Scary units

[the unique joe]

Although fanatics ignored pain and would be harder to bring down than the average scantily clad soldier. I find myself pretty doubtful that one could ignore a sword in the gut (the gladius was meant for stabbing right?)

Naked fanatics should have a high attack and charge along with great morale and stamina and speed along with frightens nearby infantry, but for defence it should be purely defence skill and a little shield (if one will be given to them) IMHO but i dont think they should be able to stand up in a long pitched battle so much as be shock infantry meant to finish what the archers have started in one swift appendage swinging blow.

[Ludens]

I agree the fear they cause should be fixed, but maybe there is a better solution??
***What about the trait they had in medieval total war original, they had a trait "causes fear to undisciplined units", so your undisciplined troops would usually break if they faced them but the highly skilled would stand strong.
Also within your own army all of the undisciplined units that would rout would not effect your trained disciplined troops. I wish they kept this feature...
I dont know if you can port the trait in somehow or recreate it.

I don't recall that particular trait. In M:TW there was a distinction between standard, disciplined and elite troops: the routing ordinary troops caused only a minor morale penalty with disciplined and elite units. Maybe you are thinking of that? I doubt it can be recreated if it is not already present, though.

[antisocialmunky]

Again I would very much appreciate a source for this assertation...

It was something I heard a long time ago so I don't remember the source but as you know. However, as you know they were quite plentiful and made themselves troublesome when there were no wars and were outlawed for a variety of reasons. They were also considered traitors because they had a bad habit of killing friend and foe alike.

I would love to hear your opinions of how crazed shocktroop type guys faired in battle.

[Macilrille]

It was something I heard a long time ago so I don't remember the source but as you know. However, as you know they were quite plentiful and made themselves troublesome when there were no wars and were outlawed for a variety of reasons. They were also considered traitors because they had a bad habit of killing friend and foe alike.

I would love to hear your opinions of how crazed shocktroop type guys faired in battle.

There are so many misconceptions about "Berserkers", they fascinate us, tingle the mind... and we know so very little, so there is so much scope for our fantasy to create interpretations. Ranging from elite armoured troops wearing bear coats as a special sign of their elite status, over individuals with troll blood going crazy (Egil and Skallagrim) to just normal combat rage and to naked, religious fanatics on mushrooms...

Personally I think they would fare well on the initial charge, but then be cut to ribbons as does anyone who does not care about defense- RL is not like the Hollywood "all-offense" doctrine we see in films... Ignoring pain or not, it is hard to walk, run or fight for long with your guts hanging out, a sarrissae in the throat/eye that you neglected to defend, your leg sinews cut and the like. I suspect a trained warrior using the distance advantage his sword and height gives him and keeping his head cool is much more dangerous.

Consider also that Poybius might have embellished for effect, all authors of antiquity and the middle ages did that. Indeed, all authors tend to for effect, even myself. Taking them (us?) at face value is a dubious thing.

What would be scary would be seeing them pull out javelins and such, but... veterans would know that they themselves, when on a combat high, would not notice non-debilitating wounds. Cause that happens to all men.

Viking berserkers I cannot comment much on, for I know enough to know that we know very little but fantasy, but not enough to make an analysis (and I know more than most mind you).

Gallic naked dudes... I think would be in trouble against veterans, but might scare green troops. But again we know too little, and have too few actual sources to make a real analysis. And as with the Vikings, this leaves much room for fantasy to work its unenlightening ways...

[ziegenpeter]

Sorry guys (I'm actually lmaf, while typing this) but are you nuts? A bear is firstable, bevor everything else an especially... a BEAR!

I mean it is not particularly dangerous because it is naked but because its much bigger and stronger than a human. And since we are talking about interhuman warfare lets stick to humans.

About naked units: Of course they are easier to kill. This disadvantage might be slightly but not entirely taken away by the higher dexterity (yeah I know thats sounds like D&D talk...) but dont forget its harder to evade in a shield line or whenever you have someone at your sides and behind you. If they are fanatic/drugged up they may have a diminuished sensation of pain.

I think their skill and reputation was what counted a lot.

