Org Mobile Site
Thread: M2TW Cavalry and EB II
Hmm, does anyone have any good accounts of the siege of Tigerkant or whatever it was called when the Romans managed to rout that massive army of Tigranes because they bum rushed the Cataphracts?
Originally Posted by :
Not sure about Ummayid heavies, perhaps they were more of a Berber raiding party than formed Kwarazmian style katas?
AFAIK they were heavier than your average raiders, although of course not as heavy as Persian knights of other periods. The battle of Tours was hard fought and some kind of raiding party would have given up much sooner than the Muslim forces actually did.Not sure about Ummayid heavies, perhaps they were more of a Berber raiding party than formed Kwarazmian style katas?
Originally Posted by :
I liken the spread of the feudal horse culture to the mafia. Its all about honour, families, getting "made" (a knight), private wars (feuds), extortion (dues and levies) and pimped rides.
Aye, the Mafia is somehow a decadent rest of the feudal society.I liken the spread of the feudal horse culture to the mafia. Its all about honour, families, getting "made" (a knight), private wars (feuds), extortion (dues and levies) and pimped rides.
We're talking EB times here. Let's pretend a Roman legionary has about the stats of Dismounted Chivalric Knights, and that Gendarmes are Cataphracts.
This means that a unit of 40 cataphracts charging a unit of 60 legionaries (formed up) takes out half of the legionaries on impact. But the cataphracts at Carrhae (while the ratio was definitely different) didn't do a ton of damage to the legionaries unless they were unprepared for the charge.
This means that a unit of 40 cataphracts charging a unit of 60 legionaries (formed up) takes out half of the legionaries on impact. But the cataphracts at Carrhae (while the ratio was definitely different) didn't do a ton of damage to the legionaries unless they were unprepared for the charge.
You may argue so Cyclops, but it goes against historical fact and is a figment of a dated perception of the Goths, Tolkien's Rohir are based on that perception, but since then our view has changed quite a bit. I recommend going and reading Ammian/Ammianus, he should be online here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...mmian/31*.html, he clearly states that Cavalry makes up "a part" of the Goth army and that some of it is Alan, not Gothic.
Anyway, even before that, in fact from the very aftermath of Teutoburger Wald even good generals had difficulties with the Germans, on a plain field with armies lined up, Romans would win (but they did against verybody when they were allowed to use the legions as they were intended), in any other terrain they would face difficulty. On the morrow (for it is 01.55 here in Denmark) I shall write an analysis of Germanicus' campaigns to reconquer Germania which I hope shall demonstrate that you are wrong. The point is, German tribes were causing difficulties long before anyone had even heard of Huns- themselves included. What allowed the barbarians (mainly Germans) to overrun the Empire can be followed in another thread ("When was Rome Doomed"), but it was clearly not Goth and Hun horsemen, nor was the Goths primarily horse. As I said, they were farmers = infantry.
As for Tours and the nature of that battle as well as the heavy cavalry there. Copy from Wiki follows as it is a decent article stating its sources and a universal wiev amongst military historians (of which I like to consider myself one).
‘Abd-al-Raḥmân trusted the tactical superiority of his cavalry, and had them charge repeatedly. This time the faith the Umayyads had in their cavalry, armed with their long lances and swords which had brought them victory in previous battles, was not justified. The disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. "The Muslim horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side."
Despite these inroads, the Franks did not break. It appears that the years of year-round training that Charles had bought with Church funds, paid off. Infantry withstood the Umayyad heavy cavalry. Paul Davis says the core of Charles's army was a professional infantry which was both highly disciplined and well motivated, "having campaigned with him all over Europe," buttressed by levies that Charles basically used to raid and disrupt his enemy, and gather food for his infantry.[1] The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 says:
"And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe."
Umayyad troops who had broken into the square had tried to kill Charles, but his liege men surrounded him and would not be broken. The battle was still in flux when—Frankish histories claim—a rumor went through the Umayyad army that Frankish scouts threatened the booty that they had taken from Bordeaux. Some of the Umayyad troops at once broke off the battle and returned to camp to secure their loot. According to Muslim accounts of the battle, in the midst of the fighting on the second day (Frankish accounts have the battle lasting one day only), scouts from the Franks sent by Charles began to raid the camp and supply train (including slaves and other plunder).
