Printable View
Now I was thinking the other day that in medieval times some units weren’t regular solders, they where just normal people like farmers and things who where conscripted when needed. What they could do is have them like mercenaries that you can hire when you need them and when disbanded will go back to the list with all there experience and weapons intact when you hire then again.
That would be good if they did that.
Levee units that is, its a pretty good idea. For men-at-arms and peasant only though, and also non-professional archers. Proffesional units such as zweihanders, jannisaries, knights (of course!), mamluks should remain as an all time fighting force. This idea suits the armies of medieval europe, however its not that accurate if you implement it to cover islamic armies as well, as those were different in social role, heirarchy, and leadership.
Yep levy that’s what I was thinking of
i think thata is not a good idea cause if you hire peasant in every time that you will have a problem in a province then you will just hire new army and easily kill all the enemys. thats just not right :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh
even muslim armies, mamluks were not common...these dudes were trained basically from birth or as very young slaves, heavily schooled and trained and then released into service...its not feasible to have large standing armies of this type, by most accounts i'v read the turks were highly unprofessional for a long time, relying on masses of low skilled fighters to rain arrows on the enemy then retreat, it only took a good charge from a small group of knights to send lots of turks heading for the hills. the janisary was quite a late development
that said i rather like the system of recruiting as needed from regions then returning them to their homes to make me money due to my cruel and very high taxes :2thumbsup:
It would work if you recruit from the population (men with the right age). If you recruited some soldiers from a province and those soldiers died the population of that province would be lowered by that number and you wouldn't be able to recruit as many as before or none at all if all the men that can wield a weapon are dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by iraklaras
The 'fighting' population would recover slowly (+- 10 years) over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
Not to steer this of course, but muslim armies were very different in organization than those of Europe. This farmer-soldier-farmer thing was the resultant of the feudal system, something that didnt exist in the Islamic world. During the mamluk era, most of the armies were made of mamluks, the majority of them. Yes they were hard to obtain, but at that time, thousands of young boys were bought as slaves annually in egypt, to start their training. The rest of the army was made up of volunteers, and mercenary bedouin tribes. With the pre-ottoman turks it was a different thing, most non-military turkish men knew well how to shoot arrows on horseback, essential for living on the steppes of central asia, it was part of culture, and thus, many times these were recruited.
i see no reason why imaginative game designers couldn't incorporate different recruiting systems for the different socio-economic systems.
Probaly because the game designers are too prudent. They think people might not liek this and blah blah blah. Fear of losing profit.
..it'd just be too historically accurate to keep everybody happy.. islamic players would complain about the christian kingdoms being unfairly balanced because of the levee system or something..somehow it'd become a headache for somebody.
Although I think it's an incredible idea and support it wholeheartedly, I don't see it happening unless someone could find a way to mod it in.
Wait, so ya'll are saying that Muslim factions didn't levee/conscript civilians into their armies? I didn't know that. So the Egyptians relied on Mamluks, the Turks were a warlike people before they became Muslim and later had janissaries, and what about the Almohads/Moors? They must have fielded some pretty large armies in order to conquer nearly all of the Iberian peninsula and invade France.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
The Almohads didnt invade France AFAIK, in fact they were pretty weak, and were crushed by Castile. However, they did have moorish tribes that were allied to the Almohad kings, who provided troops, ill equipped. That was the main reason why the Almoravids and Almohads were pretty weak even after the Almoravids decisively beat the Castilians at Sagrajas, they had no power base. No reliable source of troops, even less with professional soldiers.
I've been thinking about this recently too. I don't like the fact that all armies in TW games tend to be professional and independant. Peasants are recruited and stay until dead or disbanded and don't even require a general or lord to keep them in check (well in MTW I suppose each unit had a leader). Perhaps it wouldn't suit TW games, but I'd like to see a system where you have to raise levies (or similar type things) when you require them, and your popularity with the local baron/vassal/populace and also the technology, spending and training in the region determines how many and what type of unit you get. You'd have a few expensive professionals (men at arms, knights etc), but the majority would probably be levied/semi-professional.
