Militia vs Trained

[Sonny WiFiHr]

Very strange to me that militia is similar to trained units.
What about, morale, training, discipline, way of life ?
Trained soldier should win against militia because they were trained ,trained ,drilled, payed.
Free upkeep is good but that means there is no reason to build trained of same kind.
Uber peasants ,panzer elephants, elven archers ??????

[Somebody Else]

Proper soldiers have better stamina, and slightly higher stats as well. Plus, it's in the professional line of troops that you get the better units anyway - like knights &c.

[Sonny WiFiHr]

In my warfare as a English I did not see any diference VH/VH in the begining.Morale should be much lover in foregin country and high in homeland.

[geala]

In the medieval world militias (and peasant armies) achieved astonishing results. Who you thought were f.e. the Swiss when they won their first victories against the Habsburg dukes?

Or what used the upper italian cities who fought successfully against the HRE in the 12th century?

As late as 1500 a peasant/militia army defeated the Danish king and his professional army (among them high rated Landsknechts) in the battle of Hemmingstedt.

Militias often were of doubtful quality but that was not always the case.

So I like the fact that some militia units are not merely canon fodder.

[Kraxis]

InAs late as 1500 a peasant/militia army defeated the Danish king and his professional army (among them high rated Landsknechts) in the battle of Hemmingstedt.

Militias often were of doubtful quality but that was not always the case.

So I like the fact that some militia units are not merely canon fodder.

Ahh the famous attack of king Hans on the Ditmarsh people.
Well, obviously they had a brilliant leader as they managed to confine the Danish army to a single road and then ambush that army several times. You can say it was similar to Teutoberger Wald in many regards.

The Danish king even lost the original Danish flag that had fallen from the sky (legend, but he still lost it).

Anyway, when the unpacker arrives, I will give the Peasant Crossbowmen some advantages in armour, while the Militia Crossbows will get a little morale. That pretty much sums up to me what their respective strengths were compared to each other.

[KARTLOS]

i like many people asumed that the milita units (i.e those from the cities) would be worse but it appears that it is certainly not the case. in general you need castles for heavier more advanced troops, but cities are fine for producing your basic infantry.

[Quillan]

You need castles to produce peasants, since they can kill all those town/spear militia. They can even kill armored sergeants! Stupid spear attribute!

[Slaists]

Yes. All hail Peasant!

I guess, one could argue, the peasants were better trained (physically) than town militias (from all the hard labor on the fields).

[Kraxis]

That shoul just give them better stamina, which I find to be fair enough. But they are not armed or trained in any way, unlike the militia. And having a spear is significantly better than a trifork.

[Slaists]

Tri-fork has 3 pointy things, while spears have only one... Also, I bet hours/per day wise, peasants had way more experience with the tri-forks than spear militias with their spears

That shoul just give them better stamina, which I find to be fair enough. But they are not armed or trained in any way, unlike the militia. And having a spear is significantly better than a trifork.

[andrewt]

Well, castles are supposed to train the more elite units compared to towns. With the way CA did peasants this game, they are correctly built from a castle since they're like elite units.

[Musashi]

The pitchfork is an abstraction for a wide variety of implements... Peasants probably brought clubs and knives and other nasty things as well.

[Kraxis]

Which are all less capable weapons that the trusty spear. The spear is just about one of the best weapons ever. And there is a reason basically all troops carried one. Or that most weapon trainers emphasise that equal level swordsmen and spearmen should not engage as the spearmen will usually win. In Japanese martial arts it is a general rule that kenjutsu practitioners(swordsmen) should be three levels above any yarijutsu opponent to have an equal fight.

Besides a spear and shield is an intuitive form of combatstyle. You can basically give anybody a large shield and a spear and he will understand without any instruction how to use it effectively.

I don't mind that spears are supposed to get beaten by swords as it is really an abstraction of elite and not elite infantry. But it becomes silly when craptacular Peasants can take avantage of the setup for that.

[Handel]

I use spear milita as cannon fodder in a schiltrom formation; they keep the gate and the wall breeches giving a time for the elite troops to charge the flanks of the attackers. Usually this ends the siege, but I send out the cavalry to finish as much as possible from the routed enemies.

[Kobal2fr]

Which are all less capable weapons that the trusty spear. The spear is just about one of the best weapons ever. And there is a reason basically all troops carried one. Or that most weapon trainers emphasise that equal level swordsmen and spearmen should not engage as the spearmen will usually win. In Japanese martial arts it is a general rule that kenjutsu practitioners(swordsmen) should be three levels above any yarijutsu opponent to have an equal fight.

Besides a spear and shield is an intuitive form of combatstyle. You can basically give anybody a large shield and a spear and he will understand without any instruction how to use it effectively.

I don't mind that spears are supposed to get beaten by swords as it is really an abstraction of elite and not elite infantry. But it becomes silly when craptacular Peasants can take avantage of the setup for that.

