Overpowered Roman Empire

[Gigantus]

I did some editing and deleting, hope I don't have to do it again - so here it is:

This is where off topic, personal references and all the other stuff mentioned in the ToS stops. Ignore this warning at your own peril.

[AnthoniusII]

Let's see...
Battle of Manzikert...
Arp Aslan won the battle. Majority of the Roman army retreated and never faught and it was intacted.
Arp Aslan offers to Romanos IV Diogenes a peace agreement.
Romanos accepts it. Borders do not change.
Romanos with 400 Seljuck horsemen -present of Arp Aslan-heads to Cilicia where his most loyal generals had forts.
The "new" emperor reclaims Diogenes as traitor and besiege his for 6 months i a castle near Tarsos.
After a failed brakethrough Diogenes surrenders.
The "new" emperors even after the blindness of Diogenes,afraid a millitary uprissing (Diogenes was an officer) and start to dispand most of the provincial (Thematic) armies. Arp Aslan remained loyal to his peace agreement but two years later he was murdered by a bodyguard of his.
Then in around 1073 new raids and invasions start in asia minor but there was no unit left to defend the area!!!
Make comparisons of your own.
The Greek,Armenian,Kurdish population in asia minor under the Roman rule was about 12 million people. Turk historians estimate the main "turkomanic" population imigration in early 9th century about 600000 people including the warriors and their fammilies.
Even when Seljucks became a real power in the region when unified the turcomanic tribes could field two armies of 30000 warriors when Diogenes -according to accurate estimations- gathered fast about 60-80000 warriors for a sudden attack and he left all the gaurissons in their places!!!
The number of 300000 men of Diegenes does not consider accurate for many historians but when someone sents 20000 catapharcts to scout an area and 30000 men to cover his main army's side and still has the number superiority in the field,who knows for sure...???

[Yasko]

maybe instead of redrawing the map, take an earlier suggestion and increase the size of the cities in the regions the turks control,.

Another advantage the Rum Seljuks had was all those Nomads moving into Anatolia, Horse nomads could be even cheaper for the Turks. Thats one aspect not many people mentiones.

The Mongol invasion for example forced many turkish nomad tribes into Anatolia, while the Rum Seljuks became vassals under Ilkhanades, the turkish presence in Anatolia became even stronger thanx to the new influx of Central asian nomads at the end of 1200s. Thats why those small beyliks like Ottomans could so easily conquere lot of Roman lands by than. Also take also in considiration the effect of the Plauge on Roman cities while the turkish nomads was far less effected.

IMO the balance between Seljuk Turks and Roman should be even in Early period. While Romans wasted their scare manpower in Sicily and other unnececery adventures, the Rum Seljuks did the same in the east towards other Seljuks or Egyptians. So bad leadership goes for both.

But the balance should shift in favor of Turks after the Mongol invasions. That can may be simulated by having lower prices on Horse archers for the turks in early game and even cheaper after the mongol invasion/or by introducing a more advanced Horse Archer type to simulate all the turkish tribes that fleed to Anatolia?

[charles the hammer]

Another advantage the Rum Seljuks had was all those Nomads moving into Anatolia, Horse nomads could be even cheaper for the Turks. Thats one aspect not many people mentiones.

The Mongol invasion for example forced many turkish nomad tribes into Anatolia, while the Rum Seljuks became vassals under Ilkhanades, the turkish presence in Anatolia became even stronger thanx to the new influx of Central asian nomads at the end of 1200s. Thats why those small beyliks like Ottomans could so easily conquere lot of Roman lands by than. Also take also in considiration the effect of the Plauge on Roman cities while the turkish nomads was far less effected.

IMO the balance between Seljuk Turks and Roman should be even in Early period. While Romans wasted their scare manpower in Sicily and other unnececery adventures, the Rum Seljuks did the same in the east towards other Seljuks or Egyptians. So bad leadership goes for both.

But the balance should shift in favor of Turks after the Mongol invasions. That can may be simulated by having lower prices on Horse archers for the turks in early game and even cheaper after the mongol invasion/or by introducing a more advanced Horse Archer type to simulate all the turkish tribes that fleed to Anatolia?

I dont know, I dont like the game being scripted that hard, things should be able to change, how cheap are the turkic units now anyway? Maybe make them cheaper from the start?