I'd also prefer that armies required a proper noble (1 per region perhaps) to lead them, rather than having hundreds of independant units able to move where they like, whenever you like. You'd be limited by the number of field armies you could control because of the few nobles you have, and basic garrisons wouldn't be required as that would be automatically handled by your support level in the region. Support could be determined by many things: tax level, technology/facilities, diplomatic relations with other factions, previous levies/wars etc. If you're not popular with a baron or whatever, he won't support your cause and supply you with troops from his fiefdom. Kings didn't always have that much power as they relied upon support from their subjects and nobles. If you couldn't rely on a full-time force like in MTW/RTW, you'd be less likely to get to the point where once you're a large empire, there's no challenge and you steam-roll everyone. If you can't guarantee an army to protect your borders, there be trouble ahead.
On the subject of non-Christian nations not having levies, a similar thing would work for them. You'd build facilities and end up putting money aside to training troops for when the time comes for war. You couldn't guarantee how many troops you'd get, but they wouldn't come into play until required.
It might not be ideal, but I'm sure a game could do something along those lines one day. I'd really like to see the struggle between king and his subjects before he meets his enemy. The current TW system doesn't offer a challenge mid-late game without making the AI act stupidly towards the player.
Knights and suchlike were for the most part part-timers too. After all, they went back to adminstering their estates after the campaign, and if their feudally-obligated time to serve in the army of their superior ran out and they for some reason didn't feel like sticking around were wholly within their legal rights to do so regardless of circumstances. Ditto for any other such troops serving for fixed periods out of legal obligation really. There's a recorded case from pre-Norman England of a bunch of Viking raiders besieged on some isle or cape getting away because the obligated time of the fyrd contignent bottling them in ran out before their replacements arrived - the guys simply picked up their things and walked home, leaving the raiders free to get away.
Mercenaries for their part had an unpleasant habit of becoming increasingly unreliable and uncontrollable if you started running low on funds to pay their wages with; they were certainly professional warriors, but not a standing army as such.
Full-time standing forces had their own limitations. One was that the full-time pros usually just formed the hard and reliable core of the army, but had to be bulked out by adding mercenaries, levies and suchlike to reach the sheer numbers and combat power required. Logistics, weather and seasons placed the ultimate limits. The Ottomans had a frightfully efficient commissariat, organization and supply system, but if their army was still stuck in siege camp around some Balkan town (or Vienna) when the snow fell they could essentially kiss both the campaign and better part of their troops' lives goodbye. Ability to keep the troops on the field doesn't really amount to much if you can no longer keep them alive...
Seems a good idea to me.
Maybe, recruiting farmers in a province could be self-destructing in some way...
i'm thinking of heavily lowered loyalty or something
in provinces with uprising, consequently, you could not raise farmers.
1 noble / province: that's the governor idea i think.
Maybe making professional soldiers only able the become governor?
Or a professional soldier as a governor keeps away uprisings, but lowers happiness/acumen/something?
just some wild ideas ...
:idea2: Arch
I didn't really read the previous replies, but something like, for example, being able to just hit "conscript levies/volunteers" in a sieged city and cough up some gold and when the game goes to the battlemap, instead of say 4 regular units that you had posted there, you now have that 4 plus another 1-8 based on the population and wealth of the city....so for example a small town would only be able to raise maybe a unit of 80 peasants whereas a humungous city could kit out 8 units of basically urban militia, would be pretty good.
I totally agree with the above sentiments. I’ve always found it ridiculous that it takes a province a year (MTW)/6 months (RTW) to levy 100 dudes, from the most professional to the most worthless. These worthless dudes can then do whatever the hell they want on the campaign map, such as organize themselves into huge armies of other worthless dudes and receive noble titles. Ever see an AI give a title to a unit of peasants or war machines? Yikes!
