Public Research - Medieval Balkan Armies

[Matthæus]

unbeliavable.in book historija bosanske vojske it´s said that this is fight between bosnians and hungarians.
the knights on the left side can e the Croats and Hungarinas because there is no difference between equipment.

i just told you what inscription says.
judging by their equipment they look much like hussars. unfortunate for illustration is a bit rough.
author Johannes de Thurocz lived 1435 - 1488/1489 and his illustrations reflect campaigns of Mathias Corvinus. which did fought in Bosnia but not against Bosnians.
i cant say for sure that those are/aren't Bosnians

[matija191]

i just told you what inscription says.
judging by their equipment they look much like hussars. unfortunate for illustration is a bit rough.
author Johannes de Thurocz lived 1435 - 1488/1489 and his illustrations reflect campaigns of Mathias Corvinus. which did fought in Bosnia but not against Bosnians.
i cant say for sure that those are/aren't Bosnians

I believe you, because I don´t know latin

[matija191]

which faction do you want now?ottomans?byzantines?venetians?

[Matthæus]

we have everything covered but thanks anyway. i will contact you if we need anything

[matija191]

we have everything covered but thanks anyway. i will contact you if we need anything

OK, but still, i like to post the pictures.Croatia is coming!!!

[ShockBlast]

Gothic armour should be left to the Austrians,if we go for the ''but the our nobles used it'' then all christian factions sould have it.

[Matthæus]

Gothic armour should be left to the Austrians,if we go for the ''but the our nobles used it'' then all christian factions sould have it.

exactly, all christian factions should use it except Italians and Italian influenced factions. that is how it should be from beginning in mtw2.

PS
matija191
http://i44.tinypic.com/2cdwq42.jpg
shield is from Dubrovnik, Orlando statue

[Carpathian Wolf]

I don't know why people are so crazy over all that heavy armor stuff. Perhaps it's my 'vlach' bias but I would much more prefer light lammelar, bows, fast horses and a good ol ambuscade instead of heavy plate armor which helped jack squat at Nicopolis.

[Hrobatos]

well I wouldnt go that light, but id dont like plate armor either
a good, fast horse, lance, sword, shield, good helmet, chainmail, thats what i would choose

or even better, no armor, sabre, two flintock pistols, and fast horse- hussar
P.S. and a musket, it can be usefull sometimes...

[Matthæus]

I don't know why people are so crazy over all that heavy armor stuff. Perhaps it's my 'vlach' bias but I would much more prefer light lammelar, bows, fast horses and a good ol ambuscade instead of heavy plate armor which helped jack squat at Nicopolis.

nicopolis happened because of idiotic tactics. you can have best weapons in the world but if you do not have discipline and sense of tactics you are gonna get defeated.

"Heavy" Gothic armor weights cca 30 kg and that is how much weight American marines carry noways in Iraq (helmet, weapon, ammo, west and others).
and because weight is much more balanced you would feel more pressure on your body (especially shoulders) from mail shirt than Gothic armor.
only problem was - price.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11y...eature=related
yes - you can do that in plate armor with no problem if you are in shape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&NR=1
or if you fall from horse in Gothic armor you can get up in matter of seconds (if you are lucky enough not to injure yourself in the fall).

PS
due to its price and rarity much of those christian factions should have Gothic reduced to bodyguard unit.

[Son of Fire]

Truly...
Full plate armour was equily dispersed across the body, and for someone trained and conditioned (like all knights and various men at arms were) wear and fighting in armour for long periods of time was fairly easy...

Further, plate armour was damn good...
It could withstand arrows, and even cross bow bolts from a decent range...
Hence the tactic of group shooting... it wasn't because the arrows pierced the plate... it was to shoot the horse, or to hopefully find a way into the breaths, or regions not protected by the plates...
Arrows only pierced plate at close range; crossbows had a slightly longer range for penetration, but over all it was shorter.

The only real drawbacks of plate were as Matko mentioned, the cost... and heat dispersal... hence why many men opened thier visors, or removed thier helmets entirely, as much heat is lost through the head...
Unfortunately, that also leaves it vulnerable...

