New unit at the .COM - Trebizond Archer

[Zatoichi]

http://www.totalwar.com/community/medieval2.htm

Very nice again - I'd say no strings attached, but I'd be lying - he has one.

It's good to see the purple of Byzantine rise up once more!

[Furious Mental]

I wonder if you'll have to control the regions which made up Trebizond to recruit them

[econ21]

I wonder if you'll have to control the regions which made up Trebizond to recruit them

My interpretation of what CA said about this is that they region specific units that are part of a faction's core troops will be trainable anywhere. Since this unit was a core unit in MTW, I suspect the answer to your question is "no" for the Byzantines.

However, if the unit can also be a mercenary for other factions, then it probably would only be available to hire in the relevant region. But Trebizonds weren't mercs in MTW, so I doubt they are in M2TW.

[Orda Khan]

I am not knocking the units but I wish CA had worked on their rendition of the bows, they could be so much better

......Orda

[Leet Eriksson]

ARGH.

The return of the byzantine wonder troops.

These guys were not only archers but light infantry, they could beat light cavalry easy cheese as well (and horse archers).

[Kraxis]

Yeah, they were my fav archers in the game... Cheap, strong, easy to get and having a bonus in Treb was really nice. They were the bane of horse archers, beating the crap out of them in both ranged and melee for half the money.

This unit is almost the same in looks. He should just have a kneelength cloak and a more pointed helmet and that would be it. And didn't he have some sort of scimitar?

Anyway... 'compund bow'?
Didn't know they had modern bows back then... I thoguht they were using composite bows.

[Martok]

ARGH.

The return of the byzantine wonder troops.

These guys were not only archers but light infantry, they could beat light cavalry easy cheese as well (and horse archers).

They can beat light cavalry? Damn, I didn't know that; I've never sent Trebs into melee combat against anything stronger than spearmen. Guess I'll have to start another Byzantine game and find out for myself....

[Mooks]

I dont see the trezibond. Although I have seen that page many times before.

[Orda Khan]

Anyway... 'compund bow'?
Didn't know they had modern bows back then... I thoguht they were using composite bows.

I did not read the unit description. Do we assume they also have telescopic sights and release aids and a quiver full of X 10 carbons?

.........Orda

[kataphraktoi]

ICBM's

Intercontinental Composite Bow Missiles

[Kraxis]

ICBM's

Intercontinental Composite Bow Missiles

[A.Saturnus]

Anyway... 'compund bow'?
Didn't know they had modern bows back then... I thoguht they were using composite bows.

Well, compound and composite bows are often confused with each other.

[Kraxis]

Well, compound and composite bows are often confused with each other.

Exactly... All the more reason to get it clear.

[anti_strunt]

"Why waste time doing some actual research about Byzantine armies when we can just move over the good ol' fantasy troops of MTW1?"

[econ21]

"Why waste time doing some actual research about Byzantine armies when we can just move over the good ol' fantasy troops of MTW1?"

Are you just referring to the confusion over the bow name or do you have a problem with the unit?

I wouldn't want to see a wholesale porting of MTW1 units over to M2TW, but this particular one seems ok. The Byzantines certainly had a lot of foot archers and this one/the MTW one are equipped just like an illustration I saw in an Osprey book. (OK, not a highbrow source, but not "fantasy" either).

[anti_strunt]

Are you just referring to the confusion over the bow name or do you have a problem with the unit?

I wouldn't want to see a wholesale porting of MTW1 units over to M2TW, but this particular one seems ok. The Byzantines certainly had a lot of foot archers and this one/the MTW one are equipped just like an illustration I saw in an Osprey book. (OK, not a highbrow source, but not "fantasy" either).

Because having a "Trebizond Archer" (which should probably be "Trapezuntine...") as the standard archer unit for the Byz. implies that the region was somehow responsible for supplying the whole empire with archers, which is nonsense. The splinter "empire" of Trebizond certainly developed had some good foot archers, but that was because most of those archers were Georgians...
So, basically I'm annoyed that CA named one of the core units of the Byzantine empire after the caption of an Osprey illustration or whatever...