Charles supposedly had sent scouts to cause chaos in the Umayyad base camp, and free as many of the slaves as possible, hoping to draw off part of his foe. This succeeded, as many of the Umayyad cavalry returned to their camp. To the rest of the Muslim army, this appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it became one. Both Western and Muslim histories agree that while trying to stop the retreat, ‘Abd-al-Raḥmân became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Umayyad troops then withdrew altogether to their camp. "All the host fled before the enemy", candidly wrote one Arabic source, "and many died in the flight". The Franks resumed their phalanx, and rested in place through the night, believing the battle would resume at dawn the following morning.
Contemporary Arab sources say that Abd-al-Raḥmân had 80.000 men, but today 20- 30.000 is generally deemed more likely. With an equal number of Franks.
It was an impressive run indeed, but much of it was against other horse, and much against disintegrating/weak states. Just as only the weakness of the WRE allowed for the germans and Huns to topple it...
Nite all.
Anyway, even before that, in fact from the very aftermath of Teutoburger Wald even good generals had difficulties with the Germans, on a plain field with armies lined up, Romans would win (but they did against verybody when they were allowed to use the legions as they were intended), in any other terrain they would face difficulty. On the morrow (for it is 01.55 here in Denmark) I shall write an analysis of Germanicus' campaigns to reconquer Germania which I hope shall demonstrate that you are wrong. The point is, German tribes were causing difficulties long before anyone had even heard of Huns- themselves included. What allowed the barbarians (mainly Germans) to overrun the Empire can be followed in another thread ("When was Rome Doomed"), but it was clearly not Goth and Hun horsemen, nor was the Goths primarily horse. As I said, they were farmers = infantry.
As for Tours and the nature of that battle as well as the heavy cavalry there. Copy from Wiki follows as it is a decent article stating its sources and a universal wiev amongst military historians (of which I like to consider myself one).
‘Abd-al-Raḥmân trusted the tactical superiority of his cavalry, and had them charge repeatedly. This time the faith the Umayyads had in their cavalry, armed with their long lances and swords which had brought them victory in previous battles, was not justified. The disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. "The Muslim horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side."
Despite these inroads, the Franks did not break. It appears that the years of year-round training that Charles had bought with Church funds, paid off. Infantry withstood the Umayyad heavy cavalry. Paul Davis says the core of Charles's army was a professional infantry which was both highly disciplined and well motivated, "having campaigned with him all over Europe," buttressed by levies that Charles basically used to raid and disrupt his enemy, and gather food for his infantry.[1] The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 says:
"And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe."
Umayyad troops who had broken into the square had tried to kill Charles, but his liege men surrounded him and would not be broken. The battle was still in flux when—Frankish histories claim—a rumor went through the Umayyad army that Frankish scouts threatened the booty that they had taken from Bordeaux. Some of the Umayyad troops at once broke off the battle and returned to camp to secure their loot. According to Muslim accounts of the battle, in the midst of the fighting on the second day (Frankish accounts have the battle lasting one day only), scouts from the Franks sent by Charles began to raid the camp and supply train (including slaves and other plunder).
Charles supposedly had sent scouts to cause chaos in the Umayyad base camp, and free as many of the slaves as possible, hoping to draw off part of his foe. This succeeded, as many of the Umayyad cavalry returned to their camp. To the rest of the Muslim army, this appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it became one. Both Western and Muslim histories agree that while trying to stop the retreat, ‘Abd-al-Raḥmân became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Umayyad troops then withdrew altogether to their camp. "All the host fled before the enemy", candidly wrote one Arabic source, "and many died in the flight". The Franks resumed their phalanx, and rested in place through the night, believing the battle would resume at dawn the following morning.
Contemporary Arab sources say that Abd-al-Raḥmân had 80.000 men, but today 20- 30.000 is generally deemed more likely. With an equal number of Franks.
It was an impressive run indeed, but much of it was against other horse, and much against disintegrating/weak states. Just as only the weakness of the WRE allowed for the germans and Huns to topple it...
Nite all.
Originally Posted by Macilrille:
You may argue so Cyclops, but it goes against historical fact and is a figment of a dated perception of the Goths...
Of course I'm not suggesting any army was 100% cav, or inf, or anything. You may argue so Cyclops, but it goes against historical fact and is a figment of a dated perception of the Goths...
