New unit - Mamluks

[lars573]

Take this for comparison.


Yeah the shield is a little small. Everything else looks fine.

[Ibn Munqidh]

This mamluk should be a light cav unit. Their should be a mamluk archer unit, and another mamluk heavy cav unit, armed with armour piercing weaponry, maces, axes etc...

[shifty157]

This mamluk should be a light cav unit. Their should be a mamluk archer unit, and another mamluk heavy cav unit, armed with armour piercing weaponry, maces, axes etc...

Well if you really wanted you could give the Mamluks their own unit roster. Not only did they conquer the Fatamids in Egypt but then they went on to decisivly defeat the Mongols time and again. It was the Mamluks who finally put down the seemingly unstoppable mongol advance.

So yeah. Reducing the mamluks to mercenary status is inaccurate enough let alone reducing them to a one or two units.

The shield is very small. Standard muslim round shields in the area could protect the entire chest area. What he's holding is really just a buckler. His lance also seems rather small and thin to be used as a shock cavalry weapon. Otherwise I think the unit looks very good. Im very impressed with the armor.

[Ituralde]

While it is true that the Mamluks eventually seized power in Egypt, they were also before a warrior caste that served under the Abbasid and after that the Ayyubid dynasty. Only after the seventh Crusade did they take over power in Egypt. They fought against the Mongols and the Fatamids using the available troops in Egypt. In no way their army consisted entirely of Mamluks then, which were originally from the Steppe area north of the Black Sea, so in portraying the Mamluks as a military unit of Steppe riders, and not as the dynasty that ruled Egypt for some time, the unit does quite well I think.

What I also mentioned in my other post is how the horse looks a little bit smaller, than the Stralezcky or the Scottish Feudal Knight, which would be a nice touch, considering that Steppe horses/Arab horses tended to be smaller than ther Western equivalents.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[econ21]

My first reaction is that both the shield and the lance look too small and flimsy. But then I consulted "Armies of the Middle Ages Vol. 2" by Ian Heath and there is a picture of an unarmoured Mamluk with similar lance (5.5 foot) and shield. They don't look terribly functional for shock combat, but if the cavalryman was primarily a horse archer, they might make sense. The book mentions the Mamluks also used a longer, 9 foot lance, and has armoured representations of the Mamluks too. The shorter lance is shown being used over-arm. (The book's drawings are derived from historical representations, BTW).

Based on this, I agree with some of the comments here, that a shock-oriented Mamluk should probably have the longer lance; the lance and shield CA present might be better on an unarmoured horse archer.

[Orda Khan]

It was the Mamluks who finally put down the seemingly unstoppable mongol advance.

Not quite. It was actually the Mongols who stopped themselves. Whereas it is easy to claim the Mamluks achieved this or that, it should not be forgotten that had the Golden Horde not fallen into dispute with the Ilkhanate; had they not supplied troops to the Mamluks; had Qaidu not begun hostilities against the Ilkhanate, history may well have painted a completely different picture. Considering that a large amount of Mamluk forces were defeated Qipchaqs who were sold as slaves to Egypt by Batu's conquering armies, without these other over riding factors the Mamluks would not have been successful.

As for the unit picture, it looks alright but IMO the new units are too small and dark

........Orda

[Ibn Munqidh]

Not quite. It was actually the Mongols who stopped themselves. Whereas it is easy to claim the Mamluks achieved this or that, it should not be forgotten that had the Golden Horde not fallen into dispute with the Ilkhanate; had they not supplied troops to the Mamluks; had Qaidu not begun hostilities against the Ilkhanate, history may well have painted a completely different picture. Considering that a large amount of Mamluk forces were defeated Qipchaqs who were sold as slaves to Egypt by Batu's conquering armies, without these other over riding factors the Mamluks would not have been successful.

As for the unit picture, it looks alright but IMO the new units are too small and dark

........Orda

Orda, shifty was talking about war, not political events. Who defeated the mongol horde at Ain Jalut, evenly?!! Who was the first army ever to defeat them?!! The mamluks. Yes Hulagu Khan left and took most of his forces away, and left some 25000 mongols and turks behind him. That shows that an even battle, where Saif ed Din Qutuz barely managed to gather an army, mostly of gazi volunteers, yet with a core of about 11000 mamluk proffesionals, was able to slaughter them at Ain Jalut.

The martial might of the mamluks was also evident in later battles, at destroying the remnants of Jerusalem, at Mansurah, where they slaughtered the French knights, and the Templars themselves, and captured their king, Louis IX.

I think that mamluks do deserve more than one flimsy unit in the game.

[Perplexed]

While searching around on the .com I noticed a unit roster that one of the devs had used to fight a MP battle:

1 General's Bodyguard
2 Mamluks
2 Mamluk Archers
4 Saracen Militia
4 Desert Archers
2 Naffatum
2 Sudanese Gunners
2 Catapults

So there you go, at least one of the units is primarily a horse-archer (unless it means it's a foot-archer, which would be terrible).

[Orda Khan]

Orda, shifty was talking about war, not political events. Who defeated the mongol horde at Ain Jalut, evenly?!! Who was the first army ever to defeat them?!! The mamluks. Yes Hulagu Khan left and took most of his forces away, and left some 25000 mongols and turks behind him. That shows that an even battle, where Saif ed Din Qutuz barely managed to gather an army, mostly of gazi volunteers, yet with a core of about 11000 mamluk proffesionals, was able to slaughter them at Ain Jalut.

The martial might of the mamluks was also evident in later battles, at destroying the remnants of Jerusalem, at Mansurah, where they slaughtered the French knights, and the Templars themselves, and captured their king, Louis IX.

I think that mamluks do deserve more than one flimsy unit in the game.

Ain Jalut? Even? I think not. A Mongol army? Not quite. The substantial Golden Horde troops also present in the Mamluk army. This subject is well discussed in the Monastery

.......Orda

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well at least there are Mamlukes unlike in MTW i think.

[Ibn Munqidh]

Ain Jalut? Even? I think not. A Mongol army? Not quite. The substantial Golden Horde troops also present in the Mamluk army. This subject is well discussed in the Monastery

.......Orda

Just finished reading at the monastery. I dont know what you mean BTW, you did not explain anything about that battle. You said that most of the "mongol" armies of the mongol empire were in fact "chinese". Lets see, the contignent under Kitbuqa Noyon at Ain Jalut, fought and destroyed every last stronghold in Persia, destroyed the resisting Ayyubid states in Syria, fighting many, many battles, besieged and sacked Baghdad. I would say that would be a pretty experienced army, and well led regardless of mongol tactics or not, which were used at Ain Jalut BTW.

As for being even or not?! Please dont bring the 125,000 vs. 25,000 figures, those are ridiculous. At Qutuz's time, Cairo composed of 250,000 civilians. Where would he muster such a number, what kind of 21st century logistics did he use to keep that army running, and dont forget the disunity of those Islamic states at that time, so gathering a large army was pretty darn impossible. 25,000 were barely recruited.

It is usual for anyone to underestimate the mamluks, and deny the fact that yes, they did defeat the mongols on an even pitched battle, after suffering great losses themselves. The mongol image in history books is imprinted into people's brain, and their superb martial tactics, where little is known of the mamluks, especially by westerners. The mamluks were defeated only twice in history BTW, only by Selim I at Raydanniya and Marj Dabiq, and by Napoleon at the Nile, not because of their tactics or martial skills, but because their enemies on both encounters used firearms on a very large scale, muskets and cannons, whereas mamluks refused to use those ever.