New unit profile - Graal Knight

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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

---

And I wonder why ~D . They've probably got some 17 year old college student on the case. His idea of research is watchin DVD's. He might watch 'Alexander', 'Troy' and 'Kingdom of Heaven' next to get more unit ideas.

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

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

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

---

Sorry that's piffle, you have gleaned your history from the film subtext.
The text of Gildas' De excido et conquestu Britanniae is the best contemporary record of sixth-century Britain. As such, historians searching for a real historical Arthur often use this source to validate their interpretations and theories of his lfe, even though Gildas does not mention Arthur by name.
We also have several dates for the battle of Badon hill from 582 AD to 500 AD.
So the guy who supposed that Sarmatian knights who were left over from the Roman army who packed up and left almost four generations before were still around. (people didn't live as long then either).
This is the main problem. Young people play this game, who haven't had much learning (like me ~;) ) and I'm sure that they may easily become confused between fact and fantasy especially if something is packaged as fact. Please let myths and stories be such and let the truth stand, or else we all all destined to repeat our mistakes for ever and ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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

---

And if I do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

This is most acute in Britain where for what ever reason written history died out when the Romans left. So really CA could give the Romano-Britions chariots and not be totally wrong.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebelscum

And I wonder why ~D . They've probably got some 17 year old college student on the case. His idea of research is watchin DVD's. He might watch 'Alexander', 'Troy' and 'Kingdom of Heaven' next to get more unit ideas.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Ok what do we know?

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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


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

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

---

CA of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Ok what do we know?

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

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

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

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

History is not a specific fact most often.

---

A very good summary. It is quite possible that this kind of unit existed, though its equipment is probably way too heavy.

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

It does have a very nice skin, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebelscum

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

---

And these days anything not first or second hand by the people in question is not taken very seriously. De excido et conquestu Britanniae, heard of that before written by a Roman from Gaul IIRC. In other words it doesn't count. Also dark age refers to the fact that you had many illiterate peoples moving around not writing down events for us to read about. Most written source come from either the church or from the litterate Germans.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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

---

I'm sorry... :lipsrsealed2: :laugh:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebelscum

We do know the equipment around as many people have detailed it in this thread.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebelscum

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

---

You know, I was rather hoping for this argument.


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

this does not mention Sarmatians much at all.

---

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

At least I find it important.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casmin

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

---

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..

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSEG

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

---

Hahaha, yes we are!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casmin

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

---

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

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

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.

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 rebelscum

Is BI a fantasy game>? ~:confused:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSEG

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

---

~:cheers: ~D

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casmin

Hahaha, yes we are!

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

---

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

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...