[econ21]

Because having a "Trebizond Archer" (which should probably be "Trapezuntine...") as the standard archer unit for the Byz. implies that the region was somehow responsible for supplying the whole empire with archers, which is nonsense. ...So, basically I'm annoyed that CA named one of the core units of the Byzantine empire after the caption of an Osprey illustration or whatever...

Fair enough, I take the point. IIRC, the Osprey illustration did not name it a Trebizond archer. Presumably that's CAs attempt to add some local colour. But if the unit is historically equipped and performs its historical function reasonably well, I'm fairly relaxed about what CA call it - a rose by any other name...

I'd be more worried if we see a return of sword armed Byzantine infantry (also based on another Osprey illustration). My limited knowledge is that the Byzantine heavy infantry in that period should have large shields and long spears to deter cavalry. Not fight like legionnaires with their swords as anti-infantry meat grinders.

I also doubt MTW style kataphracts played a big role during the MTW timeline - I believe mercenary Frankish knights filled that niche.

[anti_strunt]

Well, they could have called them "Peltastai", that's what Anna Komnene called them... but I digress. Fighting against the inclusion of swordmen and cataphracts is certainly a much more important struggle. ;)

[Watchman]

You know, I'm pretty sure the composite bows used in the region at the time were pretty much by definition of the recurve type... The one the model's holding looks like those ancient Egyptian ones or something.

As for the Katas, I'm under the impression the main reason the Byzantines didn't use them much after Manzikert and the following severe territorial reductions was blunt finances - the buggers were so expensive to equip and maintain they were essentially confined to small bodyguard units, and cheaper armoured cavalry (such as "Frankish" mercs) took over their shock duty in armies.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't have happily deployed those tanks en masse if they'd been able to. Which would sort of be the point as far as the game goes, IMHO - if the Byzzies can do better than they did historically, there should be no reason why they shouldn't be able to recruit those fellows.

That sword-toting line infantry always bugged the living daylights out of me too, though. I dearly hope those get done right this time around.

[econ21]

As for the Katas, I'm under the impression the main reason the Byzantines didn't use them much after Manzikert and the following severe territorial reductions was blunt finances - the buggers were so expensive to equip and maintain they were essentially confined to small bodyguard units, and cheaper armoured cavalry (such as "Frankish" mercs) took over their shock duty in armies.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't have happily deployed those tanks en masse if they'd been able to. Which would sort of be the point as far as the game goes, IMHO - if the Byzzies can do better than they did historically, there should be no reason why they shouldn't be able to recruit those fellows.

Well maybe. But it just seems strange to give the early Byzantines an edge due to their large bodyguards of katas, when in reality it was heavy cavalry that was the strength of the Catholics. (I suspect Norman type knights could outfight the katas).

Similarly, it always annoyed me that the early Muslim armies could have serried ranks of chain armoured footsoldiers (Saracen infantry) when in reality that was a strength of the Crusaders.

I am not too bothered about individual units, but I would like to see armies fight in a historical manner. RTW managed this rather better, with the Roman, phalanx, horse archer and barbarian type armies being distinct in roughly historical ways.

[Watchman]

MTW was kind of buggered when it came to the heavy cavalry anyway, particularly the Western chivalry. And its availability. I mean, I always thought the early kind were readily available (if not in great numbers owing to financial realities) already in late 1000s and not something like fifty years later...

Anyway, I understand Muslim heavy cavalry could actually go head on with knight without being excessively disadvantaged when necessary (once they learned about the peculiarities of the lance charge, anyway), and the Katas were at least equally well equipped and trained. Plus if the way Alexios Komnenos reputedly survived that one defeat against the Normans is real, top-of-the-line Kata harness was actually pretty damn near lance-proof...

[econ21]

MTW was kind of buggered when it came to the heavy cavalry anyway...

Yes, that's one area where I expect M2TW to improve on MTW. I found heavy cavalry in MTW to be a damp squib - an optional extra, rather than a central combat arm. It needs some of the elan exhibited by RTW cavalry.

[Watchman]

It needs to be made available in the first place. I tended to find myself filling the MTW heavy cav niche mainly with Royal Bodyguards for the simple reason their building preqs didn't take bloody forever to meet...

Mounted Sergs and Hobilars just weren't the same, you know ?

