New Unit at the com: Armoured Swordsmen

[anti_strunt]

anti strunt: The description on the unit did not say that they're knights. Its says that they're minor gentries who couldn't afford horses thus denying them of that status. They're most likely elite 'swordsmen' like the chivalric men-at-arm in MTW and not knights.

Knight or not isn't really the point (and it's a moot point anyway, since unknighted gentry would usually serve in the same units on the battlefield, in the rear ranks). The argument itself is also pretty odd; it's ridiculous to think that these minor gentry people could afford a full panoply of armour, including a coat-of-plates and a (visored?) great helm and not a horse; a horse was a very important status symbol, and gentlemen would be very much more likely to buy less, cheaper armour for themselves than fight as footmen if money was short.

And there is of course the fact that there shouldn't be any such thing as elite foot swordmen in the first place...

[Furious Mental]

Christ all mighty- so much argument over a unit description. The idea behind the unit is obviously to have a heavily armoured bloke with a sword. Personally I don't care if the text file says they are "dismounted knights" or "minor gentry" or "suits of armour animated by the magic of the wizard bloody Merlin".

[Edited by moderator for language]

[lancelot]

I read somewhere once that a mounted knight was the medieval equivalent of a millionaire...this game is not representing (visually) the 2 or 3 squires or whatever the knightly helper-monkeys were called, that accompany each knight.

So I would consider the difference between gentry and knight as a notable distinction and hardly a moot point. To discount this would suggest that every man in the gentry had servants and what-not.

But Im no expert...

And that sword did look cack.

[Duke John]

Sometimes I really wonder why artists lean so much on their artistical freedom. History is right there, they just need to go to a museum or open a book and appreciate the real thing. But no, they need to come up with their own designs, ignoring any reality check.

Worthless.

English men-at-arms had the problem of not having a large pool of good warhorses. They had to imported from other countries which of course raised the price. As a result the average quality of the warhorses of the English knights was less. If anything it would mean that mounted English Knights have worse stats.

[Watchman]

All true men-at-arms, whether they were officially knights or not (after Early Middle Ages that was mostly a social title anyway), had a warhorse. Plus aty least one horse they rode outside the battle, the warhorse being only mounted for actual combat (that's where the figure of speech about "mounting your high horse", or getting off it, apparently comes from AFAIK). Then there was also a baggage horse, and men-at-arms of the period the man's gear points to were axpected to furnish a full "lance" (a squire or other lighter trooper plus two archers or crossbowmen plus at least one more guy, all mounted even if only on riding horses).

Men-at-arms were all-purpose troops who could fight equally on foot and on horseback; as the Hundred Years' War progressed, the former became increasingly the norm.

The fellow in the preview, however, apparently isn't a true MAA. He seems to be a representative of the higher end of a type of heavy infantry that did *not* fight in close-order blocks with spears, although such "light" infantry (the term used with considerable reservation here) almost invariably carried spears or polearms as their initial weapons and tended to leave out some or all leg armour in favor of mobility and agility.

I'll admit his sword looks more than a bit weird, though. It doesn't resemble a gladius so much as some early Iron Age designs I've seen in illustrations. Moreover, his body armour's odd; its appereance suggests coat-of-plates, commonly worn over mail before proper plate developed, but AFAIK those normally wrapped around the body. The sort of support strap system he has would look quite at home on the types of Napoleonic cuirassieurs who didn't get bac plates, or a late-medieval or Renaissance pikeman (who often didn't bother with the weight and expense of a back plate).

[Zenicetus]

Hmmm.... the main thing I find reality-bending about this unit, is the idea that anyone could march very far on foot in that getup. Maybe we're supposed to imagine that they have squires that help carry the armor on foot, and the "gentry" straps it on, just before the battle?

[Watchman]

That was the normal practice for heavier troops. Leg defenses in particular, as well as any "strapped on" top layers, were gladly carried on the baggae horses and such until needed.

[Gaulgath]

Why is everyone already butchering the game? It hasn't even come out yet and your complaing that "OH NOES, TEH ARMOUR IS .000000001 OFF. TEH SUX!!!!" Does such a tiny little error matter in such a huge scale game? No. And you all forgot to cite your sources for this stupidity.

[A.Saturnus]

Knight or not isn't really the point (and it's a moot point anyway, since unknighted gentry would usually serve in the same units on the battlefield, in the rear ranks). The argument itself is also pretty odd; it's ridiculous to think that these minor gentry people could afford a full panoply of armour, including a coat-of-plates and a (visored?) great helm and not a horse; a horse was a very important status symbol, and gentlemen would be very much more likely to buy less, cheaper armour for themselves than fight as footmen if money was short.

And there is of course the fact that there shouldn't be any such thing as elite foot swordmen in the first place...

Chargers were very expensive and in the late medieval period many knights only rode to the battlefield but fought dismounted. In fact the scarceness of the heavy warhorses was one of the reasons the knights stopped dominating the battlefield. So this unit is that unrealistic. That said, I have my doubts whether foot knights (what they were) looked like that.

[anti_strunt]

So I would consider the difference between gentry and knight as a notable distinction and hardly a moot point. To discount this would suggest that every man in the gentry had servants and what-not.

Personally, I'd love to see the very variable quality of equipment within the broader troop cathegories present during the middle ages, so that a unit of "knights" would have both proper, heavily armoured knights "helper-monkeys" and lesser gentry in the same unit, as they would be. Though I suppose that would raise problems with balancing...
Even if the lesser gentry should be represented separately, it should still be as worse-quality knights, not as footmen.

Chargers were very expensive and in the late medieval period many knights only rode to the battlefield but fought dismounted. In fact the scarceness of the heavy warhorses was one of the reasons the knights stopped dominating the battlefield. So this unit is [not] that unrealistic. That said, I have my doubts whether foot knights (what they were) looked like that.

Well-bred warhorses were certainly very expensive (although there were of course cheaper alternatives), which is why the knights and gentlemen who would be hard pressed to maintain one often prefered to simply pay a sum of money to the king instead.
As for dismounting, I have always thought that it was because armies became more proffessional and tactically flexible, certainly French knights often swallowed their pride when the situation demanded it, after Agincourt. I have never read anything about a drought of good stock for warhourses having anything to do with it...

EDIT: Notice how his "skirt" isn't split at his back? I can see why he wouldn't want to get on a horse with that thing!

[Duke John]

There is a whole lot more wrong with his skirt. It goes over the chainmail, but the chainmail is visible at the back. This would mean that the skirt is stitched to the belt. Think about how the cloth would look on its own and how it is worn. It really is stupidly designed.