The Visigoths provided the heavy cav at Chalons, didn't they?
The difference between the Goths and the older school German tribes was the heavy cav (allied or their own, who knows? it was a horde) that they brought to the fray. The Goths busted major Roman armies in the field, within the Empire proper, something old school Germans had never done (the Arminius and Cimbri businesses were on the frontier).
Likewise the Goths aided Romans to beat Huns, which the Romans simply could not do unassisted. Cav, heavy cav, was very important in way it had not been before.
Originally Posted by Macilrille:
Contemporary Arab sources say that Abd-al-Raḥmân had 80.000 men, but today 20- 30.000 is generally deemed more likely. With an equal number of Franks...
IIRC there are no contemporary Arab sources and two near contemporary French chroniclers who are more poetic than exact.Contemporary Arab sources say that Abd-al-Raḥmân had 80.000 men, but today 20- 30.000 is generally deemed more likely. With an equal number of Franks...
Originally Posted by :
It is very unfortunate that we do not possess scientific accounts of Charles Martel's great victory, instead of the interesting but insufficient stories of the old Christian chroniclers.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.htmlIt is very unfortunate that we do not possess scientific accounts of Charles Martel's great victory, instead of the interesting but insufficient stories of the old Christian chroniclers.
Of course there is a great deal of romantic rubbish in Wikipedia, not much more historical than the Goths as Rohirrim really. I am constantly surprised at the poor level of historical scholarship reflected in military history. I guess its hard to be good at military matters and history at the same time, and it cuts both ways: even an amateur like me can blush at the military ignorance of some historians.
Originally Posted by Macilrille:
It was an impressive run indeed, but much of it was against other horse, and much against disintegrating/weak states...
In North Africa they were fighting Romans and in Spain they fought Visigoths? Well one was weak and the other (I'd argue) had horses.It was an impressive run indeed, but much of it was against other horse, and much against disintegrating/weak states...
Originally Posted by Macilrille:
Just as only the weakness of the WRE allowed for the germans and Huns to topple it...
Absolutely, the point you made about the decay of civic institutions corresponding to a decay in quality heavy infantry is entirely apposite.Just as only the weakness of the WRE allowed for the germans and Huns to topple it...
Amazingly the Romans resisted 2 of the main threats, knocking back the Persians (the number 1 percieved threat I think) and the Huns. Only the Goths beat a way in against firm resistance.
Germans and Arabs snuck in once the fabric had been rent by these massive incursions from the steppes and the East.
I do think the shift in emphasis in all armies (even the still civilised Byzantines) must represent a change in military culture over and above the collapsing standards of civilisation. Horses became decisive, and I suspect stirrups had a part in that shift.
From other time periods, I wonder about Phillip's phalangitae: do they fit the model of urban heavy inf? I guess they were rural smallholders but supported/equipped by the mines and other apparatus of the state, and as a response to traditional Hellenic city-state spearmen so they are still the product of an urbanised culture.
I also wonder about the Swiss massed pike: I guess the cantons weren't urbanised in the middle ages and if they were, they certainly weren't really the big smoke. Were they continuing the tradition of those "alpine phalanxes" and mori whassisnames ("sea of spears") chaps? Once again perhaps they are reflecting a response to a neighbours challenge (Austrian and then Burgundian knights) but its an interesting "special case".
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
Hmm, does anyone have any good accounts of the siege of Tigerkant or whatever it was called when the Romans managed to rout that massive army of Tigranes because they bum rushed the Cataphracts?
I am not sure we have any detailed account of that battle. In fact, Foot once mentioned an reference (Chahin, M., The Kingdom of Armenia) that questioned whether the battle had taken place at all.Hmm, does anyone have any good accounts of the siege of Tigerkant or whatever it was called when the Romans managed to rout that massive army of Tigranes because they bum rushed the Cataphracts?
Originally Posted by Cyclops:
I liken the spread of the feudal horse culture to the mafia. Its all about honour, families, getting "made" (a knight), private wars (feuds), extortion (dues and levies) and pimped rides.
Oh no. Please no more Mafia glorification. The Mafia never was about family oder honor. It's about making as much money as one can.I liken the spread of the feudal horse culture to the mafia. Its all about honour, families, getting "made" (a knight), private wars (feuds), extortion (dues and levies) and pimped rides.