[anti_strunt]

As for the Katas, I'm under the impression the main reason the Byzantines didn't use them much after Manzikert and the following severe territorial reductions was blunt finances - the buggers were so expensive to equip and maintain they were essentially confined to small bodyguard units, and cheaper armoured cavalry (such as "Frankish" mercs) took over their shock duty in armies.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't have happily deployed those tanks en masse if they'd been able to. Which would sort of be the point as far as the game goes, IMHO - if the Byzzies can do better than they did historically, there should be no reason why they shouldn't be able to recruit those fellows.

Cataphracts never formed a major part of Byzantine armies after the 6th century; their cavalry was all about horse archers and light lancers and extraordinary tactical mobility and flexibility. By the 11th century, they were however out of date, and "modern" heavy cavalry tacitcs (you know, charging) were imported along with "Franish" mercenaries.
And even the Cataphracts as they were used in the 8th century were deployed in small units of highly specialised troops, they were certainly not the centrepiece of the army. Fielding an army of cataphracts is about as historicly sensible as fielding an army of naphta throwers.

MTW was kind of buggered when it came to the heavy cavalry anyway, particularly the Western chivalry. And its availability. I mean, I always thought the early kind were readily available (if not in great numbers owing to financial realities) already in late 1000s and not something like fifty years later...

They were available centuries earlier, but the MTW engine was utter worthless for representing feudal armies (and thus pretty screwed for providing a proper representation of the middle ages in the first place...), so they had to balance the knights somehow...

Anyway, I understand Muslim heavy cavalry could actually go head on with knight without being excessively disadvantaged when necessary (once they learned about the peculiarities of the lance charge, anyway), and the Katas were at least equally well equipped and trained. Plus if the way Alexios Komnenos reputedly survived that one defeat against the Normans is real, top-of-the-line Kata harness was actually pretty damn near lance-proof...

The Muslims never did learn "the peculiarities of the lance charge". That's why the Ottomans were always so eager to employ Serbian knights.
And I don't know what the Emperor's personal equipment has to do with standard cataphract equipment? They (in the 10th century, when they were still used) didn't even use lances as their primary weapon...

[Watchman]

A long kontos spear, used two-handed, was pretty much the norm for armoured shock cavalry in the Middle East for a long, long time. Often accompanied by a shield strapped to the left arm. It didn't give quite the same impact power as the couched lance, but on the other hand remained way more useful in the ensuing melee and eventually actually long outlived the one-handed couched-lance technique; light cavalry lancers were still employing a variation in the mid-1800s.

Such long two-handed spears were actually something of an international norm across Eurasia - even the Japanese started using them eventually.

'Course, a shorter one-handed spear worked right well too and was even more common.

The Muslims learned the tactical peculiarities of the "Frankish" massed couched-lance charge rather quickly, the same way the "Franks" living in the Outrémer were pretty quick to adapt to the peculiarities of Muslim battlefield tactics. The Byzantines were obviously no dumber. The thing was that neither adopted the technique, generally preferring a less all-out and more coordinated approach to shock cavalry tactics; the sheer shock power of the "Frankish" technique was however well respected, and whenever possible considerable effort went into eliminating it through the use of terrain, archery, light cavalry screens and whatever. Often, however, it was found necessary to simple meet it head on with friendly heavy cavalry; after they'd gotten over their initial surprise the Easterners proved quite capable of standing up to it if needed, although they preferred to avoid doing it if possible.

That's why the Ottomans were always so eager to employ Serbian knights.

The Ottomans were always eager to employ Serbian knights because those were, you know, in Serbia and thus readily available for combat duty on that theatre, unlike for example the elite kapikulu sipahi heavy cavalry that went with the Sultan and hence normally resided in the capital, or the Anatolian troops who had to be called up from Anatolia. Not that they were ever adverse to employing local troops anyway, especially on far-flung fronts. Remember that campaigning across the Balkans stretched even the formidable Ottoman organizational and logistical chutzpah to its limits - Vienna is actually closer to Paris than Istanbul (the main assembly and supply area of the Ottoman army), and that's not yet counting the difficult terrain of the Balkans along the way...

And I don't know what the Emperor's personal equipment has to do with standard cataphract equipment?

