True medieval?

[RabidMonkey]

I have been playing medieval for a few weeks now SP only, and i love the game but I am starting to wonder if the tactics in combat are anything like real medieval battles. First off i dont think spearmen ruled the battlefield especially against knights who were almost unstopable, the medieval version of a tank. fuedal and chiv MAA also both struggle against lowly spearmen, i know there are threads about this already but maybe they should be looking more at the real battles that happened and not just fiddling round with a few stats. Maybe this is all because of the dificultuy level im playing at but its only on hard so why do my expensive knights consistently get turned into chowder vs spears. pikes i cld understand but spears?
Maybe i need to play this game a bit longer but these are my early impressions.

[DrD]

Well, I think the battles are fairly realistic EXCEPT that in the real MA there were way fewer professional soldiers besides knights. So a real MA battle would have like 800 knights and 2000 peasants and maybe a few hundred professional infantry. An exception exists in the English use of huge numbers of longbowmen but this was relatively late compared to this game (late 14th early 15th century.) In fact, it was the large-scale use of professional, well- trained infantry more than anything that lead to the demise of the knight because as you found out they did VERY well against the much more costly knights.

[RabidMonkey]

Good point, maybe i need to do some more research before i start complaining! :P

[AvramL]

Yeah, historicaly, early medieval armies despite being composed of large numbers of conscripts would none the less rely heavily on their relatively small numbers of professional soldiers. Good, professional infantry was always hard to come by and often commanders hired mercenaries to fill that role. The lowely peasants and freemen who made up the bulk of early medieval armies would often be used in more of a labour role than a combat one.

[Rosacrux]

Actually, when talking about realism (not just medieval, when cavalry ruled the field, but generaly) the truth is that cavalry should never be able to break a well-trained, high-morale, adequate commanded line of infantry armed with spears, poles, pikes.

If you know anything about horses, you'll understand that they absolutely refuse to gallop into a wall of spears, no matter how heavily armoured they and the knight were.

The occasional success of the cavalry against pike-formations has been a result of combined tactics (like purring arrows on the spearmen until they go in disarray and then charge with the cavalry) flanking, ambushing etc.

Heads up there is no way for any type of cavalry to stand a chance against disciplined spear weilding infantry.

In the Dark Ages, though, as others have pointed out, usually the infantry was plain peasantry, not disciplined at all, with low morale and just the basic eqipment. Cannon fodder, if you don't mind the anachronism. Recruited against their will, just to add mass to the basic knight army and to serve as a distraction for the enemy, so the knights can close in easier and finish the job.

So, the knights ruled the medieval battlefield, yes, but that was because of the extremely poor quality of the "spearmen".

And as seen in varius battles (Bannokburn -sp?- Poitier etc.) a well-led and disciplined infantry, either with spears (as the scots) or longbows (as the English) cannot be beaten by cavalry, unless they get flanked.

[Galestrum]

Actually, and not meant to start a fight =) the fuedal sergeant, mounted sergeant, and feudal men at arms units represent what the "standard" french and english armies were composed of, not peasant i hate to say.

the "peasant unit" in game = what would be called camp followers.

If anyone is interested here are a few excellent books detailing the tactics, organiztion, leadership, recruitment, warfare, etc of the western european medieval armies.

Armies and Warfare in the Mddle Ages - The English Experience (Prestwich)

The Medieval Soldier (A.V.B. Norman)

Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era (David Niccole)

For you Byzantine Types try:

The Late Byzantine Army by Bartusis

All very good and really informative.

[todorp]

quote
----------------------
If you know anything about horses, you'll understand that they absolutely refuse to gallop into a wall of spears, no matter how heavily armoured they and the knight were.
----------------------
Unless the cavalry is trained as well.

"The next important factor influencing cavalry efficiency was locality. No combat unit was as dependent on locality as cavalry. Mellow soil could force galloping horses into a slower trot and quickly exhausted them. Small obstacles, easily jumped by a single horseman, could break an otherwise excellent cavalry formation as the horses stumbled, and finally lead to defeat. Cavalry charged in various different formations. The charge was carried out en muraille (with no gaps left between the assault squadrons), with gaps (squadrons separated by intervals of 10-20 yards) or en echelon (the squadrons charged the enemy consecutively, rather than simultaneously). Horsemen approached the enemy at a slow pace, gradually falling into a trot. The attack started at a distance of 300 - 150 yards, and the cavalry turned to canter. At 23 - 30 yards the horses were at full speed, the squadrons breaking into the heart of the enemy's army. To guarantee the most effective blow, the horsemen not only held tight formations, stirrup to stirrup, knee to knee, but also left no intervals between the squadrons. The popular military leader von Zeidlitz used to say that the cavalry won its battles not by sabre, but by whip, underlining the importance of preserving a formation during an attack. Light cavalry was more suitable for a one-man fight. It charged mainly in loose formations, inflicting crafty strokes in the enemy's rear, carrying out bold diversionary raids. The speed and manoeuvres made up for the lack of strength. Light horsemen were also used to cover armies and unit transports."

