http://www.totalwar.com/community/drom.htm
It's the first ERE unit they've put up and it's a camel unit. The rider model looks good. And despite the fact that he it armoured like a cataphract they call it light cavalry.
Printable View
http://www.totalwar.com/community/drom.htm
It's the first ERE unit they've put up and it's a camel unit. The rider model looks good. And despite the fact that he it armoured like a cataphract they call it light cavalry.
Definately the best unit they`ve previewed so far. I`ll go that far calling it the best vanilla skin I`ve ever seen.
I concur. :) Best looking unit so far, definitely!
Good looking unit.
We might use it for Byzantium TW. ~:)
It's pathetic. The description makes it seem like Romans never stole ideas from others, when their entire military is based off of it. Camels were usually used for mounted infantry, and there is no point of using camels in a desert if you have mail on.
A bit contradictory.
Check it clearly, Steppe, it's for the Eastern Roman Empire. The Byzantines were very open to new and improved fighting tactics.
As for the chain mail, I agree with you. What's the use of mail in the desert?!
Just like the Cataphract Camels, of the Parthians. Really pathetic.
Have to agree with you there, pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Long live (the concept of) EB:BI!!!!
I know that it's for the Byzantines. But the early Romans were also quite quick to copy superior tactics, as were the later Romans and the Eastern Romans. Otherwise, they'd never have any cavalry, or the chainmail on this camel. So it's nothing new, or suprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Am I the only one who's astonished that CA correctly has called this unit Dromedarii, rather then camels in RTW? Lol
Dromaderii means camel.(Camelus dromedarius)
Very interesting CA. You finally gave up the pressure.
Maybe they didn't make a distinction back then, but a camel is an animal with 2 lumps (not a single hump like in RTW). Dromedarians look similar to camels but only have one hump.
I think Bactrian camles have one hump, Arabians have one?
Not sure if they are.
Guess the RTW camels and dromedaries. :laugh4:
O.T.: Congrats on the 5000th posts Steppe!!!
Just to clear things for you........Bactrian camels have two, Dromedaries have one
......Orda
And that the only wild population of Dromedaries left in the wrold is in Austrialia. Also I think the unit looks good, great even. Especially with the mail.
Does anyone know if this unit existed? Seems like another flaming pig or wardog unit to me.
Well, they look fake, though they do look rather good.....
But, yeah i really doubt their historicalness........
The Romans did indeed use camels in the desert, but only very sparingly. I guess you could classify this unit with the fire pigs. Both were actually used historicly, but you will almost certainly see them much more in the game than is historicly warranted.
Well im sure they occasionly used camels, but would they be heavily amored like that?
O, well at least it will give me some nice skins to work with ~D
I thought that was odd too. "light cavalry"? And they say that these were raised to deal with the harsh heat? I guess a bunch of iron would be nice and cool, too, eh? Looks neat, but doesn't make sense. Did these exist in reasonable numbers, and is it documented anywhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
I don't get it.
What's the use of chain mail, in the middle of the desert, on a camel?!
Looks like this really is a fire pig.
Do you realize he has chain mail and plate armor from ankle to wrist, all the way to his neck?! ~:eek:
No big deal, but don't call it "light" cavalry. :charge:
If this is light cavalry, then the Horse Archers are feather cavalry ~D
So a man wering chainmail never fought in a desert?! :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
They fought,(Crusaders) but wearing chain mail in the desert is simply stupid. :dizzy2:
Very nice imo. ~:)
So the roman legionaries in eastern provinces never wore armor?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I doubt they exist. As I said, most camel units were for mounted infantry. And camel units would not be heavily armored, it's just illogical, because the point of camels are to operate in arid enviornments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
No, because most "eastern" provinces were not desert. Of course Eastern peoples used armor. I'm talking about deserts, not the East. And in the East, there isn't much point of using a camel unless it's quite hot.Quote:
So the roman legionaries in eastern provinces never wore armor?
As for historicalness, it would be far more logical for them to recruit camel mounted mercanaries.
On the subject of Camel units, check this. It should make steppemerc's head explode.
Doubt it, seems like they just carried over the cataphract camels from RTW. Nothing new there.
That's the worst unit i ever seen....I wait for the eastern heavy archers to show up
You'll be waiting for a long time. The Sassanid unit list is up on IGN they only have 1 horse archer unit. An update of Persian cavalry.
Quote from "Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World 3000 BC - AD 500: Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics" (Greenhill Books 2002), Chapter 2:
:book: "The Romans themselves raised units of dromedarii to patrol her desert frontiers. The Parthians and Sassanian Persians also made use of camel units; the Parthians even experimented (unsuccessfully) with cataphract camels."