A lot, since he (and one would assume his bodyguard) wore a harness essentially identical to the standard cata equipement; full mail over which went the rather formidable klibanion (an improved Byzantine variation of the standard lamellar corselet), plus all the usual limb defenses and padding underneath.

That's more or less the standard equipement of elite armoured cavalry in most of Eurasia since Antiquity anyway, actually. Throw in horse bard. Muslim heavy elites employed similar schemes, and for example the Mongol elite heavies differed mainly in lacking the mail hauberk underneath and relying mainly on lamellar (often of leather; nomads tended to have trouble getting their mitts one enough iron).

[anti_strunt]

A long kontos spear, used two-handed, was pretty much the norm for armoured shock cavalry in the Middle East for a long, long time. Often accompanied by a shield strapped to the left arm. It didn't give quite the same impact power as the couched lance, but on the other hand remained way more useful in the ensuing melee and eventually actually long outlived the one-handed couched-lance technique; light cavalry lancers were still employing a variation in the mid-1800s.

Such long two-handed spears were actually something of an international norm across Eurasia - even the Japanese started using them eventually.

'Course, a shorter one-handed spear worked right well too and was even more common.

All true enough I suppose, although with little bearing on the cataphracts, since the two-handed kontos had fallen out of use centuries before the start of MTW2 in favor of the one-handed kontarion, which was light enough to be thrown. The page you kindly linked to shows it quite well:
http://www.levantia.com.au/military/kataphraktos.html
The use of a two-handed lance in combination with that kite-shield (quite probably adopted from the Franks) would've been rather impractical.

Plus if the way Alexios Komnenos reputedly survived that one defeat against the Normans is real, top-of-the-line Kata harness was actually pretty damn near lance-proof...

If you are talking about the following lines of the Alexiad:

Amicetas missed the Emperor because his horse swerved a little; the second man's spear the Emperor thrust aside with his sword and then bracing his arm, struck him on the collarbone and severed his arm from his body. Then the third aimed straight at his face, but Alexius being of firm and steadfast mind was not wholly dismayed, but with his quick wit grasped in the flash of an instant the thing to do, and when he saw the blow coming, threw himself backwards on to his horse's tail. Thus the point of the spear only grazed the skin of his face a little and then, hitting against the rim of the helmet, tore the strap under the chin which held it on and knocked it to the ground. After this the Frank rode past the man he thought he had hurled from his horse, but the latter quickly pulled himself up again in his saddle and sat there calmly without having lost a single weapon.

I don't know how you can draw any conclusion about the impervious nature of his armour, since he was not actually struck!

[Moved stuff up here]

A lot, since he (and one would assume his bodyguard) wore a harness essentially identical to the standard cata equipement; full mail over which went the rather formidable klibanion (an improved Byzantine variation of the standard lamellar corselet), plus all the usual limb defenses and padding underneath.

That's more or less the standard equipement of elite armoured cavalry in most of Eurasia since Antiquity anyway, actually. Throw in horse bard. Muslim heavy elites employed similar schemes, and for example the Mongol elite heavies differed mainly in lacking the mail hauberk underneath and relying mainly on lamellar (often of leather; nomads tended to have trouble getting their mitts one enough iron).

Actually, if I remember correctly, the kataphractoi usually rode horses protected by leather and felt, rather than full metal bards like their 5th century predecessors. Regardless, I'm quite sure that the armour was of excellent quality. However, how does it compare with Frankish mail? Let's hear what Anna has to say about it:

...and the order of battle in which they were to arrange their men for the fight. Most of them were to make an attack on horseback and then ride back again, and to do this repeatedly and use their bows and arrows; the soldiers carrying spears were to advance at slow march behind them, so that if by chance the archers were forced back too far, these soldiers could receive them and also strike at any Franks that came to blows with them. He furnished them abundantly with arrows and exhorted them not to use them sparingly, but to shoot at the horses rather than at the Franks. For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their breastplates and coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish weapon of defence is this coat of mail, ring plaited into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer's skin unhurt. An additional weapon of defence is a shield which is not round, but a long shield, very broad at the top and running out to a point, hollowed out slightly inside, but externally smooth and gleaming with a brilliant boss of molten brass. Consequently any arrow, be it Scythian or Persian, or even discharged by the arms of a giant, would glint off such a shield and hark back to the sender. For this reason, as he was cognizant both of Frankish armour and our archery, the Emperor advised our men to attack the horses chiefly and 'wing' them with their arrows so that when the Franks had dismounted, they [342] could easily be captured. For a Frank on horseback is invincible, and would even make a hole in the walls of Babylon, but directly he gets off his horse, anyone who likes can make sport of him.

