Historical Data for Bi??

[SMZ]

I just posted three.

*sigh*

[Horatius]

Since this is a thread about Catholic Priests did you guys know that a few days ago an adoption agency recieving federal funds is banning Catholics from adopting kids?

It seems like typical bigotry to me, I mean what do they have against catholics adopting kids?

[Viking]

@KoA

If you know that those priest did not carry clubs then you know something about those priests; and what is that? Can you provide me a source?

[King of Atlantis]

I have never seen a source were priest standadrly carried weapons nor do I ever expect to see one, though i might change my opinion if someone could provide a link showing they did carry weapons. If they did then this should be fairly easy to find.

[player1]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/newre...ote=1&p=847817

Makes me wonder how replying on this thread helps?

[player1]

I have never seen a source were priest standadrly carried weapons nor do I ever expect to see one, though i might change my opinion if someone could provide a link showing they did carry weapons. If they did then this should be fairly easy to find.

Of course not, normal priests are in temples and don't need weapons.

But military priests, as some of the links show did.

I never see any reference that priests that accompanied armies were not armed. That rules out common sense (not other way around), so needs a proof.

[Viking]

I have never seen a source were priest standadrly carried weapons nor do I ever expect to see one, though i might change my opinion if someone could provide a link showing they did carry weapons. If they did then this should be fairly easy to find.

I would like to see how much information you went through about roman priests in the 300th century before you made that conclusion(battlepriests are unreal).

[King of Atlantis]

Some links showed the execptions, but never the standard.

As ive sad you can judge history on the obvious, cause many people did stuff that is the farthest from the obvious.

[player1]

Some links showed the execptions, but never the standard.

As ive sad you can judge history on the obvious, cause many people did stuff that is the farthest from the obvious.

On the other hand, you can't judge history on not obvious, just because there are no references, especialy if you talk about broad things, not exeptions (obvious thing happen more often then not obvious).

[King of Atlantis]

im judging history on history. Nobody can provide a link showing priest in battle usually carried weapons. Why cause most likely a source like this doesnt exist and that would mean it isnt real.

[player1]

Ok, I give up...
We agree to disagree.

[Colovion]

I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken. In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.

[King of Atlantis]

Thank you

[BobTheTerrible]

R:TW never claimed to be a historically accurate game. BI isn't claiming to be a historically accurate expansion pack. Nobody is forcing you to buy the game. So I don't see what the big deal is.

If R:TW claimed to be a historically accurate game, and was released as it is, I can see a problem. Likewise, if BI was marketed as a historical accurate game and was released with major flaws in historical accuracy, I can likewise see a problem. The fact is that none of you have to buy the game if you don't want to. If the game looks too ahistorical and that really bothers you, then you don't have to buy it.

Arguing about the historical accuracy of Catholic Priests in armies is not going to accomplish anything except for raising tempers and post counts.

[King of Atlantis]

R:TW never claimed to be a historically accurate game. BI isn't claiming to be a historically accurate expansion pack. Nobody is forcing you to buy the game. So I don't see what the big deal is.

Actually the whole concept of RTW makes itsself claim to be accurate. How do you make a game about the waging war in the Roman time period and then make it total fantasy

If R:TW claimed to be a historically accurate game, and was released as it is, I can see a problem. Likewise, if BI was marketed as a historical accurate game and was released with major flaws in historical accuracy, I can likewise see a problem. The fact is that none of you have to buy the game if you don't want to. If the game looks too ahistorical and that really bothers you, then you don't have to buy it.

Most of the people complaing were either big shogun or medieval fans and we are just sad to see rtw go this way

Arguing about the historical accuracy of Catholic Priests in armies is not going to accomplish anything except for raising tempers and post counts.

It makes you wonder why CA would choose this as the first units, cause you know they expected this kind of reaction.

and raisng post count is good

[Duke John]

The first impression is always the most important one. What does CA choose to show first? Chanting priests with big clubs. I think it couldn't be a more clearer statement. People who were dissatisfied with R:TW shouldn't buy BI, unless they are gambling for mods being developed for it.

I will certainly buy it simply because it allows the Lordz to introduce the square formation for NTW2.

