So if they were to convince me they would have to make the horse slightly bigger to be the Arab at 14 hands and bigger still for the only possible horse that could carry heavy barding i.e the Friesan. :charge:
I read everything I could about RTR. Then when I realized that they intended to butcher RTW, I made a vow never to play ever so long as I shall live.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Well, you're right and not to split hairs but it was still violent. The Germans in Briton under British control effectively launched a coup known as the Night of Long Knives. The Germans got the local chiefs together under the guise of a meeting and had them all killed ala Braveheart. This is what , afaik, essentially wrestled control of the land from the Britons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
I guess it's more of a question of fantasy = more sales?Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
I believe that the historical reliability of the night of the long knives story is debatable (as is a great deal of the info. of this period as it tends to come from much later sources).
I have also read different accounts of how much land was initially taken by whatever German betrayal occurred, ranging from not much to quite alot.
Of course there were also the Germans who remained loyal to the British(can't remember their name but they do appear in the sources, there is an encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England that has a nice little article on them).
But yes, violence was undoubtedly a part of it, how much this was divided along ethnic lines in probably impossible to tell.
I'm talking about the so called Sarmatian knights possibly fighting in Britain after the Romans left. The Nisean, and Akal-Teke aren't native to Europe and I very much doubt such stock were brought all the way to Northern Europe after the Romans. I'm trying to explore a 'what if' scenario and piece together what such a unit 'would' have been like. It's a bit like a jigsaw puzzle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
The most obviously available horse was the Fresian and was used as heavy cavalry for a thousand years so I'm going to go with that.
The Sarmatian banded armour was a full covering of small rounded iron plates,
http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.c.../hi/5.40.h.jpg. and we know late roman cataphracts did exist so we will keep that though make it look a little more realistic rather than large sqare bands.
As for the Sassanian Saddle. There were a few types of Saddles used in the Sassanian armies. But the four horned one is shown on wall carvings. So the horse blanket is completely wrong.
For the helm we can go with the spangenhelms mentioned by Steppe Merc.
For weapons, the officer may have carried a Spatha a longer version of the shorter, leaf-shaped gladius used by a legionary, and later on maybe a Lombard spathae. But the kontus is a rather long and heavy lance, most lighter armed cavalry carried the iaculor a javelin like weapon.
The armour may have been fully banded arms and legs and breast, with a chainmail skirt rather than the strange looking banded armour shown. The round wooden sheild, we will drop (You're not going to hold a lance and control a horse and use a shiled to deflect missiles at the same time, all without a saddle or stirrups) add a larger horse and we might actually have a workable unit.
Ok, you were talking about Sarmatians in England. I thought you meant Sarmatians in general.
Probably so, but heavy Sarmatians were kontus wielders primarily. No idea how the Romans expected them to fight, though most Sarmatians also had bows, but again I don't know how they fought under the Romans (though why they would make them change, I don't know).Quote:
But the kontus is a rather long and heavy lance, most lighter armed cavalry carried the iaculor a javelin like weapon.
rebelscum, if you notice all the horses of RTW are the same (save the cataphracts and their kin). Why? To save place, worktime and in general the effort. The gains would be too little to reason for the extra effort.
The same goes for the armour and saddle. They make interchangeable equipment for the sake of the easiness. A point I find extremely fair.
I would rather that the units are 80% ok in looks but the AI is that much better, than to have 100% ok units and an AI that is faulty.
The Sarmatian riders' horses would in time have bred into the local population of horses, creating a mix. I don't find it impossible that such a horse could have carried armour. Did it carry armour? I think so, but in a lesser degree.
Also, you do not need a perfect saddle to charge. It is very nice to have, just like the stirrups, but not needed. Neither the Companions nor their lighter compatriots, the Thessalian cavalry used saddles, yet they were lancers that performed rather well in the charge.
Take a look here very interesting article. That goes for everyone that hasn't read it before. Even if you are convinced there was no need for stirrups.
And the debate about the word 'knight'... I do not think it has been argued well enough that it should only be applied to medieval horsemen.
What is a knight? What is his requirements?
He has to be a rider and petty+ aristocrat that serves his lord/state as a heavy cavalryman.
To me that is pretty much what these guys are. And as noted the Equites are often called knights (I don't like it personally) because they fit the bill fairly well (in this case they fit better the social aspect than the military).
One could argue that the Parthian cataphracts to an extent were knights as well. Personally I would never do it. But if these guys are indeed from the lesser aristocracy then I see no fair argument to not call them knights, besides the 'urhh' factor, and that is simply not very good.