[Genava]

Hi guys, I'm Swiss and passionated by the Celts

For the naked warriors, I think that many stereotypes were showed by several illustrations. It is necessary to understand in which circumstance a warrior can want to put himself naked. A noble warrior does not have any reason to put himself naked, it has sufficient means to protect itself. Moreover, the nobles and the rich men fight in front of the adversary. Difficult to survive a long time in full battle while being naked. During the combat, the warrior will be crushed by the mass of the combatants, he will have much weapon who will pass very close to his body. He will walk on stones, corpses and sharp weapons. His comrades will pass very close to him with their weapons. And the weather, the forests where he can fight or to flee etc. There is thus little chance that the shockwarriors fought naked. Especially that the Celts were the inventors of the chain mail and that they developed their means of defense.

The combatants who could have fought naked would be the skirmishers. And there still nothing is sure, because to run agreeably, it's better to have shoes! Especially that it still remains of other problems referred to above.

Then the most frequent quotation used to speak about the Celtic warriors is that of Polybius. The Battle of Telamon is particular, because the Celtic army is taken by two sides and is in numerical disadvantage. It is possible that Gaisatoi (Gaesatae) had a heroic behavior because they knew that they were going to die. Because to die bravely at the battlefield does not have anything ashamed for the Celts. But it is not a normal behavior for the Gaisatoi, because in all the other battles they are equipped and their king carries even a sumptuous armor during the battle of Clastidium.

There is also another possibility. It is that Polybius were in the wrong. Polybius is not contemporary of this battle, he writes this battle during his exile in Rome which began in -167. It is Greek and not Romain. He don't know the Gallics, he writes simply on the base of the military reports. He confuses even the ritual of the sacrifice of the sword by believing that the Celtic sword twisted in full battle. He confuses this fact because he sees only the Celtic swords twisted in the Celtic sanctuaries. Certainly recovered after the conquest of Cisalpine and stored in Rome. And for the naked warriors, he could be inspired of the statues which it had seen in Greece before or other works of art residing at Rome. This Statues are naked because it is symbolic as much among Greeks that among Celts. However the Greeks didn't fight naked during the battle.

Thus in conclusion, the naked warriors were to be very rare. Half-Nude maybe for the skirmishers only.

A page of a French Comic Book showing a Celtic Battle between Bellovaci and Senones:
https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7785/img019.jpg

[Macilrille]

Welcome to the forum.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Thank you Genava, we all know how accurat French Comic books are.

Anyway, can this please go back to the original topic, of fear rather than how easy it is to kill a naked person?

I think that the fear factor would be enormous, but perhaps if you trained or re-trained troops in 'barbarian' territory, then they should have somewhat of an immunity from naked unit fear, being used to it.

But, any unit that is less than a certain amount of chevrons would be very succeptible to the scare.
Don't know if it is possible, but it makes sense.

Also: In my opinion, I think naked units (berserkers, if you want to call them so) should go a bit faster than everyone else, but also have maybe 3/4 of normal unit size, and not be able to stand up in a fight. That would represent the fact that most warriors would use armor if they could, and they would only be able to be really effective in the first mayb e 10-15 seconds of an engagement due to low defense (but they can still block and dodge, so not 0, maybe 4-5?)

[Genava]

we all know how accurat French Comic books are.

This book was drawn with the collaboration of several historians, in particular Jean-Louis Brunaux and Christian Goudineau.
http://www.lecasquedagris.com/assets...jpg?1244617659

Anyway, can this please go back to the original topic, of fear rather than how easy it is to kill a naked person?

Yes, you're right.

[A Very Super Market]

Naked warriors aren't exactly commonplace, the location of training should be irrelevant. By that logic, Celts and Germanics should be completely immune to their effects, which would put into question why such a unit even exists.

I think the current system of morale works as well as they can get it.. Gaesatae can route a group of levy spearmen after a short bit of combat. Against career soldiers, they have a tougher time, but can still make it through, while they are only effective against elites because of their two hitpoints.

[Iasonis]

I don't recall that particular trait. In M:TW there was a distinction between standard, disciplined and elite troops: the routing ordinary troops caused only a minor morale penalty with disciplined and elite units. Maybe you are thinking of that? I doubt it can be recreated if it is not already present, though.