True in a one on one fight, not true in a formed melee. A spearman will admitedly always have the advantage over a swordsman in a duel because of his reach. If the swordsman steps forward to even things out, the spearman can step back, and still reach him.
But in tight formation, you cannot step back, you cannot keep that safety distance, and you cannot use wide, circling swings or figure 8s either, the longer your spear is, the more you're restricted to predictable forward thrusts, either overhand or underhand. So the swordsman who dodges the first stab and gets you in his kill range has a good chance to smoke you, since his weapon is faster and more wieldy.

[Musashi]

Not to mention the obvious drawbacks in terms of being able to turn to face a flank attack...

[Kraxis]

Medieval battlefield weaponry disagrees. Basically all infantry had spears, especially those in close formation.

Think about it, the swordsman don't just have to contend with your spear alone... If his own buddy is a little slow, or is a bit of a coward, he can suddenly get several spears in his face.
Also, why do you think that the most famous spearformation, the hoplite phalanx had spears and swords, but mainly focused on spears? Because spears simply are better and don't require a lot of room to use.

The idea that swords > spears comes from a simple source. The fact that those who had proper swords were often good with them. We are talking about nobles or rich citizens who had time and money to get the best equipment and training. Then in battle they would trounce basically all spearformations they faced becasue they were far more than those three levels better. To an outsider it would like like swords indeed were better.
And since that is how the game does it, then I have no problem with spears being generally beaten by swords.

In any case, the point was that spears are not disadvantaged against various farming implementations. Hence Peasants really should never haev a chance against a formed spearunit.

[andrewt]

True in a one on one fight, not true in a formed melee. A spearman will admitedly always have the advantage over a swordsman in a duel because of his reach. If the swordsman steps forward to even things out, the spearman can step back, and still reach him.
But in tight formation, you cannot step back, you cannot keep that safety distance, and you cannot use wide, circling swings or figure 8s either, the longer your spear is, the more you're restricted to predictable forward thrusts, either overhand or underhand. So the swordsman who dodges the first stab and gets you in his kill range has a good chance to smoke you, since his weapon is faster and more wieldy.

No, cause your buddy behind you has a chance to beat the sword guy as well. If you're in really, really close formation, your buddy 2 men behind you can kill the sword guy as well. I doubt sword guy can dodge multiple stabs at the same time.

Of course, if the spears get hit from the side, then they shouldn't be able to turn around fast. I think that's how spears should be in the game. They should beat everything else on a frontal battle but be the most vulnerable to flank and back attacks.

[Joshwa]

But then that would trash the rock/paper/scissors thing. I mean, it's going to be quite hard to get swordsmen round the side or back of a canny opponent who has a decent number of units, far easier to do it with cavalry, and so this would make swordsmen only really effective against other swordsmen, which makes them pretty much pointless in the scheme of things.

[Kobal2fr]

Medieval battlefield weaponry disagrees. Basically all infantry had spears, especially those in close formation.

Think about it, the swordsman don't just have to contend with your spear alone... If his own buddy is a little slow, or is a bit of a coward, he can suddenly get several spears in his face.
Also, why do you think that the most famous spearformation, the hoplite phalanx had spears and swords, but mainly focused on spears? Because spears simply are better and don't require a lot of room to use.

The idea that swords > spears comes from a simple source. The fact that those who had proper swords were often good with them. We are talking about nobles or rich citizens who had time and money to get the best equipment and training. Then in battle they would trounce basically all spearformations they faced becasue they were far more than those three levels better. To an outsider it would like like swords indeed were better.
And since that is how the game does it, then I have no problem with spears being generally beaten by swords.

In any case, the point was that spears are not disadvantaged against various farming implementations. Hence Peasants really should never haev a chance against a formed spearunit.

I see what you mean (and wholeheartedly agree that spears are sorely inadequate in M2TW), but then why would those trained and wealthy individuals choose a sword (or an axe, or a mace for that matter) over such an obviously superior spear ? Surely they would have been even better spearmen with that same amount of training, and with better spears than the rest ?

[dopp]

Trained and wealthy nobles also used spears in formation. The French and English knights used their lances at Agincourt on foot in a 'push of pike' (not true pike formation as that implies drilled and disciplined troops, which neither side possessed).

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

For the same reason the rich eat virgin lobster in black caviar sauce and you hamburgers. To make a class distinction and keep it there

[katank]

Militia troops are awesome and not just for the Italian factions (in which case there is precious little need for castles). Some units, such as pavise crossbow militia, are quite a bit better than readily available castle units. They also have an advantage in upkeep. The only thing to keep in mind is their morale. As long as they stick around to fight it out, militias are more cost effective than castle troops in most cases.

Learning to fight the early game with spear and archer militia perhaps bolstered by mercs is invaluable and will help your economy significantly.