I’d like to see a levy system similar to that of the old Lords of the Realm games. Basically each province had a certain population and each turn the player could raise an army by dragging a slider that moved people from the population into the army. The more people you drafted, the more unhappy the province became, preventing the player from drafting everyone into the army. You could then arm the newly levied forces from you armory.
I’d like to see this system for raising temporary armies who would automatically disband after a set number of turns combined with the current system of training individual units that can be used for raising permanent “professional” troops.
I remember the Lords of the Realm slider...it was an excellent idea, but the thought of them automatically disbanding is a bit sketchy with me. That, to me, would imply too much micromanagement as far having to constantly check to see which province just lost x number of units because their tenure was up. I would like to see something along the lines of a slider that would work like...
Population = x
Slider = Maintain x Units of --
Unit List
1 - Light Cavalry = cost x population, x gold
4 - Urban militia = cost x population, x gold
and so on, where the city maintains a specified number and type of units indefinately, automatically retraining or conscripting to keep the units full.
If you no longer desire the units, simply switch the slide to less units, and those troops go back into your workforce, producing cash for you. The longer you maintain a unit the more experienced it becomes and the more costly it comes. This would prompt a small number of professional units to be kept permanently, and simplistic levee units to be drawn only when necessary.
sorry i didn't read the whole thing but at least i read the first 2 posts @_@ - like some kind of men-at-arms units? cause that would be neat plus it would also suit the armies of medieval great thought that should only be possible for the medieval guys and not for the islamic dudes since i dont think there armies did like this:inquisitive:
What about the idea of troops costing more to maintain the longer they're around? It will certainly stop the player from having massive armies of high valor troops (in less you're filthy rich) and simulate the increased cost and dissatisfaction of long term levies?
Suggested that already, but not only the increased cost and dissatisfaction, but the desire for more cash solely because while these troops are levied and idle I'd imagine they're being drilled and gaining experience.
I agree with most of the sentements.
I also saw that an argument over knights conscripted or permanent started.
Some Knights would have been permanent, remember families in those days are incredibly large, and there always were landless younger sons with no land at all, and little other then their status, so it would make sense for some levied some permanent knights. For balance though if this levy suggestion is implemented there would probably be no levied knights.
I think the levy system would be balanced because it would be incredibly expensive for Europeans to invade another country or go on Crusades, while it would be pretty cheap for Muslims, so historically accurate, and balanced (Muslims better attackers Europeans better defenders). I always thought that the way you always came out on top by invading another country and going on Crusades in MTW was a drawback, since realistically even successful Crusades, and Campaigns would cost you dearly.
Concerning the recruitment of muslim armies:
Muslim armies early in the middle-ages generally included a higher proportion of professional soldiers than European armies. These professional soldiers were mostly heavy cavalry(or medium cavalry) armed with lances, javelins, swords, maces, axes, etc. They were either slave recruited (Mamluks, Ghulams) or free men(usually mercenaries) who were either paid wages or given landgrants(Iqta, similar in some ways to fiefs in the feudal system).
Turkish armies also included large numbers of tribal warriors (Turkomans and the like) who were not just rabble but usually very skilled archers, especially when mounted, however they were unreliable and usually took plunder(lots of it) as payment, these were regarded a barbarians by the arabs(not the nomadic ones though) whose armies they also usually served in as mercenaries.
Infantry were either mercenaries(in the fatimid armies Armenians and Nubians were often employed), urban militias(of variable quality, wealthy cities in Syrian and the Jazira had strong traditions of maintaining large well-equipped and often well-trained infantry militias, those of Aleppo were renowned as engineers and sappers), auxiliaries(bedouins particularily provided many auxiliaries, both horse and foot), religious volunteers(often ill-equipped and with little military experience, this was different with the Turks whose Ghazis often were mounted and had experience in warfare) and a few professionals(professional infantry declined during the 12th century, but some units still were professional and held in esteem for an example fire/naphta troops).