[Galestrum]

And to give the basic reason why Knights developed and why there were not peasant armies was....

It took vast amounts of manpower to provide the necessary labor to produce the required amount of food for population.

Thus nobility was based upon land which = power.

Land was broken into units known as "knights fee" which = the amount of land needed to provide all the funds needed to properly equip (1) knight.

It was a better economical idea to have (1) powerful warrior (knight) rather than (100) untrained peasants on the battlefield, and also it was better to have (1) person go to war, so that those (100) peasants could stay home and work in the fields.

Knights fees were also broken down, and that is where you get your "feudal men at arms and sergeants"

ex: (1) knights fee req. say (1) knight or (2) feudal sergeants or (1) feudal men at arms and a hobilar or some other combination

there were all kinds or calculations in the fuedal system and it was more complex than most people think.

This organization shows why most W. Euro Medieval battles were relatively small, big battles of the had maybe 20,000 people

[Rosacrux]

No matter how well disciplined and trained the cavarly (both horse and rider)are, a wall of pikes is not penetratable by cavalry head-to-head. If we talk about trained and disciplined infantry, of course. That's elementary basics in military tactics.

Also, the abstract does not apply to cavalry vs spears. It is true that cavalry could (and has) breaked square formations in the 18th and 19th century (with the relatively advanced firearms of that era at the disposal of the infantry) but the general rule was that a square would hold off against any charge of cavalry, no matter how high-quality the cavalry was, given that the men of the square wouldn't wager in the dreadfull site of the chargin cuirassiers.


So, cavalry vs shock troops formations = effective

cavalry vs firearms in formation= effective up to a point

cavalry vs spear formations = ineffective

cavarly vs any of the above in disarray = devastating.

[Nachi]

I enjoy this excellent game but it is not as historically accurate as I hoped it would be. I am happy to see some people playing this game also cares for historical accuracy.

The tactical battles are fairly accurate and very funny, though the order of battle of factions is unbalanced when compared with their historical precedents -so, yes, I agree with you DrD and AvramL.

The problem is the campaign mode and the strategic system. Though interesting to play, I dont feel the flavor of medieval warfare, it just doesnt reflect the way medieval warfare was conducted. After some thought, I think I can identify the two or three main reasons -may be you can identify a few more.

First, besieging castles is not realistically modeled, and is strongly biased towards besiegers, which makes fortifications of little use in the game, especially in comparison with historical model, when besiegers tended to disolve when committed to prolonged besieging. We are discussing it in depth at the "besieging armies" thread.

Second, the capabilities for conducting continuos offensive operations are wildly exagerated in the game. Historically -specially in earlier periods- most factions were unable to field more than a few permanent money-paid units -usually only the rulers retainers and a few mercenaries or professionals. So they relied heavily on feudal levies and urban militas, who only stayed with the army for short periods -usually a couple of months or a season with no payment in money- and did not march too far away from their raising areas. This meant most sizeable armies simply disolved by the passing of time, making continuous operations impossible -even when victorious in the field of battle-, or were made vulnerable by the decrease of their size, specially when confronted by newly raised large forces defending thir territory -for a short time, as well. In the game there are no such limits.

Third, there seems to be no limit to your negative florins -unlimited credit when in red numbers but no credit at all when on white numbers?. This poorly simulates medieval royal finances, always struggling to keep expensive professional forces on the field properly paid. No cash, no service.


So instead of feeling a reallistically defensive biased kind of warfare, whith few permanent forces and short offensive campaigns in depth and lots of attritional warfare -raiding, besieging and counterbesieging, guerilla warfare- we find ourselves commanding imposing permanent armies that campaign for decades far away from their raising area and decide the issue on the open field and later wipe out the fortifications that will fall for sure without contest.

Very unhistorical, though funny to play. Anyway, I think it would not lose interest if it gained realism -in fact, it would be infinitely more enjoyable for me.

[Rosacrux]

Very well said Nachi. Even though historical realism is different than military realism (if you know what I mean) it would be terrific if they could implement the complex and aggravating elements of the real medieval warfare.

but I think we are asking for too much, aren't we? Siege shall be tweaked in the patch, to make things more realistic, but the rest ...nah, they are quite harder to implement. Not even for the expansion.

