Historical Data for Bi??

**SMZ** · 07-15-2005, 17:16

Hardly so.

Obviously some things in R:TW were contrived, however it does not make sense to lump the entire game and it's subsequent expansion under the heading of fantastical nonsense. A case by case decision would be reasonable. In the present case we have a few ideas worth debate:

A religious unit attending the battle:
This seems completely reasonable. There has seldom been a war fought in which the soldiers did not look for some kind of spiritual blessing.

The unit carrying a club:
This seems somewhat a matter of judgement, but I hardly think it represents a disregard for history. It's simple common sense that a man who is going to be in a dangerous situation will want to protect himself. Of the available choices I think a small dagger or cudgel serves this purpose best. Personally I would like to see the club that is shown shrunken somewhat but that's a minor concept.

If there's any other issue raised by the current appearance of the unit, I am unaware of it. However based on those two simple concerns it seems the unit is well within the parameters created by history. If anyone claims otherwise, the burden of proof is upon them.

Do you seriously want CA to spend time assuring you of the accuracy of their every unit, building, game mechanic, etc... instead of actually designing said game!?

EDIT: on the contrary master of puppets - the cudgel and the dagger were long the favored weapons of holy men, they are easy to use and easily maintained and can be carried about with a person rather easily as well

**screwtype** · 07-17-2005, 05:46

Originally Posted by SMZ

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** · 07-17-2005, 06:14

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?

**Colovion** · 07-17-2005, 20:30

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 07-17-2005, 21:27

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

**gardibolt** · 07-18-2005, 18:37

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** · 07-18-2005, 18:38

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

**Colovion** · 07-18-2005, 19:09

Originally Posted by 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

Those are soldiers who devote their actions (or justify them) by their religion. Priests aren't a military order, they are devout civilians. Knights Templar? Fighters first, devout second. Priests? Civilians; non-combatants - only to fight in desperation.

**King of Atlantis** · 07-18-2005, 21:07

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

many popes lead armies, the Pope was the most powereful man in europe for a long time, of course he would have an army

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

Knights Templar can never be considered preist..

Also, from a description of the Bayeux Tapestry:

"Famously the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Norman conquest of England shows Bishop Odo, bishop of Bayeux, with a club in his hand lashing out against the enemy. The Bishop's rationale for his actions was that it wasn't a sharpened weapon"

http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/cupboard/fi...says/essay2.htm

Your right as i have said through this whole debate there was exeptions ot the rule and im sure you can find some other priest that fought, but not as a standard.