[Viking]

The first impression is always the most important one. What does CA choose to show first? Chanting priests with big clubs. I think it couldn't be a more clearer statement.

Actually my first impresssion was that RTW would be more historically accurate with BI. Why?

Every faction in the game has a ‘signature’ unit that is unique to them, such as the axe-throwing Francisca Heerbann of the Franks to the ultra-heavy Sassanid Clibinarii cavalry.

Those were the first units CA revealed and they`re both historically accurate, so it came as a big surprise for me when they chose those doubtful priest for the first 3D unit profile.

I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken. In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.

Well, I guess CA chose either-or, and since RTW is a game for the masses they decided to make a own unit with women, in this case priests.

[IceTorque]

Realism mods are alright. I prefer to do minor changes like getting rid of the line formation and doing some minor unit rebalancing, changing starting armies, and things of that nature.

RTW is a perfectly good game without major modifications. A few tweaks makes it even better.

Yes a few tweaks does wonders.
I don't give a rats about the priest unit as i'll remove it immediately anyway.
I'm more interested in tweaks to the code than new units.

[SMZ]

I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken.

Whether that statment is true or not is merely a product of the religion the priest worships. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant christian priests in this time period. Because, quite honestly, you would appear to be quite ignorant if you tried to claim that priests have not been integrally tied to military matters (yes, including dealing death to the damned, not simply blessing the righteous) at many points in history in many cultures. I'll admit quite openly that I do not know whether Roman priests entered battle or not. With my cursory search the closest I found was a description of them as being "militant". Which of course could simply mean that they encouraged others to go fight from the safety of their chapels. However I do know that priests before their time went to war and that priests after their time did. Therefore I don't find it a great leap of faith to imagine that a priest and his underpriests accompanied soldiers in this time period either.

In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

You make the same error almost everyone complaining about them does. You say "they were never used in the context they will be in BI". Yet who controls how they are used? You do! If you send four groups of priests along with every army, that is your decision. If you train a couple groups of priests and attach them to certain armies specially made for them, once again this is your choice. You decide how to use them. So for them to be used in the wrong context requires you to use them wrongly.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.

How the AI acts is an entirely different issue, and one that will not be solved anytime in the near future.

[King of Atlantis]

Yet who controls how they are used? You do!

The AI contolls them too and thats why this matters.

[Colovion]

Whether that statment is true or not is merely a product of the religion the priest worships. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant christian priests in this time period. Because, quite honestly, you would appear to be quite ignorant if you tried to claim that priests have not been integrally tied to military matters (yes, including dealing death to the damned, not simply blessing the righteous) at many points in history in many cultures. I'll admit quite openly that I do not know whether Roman priests entered battle or not. With my cursory search the closest I found was a description of them as being "militant". Which of course could simply mean that they encouraged others to go fight from the safety of their chapels. However I do know that priests before their time went to war and that priests after their time did. Therefore I don't find it a great leap of faith to imagine that a priest and his underpriests accompanied soldiers in this time period either.

You make the same error almost everyone complaining about them does. You say "they were never used in the context they will be in BI". Yet who controls how they are used? You do! If you send four groups of priests along with every army, that is your decision. If you train a couple groups of priests and attach them to certain armies specially made for them, once again this is your choice. You decide how to use them. So for them to be used in the wrong context requires you to use them wrongly.

How the AI acts is an entirely different issue, and one that will not be solved anytime in the near future.

You must have missed my previous idea which was injected into this thread and, predictably, lost

Someone is deciding to invade a territory and wants something to bolster his troops. Plenty of strong arms are found but the foes ahead will be savage and some men may be prone to flee. Moral Units are nice dimension to add to the battlefield but we can probably all agree that the concept is both ridiculous and also believable. How so? It's the way it's implimented is all. A solid mass of civilians partaking in the fighting of an army was a practice which almost never happened, and was never planned for except for an endeavor such as a Crusade-type practice. It is true that it happened on smaller scales though.