[Kraxis]

Nice discussion, but I wonder why nobody actually made the point of the basics of feudal law.

The Peasants were obliged to work for their Lord and pay taxes. This actually meant the Lord in may cases became despot ruling the peasants with an ironfist because he could do it.

The nobility were obliged to rule the land nobly (hence the name nobility), and more importantly to protect the peasants.

They had to protect the peasants from dangers, and they did. But they demanded a lot in return.
So while it was possible to see Peasants in the field they were not as numerous or as welltrained as the Ashigaru of Japan. The Peasants were not expected to fight in most cases.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Hulegu]

And these two books are invaluable on this kind of subject, I highly recommend them:

John France, Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades 1000-1300, UCL Press 1999

Kelly DeVries, Infantry Warfare in the early Fourteenth Century, Boydell 1996

[Hulegu]

And for Byzantine warfare:

Warren Treadgold, Byzantium and its Army 284-1081, Stanford Univ Press 1995

John Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565-1204, UCL Press 1999

Mark Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society, 1204-1453, Univ of Pennsylvania Press 1992

[Nachi]

Hulegu - Excellent books and very recent indeed.

For those with interest in covering the period with just a copule of volumes try this manageable treaty:

David Nicolle, Medieval Warfare Source Book, Volume I: Warfare in Western Christendom, Brockhampton Press, 1998.

David Nicolle, Medieval Warfare Source Book, Volume II: Christian Europe and its Neighbours, Brockhampton Press, 1999.


If somebody can read Spanish I coul recommend some good ones on spanish medieval warfare -an interesting mixture of Western and Islamic.


Rosacrux - I think what you call historical and military realism can be compatible, though sometimes difficult.

And I dont see it so hard to implement other realistic features. For instance they could limit the number of provinces non-permanent forces can stay away from their native areas -may be only adjacent. Or perhaps a more radical approach: I would love if only permanent forces (personal retinues, professionals, mercenarys)worked in the way they do right now, while non permanent forces (feudal, militias, peasants) only appeared on map when you "buy" an offensive or defensive campaign -just in the same way you can now "buy" a crusade. Raiders and guerrilla warfare would be also great.

If they adopted a four seasoned turn -like in Shogun- a lot more options of realism could be implemented.

I wonder if developers are reading this thread...

[Enigma]

I think also that the Battle of Hastings helped make the reputation of heavy cavalry. The professional infantry did a pretty good job holding off William and his heavy cavalry until Harold was killed by a freak arrow. The opinion of many military historians was that the people at the time ingnored the effectiveness of the infantry and wrongly assumed that cavalry was the "Queen of the Battlefield". It took some time for infantry to make a resurgance, largely because it was ignored. I think that the reason it may not feel historical is that most players realize that professional infantry is an effective counter-balance to heavy cavalry. Whereas historically the people at the time did not consider it. It is the same mentality which downplayed the winchester rifle or the gatling gun during the American Civil War.

[Tragon]

1. If we should make it even more realistics it would be impossible to control the knights because even the knights were totally un-disciplined at this time. Most times they charged at first sight.
2. Christ a battle with 20.000 men isnt a small battle. Try and count the population of Europe at the time before saying something like that.

------------------
Fear the Vikings, like your ancestors...

[This message has been edited by Tragon (edited 09-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Tragon (edited 09-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Tragon (edited 09-20-2002).]

[dclare4]

Check out my mod in the files section. The massive attack mod gives the 'light units' like Hobilars, Peasants, Spearmen, etc double the number of troops (like 120 instead of 60 and so on) - supply costs remain the same (so after you raise it the BIG problem is supplying them/paying them!!) but it does give you and the AI (historically accurate) peasant/light troop heavy armies.

Gilbert de Clare

[dclare4]

Nachi... yeah I would think that they should have made it general/noble based rather than troop based. It sucks to have a really great general/efficient administrator leading a bodyguard of peasants. They should have had a personal retinue (halberts/hobilars/knights/etc) but would be available to raise limited and RANDOM feudal levees (as was done historically) depending on their place in society and how rich they were. As it is now you have way too much control on what troops you can raise and how much. Way too 'gamey'.

Troops weren't long serving either. Most would want to pack up and go home after a season or two (think about all those crops that you called the peasants away from!!) ala Lords of the Realm.

Gilbert de Clare

[todorp]

Nachi, totally agree with your post starting with:
"I enjoy this excellent game but it is not as historically accurate as I hoped it would be..."

Hopefully we can lobby CA to tune MTW and make it more accurate, most of the changes are not too difficult to make.