New unit - Mamluks

As Ituralde pointed out, a new unit has been added as http://www.totalwar.com/

Quote:

---

Bought as slaves, and trained from boyhood, and later freed when their training is finished. These formidable professional soldiers are an elite force of heavy cavalry recruited from hardy steppe people, Well armoured and equipped with lance and mace, these well disciplined warriors are highly effective on the charge and in melee, even against armoured opponents.

---

https://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6427/memluk8ja.th.jpg

I can't say I'm very impressed with this one... It just seems too 'generic' to be a Mamluk, and the shield is too small for 'shock cavalry' (incidentally I was also under the impression that the majority of Mamluks were horse-archers). Of course I can't pretend to be an expert on this subject, I've just got a gut feeling that this isn't a proper representation in any case.

yeah the small shield is quite rediculous. Other then that he looks ok. I bet they're have a seperate "Mamluk Horse Archer" unit like they have in MTW.

That's what I'm hoping...

Take this for comparison.
http://www.dbaol.com/images/faces/1323_face.jpg

Yeah the shield is a little small. Everything else looks fine.

This mamluk should be a light cav unit. Their should be a mamluk archer unit, and another mamluk heavy cav unit, armed with armour piercing weaponry, maces, axes etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh

This mamluk should be a light cav unit. Their should be a mamluk archer unit, and another mamluk heavy cav unit, armed with armour piercing weaponry, maces, axes etc...

---

Well if you really wanted you could give the Mamluks their own unit roster. Not only did they conquer the Fatamids in Egypt but then they went on to decisivly defeat the Mongols time and again. It was the Mamluks who finally put down the seemingly unstoppable mongol advance.

So yeah. Reducing the mamluks to mercenary status is inaccurate enough let alone reducing them to a one or two units.

The shield is very small. Standard muslim round shields in the area could protect the entire chest area. What he's holding is really just a buckler. His lance also seems rather small and thin to be used as a shock cavalry weapon. Otherwise I think the unit looks very good. Im very impressed with the armor.

While it is true that the Mamluks eventually seized power in Egypt, they were also before a warrior caste that served under the Abbasid and after that the Ayyubid dynasty. Only after the seventh Crusade did they take over power in Egypt. They fought against the Mongols and the Fatamids using the available troops in Egypt. In no way their army consisted entirely of Mamluks then, which were originally from the Steppe area north of the Black Sea, so in portraying the Mamluks as a military unit of Steppe riders, and not as the dynasty that ruled Egypt for some time, the unit does quite well I think.

What I also mentioned in my other post is how the horse looks a little bit smaller, than the Stralezcky or the Scottish Feudal Knight, which would be a nice touch, considering that Steppe horses/Arab horses tended to be smaller than ther Western equivalents.

Cheers!

Ituralde

My first reaction is that both the shield and the lance look too small and flimsy. But then I consulted "Armies of the Middle Ages Vol. 2" by Ian Heath and there is a picture of an unarmoured Mamluk with similar lance (5.5 foot) and shield. They don't look terribly functional for shock combat, but if the cavalryman was primarily a horse archer, they might make sense. The book mentions the Mamluks also used a longer, 9 foot lance, and has armoured representations of the Mamluks too. The shorter lance is shown being used over-arm. (The book's drawings are derived from historical representations, BTW).

Based on this, I agree with some of the comments here, that a shock-oriented Mamluk should probably have the longer lance; the lance and shield CA present might be better on an unarmoured horse archer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shifty157

It was the Mamluks who finally put down the seemingly unstoppable mongol advance.

---

Not quite. It was actually the Mongols who stopped themselves. Whereas it is easy to claim the Mamluks achieved this or that, it should not be forgotten that had the Golden Horde not fallen into dispute with the Ilkhanate; had they not supplied troops to the Mamluks; had Qaidu not begun hostilities against the Ilkhanate, history may well have painted a completely different picture. Considering that a large amount of Mamluk forces were defeated Qipchaqs who were sold as slaves to Egypt by Batu's conquering armies, without these other over riding factors the Mamluks would not have been successful.