The only picture I've ever seen of a dromedarius shows him completely unarmoured. It seems they were scouts rather than actual combat troops. You can probably delete them from the regular troop roster along with cataphract camels, pigs (used on only two occasions, and set alight on only one), screeching women, druids, etc.
OMG.... Camels fully covered in armour. Cataphract camels. Oxymoron ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Cataphract - heavily armoured
Camels - no armour
Excellent oxymoron ~D
Could it perhaps be that they somehow mixed up the skins? We have seen it before. If the rider himself were not armoured then it would be a rather nice unit. Right now it is just goodlooking.
There is also another point against wearing armour as a camelrider (with no armour for the camel). A camel is big... Very big, it is far more likely to get hit than a horse is in combat. Your armour won't help you much.
But I wonder if we are going to see those nice arabic two-man warcamels. A rider and an archer (on the rear part so he could act as rear gunner). It just looks so funny, yet very logical.
BOOM! ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Fools. Well, the Sarmatians and the Huns ought to have heavy horse archers, anyway. And the Sassanians did lessen the importance of horse archery, though it never disapeared, was still the most numerous part of the cavalry, especially at the start of the game.Quote:
You'll be waiting for a long time. The Sassanid unit list is up on IGN they only have 1 horse archer unit. An update of Persian cavalry.
How original. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Eeeeww brains. :medievalcheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
The Huns have elite warriors which are heavy horse archers, sort off. You should read through the IGN previews. Hunnic regualr horse archers are Hun archers. I'm fairly sure that CA didn't give them a foot archer unit at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Huns have Hun Elites but why they should have Heavy HA?
:furious3: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
That looks ridiculous! If there is any historical precedence to either of these units with their armor, than I shall shut my pie hole. ~:handball:
In amids the comments on the Sassanid units some one commented that they experimented with a fully armoured camel-phract unit at some point.
Well, esentially heavy horse archers were the nobles that could afford armor. Nothing particullary suprsing or strange about it. They would probably also have a lance.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hun
And because the Huns that the Romans interacted with were far more sedetary and adopted more static armies, they didn't have as many light horse. In addition, they adopted many Alannic and Sarmatian styles, which included the heavy horse archer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
You mean Bartixian.
~;)
Nope, it was the Parthians, and they were unsuccessful. Camels really aren't cut out for combat. They have long distance stamina for walking, but they can't run as far or as fast as horses. Most camel troops were, in fact, mounted infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Those predate the RTW period. The Assyrians gave them a whupping as I recall. They had to sit one man in front of the hump and the other behind because no-one came up with a decent camel saddle until around 500 BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I have not read of such things. Maybe you have a source to confirm this? It is my understanding that the Huns wore little armour or what armour they had was limited. They crushed the heavy lance of Sarmatians with light HA that used superior bows. I doubt they adopt tactics of enemies that flee. After many years in Pannonia they use more the infantry but Hun armies right up to time of Attila campaigns used cavalry armies. Lack of steppe and grazing only forced this move to infantry but I read nowhere of heavy HA. Both Sarmatians and Alans were crushed and were made to do they masters bidding. Huns wore some armour and that is whatever they could steal or plunder. There were no heavy armed HA units. The armies that Romans met for many years were HA based, swift of movement. Attila gathered all together and began the use of infantry. The Eastern armies were made to pay tribute to HA long before Attila
The Sarmatians and Alans did not flee. They were absorbed into the Huns, huge difference. And they were hardly crushed. The Alans survived long after the Huns fell, and maintained a seprerate identity up to the 14 th century.
And it isn't a matter of Huns adopting Iranian tactics. Of course they did so, since all nomads tactics are identical, more or less, anyway. And the Sarmatians and Alans were richer than the Huns when they first moved west, anyway.
And all nomadic nobles were heavier. They could afford better horses, arms and armor, and they formed the heavier force. This is true for all the Iranians, from Scythians to the Alans, all of the Turks, from the Avars to the Salquks, and the Mongols. It is illogical to assume that the Huns did not also have a heavier noble element, esepcially after absorbing tribes that had very good heavy cavalry.
I will not get into how the Huns defeated the Sarmatians and Alans and other Iranians, but they were far from wiped out, nor was their military traditions and styles destroyed.