Originally Posted by machinor:
Oh no. Please no more Mafia glorification. The Mafia never was about family oder honor. It's about making as much money as one can.
I quite agree. I was suggesting the feudal horse culture were the same sort of thugs (by and large) as the mafia, masquarading as honour.Oh no. Please no more Mafia glorification. The Mafia never was about family oder honor. It's about making as much money as one can.
Ok, luckily I just got you wrong. No offense. 
Plz back to topic, we don't want more locked threads.
Is there any chance of improving the response time of cavalry to orders, it's a problem of M2TW that really bugs me. You'll order a unit to move off in a direction and they'll take ages to get moving and sometimes get all strung out instread of keeping coheison.
I swear sometimes my cavalry will take 10 to 15 secs to "get going" which can be very frustating if your light horse is about to be charged by plate armoured knights.
I realise this is most likley a hardcoded part of the engine
but it would be nice if anything could be done to improve the situation.
I swear sometimes my cavalry will take 10 to 15 secs to "get going" which can be very frustating if your light horse is about to be charged by plate armoured knights.
I realise this is most likley a hardcoded part of the engine
but it would be nice if anything could be done to improve the situation.Eh? You mean after they attack in regular M2TW? I think alot of the unit cohesion problems were addressed in Kingdoms.
That especially but in general they seem to "dither" alot more when a move order is issued, like the individual horsemen are trying to sort their formation before moving. Suppose its actually quite realistic as i doubt even the best cavalry arm could do a 180 turn very quickly.
Just got kingdoms the other day but haven't had a chance to try it out properly yet (damn EB for making anthing vanilla so boring) so maybe it will fix this niggle.
Just got kingdoms the other day but haven't had a chance to try it out properly yet (damn EB for making anthing vanilla so boring) so maybe it will fix this niggle.
The Crusades campaign is very fun. I think its the best out of all four of them.
I like the Teutonic and Americas campaign.
Anyway I noticed when playing M2TW that individual infanty and cavalry in combat would sometimes stand far away from the fighting and would slowly move forward to fight.
Anyway I noticed when playing M2TW that individual infanty and cavalry in combat would sometimes stand far away from the fighting and would slowly move forward to fight.
If anyone wants my heavily modded unit file for Broken Crescent, ask. I need to work on costs, though.
perhaps in EB II, we won't get Marshall of the Templars, Hospitallers, Conquistadores, and Archontopoulai:
They are simply killing machine with 2 Hp!!! better than most General's Bodyguards...
They are simply killing machine with 2 Hp!!! better than most General's Bodyguards...
EBII!!!!!!!!!!
soon yeah the best of the best in the MOD WORLD
soon yeah the best of the best in the MOD WORLD
Ahh, finally I have found other people who loathe the MiNO cavalry. So what makes it so powerful? Their stats seem normal. The charges are ridiculously overpowered though. I recollect charging Armoured Swordsmen with Feudal Knights (all un-upgraded) and the the poor footmen had all but 8 dead. Out of 90!! Not to mention the Feudal Knights are just about the weakest one can get. Then what is the point of getting anything better? Not even braced spearmen and halberdiers were able to even so much as bother my horsemen. I had the same casualties frontally charging braced spearmen as swordsmen - that is preposterous!
So anyway, the cavalry bugs, including the difficulty of pulling out, as well as the inability to capture towers are basically the two little things that made me quite MiNO/M2TW in two weeks of sparse playing.
So anyway, the cavalry bugs, including the difficulty of pulling out, as well as the inability to capture towers are basically the two little things that made me quite MiNO/M2TW in two weeks of sparse playing.
I killed all but 12 Triarri on huge settings with the Iberian Catanks once.
Aemilius Paulus,
Remember that against the combination of stirrup, saddle, destrier lance and armored dude trained since childbirth little can stand. In this aspect Medieval is realistic since you better leave at least some sort of spearman to brace against the charge and then you will need at least pikes to fight Gendarmes and other cavalrymen. These guys were literally giant tin cans with pointy poles and some were even able to break through solid pike formations.
Remember that against the combination of stirrup, saddle, destrier lance and armored dude trained since childbirth little can stand. In this aspect Medieval is realistic since you better leave at least some sort of spearman to brace against the charge and then you will need at least pikes to fight Gendarmes and other cavalrymen. These guys were literally giant tin cans with pointy poles and some were even able to break through solid pike formations.