As for the unit picture, it looks alright but IMO the new units are too small and dark

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Not quite. It was actually the Mongols who stopped themselves. Whereas it is easy to claim the Mamluks achieved this or that, it should not be forgotten that had the Golden Horde not fallen into dispute with the Ilkhanate; had they not supplied troops to the Mamluks; had Qaidu not begun hostilities against the Ilkhanate, history may well have painted a completely different picture. Considering that a large amount of Mamluk forces were defeated Qipchaqs who were sold as slaves to Egypt by Batu's conquering armies, without these other over riding factors the Mamluks would not have been successful.

As for the unit picture, it looks alright but IMO the new units are too small and dark

........Orda

---

Orda, shifty was talking about war, not political events. Who defeated the mongol horde at Ain Jalut, evenly?!! Who was the first army ever to defeat them?!! The mamluks. Yes Hulagu Khan left and took most of his forces away, and left some 25000 mongols and turks behind him. That shows that an even battle, where Saif ed Din Qutuz barely managed to gather an army, mostly of gazi volunteers, yet with a core of about 11000 mamluk proffesionals, was able to slaughter them at Ain Jalut.

The martial might of the mamluks was also evident in later battles, at destroying the remnants of Jerusalem, at Mansurah, where they slaughtered the French knights, and the Templars themselves, and captured their king, Louis IX.

I think that mamluks do deserve more than one flimsy unit in the game.

While searching around on the .com I noticed a unit roster that one of the devs had used to fight a MP battle:

1 General's Bodyguard
2 Mamluks
2 Mamluk Archers
4 Saracen Militia
4 Desert Archers
2 Naffatum
2 Sudanese Gunners
2 Catapults

So there you go, at least one of the units is primarily a horse-archer (unless it means it's a foot-archer, which would be terrible).

If I read well, they were good even in attacking armour? With spear?!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia

If I read well, they were good even in attacking armour? With spear?!:laugh4:

---

Well in the text it's said thy have a mace also.

I didn't see that.

Well that's no problem since it will probably be only secondary weapon which that unit will probably never use.

If they would simply make cavalry use their secondary weapon automatically after charging, then they will. It´s a very simple change(it´s already in Rome, just click Alt before ordering the charge, they will charge with spears and then switch to secondary), rhey just have to decide to make it.
And if they want to leave the decision to the player, they can make them keep their primary weapon if the player klicks Alt...
As I said it should be an easy change and I hope they will make it since it would improve performance of AI troops and not require to press Alt whenever he orders a cavalry attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh

Orda, shifty was talking about war, not political events. Who defeated the mongol horde at Ain Jalut, evenly?!! Who was the first army ever to defeat them?!! The mamluks. Yes Hulagu Khan left and took most of his forces away, and left some 25000 mongols and turks behind him. That shows that an even battle, where Saif ed Din Qutuz barely managed to gather an army, mostly of gazi volunteers, yet with a core of about 11000 mamluk proffesionals, was able to slaughter them at Ain Jalut.

The martial might of the mamluks was also evident in later battles, at destroying the remnants of Jerusalem, at Mansurah, where they slaughtered the French knights, and the Templars themselves, and captured their king, Louis IX.

I think that mamluks do deserve more than one flimsy unit in the game.

---

Ain Jalut? Even? I think not. A Mongol army? Not quite. The substantial Golden Horde troops also present in the Mamluk army. This subject is well discussed in the Monastery

.......Orda

well at least there are Mamlukes unlike in MTW i think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Spartan

well at least there are Mamlukes unlike in MTW i think.

---

MTW had Mamluks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perplexed

MTW had Mamluks.

---

oh. i guess in vi?

Actually I'm fairly sure they were in the original game, not absolutely certain though.

They were, VI introduced Faris.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Ain Jalut? Even? I think not. A Mongol army? Not quite. The substantial Golden Horde troops also present in the Mamluk army. This subject is well discussed in the Monastery

.......Orda

---

Just finished reading at the monastery. I dont know what you mean BTW, you did not explain anything about that battle. You said that most of the "mongol" armies of the mongol empire were in fact "chinese". Lets see, the contignent under Kitbuqa Noyon at Ain Jalut, fought and destroyed every last stronghold in Persia, destroyed the resisting Ayyubid states in Syria, fighting many, many battles, besieged and sacked Baghdad. I would say that would be a pretty experienced army, and well led regardless of mongol tactics or not, which were used at Ain Jalut BTW.