Yes this is it, your right it want a trait so much as something hard coded.
This is too bad its not still in there and cant be recreated. This and the being able to recover sitting in the desert irks me. It seems like when total war series started out it was a real in depth strategy game, then they began to branch out to have more of an audience and it became less strategy and more arcade. At least EB came along and did as much as possible about it.

[Julius Augustus]

To support a previous point by Macilrille, yeah, if the life expectancy was only one battle, do really think that anybody would have picked that career path. It would have simply been a glorified form of suicide, which while practiced quite often among jihadists(Think truck bomb), was not as common among hired soldiers.

On the other hand, berserker death rates were probably pretty high. Think about it. The berserker has no armor and fights off about 20 guys while probably being stabbed several times. No matter how berserk you are, a stab wound through your intestines is going to kill you eventually.

[Phalanx300]

To support a previous point by Macilrille, yeah, if the life expectancy was only one battle, do really think that anybody would have picked that career path. It would have simply been a glorified form of suicide, which while practiced quite often among jihadists(Think truck bomb), was not as common among hired soldiers.

On the other hand, berserker death rates were probably pretty high. Think about it. The berserker has no armor and fights off about 20 guys while probably being stabbed several times. No matter how berserk you are, a stab wound through your intestines is going to kill you eventually.

Exactly, to be a Berserker isn't a path you'll be following for very long.

[lobf]

To support a previous point by Macilrille, yeah, if the life expectancy was only one battle, do really think that anybody would have picked that career path. It would have simply been a glorified form of suicide, which while practiced quite often among jihadists(Think truck bomb), was not as common among hired soldiers.

On the other hand, berserker death rates were probably pretty high. Think about it. The berserker has no armor and fights off about 20 guys while probably being stabbed several times. No matter how berserk you are, a stab wound through your intestines is going to kill you eventually.

You understand everything you said here is baseless conjecture, right? And none of it can be taken seriously because you have presented no evidence? Or even pretended like you have evidence?

[Prussian to the Iron]

I hope you guys understand the difference between Berserker and Naked Berserker.

Remember: Berserkers do not necessarily have to run around with no armor. No matter how they are portrayed, there's no way eveysingle Berserker just ran around without armor. Especially in an army where they were hired.

[athanaric]

You understand everything you said here is baseless conjecture, right? And none of it can be taken seriously because you have presented no evidence? Or even pretended like you have evidence?

I cannot confirm what he said about berserkers, but the part about jihadists (or whatever you might call them) is absolutely correct, if that was the part you were pointing at. The "glorified suicide" is a well-known phenomenon of our days, though I know of no evidence for it happening in ancient times.

[lobf]

I cannot confirm what he said about berserkers, but the part about jihadists (or whatever you might call them) is absolutely correct, if that was the part you were pointing at. The "glorified suicide" is a well-known phenomenon of our days, though I know of no evidence for it happening in ancient times.

...So you just made a post that says "jihadists make truck bombs."

Thank you, Sherlock, but I know. Three guesses as to whether or not I come to ancient history discussion forums to debate the (absolutely provable, because it's documented by the media) practices of modern day religious nutjobs.

[Macilrille]

I think I shall quote myself, narcissist as it is,

Gallic naked dudes... I think would be in trouble against veterans, but might scare green troops. But again we know too little, and have too few actual sources to make a real analysis. And as with the Vikings, this leaves much room for fantasy to work its unenlightening ways...

[Prussian to the Iron]

I hope you guys understand the difference between Berserker and Naked Berserker.

Remember: Berserkers do not necessarily have to run around with no armor. No matter how they are portrayed, there's no way eveysingle Berserker just ran around without armor. Especially in an army where they were hired.

Nobody has responded to this: Berserkers don't have to be naked or unarmoured.

[Ludens]

I am going to repeat lobf's and macrille's requests for sources. For the benefit of the discussion, can the next person that makes a claim about berserkers (of any kind) back it up with references?

I mean, the existence of berserkers is hazy enough to start with.