Sure we can bitch and whine about that and have our own oppinions on what a knight really should be, but it doesn't seem the convention will change, at least until we have made a small revolution within the historical society. So can we fault CA for not being so deep into the matter that they have chosen to side with us (perhaps they are and simply doesn't agree)? Not at all...
By convention, knight, is perfectly valid. Graal is another matter entirely, but at least it gives a bit of flavour, and I'm sure that there would have been an even bigger outcry if they had simply been called 'Knights'.
Oh and Simon...
I actually had the Jomsvikings as my project at the first year of university. I even went to their 'home'.
I will not bore you with the details, but the result that both I and my teacher (urhh I hate that term for a guy that teaches at university level) agreed on was.
The town of Wolin was Jomsborg. It had many names in Denmark at the time (the best names are Jumne and Julin), but they all gave the same description of the town and its surrounding areas, so there was no doubt about it. That town had succesfully fought the Polish Duke (father of the future king) for a number of years, and Ibn Fadlan visits teh town and speaks very well of its warriors and their capabilities in war. Eventually they got conquered though. The time until the first stories of the Jomsvikings first adventures is an interesting 25 years. The time for a new generation of warriors to grow up (subjugated this time). At the same time the town was influenced by Danish traders and settlers, to the extent that Harald Bluetooth in fact installed a military garrison there (it seems the control had shifted from Polish to Danish in that time). That garrison is then mentioned as being highly effective warriors going back quite far, and they were staunch supporters of Sweyn Forkbeard, the instigator of the war with Norway in which the major battle of Hjörungevåg took place and the Jomsvikings finally lost out (that battle seems to have been historical since a particular fjord was for centuries told to have been the place of most impressive battle at sea and other details that simply fit too well).
In any case the Jomsvikings weren't beaten totally in real history though. They went home and turned their hatred on Denmark (not surprising given Denmark was nearby and its king had just caused a major reverse). And for decades they were a thorn in the side of the Danish kings. The Danish influence and population seems to have been in decline and the locals took over, but carried on the tradition (perhaps it had only been them from the start?). And the town had to be burned several times by Magnus the Good (Norwegian king of Denmark). That was the final straw and the town never recovered, and eventually it declined so much that it was abandoned for some time, and the warriortradition seems to have been lost.
The harbour of Wolin at the time was not capable of 360 longboats, nor did it have stonefortifications and a giant gate. But those are obviously 'just' the usual exaggerations. The use of heavy chains and bridges was very profound, and could have formed the basis for the fortifications. On the other hand the harbour was very much a protected one that could hold many more boats that most other harbours at the time. 60 is not impossible at a time when 20 was the most that the big town of Hedeby could handle. No wonder it was later inflated as it could seemingly hold endless numbers of boats.
So you see the Jomsvikings were not fiction per se, and their name while anachronistic was by far the best there is (the only one really) if we have to name a gameunit after them.
It was almost worth reading this whole thread for Kraxis' link to the mounted combat pages. Great, great stuff.
As for the whole "Grail Knight" debate, any game without Egyptian chariots will be an improvement. We can speculate about the weapons and tack of Romano-Briton cavalrymen all day long, but that's nothing compared to the ludicrous sight of people dressed like Pharaohs riding about on chariots in the 3rd Century B.C.
Therefore, BI is going to be a considerable improvement in historical plausibility, even if it can't be called accuracy.
Kraxis, I have read people calling Parthian and Sassanian heavy horse "knights" because the cataphracts were of the nobility, and they did have a proto feudalistic system. Even so, I don't really like it. But it isn't a huge problem.
And Kraxis I agree that saddles are not required for a lancer. However, Sarmatians and Parthians did use four horned saddles, and especially by this time, most would use it, due to it's helpfulness in archery and charges. But it is not neccasary.
But as member of a mod I can apreciate the fact that each horse is not unique, because of the limited models (not that CA gets even close to the limit, but...), and the need for it to be as wide encompasing as possilbe. However, with barding, a four pronged saddle would be used by pretty much everyone that uses barding. But I digress.
And the articale is quite interesting, though most peoples with heavy horse didn't use the couching tecnique, though for some reason I think Celts did...