Also muslim armies were not usually as huge as is normally claimed, the total number of the standing army of the Fatimid caliphate for an example was only about 40 000 men and the largest armies sent out very rarely exceeded 10 000 soldiers.
Turkish armies were claimed by Europeans to have been huge, but during the first crusade at the battles of Nicea and Dorylaeum the Turks were outnumbered(and not just a little) by the crusaders, and at Dorylaeum they actually held the upper hand for a while until the part of the army that had lagged behind suddenly appeared on their flanks, at Nicea the Turkish sultan expected to deal with the first crusade as he had dealt with the people's crusade and was consequently overwhelmed by the amount of proper fighting men that crusaders had brought.
Saladin's army has also been claimed to have been huge(they were pretty large but not enormous), at Hattin in which he led his largest army ever he led about 45 000 men(which is quite alot though), but the part of this army that actually fought in the battle were his 12 000 professionals(mostly cavalry), the roughly 30 000(+ -) that remain were lots of religious volunteers(huge numbers had shown up because jihad had become a popular cause again) who were mostly used in sieges(infantry in Saladin's time were usually dismissed as rabble, same as in Europe)
Sorry for rambling, I shall be going now...
When you think about it, it's a wonder that any medieval nation effectively launched a military campaign against anyone at all. Post-rome the professional soldier died out to such insignificant numbers that trying to fight a campaign with them alone would have secured almost instantaneous defeat. However, it forces to mind, what could have possibly posessed a block of leveed men with no personal stake in the fight besides their own well being to actually charge another group of men and fight for their lives. It seems like a completely worthless endeavour.
Randarkmaan, that was one of the most informative posts I've read in a while. Thank you very, very much.
Lucjan, I wondered the same. I suppose that's one reason that knights were considered so dominant. They were, for the most part, the only people with the means, training, and desire to fight in battle. And also why there are few if any battles in history that went down to the last man. Armies of peasants would have tended to want to rout as soon as it seemed like the battle wasn't going their way.
I can't even see the tribal attitude of the germans or guals of the roman era ever having some kind of similarity to the state of mind of a medieval peasant. He wasn't fighting for town loyalties or a feeling of tribal dominance. He was fighting because some guy in a castle taking taxes and land from him sent a couple conscriptor's there and said "yeah now you get to die for me too." If that were me...could you say mutiny?
Well, I imagine the consequences for disloyalty were pretty severe, too. ~:) I think losing all your property would be the best one who refused to go into battle could hope for. At least if you survived the battle, you could return to your life.
Also peasants weren't levied that often in Europe, usually only if the commanders were sure that they would get into a real big battle and in that case they usually needed many soldiers. Usually in Europe warfare consisted of raiding enemy terriory or sieges of enemy castles and town by small mobile forces usually consisting of cavalry(knights, squires, sergeants and other cavalry mercenaries) and maybe some mounted infantrymen(usually professional, crossbowmen would have been common as many professional infantry were crossbowmen and some had enough money to buy a horse). In Europe large battles were often avoided because of the losses that both sides inevitably would suffer, but when there was no other option they usually met their foes on the battlefield... or hid inside their castles.
I understand that it is just a dynamic of gameplay but one funny thing I noticed in my full English campaign in MTW was that I had standing armies that stayed in one spot literally for hundreds of years.
I had an "alliance" with both Poland and Hungary who stood as neutral ground between myself and the Byzantine empire. As we all know alliances aren't worth diddly so you had to keep defensive armies on each province to deter an invasion by a neighboring nation. So I assigned archers, fyrdman and urban militia to stand in these armies and they stayed there for doing nothing for nearly my entire game until I decided to go head on against the Byzantine. Kinda ridiculous, I paid these armies for hundreds of years and they stayed there at the ready all this time, hehe... they must have been an undead, resurrected army for a good part of that time.
Or as they secretly died off from old age, the game secretly replenished them with new conscripts.