As for being even or not?! Please dont bring the 125,000 vs. 25,000 figures, those are ridiculous. At Qutuz's time, Cairo composed of 250,000 civilians. Where would he muster such a number, what kind of 21st century logistics did he use to keep that army running, and dont forget the disunity of those Islamic states at that time, so gathering a large army was pretty darn impossible. 25,000 were barely recruited.

It is usual for anyone to underestimate the mamluks, and deny the fact that yes, they did defeat the mongols on an even pitched battle, after suffering great losses themselves. The mongol image in history books is imprinted into people's brain, and their superb martial tactics, where little is known of the mamluks, especially by westerners. The mamluks were defeated only twice in history BTW, only by Selim I at Raydanniya and Marj Dabiq, and by Napoleon at the Nile, not because of their tactics or martial skills, but because their enemies on both encounters used firearms on a very large scale, muskets and cannons, whereas mamluks refused to use those ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perplexed

MTW had Mamluks.

---

In MTW are Mamluk Cavalry and Mamluk Horse Archers.

The mameluke horse archers were far more superior than the ordinary mameluke cavalry in MTW. The Faris were even better.

At least these are a bit more improved, hopefully not becoming a useless unit like the mameluke cavalry in MTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

The mameluke horse archers were far more superior than the ordinary mameluke cavalry in MTW. The Faris were even better.

At least these are a bit more improved, hopefully not becoming a useless unit like the mameluke cavalry in MTW.

---

I agree. That's why I remoded their stats to became better unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh

Just finished reading at the monastery. I dont know what you mean BTW, you did not explain anything about that battle. You said that most of the "mongol" armies of the mongol empire were in fact "chinese". Lets see, the contignent under Kitbuqa Noyon at Ain Jalut, fought and destroyed every last stronghold in Persia, destroyed the resisting Ayyubid states in Syria, fighting many, many battles, besieged and sacked Baghdad. I would say that would be a pretty experienced army, and well led regardless of mongol tactics or not, which were used at Ain Jalut BTW.

As for being even or not?! Please dont bring the 125,000 vs. 25,000 figures, those are ridiculous. At Qutuz's time, Cairo composed of 250,000 civilians. Where would he muster such a number, what kind of 21st century logistics did he use to keep that army running, and dont forget the disunity of those Islamic states at that time, so gathering a large army was pretty darn impossible. 25,000 were barely recruited.

It is usual for anyone to underestimate the mamluks, and deny the fact that yes, they did defeat the mongols on an even pitched battle, after suffering great losses themselves. The mongol image in history books is imprinted into people's brain, and their superb martial tactics, where little is known of the mamluks, especially by westerners. The mamluks were defeated only twice in history BTW, only by Selim I at Raydanniya and Marj Dabiq, and by Napoleon at the Nile, not because of their tactics or martial skills, but because their enemies on both encounters used firearms on a very large scale, muskets and cannons, whereas mamluks refused to use those ever.

---

Ain Jalut is mentioned, and as for Chinese units I think you are mixing the invasion of Japan or Yuan troops versus Qaidu or Ariq Bukha. The contingent you mention of Qid Bukha was a rearguard not the armies of Hulegu that did the damage you mention. I did not refer to numbers in the region you mention because most historical references to numbers are to be taken with a pinch of salt. When you find the section I refer to you will see that I mention the fact that most of the 'Mongol' numbers were in fact Georgian and Armenian and that they numbered probably less than a Tumen. Considering the facts of the battle, which is also covered, there was hardly a 'crushing' of Ilkhanate forces, more like an extremely hard struggle. The Golden Horde units within Mamluk ranks was about equal to the Mongol units under Qid Bukha.
Trust me, Ain Jalut has been well documented in Monastery threads. As for the first army to defeat a Mongol one, you should look much further back such as 1236 where a Mongol army was soundly beaten by the Volga/Kama Bulgars. There again the campaigns of Korea make some interesting reading. Compared to these Ain Jalut was a skirmish

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

The mameluke horse archers were far more superior than the ordinary mameluke cavalry in MTW. The Faris were even better.