[AnthoniusII]

I believe that SS in its late campaign places Roman empire in to the hardest position it realy was after 1204.
It id divided in three separate parts facing strong ennemies with its econnomy in the lowest level.
Asia minor is under turkish rule, Greece is under crusades rule and Bulgarians rule northern balkans...
Cherson is part of Genoa (as realy did) ,Crete and Rhodes are under Venice's rule. Whithout cheating a player must use all his skills in the game to restore the empire.
But consirning the early campaign...if the player will not make the historical mistakes real emperors did he will have the richest and most powerfull state in its era!

[General Maximus]

I disagree with them becoming "powerful" in 1170. How were they powerful? They took advantage of their enemies fighting each other. Thats opportunistic but not powerful imo.

Read Wikipedia. Manuel I Komnenos had done many things which made them as fearsome as in past. They conquered more part of Anatolia, made some worthy alliances, captured northern Greece and became dominant in the east (i.e. Venice part). They had old but powerful troops.

Even the Crusaders treated them with such a respect that many powerful people started to fear them.

But, all this happened in the era around 1170.

[philipjd]

I usually think of the Byzantines in this era as like an ageing champion boxer, has the know how and power to stomp on the uppity ones when given the opportunity, and the skills to fend off the real contenders but doesn't have the staying power any more to truly defeat them.

[Chodetaculous]

I usually think of the Byzantines in this era as like an ageing champion boxer, has the know how and power to stomp on the uppity ones when given the opportunity, and the skills to fend off the real contenders but doesn't have the staying power any more to truly defeat them.

Interesting analogy, but it doesn't happen in game.

[Andytheplatypus]

What? Who believes that?

As for the game changing Byzantine BG would not effect the AI autocalc battles where Byzantine AI expands due to mass of troops from both how their roster is composed and their large starting position.

Think about it, if a horse is that heavily armored with scale armor like the romans had at the time, not plate armor, it was incredibly heavy, the horses would be able to charge, but they wouldnt be able to get up to an optimum speed. And repeated charges against an enemy line would have been none existent.

Im not trying to argue with you. Thats just the info that I have in a few books and using my common sense, but I could be wrong.

[chris7ian]

Read Wikipedia. Manuel I Komnenos had done many things which made them as fearsome as in past. They conquered more part of Anatolia, made some worthy alliances, captured northern Greece and became dominant in the east (i.e. Venice part). They had old but powerful troops.

Even the Crusaders treated them with such a respect that many powerful people started to fear them.

But, all this happened in the era around 1170.

Had nothing to do with the death of Malik Shah, internal divisions, and the death of his successor a year later; as well as an invasion of Catholics into the Holy Lands? If there was no first, second, third crusade the Empire would have been over run hundreds of years earlier than they were. There wouldn't have been any restoration. What happened after the crusaders stopped taking lands? The same thing that would have happened if they haven't done so to begin with.

[philipjd]

The Byzantines are stronger in 6.3 than they have been for a long time, perhaps 6.4 addresses the issue - not been able to play it yet myself. In 6.3 they seem to prosper fairly regularly when AI controlled, which is very unusual compared to earlier SS, but then they start with quality units easily gained which are good enough to last almost through a good chunk of the late era, and a lot of cash, which is a game winner, although I don;t know how the ai manages to win so much on auto-resolve as it never does me much good in field combats with them.

[Vasilefs]

Had nothing to do with the death of Malik Shah, internal divisions, and the death of his successor a year later; as well as an invasion of Catholics into the Holy Lands? If there was no first, second, third crusade the Empire would have been over run hundreds of years earlier than they were. There wouldn't have been any restoration. What happened after the crusaders stopped taking lands? The same thing that would have happened if they haven't done so to begin with.

You are wrong here,Crusaders are one of the main reasons why Byzantine Empire fallen.

Emperor Aleksios I Komnenos asked pope for assistance,but all he wanted were mercenaries because Empire lacked manpower for military campaign in Asia Minor.But Emperor Aleksios was shocked when he learned that hordes of western warriors are on their way toward his capital in 1095-1096

During first Crusade German Crusaders(Godfrey de Bulion army) attacked Constantinople before they were transported into Asia Minor,,also on their way toward Holly land crusaders looted trough Byzantine territory and Imperial army struggled to keep them under control.

During second Crusade France Crusading army also had serious plan to attack Constantinople(King Louis was ally of Roger of Sicily(arch enemy of Byzantine Empire)),how big danger for his capital Crusaders were speak best the fact Manuel repaired walls of Constantinople just before westerners arrived.