And this quote
is obviously only towards Westerners, because Easterners long used heavy horse shock tactics, though of course not on its own. And infantry, while not as bad as RTW would suggest, was in the supporting catagory, rather than vice versa.Quote:
But possible is not always probable. And the choice of when and how to use a particular type of tactic is after all what wins or loses a battle. Cavalry tactics are chosen battle by battle based on terrain and resource considerations. Just because "Shock Tactics" were known by a given army or commander, does not mean they would be employed at a particular battle. Conversely, just because they were not used, does not mean they were not known. Often the best way to win a battle was to have your cavalry dismount and fight on foot. Many a battle was lost by foolish deployment of cavalry. Cavalry tactics developed as a counterpoint to infantry tactics in a slowly escalating dance for battlefield superiority.
Excuse me this is a commercial product, not a mod. Lets say you bought an album from your favourite group and found the songs were half finished, or they sang them in funny voices. Are you going to buy anything from them again? .. I don't think so. Its the same with software. People are fans of RTW for various reasons, I assume there are lots of people who don't really care what the units are and happy to part with £15 just so their fave game is a little fresher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
It's not as if they have re-done the engine, which is why I bought RTW after MTW and viking invasion. I personally would like the game to be a little more accurate. Aren't I entitled to a little of what I want after following the series and purchasing the games. I will just wait for the RTR to do something about it like I did last time. :surrender:
This is a very good link to the life of a cavalry officer in second century Britain.
And speculates on whether this Roman was the legendary King Arthur.
http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/halac.htm
It discusses the equestrian class which one would have to belong to before you could even ride into battle.
:charge:
BTW, good link Kraxis. You may have swayed the stirrup debate.
Brilliant! I didn't realise that the names were similar to those Nords. I only saw that guy's helmet. Well spotted.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Alternatively, we could mod all the other units so that they look like people out of Morrowind, and play Morrowind: Total War! Who's going to model the Khajit? that's what I what to know!Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Hmm, ElderScrolls (Morrowind is just a province, after all) Totalwar would be sweet, but I'll just be happy with the upcoming Oblivion.
And rebelscum, actualy mods have a bit more leway with horses because they tend to exploit more model space than CA. However, they (I asumme...) have less modelers and skinners than CA. And unit model spaces are more important than horse ones.
That is the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
I would love to see perfectly scuptured units on their horses. Even if they are anachronistic. It is simply better on the eyes.
But we have to realize that CA is pragmatic. The details are extremely negliable. Not to us perhaps, but that is where the mods come in, and to be honest I prefer better unit models rather than perfect horses. Horses are after all quite similar to the human eye. Size in particular we should simply ignore, as all the men are of equal size anyway.
Steppe, that is the point of the entire 'knight' dispute. The technical term 'knight' is simply not timespecific, since its origin itself is extremely broad (servant). Thus it can be backtracked to a lot of other units, especially since knight is also used as an aristocratic term.
But we are brought up with the knightly visage in varying forms, but they always include the medieval rider. We see a clear line from that medieval man and the word. So the term is also social to us, thus whenever others get called knights we wrinkle our noses, yet it is completely fair to call others knights.
I still don't like to use knight for anything but medieval knights, not even the Carolingan miles, do I like to call knights, eventhough they more than anything indeed were knights, they just had another social term.
Oh, and while the article is certainly western in orientation it doesn't mean that his experiences aren't equally applicable to eastern traditions.
A twohanded lance shouldn't be that much less effective at transferring the impact to the horse than a couched lance. The rider would of course twist a lot more, but the slide would be much the same. And as said the Companions rode on blankets (at varying degrees of thickness), and they certainly did charge, as did the Thessalians who didn't even have the blankets.
Teh entire point of this was to say that the saddle of the unit is not important, especially not considering the rather slim pickings we have on its likely historical counterparts.
The word knight instantly conjures up the image of medieval knights in plate armour jousting. I don't get an image of Cataphracts. That would be cavalry, plain and simple.
A very unhistorical unit and very disheartening.
First off, there are many sources from this period. Rome had not yet fallen and the Eastern Empire kept on trucking, so there are lots of sources around: Jordanes for the Goths, Ammianus Marcellanus, etc. See Walter Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (Princeton University Press, 1988). There is no evidence for Romano-British Cataphracts. There are no mentions of 'knights' amongst the Romano-British (beyond the odd, late usage of 'equites'), nor, in fact, was the Latin language at that point capable of expressing the difference between a soldier and a knight. The distinction simply didn't exist. The word for 'knight' in Latin is miles. Before the turn of the tenth to the eleventh century, 'miles' meant soldier (in the classical usage of the word); after, it also came to mean 'knight', but the word itself is the same. There is therefore no justification for translating the word 'miles' as 'knight' before the tenth century. There is, therefore, also no justification for speaking of 'knights' before this period, because there was no word to call them. The addition of 'graal' is a shortsighted, romantic marketing tool designed to appeal to those who anachronistically misunderstand the nature of late antique Romano-British society, and to cash in on a horribly inaccurate piece of recent hollywood schlock. Very, very disappointing.