[Phalanx300]

I mean, the existence of berserkers is hazy enough to start with.

http://books.google.nl/books?id=9bId...age&q=&f=false

Page 57.

[Prussian to the Iron]

that was a very interesting section. reading a couple pages more talks about the Assyrian berserkers, and where they might have come from. thanks for that excellent read!

[Jolt]

If I saw a raging naked maniac tear a guy in two twenty meters from me, I'd be scared, even if he wasn't attacking my unit - he might be attacking us next...

Well, but then everything would be scary. In one hand, you have a naked guy that, sure, can scream a lot and has raging complexion but when in the middle of a battle if by chance you manage to do cut mildly his calf (Not that difficult with a medium-sized sword), at the very least, he'll be limping for the rest of the battle. On the other hand, you got a tank (A Dosidataskeli, for instance) which no matter where you try to cut him (By chance or not), he'll just plow through you, even though he doesn't scream very high or not. Or you get a random group of horsemen running straight at your fellow comrades, and you know wherever they crash, there will surely be dead men, despite anything you can do. I'd say any horsemen or walking tanks would be much more scary to me than a shouting man (Or a group of them)

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Well, but then everything would be scary. In one hand, you have a naked guy that, sure, can scream a lot and has raging complexion but when in the middle of a battle if by chance you manage to do cut mildly his calf (Not that difficult with a medium-sized sword), at the very least, he'll be limping for the rest of the battle. On the other hand, you got a tank (A Dosidataskeli, for instance) which no matter where you try to cut him (By chance or not), he'll just plow through you, even though he doesn't scream very high or not. Or you get a random group of horsemen running straight at your fellow comrades, and you know wherever they crash, there will surely be dead men, despite anything you can do. I'd say any horsemen or walking tanks would be much more scary to me than a shouting man (Or a group of them)

Yes this is true!
I think the more impressive and scary units were the more disciplined and organized units fighting in dense formations.
In my mind, testudo can frightened a disordered group of men... much more than an open horde of naked men.
Gaesatae are a bit overpowered in eb1: they have 2 hitpoints(why?), high defence value(why?), high attack value (i agree), excellent morale (i agree) and frightened enemy(so so).
Right fear balance is a very hard thing to do...

[Jolt]

The two Hitpoints supposedly are derived from the facts that apparently they took numbing drugs before going into battle, so getting stabbed in somewhere where it doesn't hinder your mobility, but doesn't kill you, isn't effective.

[Ludens]

http://books.google.nl/books?id=9bId...age&q=&f=false

Page 57.

I've skimread the text, and it doesn't convince me. The author seems to include every example of soldiers fighting impetuously and without armour (naked or not). That's not berserk, that normal tribal warfare. He also designates a figure on Trajan's column a berserker because his great stature and northern look are the hallmark of a berserker... There's more of such questionable examples: which I think proves my point that berserker is an ill-defined concept.

The section on Scandinavian berserkers seems more reliable, though.

[Phalanx300]

I've skimread the text, and it doesn't convince me. The author seems to include every example of soldiers fighting impetuously and without armour (naked or not). That's not berserk, that normal tribal warfare. He also designates a figure on Trajan's column a berserker because his great stature and northern look are the hallmark of a berserker... There's more of such questionable examples: which I think proves my point that berserker is an ill-defined concept.

The section on Scandinavian berserkers seems more reliable, though.

Well I think he's believable, he also talked about the Chatti in that book and how their youth didn't actually cut their beirds but simply removed the hair in front of the face(and iron/bronze necklace) and trow it backwards, he then calls a number of Germanics looking just like that found portraying that area.

Though he uses a bit of speculation.

He basicly sums up the warriors usually going by the word Berserker warriors:

Wolf warriors, Bear warriors, Long hairs(because of their extreme loyality and their frenzy to avenge a fallen leader, he also mentions the Germanic Bodyguards of some Emperors doing just this and killing his murderers), Naked Berserkers.

Also a interesting thing is that he mentions they would get themselves in a frenzy which would cause them to get high on adrenaline which docters also use to stop down bleeding in surgery. Which might be why we always hear them to be "invulnerable" to weapons and fire. And also why they were always very weak after a battle.