During third Crusade German King(Emperor) Frederick Barbarosa had very serious plans to attack and take Constantinople,he even ordered his son to come with fleet so he can block Byzantine Capital from sea.

And finally during fourth Crusade westerners done something what they planed in 3 previous movements.

Another important problem for Empire relations with Crusaders was John II and Manuel I obsession to place Crusader states under Imperial control,while they(Byzantine Emperors) fought battles with Muslims in Syria(John II 1137) and Egypt(Manuel I 1169) for benefit of Crusaders they allowed Iconim sultanate to unify Central Anatolia and Kilic II Arsalan(who was false vassal to Empire) become to strong to be easily defeated since he conquered other Seljuk emirates in Anatolia,result of this politic was failure of Manuel I campaign in 1176 (Myriokephalon).

Main problem Empire faced in struggle with its enemies was the fact that Imperial Capital(and Empire itself) of Constantinople was extremely rich city(by far richest in Europe) and Crusaders always dreamed about sacking it.Only because Byzantine Empire was so rich Bulgarians,Turks,Serbs,Normans of Sicily,Franks from west always tried to expand its borders against Imperial territory

[Ichon]

Think about it, if a horse is that heavily armored with scale armor like the romans had at the time, not plate armor, it was incredibly heavy, the horses would be able to charge, but they wouldnt be able to get up to an optimum speed. And repeated charges against an enemy line would have been none existent.

Im not trying to argue with you. Thats just the info that I have in a few books and using my common sense, but I could be wrong.

I seriously doubt it. A normal rider weighs 150 lbs, add saddle and armor of the rider another 100lbs for 250lbs. Horses that Byzantines likely used weighs at least 1200 maybe up to 1500 or more in later medieval periods when larger horses were bred. But lets use 1200- so that 250 lbs weight is about 20% of the horse mass. Horses can carry about 30% of their mass before having noticeable issues as long as the weight is distributed which it would be in this case. The additional armor would have to weigh over 125 lbs minimum before it would begin to seriously affect the horse. Just like a 150 lb man could carry 50 lbs at least before beginning to be seriously affected if the weight is distributed relatively evenly.

A horse would tire faster as would a man but for relatively short duration that weight is not going to make them stagger around unable to move fast. Maybe they have trouble reaching full sprint speed whatever that speed is but horses in a charge wouldn't be moving at sprint speed anyways. If normal horse can do 30mph sprint (and that would be a pony or very slow horse) 15mph charge would only be half speed but still quite devastating to the line of men receiving 1200 + 375 lbs of weight.

Hardened leather armor for a horse weighed about 60 lbs unless it was full barding which was about 15 lb more but was rare in battle. If Byzantines cataphracts are the example then scale armor weight about 90lbs while other metals armors that had less backing or coverage weighed less. So likely full scale armor still wasn't heavy enough to surpass the 30% load limit where a horse really begins to slow down and even if it were or the horses are smaller they would have to be unable to move at even 50% of a low max 30mph speed to still be effective in a charge.

Its usually not the speed of a charge which was so dangerous but the weight and shock. Lances were just to kill the first men in the opposing formation so that those men's spears/lances wouldn't hit the rider or horse while the horses weight then smashed the opposing formation back/apart.

As for repeated charges... likely the lances wouldn't last past a couple charges usually being dropped otherwise they would yank the knights out of the saddle when impaled into something and the knight rides by at 15 mph. But knights could easily ride back towards their squires or pickets and get a 2nd lance. Of course the repeated charges as happens in MTW2 are not likely as both the horse and man tire as well as losing lances but not much options there.

Even if rider weighs more than 150 lbs which might not be that uncommon with a medieval knight that eats lots of protein and the horse is smaller than 1200 lbs which some breeds possibly use for war were (though horse skeletons found indicate also larger sizes) there a lot of leeway before a horse is carrying so much weight its staggering and unable to move at more than a walk.

[Vasilefs]

What are you saying im wrong about? Their enemies are stronger than them. They needed Catholics to fight for them, maybe they just wanted mercs but they still needed Catholics regardless. So what have I said that is wrong?