At least these are a bit more improved, hopefully not becoming a useless unit like the mameluke cavalry in MTW.

---

Yes, Mamelukes were useful for hammering well armoured units that are pinned on spears but overall they were too weak.

Mameluke horse archers had -1 charge compared to Faris, but MHA recruited in the Sinai got a valour bonus making them superior.
Also IIRC Faris were only availabe in High and Late eras.

I think there will be more than one Mamluk unit, there has to be

......Orda

I think there should be three Mamluk units(all of them cavalry); Lancers/Heavy Cavalry with(you guessed it) lances and heavy armour, Horse archers with bows, swords and light armour, and bodyguards with impressive stats, discipline morale, very heavy armour and lances or maybe axes.

And one thing, someone said earlier that steppe- and Arab horses were smaller than western horses. For steppe horses this was true as they tended to resemble ponies, but the Arab horses this is not entirely true. They were similar in size to most western horses and larger than some as well, they were not as heavy though, but they were very strong and supposedly this breed of horse was smarter as well.
I'm not entirely sure about this but I think there is a hint of truth to what I just said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

I think there should be three Mamluk units(all of them cavalry); Lancers/Heavy Cavalry with(you guessed it) lances and heavy armour, Horse archers with bows, swords and light armour, and bodyguards with impressive stats, discipline morale, very heavy armour and lances or maybe axes.

And one thing, someone said earlier that steppe- and Arab horses were smaller than western horses. For steppe horses this was true as they tended to resemble ponies, but the Arab horses this is not entirely true. They were similar in size to most western horses and larger than some as well, they were not as heavy though, but they were very strong and supposedly this breed of horse was smarter as well.
I'm not entirely sure about this but I think there is a hint of truth to what I just said.

---

Arab horses were smaller than their western counterparts, but not by a big margin. They were considerably larger than steppe ponies, but still smaller than western horses. They are very strong and very, very smart and intelligent. Ive witnessed this with my own eyes. A horse would refuse to go if a "stranger" was riding him. It only accepts its rider. Not all of them are like that though. They are also the fastest, swiftist and most agile horses in the world too.

As to your idea of mamluks, i totally agree. We should see a shock unit, armed with a lance and heavy armour, a missile cav unit, armed with a bow and a sword, lightly armoured, and elite royal bodyguards, armed with an axe or mace, and heavily armoured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

And one thing, someone said earlier that steppe- and Arab horses were smaller than western horses. For steppe horses this was true as they tended to resemble ponies, but the Arab horses this is not entirely true.

---

This is not quite true of steppe horses either. The Akhal-Teke, an ancient breed found east of the Caspian, north Iran and surrounding area stand in excess of 15 hands. They are/were renowned for their stamina and surprising hardiness even though their rear conformation is weak ( cow hocks )

......Orda

Arabian horses traditionally (pure breed) are between 14 and 15 hands tall.

Re: Mamaluks in MTW 1

Mamaluk cavalry carried an axe and had a anti-armor bonus. As mentioned, they were great for chopping up knights who where alread pinned down by a spear unit. They weren't so good for chopping down anything else.

There was also mamaluke horse archers, who were excellent. The trouble was that the game was practically over before you could get any.

All this talk makes me want to play MTW 1 again. I have the crash problem common to Nvidia users. A simple fix is supposed to be to change the antialiasing number from 0 to 2, or something like that.

How do you do that? I looked on the Nvidia control panel, but couldn't find the setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh

Arabian horses traditionally (pure breed) are between 14 and 15 hands tall.

---

This is correct. At something like 15.2 HH, the Akhal-Teke is a bigger animal and one that was used on the steppe for ages. The idea that steppe nomads rode animals that were not much taller than a large dog is a misconception

........Orda