[Kobal2fr]

Yes, yes I know knights did use spears on foot from time to time. They also used swords on foot, axes on foot, flails on foot, zweihänders on foot etc... so there has to be a practical point to all of these other weapons, hasn't it ?

Social distinction is fine and dandy, yet I don't think it holds much value when your life is on the line . You can wear a sword to tell everyone that your purse is huge and your d*ck even bigger still, but wield another weapon in actual battle if it's more convenient. In other words, the rich eat lobster because, you know, it tastes better than McDonalds .

Besides, the Roman legionaries had great success with their puny stabbity swords, even against professional, trained-and-wealthy spear and pike formations, and they certainly didn't use them out of social distinction. They were the grunts, not the social elite. And their swords weren't their secondary weapons either, as can be argued for medieval knights.

So there must be something going for swords, and something that allowed them to trump spear formations. I just can't picture what . Harder to break maybe ?

[dopp]

Swords/axes/flails are used for personal combat (of which there was a lot on Medieval battlefields) or as a secondary weapon when the spear is impractical (too close). You use spears or halberds in large formations. So yes, social distinction is an influence on what weapons you use. If you want to be seen, prove your manhood and get heaps of ransom money, you have to fight one-on-one with swords like REAL MEN, not be a faceless peon with a sharp stick.

Romans also threw sharp sticks at the enemy before charging, so it wasn't just their swiss army penknives vs the phalangites. The gladius WAS their secondary weapon.

[JeffBag]

Yes, as dopp said, using a spear usually means being faceless, in formation, and in a team, which goes against everything the noble knew, which was being the first into the fight, killing as many peasants as possible, and beating up as many enemy knights as possible, something which the versatility of the sword allowed for. The blade of the sword was effective against unarmoured peasants, yet was ineffective enough to club heavily armoured knights till they were fit for ransoming.

When the Roman Legions went against the Macedonian Phalanxes, the quality of the latter had by the time degraded sharply; lack of flank supporting troops like Theureophoroi, misuse of skirmish troops like the Peltastai, and the famed Macedonian cavalry of ages past were practically non-existant. Nobody, but the Swiss and Flemish and the Diadochi, won any battles with a army of pure pikemen. However, the Swiss and Flemish almost practically fought armies of pure cavalry, and the Diadochi fought only other Diadochi, so they weren't that disadvantaged. Oh, and the majority of the Macedonian Phalanx during the Roman invasion was made up of lesser, levied Phalagitai, and not the professional, property owning Pezhetairoi class.

[BigTex]

One of the main reasons the spear a usually supperior weapon wasnt used by nobles was the fact that it was also a team weapon. A battle was a competition of sorts for nobles, teamwork existed but fighting as a cohesive unit wouldnt work when you out to best the man beside you. So most ditched the spear and went for the sword, mace etc. The sword was also favored for chivalry reasons, it represented a cross. You will notice though that as the medieval period went on, the sword steadily became elongated and slowly became to be like a spear though. By the time of the repier you can no longer slash with it, it is purely for thrusting like a spear.

As for the gladius, thats something of a different beast. It wasnt just the gladius though, it was used with a large skutum the two complimented each other well. It allowed for more flexibility then the pike and spear but the close range weapon also forced it's user to be in a disciplined formation. Imo though the gladius was truly one of the better weapons created throughout history.

[Carl]

2 points spring to mind here:

1. The Romans had those big shields and fought in disciplined formations. the result was that their would have been only 2 places a pike could have been pushed through. Over the top of the shield, but it could bounce of the helmet their if you weren’t careful. The second place was the gap between shields, but it probably wouldn't hit the guy holding the shield at the front and the next man back would have his shield in the way. As a result it would be extremely difficult to actually hurt a Roman Legionnaire in formation with pikes or spears.

2. (Something I picked up from a documentary on Spartacus a couple of years back). The Short Sword used by the Legions WAS NOT the Gladius. That, as the name implies, was used by the Gladiators and by extension Spartacus. The Legions short sword wasn't as wide, although it was a touch longer.

[dopp]

I think as much attention needs to be focused on the pilum as on the penknife the Romans used. It wasn't just something to "even the odds" a little before the serious stabbing part, it was crucial to a successful attack. A well-timed volley would seriously dent the enemy's line, and then it wouldn't really matter what your men were armed with when they rushed through the openings created. As long as it poked the bad guys and they fell down, good enough.

[Musashi]

By the time of the repier you can no longer slash with it, it is purely for thrusting like a spear.

Bollocks. While there were some rapier models which did not include a sharpened edge, this was a very rare thing, and the majority of rapiers were quite capable cutting instruments. Of course they were much better for a thrust, but you could quite definitely kill an opponent with a slash to the throat.

The thing to keep in mind about the rapier is that it's a duelist's weapon, and developed for use against an unarmored opponent, a situation in which you don't need great weight to achieve an effective cut.