You said Byzantine Empire would do nothing against its enemies in 11th century if there was no Crusaders,but it is totally opposite,Crusaders were only huge trouble for Empire and they done more damage than help to Empire,most obvious is year 1204,if Constantinople wasnt sacked 1204 I am pretty sure Ottomans would never rise to prominence because Empire at the and was always stronger than their enemies in period 330-1204 ,Byzantine Empire had its downfalls until start of 13th century but they always recovered its status as most powerful state in Mediterranean sea,after fall of Constantinople and creation of 3 separate Byzantine states + Latin Empire there was no way back for Empire.

[chris7ian]

The Sicilians would have still done more damage than the Crusaders, who were somewhat restrained by the Pope.

Regardless when they would have fell, they historically died during the time frame of this mod (1100-1600). So why are they so dominant, when historically speaking they weren't? They should eventually die out the majority of the time. I don't see why you people can't comprehend this...

[Chodetaculous]

I don't care about what you're arguing about, but just take it to private messages. This mod is too awesome to have this garbage on the forums.

Chris7ian your passive-aggressive signature is funny, in a sad and pathetic kind of way.

[Vasilefs]

The Sicilians would have still done more damage than the Crusaders, who were somewhat restrained by the Pope.

You think on Normans (Southern Italy and Sicily)?
Normans made several attempts to invade Empire from west(1081-1085,1185) but their attacks were repelled and Normans never established itself on Imperial territory(they did conquered Sicily and southern Italy from Byzantine Empire but those territory (before Normans) was huge battlefield between Arabs from North Africa and Byzntine Empire)

By all means Crusaders were much bigger problem for Empire than Normans.

[Vasilefs]

Regardless when they would have fell, they historically died during the time frame of this mod (1100-1600). So why are they so dominant, when historically speaking they weren't? They should eventually die out the majority of the time. I don't see why you people can't comprehend this...

During Manuel I reign 1143-1180 Byzantine Empire was by far strongest and richest state in Europe,at the starting year of this mode (1100) they controlled much bigger territory than they control in game,here is map.

Even after 1204 and fall of Constantinople Byzantine Empire was still strong state and they recovered Constantinople despite been in war with virtually every sate around them (Latin Empire,Despotat of Epirus,Serbia,Bulgaria,Sultanate of Rum,Angevins of Southern Italy....)

[chris7ian]

You think on Normans (Southern Italy and Sicily)?
Normans made several attempts to invade Empire from west(1081-1085,1185) but their attacks were repelled and Normans never established itself on Imperial territory(they did conquered Sicily and southern Italy from Byzantine Empire but those territory (before Normans) was huge battlefield between Arabs from North Africa and Byzntine Empire)

By all means Crusaders were much bigger problem for Empire than Normans.

The Normans took southern Italy.. The Byzantines also lost Dalmatia to Croatia thats right Croatia assisted by Normans... Plus Norman lords help the reconquista in Iberia, conquered Antioch a former Byzantine land. Every where there was a Norman at this time was once part of the Roman Empire. (England, France, Iberia, Italy, the Balkans, the Holy Lands, and Sicily.) They took it from the peoples that took it from the Byzantines or Romans.

Your map proves my point. Not really big enough to call an Empire anymore. Surrounded by enemies who have pushed them back from all sides. If it wasn't for the Crusades matching western enemies versus their eastern enemies they would have surely died a whole lot sooner.

[Vasilefs]

The Normans took southern Italy..

That is true,but even before Normans arrival Byzantine controlled very little territory in Southern Italy(mainly coastal fortress in Apulia and) Calabria

The Byzantines also lost Dalmatia to Croatia thats right Croatia assisted by Normans...

This is incorrect,Byzantine controlled Croatia only during Manuel reign,they took Adriatic coast after they defeated Hungarians at the battle of Sirmium in 1167.Previously Byzantine lost Adriatic Balkan coast in 6th century after death of Justinian,Normans never disturbed Byzantine control of Dalmatia

Plus Norman lords help the reconquista in Iberia

Normans were in mercenary service almost everywhere in Europe,but how this is connected with Byzantine-Norman relations

conquered Antioch a former Byzantine land.

Yes but they were Imperial vassals for almost entire 12th century,and they only survived there because they were under Byzantine protection

Every where there was a Norman at this time was once part of the Roman Empire. (England, France, Iberia, Italy, the Balkans, the Holy Lands, and Sicily.) They took it from the peoples that took it from the Byzantines.

England,France and Iberia were lost for more than 600 years to the Empire in 11th century,while Normans never established permanent control on Balkan,Normans only took Southern Italy,Sicily and Antioch from Byzantine Empire,but all those Norman states died much before fall of Constantinople 1453