What's in thy name?

[Gilrandir]

Well, it's not precisely historical. But I'm glad that I have undertaken it, because I can see some historical inaccuracies in MTW. Of course, I'm the last person to criticize the game developers, but I'm sure that being aware of some facts I mentioned in the List they (the developers) could have been more historically accurate.
First of all, men-at-arms. As I know now they all were trained for mounted warfare and were "equipped" with a horse. So naming an infantry unit "men-at-arms" is not relevant. If it depended on me, I would call them swordsmen (feudal or chivalric if any distinction is neccessary). Instead, I would call men-at-arms the unit which is now feudal knights. Chivalric knights I would simplify into knights (the reasons are explained in the List). Thus, I would like to have Feudal Swordsmen and Chivalric Swordsmen as two chronologically consecutive units wielding swords, and Men-at-Arms and Knights (plus Gothic Knights if need be) as two chronologically consecutive cavalry units.
Secondly, the buildings needed for training some units. As I have found out being a ghazi presupposes a lot of martial training but no religious background. Thus, I would not make the mosque a building neccessary for training Ghazi infantry. Instead, I would make it (the mosque) neccessary for training futuwwas and hashishin.
Yet, all those ideas are just might-have-beens, so we have to take (and play) MTW as it is.