So, as formidable as top-of-the-line Byzantine armour might have been, the Franks were hardly very far behind; at least if the Emperor is to be believed... Very interesting link, anyway, I have the greatest respect for the knowledge of reenactors and others involved in equipmental study, but they rarely give you a complete picture; it's rather like trying to analyse the German army of WW2 by replicating a Karabiner 98k; there is a multitude of different historical and archaeological sources to consider. Nevertheless, they are, of course, of supreme usefulness when deciding matters of equipment.

The Muslims learned the tactical peculiarities of the "Frankish" massed couched-lance charge rather quickly, the same way the "Franks" living in the Outrémer were pretty quick to adapt to the peculiarities of Muslim battlefield tactics. The Byzantines were obviously no dumber. The thing was that neither adopted the technique, generally preferring a less all-out and more coordinated approach to shock cavalry tactics; the sheer shock power of the "Frankish" technique was however well respected, and whenever possible considerable effort went into eliminating it through the use of terrain, archery, light cavalry screens and whatever. Often, however, it was found necessary to simple meet it head on with friendly heavy cavalry; after they'd gotten over their initial surprise the Easterners proved quite capable of standing up to it if needed, although they preferred to avoid doing it if possible.

That "less all-out" of course made all the difference, as impetuousity works to your advantage in a head-on charge (unless you are fighting against horse archers or similar light enemy, of course); if two units of cavalry are equal in everything else, then the unit with the most ferocity and drive will win. Not going "all out" is not conductive to this, which is why muslim cavalry lacked the penetrative power of western knights, and probably why Manuel I reformed his native cavalry (the majority of which had never been heavy, charging cataphracts) to charge in the Frankish fashion.

Of course, this on the other hand gave muslim cavalry the benefit of much greater tactical mobility; and most crusader defeats (such at Hattin) were the result of the muslims using their mobility and greater numbers to good effect. But when crusading knights actually did come to grips with their foes on somewhat equal terms, they usually they usually prevailed; such as at Montgisard or Arsuf, where in both battles they broke through Saladin's personal mameluke bodyguard, which would presumably be the best cavalry in his army, and thus somewhat indicative of muslim heavy cavalry in general. Even at La Forbie (1244) the crusaders were forcing back Baibar's elite mamluks when they were surrounded and crushed by the Khwarizimians...

The Ottomans were always eager to employ Serbian knights because those were, you know, in Serbia and thus readily available for combat duty on that theatre, unlike for example the elite kapikulu sipahi heavy cavalry that went with the Sultan and hence normally resided in the capital, or the Anatolian troops who had to be called up from Anatolia. Not that they were ever adverse to employing local troops anyway, especially on far-flung fronts. Remember that campaigning across the Balkans stretched even the formidable Ottoman organizational and logistical chutzpah to its limits - Vienna is actually closer to Paris than Istanbul (the main assembly and supply area of the Ottoman army), and that's not yet counting the difficult terrain of the Balkans along the way...

Yet they still thought it worthwhile to bring some 20.000 serbs (mostly heavy cavalry) along to fight Timur at Ankara in the middle of Anatolia? Where they were they only ones to break through the Timurid lines, including smashing his elite cavalry some three times and only leaving the field after the rest of the Ottoman army had broken?

[Ibn Munqidh]

Of course, this on the other hand gave muslim cavalry the benefit of much greater tactical mobility; and most crusader defeats (such at Hattin) were the result of the muslims using their mobility and greater numbers to good effect. But when crusading knights actually did come to grips with their foes on somewhat equal terms, they usually they usually prevailed; such as at Montgisard or Arsuf, where in both battles they broke through Saladin's personal mameluke bodyguard, which would presumably be the best cavalry in his army, and thus somewhat indicative of muslim heavy cavalry in general. Even at La Forbie (1244) the crusaders were forcing back Baibar's elite mamluks when they were surrounded and crushed by the Khwarizimians...