Colovion said it best:The Bruckheimer catastrophe 'King Arthur' was so full of historical inaccuracies one wonders whether they even contacted any historians at all. The basic premise was quite good--Sarmatians were indeed stationed in Britain. After that, it was all downhill. The Saxons had outmoded and racist ideas that were antithetical to everything we know about Germanic society. The moviemakers didn't even know the basic chronology: the Romans had pulled out of Britain before 410, decades before the movie is set; Pelagius had been dead for decades when Arthur suddenly 'discovers' he has died; these are only a few of the basic and fundamental errors that could have been avoided had the moviemakers simply picked up an encyclopedia. Apparently, none of them did even that.Quote:
I wish some company would actually realize that people will enjoy history which isn't dressed up like a whore.
Well yeah, but I was mainly reffering to him calling cavalry a supporting force of infantry before the knights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Everybody wants realism. OK. Let's have a little realism.Quote:
I wish some company would actually realize that people will enjoy history which isn't dressed up like a whore.
Rome: Total War was a game that obviously had a lot of development costs. Then it had a lot of marketing costs. After all, R:TW was marketed like a U.S. Presidential candidate.
It got the some of the best press of 2005, including near-unanimous critical raves. Despite the complaints by the core fanbase and some of the game's glaring implausibles — many of which I also deplore and a few of which I helped research — word-of-mouth for this game was good too. Look at reader reviews of it.
Yet it was 10th in overall sales for 2005. Last place on the top 10. The top two or three games in that list probably outsold the rest combined.
After distributing this "hit" game, Activision sold the rights to Sega. Now CA is having to come out with "Spartan: Total Warrior," which is action-packed and downright silly, to help pay the bills while keeping "Total War" going.
What is the most commercially successful historical setting for computer games? World War II, of course. If there ever was a market for accurate simulation games, there is it.
"Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin" is exactly the type of highly detailed, realistically modelled tactical combat game being pined for here. It's sales are trivial — trivial — compared to jokes like "Battlefield 1942" or "Call of Duty." The "Combat Mission" series survives by producing a purely tactical simulation — no strategy map, no detailed economic or management game. Just tanks and machine guns.
Like it or not, folks, CA can't get much more realistic and keep this series going. If there was money in a highly realistic game of the era, the Roman Total Realism mod folks would be sellling shares of stock by now.
Actually there is. The Notitia Dignitatum lists equites and catapracti in the West Roman Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Here is the latin version for anyone who is interested.
Notitia Dignitatum
Its also a good source for your unit names.
If you need a translator
www.quicklatin.com
Thanks for the links, Rebelscum.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
rebel scum: that was a fascinating source.
thanks.
~:cheers:
Awesome, I wouldn't have to get a job if EB started to pay me, or even had bonds! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
A great source indeed, and thanks for the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
But where are the Cataphracti stationed in Britain? I still don't see them. All I see are equites. Equites are not the same as cataphracts. It is clear from the usage of the document that the proper translation for equites would be 'cavalry,' not knights. These were professional soldiers who served for pay. They did not own fiefs; they were not linked to their overlords through bonds of homage and vassalage; they did not constitute a separate social class. Historians sometimes translate the ancient 'equites' as knights, but it is clear that by the later empire, the word had come to mean cavalry; unless you also want to count mounted archers, light cavalry scouts and other auxilia as 'knights'.
Equites litteraly means horsemen, but the word knight in european languages other than english means horsemen too (Ritter in German and Cavalier in French). The reason that the Equites from the pre-Marian system are called knights is because the Romans had a special patrician class called the Equestrian class, they owned estates that could support the breeding of warhorses. So much like medieval knights were a social class that were given land to provide cavalry to an overlord. The (pre-Marian) Roman Equites were a social class that owned enough land to be able to provide cavalry to the state army. So in a sense pre-Marian Equites can be called knights and it isn't a faulty premis.
Intra Britannias cum uiro spectibili comite Britanniarum:
Equites catafractarii iuniores.{?}
is that them?