Plate armour even overlapped with power and shot for a time, and even proved effective against it to a point...
Armour was "proofed" against it... this was sometimes done by thickening the breast plate, or by having more than one breast plate (2 or 3) crimped together...
But guns advanced pretty fast, and soon overtook what plate could defend against...

I guess my point is... when it comes to armour... European plate was pretty much the pinnacle of protection for the ancient world...

[Carpathian Wolf]

I didn't say plate was bad...just me personally i'd prefer something lighter.

[matija191]

exactly, all christian factions should use it except Italians and Italian influenced factions. that is how it should be from beginning in mtw2.

PS
matija191
http://i44.tinypic.com/2cdwq42.jpg
shield is from Dubrovnik, Orlando statue

yeah you are right.

[phoenix[illusion]]

i would go for light armor, as carpathian_wolf said. it gives speed and flexibility, while full plate armor gives you protection, but moving was too slow. ottomans preferred light armor, and that gave them better chances against european army.

[Carpathian Wolf]

i would go for light armor, as carpathian_wolf said. it gives speed and flexibility, while full plate armor gives you protection, but moving was too slow. ottomans preferred light armor, and that gave them better chances against european army.

I don't think it automatically gave them better chances. To me the best sort of combat is indirect combat. Attacking head on, if all things are equal, only provides a 50 percent chance of victory. Attack from a flank with all things being equal and the percentage of victory sky rockets. This allows one to play with their resources a bit better. That is to say lower quality troops using indirect tactics will have superior value ounce for ounce. Sort of like how in Aghanistan the locals who use hand me down knock off AK-47s riding the back of mules can have a degree of success against the world's most prominent super power + allies.

[Hrobatos]

well it seems, that we from Balkan mostly would prefer light armor
even do I like plate armor as well...

[matija191]

well i prefer plate armour...heavy infantry and men-at-arms is my choice

[ShockBlast]

well i prefer plate armour...heavy infantry and men-at-arms is my choice

What you prefere doesn't have anything to do with what East Europeans and Balkan people used.
I am a big fan of heavy infantry ,Holy Roman Empire for the win,but i don't want Wallachia or Moldova to be represented like that because they weren't like that.

[Son of Fire]

Couple things....

#1 Full plate was light, and perhaps not "flexible", in that the plates were ridged, but it did allow an almost full range of motion...
It was designed to be fought in after all...
But one was hardly slow... one can't compare someone today who dons armour without the years of training and conditioning and expect them to perform to the same level as a soldier who spent his life training in it... that would be like expecting an Average Joe to compete in an iron-man competition and expect him to win...

#2 Heavy cavalry was good... real good.. and when used correctly, it was incredibly decisive. But if used incorrectly, you could just as easily give the battle to your foe... I think of it almost like a one-shot tactical nuke of the time... if you launch it at the wrong place at the wrong time, you lose your ace in the hole...
Charles Martel with heavy cav stopped Muslims from Spain from entering France, and Charlemagne broke the power of the Magyars for years... all with heavy cav... Richard the Lionheart also won every engagment he had in the holy land by using combined infantry and Heavy cav tactics...
So I wouldn't say it is Heavy cav that is something less effective than steppe tactics, but how you employ it...

#3 Folks in the Balkans liked plate armour, and did adopt it when it was feasible economically, and tactically... The Serbs and Croats outfitted their nobility with a very Western harness when they could...
And even the Byzantines it seemed to mix plate with their traditional armour... so they saw the benefit as well, though they were limited in manpower and resources at the time, and well into their decline...

But, I will say that full plate isn't always the best tool for the job...
For Heavy cav... it was the best, period...
But for Light cav, skirmishers, or archers, it was a hindrance... since lighter armour was all that was needed to preform the task... and as for archers, well the arm defences were noticeably smaller, if one even looks at late longbowmen from England, the defences were not as comprehensive to allow the bow to function properly...
So, I think it is all a matter of what specific role one would want to have in an army... if you would like to go crashing into enemy lines as Heavy cav... the plate is the way to do it...
Or if hit and run, tactics, or archery is your cup of tea, then the expense, and function of plate might be more of a detriment...

[slavic_crusader]

excelent way to put it