If you look at events closer, you will find that the mamluks butchered the templars, at Mansurah. They were heavily outnumbered and attacked by Louis IX, at mansurah, during the seventh crusade.

The mamluks were the elite egypt had to offer at that time, and they performed as so. Saying that the foes of crusading knights were no match is a common mistake, repeated in many, many history books. The golden horde, while marching through eastern europe, met the templar, and the tuetonic knights twice, at Leignitz and Mohi, the horde was way outnumbered, yet they butchered both templars and teutons. The mongol war machine was stopped decisively at ain jalut, by the mamluks, who employed tactics very similar to european knights and mongol horsemen. Mass charges by heavy cavalry, and skirmishing light cavalry, the best of both worlds.

Conclusion, both warriors, european knights, and mid-easten knights (fursan), were both equal in martial skills. Saying that one was usually better than the other is plain wrong, and history proves it.

[Kraxis]

I wouldn't use Masurah as a template. It was a victory of defenders in citystreets against a mounted enemy that could hardly move about. Give us a true head on fight where all that mattered was martial skill.
I will grant you that Masurah saw a victory for the more intelligent side (Robert of Artois ignored his orders, while Baibar did more than asked of him), but it was not a victory of matial skills, such as the many that can be numbered in favour of the Crusaders. Is it not that which we are looking at?

The Mongols at Ain Julut were hardly the Mongols as we know them from Mohi, Leignitz or Kalka River. Mostly they were Turks pressed in Mongol service while the main body of the Mongols were off fighting a civil war. You can't equate those battles.

[Ibn Munqidh]

I wouldn't use Masurah as a template. It was a victory of defenders in citystreets against a mounted enemy that could hardly move about. Give us a true head on fight where all that mattered was martial skill.
I will grant you that Masurah saw a victory for the more intelligent side (Robert of Artois ignored his orders, while Baibar did more than asked of him), but it was not a victory of matial skills, such as the many that can be numbered in favour of the Crusaders. Is it not that which we are looking at?

The Mongols at Ain Julut were hardly the Mongols as we know them from Mohi, Leignitz or Kalka River. Mostly they were Turks pressed in Mongol service while the main body of the Mongols were off fighting a civil war. You can't equate those battles.

A fight where all that mattered was martial skill, was hattin, where Saladin was pushing up the hill through the crusader lines. They werent able to stop the saracens, although thirsty and demoralized, they still had the advantage of a better ground, and numbers. Also, you've got all the reconquest of the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by Baibars. The saracens were unstoppable, and retook every city from the crusaders.

The mongols at Ain Jalut were the same mongols who destroyed the hashashin fort at alamut, the same mongols who subdued western iran, the same mongols who defeated the 10,000 strong caliphal guard who rode out of baghdad to meet them, the same mongols who destroyed baghdad, the same mongols who defeated all the ayyubid principalities. The same mongols who defeated the knights hospitaller of Acre, and the same mongols who faced Qutuz and Baibars. Most of it had left to Kara Korum, but there was still a formidable, fully experienced force, which equalled the saracen force of egypt, where both numbered close to 20,000. They were defeated at Ain Jalut, then a year later at Homs, and never tried to challenge mamluk power in Syria again.

It is difficult for many to believe, since so much is written about the supposed Mongol invincibility, yet the Mamluks are hardly even known, except to historians and readers of Islamic history. but thre fact is that the Mamluks were an extremely powerful and tough, and immensely well-trained force. To put it simply, these were not the kind of guys you screwed around with, no matter who you were, something even the Mongols learned rather quickly.And they do deserve respect for their victories, against the Mongols, the Crusaders, and other enemies.

The mamluks were way better organised and disciplined than any mongols, due to their training on the arts of 'furusiya', an almost 11 year training course all on horse-archery, horseback riding, and mounted martial skills, which made them the finest horsemen of their time.

[Lochar]

I dont see the trezibond. Although I have seen that page many times before.

Click the 3d unit highlight and retreat or advance to see it.

I am curious if they will actually use that small shield when applied as a melee unit when their arrows are out.