Well, I stand corrected. Looks like some kind of Cataphracts (apparently not Romano-Britons, but some kind of Cataphracts) were stationed in Britain. I also spotted an officer named Morbius, the 'Praefectus equitum catafractariorum' (loosely translated, the 'Prefect of the cataphract cavalry') serving under the general ('dux') of Britain.
I still maintain that translating 'cataphract' as 'knight' is anachronistic--these men did not form their own social class and did not hold fiefs, but were simply another type of soldier. It is also difficult to say what their ethnic makeup was--could they have been Sarmatian? Possibly. Nevertheless, I must retract my statement on the cataphracts of Britain: it does seem that some cataphracts were stationed there.
Agreed. And of course calling cataphracts 'knights' is problematic for the very same reasons: they did not form their own social class.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Depends... In Pathia they were indeed the lesser nobility, in Rome they were perhaps not. And I think that outside the royal troops of the Sassanid army the cataphracts there were also lesser nobility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
And then there´s something else. Let´s assume they managed to start from scratch, talk banks into financing the project and a publisher to take it on, you know what will happen? A forum like this, with people complaing about some aspects and trying to mod the game, that´s what. Face it, one-size-fits-all doesn´t exist.
I read a description (online) of how the Parthians organized their army. The site was a general Iranian history site so put however much stock in it you want to. Basically the Parthian state was a feudal one like the Persian dynasty that preceeded and followed it. But the Parthians only took cataphracts and horse archers from their vassal kingdoms. Each king was expected to provide a certain number of cataphracts, drawn from the nobility. And a certain number of horse archer in something like a 10:1 ration (1 cataphract for 10 horse archers) probably more. So it could be argued that since cataphracts were only drawn from the nobles that they were knights too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Yes, I agree you could make a case for calling Parthian Cataphracts 'knights'. But what I was saying was that I don't see any evidence that the Cataphracts in the Roman army formed a separate social class.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
You'll notice that I stayed away from making any parallels between later Roman army units and the term knight. Now for the Romano-British who reverted to a more traditional way of warfare for themselfs. So having a unit called knights wouldn't be out of the question. Basically the nobles of a kingdom drawn by their king to form a super heavy cavalry force in battle.
http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/warriorvendel.jpg
a wannabe GRAAL KNIGHT ~:eek:
A Viking rider...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
sorry, off topic but I couldn't resist.
here's the bane of all graal knights everywhere
http://www.entertainmentearth.com/pr...050#LargeImage
Horse archers were taken from nomadic mercanaries, and cataphracts were also taken from Armenia, and neighbouring cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
But cataphracts were all nobility, whether on the steppe or in Iran (or both for the Parthians), and many horse archers were the petty nobles.
And the Parthians did have a basically feudal government, but there wasn't the whole land giving thing as much. And the 7 clans choose the King, so it wasn't the whole Father to Son thing (though it often happened that way, because the King usually controlled the most powerful clan at that time).
Actually a true Feudal kingdom had the nobles come together and choose a new king. I think you are mixing Feudalism up with Absolutism. In Feudalism the King is merely 'first among equals', in absolutism he gives the nobles the finger if he can (realism plays in as well).Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Most feudal kings in the medieval period were indeed elected by the nobles, or even all landowning males. But usually they simply chose the king's son or some other relative. But in Denmark we have a few cases where this has been a bit convoluted, and the person had perhaps less claim to the throne by way of blood than his opponent, yet he was chosen.
All this electionstuff lead to a whole lot of civil wars as either a noble faction didn't accept that their candidate didn't win, or the new king went about to clean up those who had opposed his rise.
So my point was that the Parthian system is becoming more and more feudal as we speak.
How it can get more feudal I don't quite get, but I get your point. ~;)
And I didn't know that most feudal nation's nobles also elected kings. I knew they often got involved, but I didn't know they had that sort of system.
And Parthians could be called knights, though I wouldn't really agree with it, though I'm not entirely sure why I have such an aversion to calling Eastern heavy horse as knights. I've even heard Persian cavalry called knights, but that would be even less justified (I don't think they were as feudal, and not all of the horse were Persian nobles).
But in the end, I think we're all just debating symantics (sp?) ~D
Hurin_rulesQuote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
This evidence obviously does not detail what the cataphrats looked like.
My breakdown earlier is what I suppose they may have been.
GRAAL Knight 0 - Late Roman Cataphract 10
Actually they did form thier own social class. This documents the requirements of a cavalryman, social and economic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Has any of the BI purchasers faced those knights as yet?