[Iasonis]

Well I dropped thier armor value from 5 to 0, shield from 4(same as a roman shield) to 2 and increased thier attack by 2 or 3. I left thier skill the same. They work perfectly now, very suceptable to pilium and arrow fire and very lethal up close. Maybe this will help?

[Power2the1]

Well I can say officially that the EB1 roster is getting an overhaul because I'm the one doing the overhauling.

Its true that there are some things in EB1 that made it into the game but appear to be unsourced or unreasonable claims. Drug use will not play the huge role that it did in EB1. Drugs and medicines were certainly known back then, even thousands of year before the Iron Age, and it would be kinda strange to think that the Celts (who did indeed use surgery and surgical tool have been found aplenty), had no concept of pain numbing methods: plants, herbs, concoctions, potions, smoke inhalation, or whatever.... that could be given to someone that wished to have their senses numbed or pain lessened.

Alcohol is certainly known to have played a part in Celtic ritual or prebattle preparation as the Celts have a couple deities with the sole association for "drunkenness/intoxication before battle." Its certain that alcohol would be used in surgical procedures as its still used today. However, on the flip side of the coin other ancient warriors all over that globe were known to have taken non alcoholic drugs of some kind before battle. So we know its certain that drugs could be used, but we are not saying that every single Gaesatae used drugs before battle or they made it some kind of norm. Chances are only a minority would use them. Drugs, herbal concoctions, potions, mixes, inhaling smoke, etc...can be applied to religious rituals for whatever the purpose was, such as visions, talking with the gods, making a warrior invincible in battle, etc...the possibilities are many so as far as I'm concerned the door to drug use before battle must remain open and we must keep an open mind about this, but drug use will certainly be toned down significantly to a more realistic ritual level for EB2.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4969360.ece
“Drug use became widespread in many early agriculture-based societies simply because it was the only way people could cope with spending long hours working in the fields, often in horrible conditions like baking sun,” he said.

Many archeologists believe religion and spiritual beliefs must also have played a part, with drugs being used to induce spiritual or trance-like states.

Obviously it mentions nothing about what was used in the European Iron Age, but plants, mushrooms, roots, herbal mixes, etc.... were all possible, especially if the quote on agricultural societies carries even an ounce of truth.

http://www.redshift.com/~damason/lhr...s/mkultra.html
The Mushroom Warriors
- Arguably, the Russians really were the first brainwashers, just as the propagandists of the 1950s alleged. 4500 years ago, the Koyak and Wiros tribes of the central Russian steppes conducted what may be the first experiments in stimulating violence through the use of drugs. The Amanita muscaria mushroom provided them with a drug which reduced the warrior's anxiety and fear while increasing his strength, stamina, mental acuity, and ability to withstand pain. The shamans first fed the mushrooms to reindeer, whose urine was drunk by soldiers on the eve of battle on the eve of battle, a practice later adopted by the Vikings. (Today's soldiers should ponder this history before complaining about their MREs.) Combatants in India relied on similar drugs, as did Native American tribes of the Southwest. Incan warriors made use of the coca leaf. The tradition has, of course, continued into modern times: In Vietnam, soldiers sought relief in a veritable psycho-pharma-cornucopia, which offered everything from marijuana to heroin. The warring tribes of Somalia, Rwanda and Liberia all routinely partake of the locally-preferred narcotics.)

As for the scariness aspect, if the Romans were somewhat frightened of the naked guys, "who were in the prime of life and finely built men," I am sure that plenty other ancient armies would be scared of them as well, even some rather experienced troops that otherwise had little history fighting against them. The scariness of a naked warrior (cult) could certainly work. In Liberia a general or warlord that claimed to be under the influence of the Devil sent his warriors naked (only guns and shoes) into battle as a scare tactic. I dunno, I guess it can still work today even...

[antisocialmunky]

I guess it would be something like African militiamen getting their aggression kicked up by stimulants. I think there were reports of Muslim Rebels during the American - Phillipine War taking some sort of drug so they could charge through small arms fire and take out American soldiers before collapsing.