Steppe Merc.......They fled. Those who did not were not given high positions. They were made to serve. Those who fled across Europe were the same Alans who cowered before Attila and would give up Orleans but for Aetius who arrived in time to prevent it. They were hardly crushed? They were utterly destroyed and the Goths had long before begun the removal of Sarmatia. Sarmatians became history so you cannot claim they were anything that the Huns looked up to. After the Sarmatians, it was time for the Ostrogoths to be utterly crushed and the Visigoth begged to Rome for pity. The Huns were a poor people they were not gods. They sold themselves as mercenary and would fight for Roman armies just as they fought against Romans. They were as much to blame for their downfall as any foe. Without the wealth of Rome they had no purpose. Of all the descriptions of their armies I have not seen any evidence of heavy HA. Their bow was their strength and armour was whatever was about to be taken
Yes the Assyrians did beat them up, but not that badly apparently, as they never managed to get hold of them really.Quote:
Originally Posted by vastator
Also I'm pretty certain there are Roman references to the two-man camels.
Hehe, lol ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by gardibolt
Ok. All nomads, when defeated, either A. Flee, or B. absorbed.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hun
A. If you assume that all nomads who were defeated and fled were weak, then that would mean the Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, and almost all other nomads known to the Western world were weak.
B. Now for some quotes:
Warriors of the Steppe by Erik Hildinger
pg 62 "They had earlier incorporated /many/ Alani as well, although these people later managed to break free and head west toward the Empire before the mid fifth century.
pg 63 "Their Alani subjects were more heavily equipped, as described above, and could have supported the Huns and fought at clost quarters with their heavy lances and long swords. It would have been a handy combination of heavy and light cavalry such as the Parthians had used..."
As for Heavy cavalry, I hope this well put this to rest:
pg 64 "The Huns carried shields, and the literary evidence indicates that the nobles and the wealthy wore amor. As scale armor is the earliest found on the steppe and was widely used by both Scythians and Sarmatians, it is probable that this kind of armor was used by the Huns as well..."
pg 65"Thus a well armored Hun noble would have had a mail jacket, helmet and shield, and would have carried a lance as well as a bow."
Additional evidence from Osprey's Attilla and the Nomad hordes, by David Nicole
pg 22 "they adopted many fashions from those Alans whom they now ruled."
Many quotes. But where is the quote as to heavy HA? where is the evidence that the Huns used inferior Alan/Sarmatian tactics? I can quote also that Huns wore no armour but only skins of 'mice'.... ( Ammianus )
You seem very annoyed, is this because I disagree? I will be first to accept that Steppe warfare was indeed weak....in European battlefields. Huns disappeared through the usual way of successful steppe nations....They are essential greedy people. No loyalty but to what they can steal or demand with threat. Uldin was reduced in such manner. His own men were bought by Roman bribes. He became mercenary for Roman armies due to this but was still able to crush Ostrogoths before this, even with losing many men. You mention Avars. They were crushed by Charlemagne and when Magyars came, they were stopped in tracks by Otto at Lechfeld. Steppe armies were good in the steppe but fail elswhere. The steppe armies who faced the Huns were beaten and it seems it was sudden and quite convincing defeats.
Alans used swords? Yes Huns used swords too. Your source says Alans 'escaped', I read this account. But many more I read say some Alans flee along with Visigoth. Some also flee to Georgia. Attila had Gepid subjects too and Franks but Huns maintain they HA ways. Even at Catalaunia the Alans crumpled before Attila.
Some good reading....
E.A. Thompson
Maenchen-Helfen
Lucien Musset
Altheim
Heavy Horse archer evidence, again. Heavy horse archers are horse archers with armor. And they had those, thus they had heavy horse archers.
As for Heavy cavalry, I hope this well put this to rest:
pg 64 "The Huns carried shields, and the literary evidence indicates that the nobles and the wealthy wore amor. As scale armor is the earliest found on the steppe and was widely used by both Scythians and Sarmatians, it is probable that this kind of armor was used by the Huns as well..."
pg 65"Thus a well armored Hun noble would have had a mail jacket, helmet and shield, and would have carried a lance as well as a bow."
As for saying that the Huns used just skins, Romans historians were fools when it came to steppe peoples. They knew little, and made up the rest.
If you think that the Avars were weak, then you're wrong. And again, the Alans were not weak, they survived after the Huns disapeared, and provided excellent soldiers for them. If you refuse to listen to facts, then I'm done here. I'll waste no more time arguing, even after I have shown sources.
You are indeed angry. Avars could venture no further than they Hungary base and were predators just like the Huns. The armies of Charlamagne ended their 'terror'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
You call Romans 'fools'. What a foolish statement. These fools were very successful fools I think.
The reading I suggested is in depth and makes use of many sources. Perhaps you should take a look at them.
How much of history is 'fact'?
Yeah, there's an easy way to remember. Take a capital B for Bactrian and D for Dromedary and turn the letters on their sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
That picture lars573 posted is crazy. Those camels look like something from a Sci-Fi movie. Revenge of the Mutant Camels eat your heart out...