Historical Data for Bi??

**Mongoose** · 07-15-2005, 19:03

Originally Posted by player1

And I would like a source that they did not carried clubs for self-defense.

No, they did not use clubs. They stayed far away from the action...their job was to pray, not to fight. I am going to take Steppe Merc's advice...

Any way, this is my last post on this subject. Anything further could result in warnings...

Originally Posted by Zizka

It actually makes more sense to have a Christian Priest retinue rather than another unit. What else do you have the Retinue system other than to cover circumstances such as this? In Rome we had the various Priestly retinues, so why change it? the only possible reason i could think of would be if you wanted to add a small retinue to a non family member lead army.

Well said

**Colovion** · 07-15-2005, 19:44

We all know that priests of the Dark and Middle ages believed that it was unGodly to shed another human's blood. And yes, some interpreted it literally enough to indicate that if they used a club or mace they weren't 'technically" shedding another human's blood per-say. Just like all the opther fantasy units we've seen - they were never used in numbers, but what they are depicting was a reality on a much smaller and much less regulated occurance. But just like the Screaming Women and Head Hurlers - I won't build them and I turn my nose to their ahistoricalness.

**player1** · 07-15-2005, 21:02

Originally Posted by Colovion

We all know that priests of the Dark and Middle ages believed that it was unGodly to shed another human's blood. And yes, some interpreted it literally enough to indicate that if they used a club or mace they weren't 'technically" shedding another human's blood per-say.

Good, so I was not wrong.

There is a historic reason, why priest, if in need to be armed, would be armed more probably with club, then with dagger.

**King of Atlantis** · 07-15-2005, 21:05

The thing is they wouldnt be armed, they would just carry a huge cross or something.

**Colovion** · 07-15-2005, 21:06

Originally Posted by player1

Good, so I was not wrong.

There is a historic reason, why priest, if in need to be armed, would be armed more probably with club, then with dagger.

Yes. And seeing how Total War's play style is where you statically build a unit of soldiers and send them against the enemy - you can understand how ridiculous it would be for a leader to gather a large number of priests together and send them en masse into the battlefield.

It's the static way it's portrayed in Total War which makes it ridiculous.

**player1** · 07-15-2005, 21:11

Well, they are just that way for consistance sake.
Since all other morale boosting units function as that (like druids).

It also gives some tactical possibilities, like keeping them at the rear of your central line, and freeing up general for flanking.

**IceTorque** · 07-15-2005, 21:34

My 2 cents on the priest unit.

Which is the stronger army ?
a. One combat unit + one priest unit.
b. Two combat units.

Which just about sums up why the AI has such a hard time putting up a
decent challenge.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

The Druid unit stands behind the battle line singing while i waste em with arrows me thinks they would do much better to join in the melee. and i modded them to unit size 60. and if more than one Druid unit per AI
army, only one Druid unit sings the rest fight.
So if more than one priest unit in AI army do they all sing ?

I believe that the younger mainstream players would enjoy the game more
if it were more of a challenge.
Which is exactly what the hardcore minority want too.