It should really be, as others have said - merely a retinue unit of your General. Or alternatively - a Standard Bearer. I'll explain:


In the timeframe we're dealing with here there were times when a battle would ensue and, indeed, individuals whom had control over a fighting man's mentality may find their way onto a battlefield. Be they Religious Leaders, Women or particularly ruthless warriors, there were people who affected the bloodthirst of an army. Usually this was probably done through a General or otherwise leader leading their troops through a battle with chanting, war-songs, displays of might and words of encouragement to his fellows. Priests and Women would have a very limited ability to be even near a battle seeing as 95% of War is travelling to the battlefield and thus would either have to be with the army or have the enemy be invading their territory.

If you build any of these statically produced Moral-Increasing units they should deffinately increase/reduce moral. However - they should be attached to the army in some way such as being the one who carries the Standard of a given faction or with gather around a said standard. A Priest would hold the cross and be attached to some unit or other and perhaps if you build one Priest unit and you attach it to your army once you get into the battle they would disperse amongst your soldiers, increasing the moral of your entire army.

That would certainly help suspend my disbelief. Sure - you should have a feature which calls all Moral increasing men/women to a certain area of the battle which is in dire need of help for those fatigued sword-swingers.

Simple ideas like this - they would go a long way to smoothing the rough edges of such great ideas of Moral Units into a more realistic and believable fashion.

[Zenicetus]

The AI contolls them too and thats why this matters.

Bingo!

If I can ignore the unit, and build armies that work better for me without it, then that's fine.

But if it confers some kind of magical morale bonus.... and the AI is packing its armies with this unit... and that means I'm forced to use a "micromanagement time-sink unit" like this to counter the advantage... well, that's something else.

I was kind of hoping the new BI expansion would give me interesting new units for KILLING THE ENEMY in my 20 slots for an army.

[screwtype]

it seems the unit is well within the parameters created by history. If anyone claims otherwise, the burden of proof is upon them.

Er, no, sorry, you can't prove a negative. If you claim that such units existed then the burden of proof is on YOU to support that claim.

I've certainly never heard of bands of chanting priests accompanying Roman armies - or medieval ones for that matter. Probably some priests did accompany armies to bless them before a battle and so on but I've never read a single instance of what is being proposed here, of "battle priests" armed with clubs and chanting stuff to encourage fighters. Heck, Christian chanting itself only began in the Middle Ages, didn't it?

On the plus side, Intrepid tells us they are only a unit 12 strong, and with mainly a supporting role, I was envisaging them as a standard combat unit.

It would perhaps make a little more sense if you're going to have such a unit to have it made up of monks rather than priests. Priests do not normally work together in groups at all, they work alone. Monks on the other hand do live together in communities, and monasteries played an important role in the early Christian era.

[screwtype]

And one other thing I'd like to know - are all twelve of the priests in this unit going to be carrying that big cheesy looking crucifix? Or is it only the leader who gets to carry one?

[Horatius]

Bingo!

If I can ignore the unit, and build armies that work better for me without it, then that's fine.

But if it confers some kind of magical morale bonus.... and the AI is packing its armies with this unit... and that means I'm forced to use a "micromanagement time-sink unit" like this to counter the advantage... well, that's something else.

I was kind of hoping the new BI expansion would give me interesting new units for KILLING THE ENEMY in my 20 slots for an army.

It does, the priest is just one out of many many new units.

[HarunTaiwan]

Bad news for Catholics.

the new pope will excommunicate you if you buy and play BI.

[Colovion]

And one other thing I'd like to know - are all twelve of the priests in this unit going to be carrying that big cheesy looking crucifix? Or is it only the leader who gets to carry one?

I'm also interested in this. If the Priest units have only a half-dozen or so in their unit, not in ranks and only a single one of them carrying the cross then it wouldn't be as bad as I expected. I also expected them to be depicted like normal units, but I still think that they should just be the standard bearers for Christian factions - if they are attached to an army.

[King of Atlantis]

A know this is probably just another rant, but shouldnt their robes be black or brown, not redstriped.

[gardibolt]

Pope Julius II led troops into combat both before and after he became pope. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08562a.htm

No one seemed to think that was at all unusual. And of course, there are the military religious orders, of which there were over a hundred:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10304d.htm

[Mongoose]

Yes, he led the army. Did he fight? No.