I remember in my HRE campaign in standard M2TW where I took Jerusalem then the Mongols came and sieged it with three full stacks. I had blocked off the entrences to the town square (Iforgot one) and placed lots of spearmen and pikemen there as well, then the mongol cavalry breaks through charges through my all of my spears like Gandalf from LOTR.
) and placed lots of spearmen and pikemen there as well, then the mongol cavalry breaks through charges through my all of my spears like Gandalf from LOTR.Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon:
Aemilius Paulus,
Remember that against the combination of stirrup, saddle, destrier lance and armored dude trained since childbirth little can stand. In this aspect Medieval is realistic since you better leave at least some sort of spearman to brace against the charge and then you will need at least pikes to fight Gendarmes and other cavalrymen. These guys were literally giant tin cans with pointy poles and some were even able to break through solid pike formations.
I'm very interested which sources you can recommend about this subject. I've never read something explicitly saying what you teach me here.Aemilius Paulus,
Remember that against the combination of stirrup, saddle, destrier lance and armored dude trained since childbirth little can stand. In this aspect Medieval is realistic since you better leave at least some sort of spearman to brace against the charge and then you will need at least pikes to fight Gendarmes and other cavalrymen. These guys were literally giant tin cans with pointy poles and some were even able to break through solid pike formations.
THX
Ziegenpeter,
If you want an example of French Cavalry prevailing over pikes, see the Battles of Marignano and Ravenna. Gendarmes, like the Winged Hussaria, could sometimes prevail over solid pike formations in a charge, although it was never the rule, only a possiblity.
Remember that the Gendarme and Heavy Cavalry of the period were far heavier than any Ancient Cavalry, so don't take the viewpoint of EB on the issue.
If you want an example of French Cavalry prevailing over pikes, see the Battles of Marignano and Ravenna. Gendarmes, like the Winged Hussaria, could sometimes prevail over solid pike formations in a charge, although it was never the rule, only a possiblity.
Remember that the Gendarme and Heavy Cavalry of the period were far heavier than any Ancient Cavalry, so don't take the viewpoint of EB on the issue.
What about the historical precedent of Alexander's battles? He could just charge in with his hetairoi and butcher the infantry.
Didn't some of the Persian Indian cavalry kill about 60 of them and escape after they looted the Macedonian camp?
Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon:
Ziegenpeter,
If you want an example of French Cavalry prevailing over pikes, see the Battles of Marignano and Ravenna. Gendarmes, like the Winged Hussaria, could sometimes prevail over solid pike formations in a charge, although it was never the rule, only a possiblity.
Remember that the Gendarme and Heavy Cavalry of the period were far heavier than any Ancient Cavalry, so don't take the viewpoint of EB on the issue.
I never saw the Hussars as heavy in terms of weight of their gear. I figured it was more of their role of being used in a balls to the wall charge. About the pikemen they charged, anything known about them? Like, were they green, and that fact was taken advantage of?Ziegenpeter,
If you want an example of French Cavalry prevailing over pikes, see the Battles of Marignano and Ravenna. Gendarmes, like the Winged Hussaria, could sometimes prevail over solid pike formations in a charge, although it was never the rule, only a possiblity.
Remember that the Gendarme and Heavy Cavalry of the period were far heavier than any Ancient Cavalry, so don't take the viewpoint of EB on the issue.
Well I've read some statements that the lance used by the Winged Hussars, which were of elite quality, sometimes managed to be longer than the pikes used by the Swedes in their numerous wars with Poland. Kirkholm would be a classical example of Polish cavalry steamrolling infantry of green, dubious quality at best. So much that Gustavus always sought to use artillery and fight in rough terrain and from prepared positions to avoid giving the enemy a headstart.
And I thought the kontos was the longest lance out there. That blows them out of the water.
I'm not sure if the lance was the only factor. Mind you that most of the Swedish infantry carried muskets, which was a direct result of the lack of enforcement of army regulations and standardisation amidst Swedish conscripts. This means unprotected musketeers had a very inflated role in early Swedish armies. In Kirkholm they not only lacked pike support, as I am informed, but also were very predictably unlucky when the Swedish cavalry attempted a Caracole at Polish horse and were routed in minutes of combat. Later pistol armed Swedish cavalry abandoned the caracolle and used more shock oriented formations to greater effect.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO