Sultanate of Rum -- Historical roster suggestions

[Tureuki]

Staying on topic: Dago Red and Wudang understand actual nuances and heterogeneity of Seljuk and Byzantine culture and marshal tradition.

I recommend a 'Marian reform' script event for Seljuk Romans to deal with Jannisarry issue. Should emerge in 1360's.
Until 1360, Ghulam and other types should be prevalent.

Ghulams and other types should reflect, as discussed, Wudang and Dago Red's understanding that Seljuk Romans would have used lots of Greek/Byzantine, Armenian, Georgian, Kurdish, and central Anatolian traditions and pre-existing formations, armor, etc. This is achieved through combination of DEFECTIONS, changes of faith/conversion, and mercenaries.

So much of reality is inherited, and myths about total and clean breaks with past tradition are largely ideologically driven revisionisms that suit various nationalist agendas.

Give up...


@Dago Red

Really interesting quotes, thanks for sharing

[Vanguard13]

Tureuki - [offensive content removed].

[Khassaki]

What about the "knights - pincushions" thing then? When dozens of arrows hit yet none penetrated their armor?

These guys were wearing mail. The "flight" arrows the Turks were using at range, were getting jammed in the mail links with their heads stuck in the padding the knights wore beneath their mail.

The Turks had a particular style of shooting, basically they would plaster an enemy with light "flight" arrows from around 300 to 400 metres away. These would have no effect on an armoured opponent but slaughtered more lightly equipped eastern troops. Anna Comnena reported that all of the Turkish troops that she encountered were armoured in leather, and could replace or make all of their own equipment. This leads into my next point. There are clearly more knowledgeable people on here than me, but my understanding of the Saljuqs is that they were used more static, "shower" shooting and heavy armour piercing arrows at short range. They themselves had few horses and used camels when they were not fighting. Unlike previous calvalry who used multiple mounts and mostly shot from a shooting circle, their fighting style was instead that of a static horse archer and armoured mace wielding cavalry, with their primary melee weapon being a long hafted bronze headed mace.

David Nicole and David Ayalon also report the rapid shooting style with these archers able to fire 5 arrows in 2.5 seconds as part of their qualification to become an Egyptian Mamluk. While this sounds absurd, do bear in mind that the Turks shot around the right hand side of the bow, and that it was possible to clutch several arrows just behind their heads in the right hand while shooting another arrow. The Archer would hook a single arrow under his left thumb and then draw back his right hand with the remaining arrows between his fingers. The very wide bone nock of Turkish arrows would be at right angles to the arrowhead so the pressure of the left thumb would hold the nock in place to recieve the bowstring when the archer draws past the nock and releases the string. He can then repeat this for each arrow in his hand.

If you look at depictions of Turkish arrows, you can see how their design facilitated their rapid shooting style.

[Tureuki]

Vanguard

Give proof, explain their military and administration or stop this , you know nothing about Seljuks of Rum.

Khassaki

I guess you're talking about this right ?(Seljuks of Rum coins)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Khassaki]

Yep, that is the method.

[Dago Red]

That's all great information. I'll try to illuminate one point here:

The Turks had a particular style of shooting, basically they would plaster an enemy with light "flight" arrows from around 300 to 400 metres away. These would have no effect on an armoured opponent but slaughtered more lightly equipped eastern troops. Anna Comnena reported that all of the Turkish troops that she encountered were armoured in leather, and could replace or make all of their own equipment. This leads into my next point. There are clearly more knowledgeable people on here than me, but my understanding of the Saljuqs is that they were used more static, "shower" shooting and heavy armour piercing arrows at short range. They themselves had few horses and used camels when they were not fighting. Unlike previous calvalry who used multiple mounts and mostly shot from a shooting circle, their fighting style was instead that of a static horse archer and armoured mace wielding cavalry, with their primary melee weapon being a long hafted bronze headed mace.
.

The difference or seeming discrepancy between the two accounts you've given in this paragraph is due to it describing two different groups. The accounts match exactly what I've read before. The first describes the Turks of Rum, and their light horse archery, especially the Turcomans who made up most of their population around this time.

The second describes how Ghulam's began to fight, and possibly other elements of the Turkish armies (of the of Rum and the splintered Great Seljuks/Atabegs).

The Rum had the lightly or even unarmored Turcomen fighting with bows on fast horses, feigning retreats and ambushing constantly.

The Ghulams in their ranks were not as numerous as elsewhere, and there is some question as to how well they performed throughout the time frame covering the first few Crusades. In any case those are the ones who used fewer horses and stood still drawn in ranks to shoot more accurately. It makes sense too that this fighting style became more pervasive with heavier and heavier armor.

BC accurately portrays this, you'll notice ghulams never get cantabrian circle and I think their default skirmish mode is off.

[Khassaki]

I don't believe so. Elizabeth zachariadou wrote extensively about the economy of the Saljuqs or Rum, and noted they lacked the horses for more traditional circle shooting, but were noted melee fighters, mounted infantry, horse archers and ambushers from about 1300 onwards. Anatolia simply didn't have the pastures to maintain the horse herds needed for circle shooting as a tactic.

[Dago Red]

That was probably not the case until well into the 1300's not right at the start of the century. In any case BC 3.0 ends in 1300. Anna Comnena's account is much more appropriate for the time and is well corroborated by her contemporaries and modern historians.

What's interesting is to have some of these changes accessible by the player for a late era event though.

[Tureuki]

I don't believe so. Elizabeth zachariadou wrote extensively about the economy of the Saljuqs or Rum, and noted they lacked the horses for more traditional circle shooting, but were noted melee fighters, mounted infantry, horse archers and ambushers from about 1300 onwards. Anatolia simply didn't have the pastures to maintain the horse herds needed for circle shooting as a tactic.

What do you mean by the lacked of horse

Central anatolia is fitting well for the horse producing, travellers often mentioned famous horses of Anatolia, its stated in the Seljuk sources besides the Sultan also many Emirs have their personal stables

The horses mentioned in both Seljuk and non-Seljuk sources;

Yörük horses, Arab horses, Nisa horses(as far as I know relative or ancestor of Akhal Teke), Acem(Persian) horses, Turkoman horses(mentioned by Marco polo but not origin is not clear), İğdiş horses(Mixed I think), Rahvan horses,Syrian horses,Frank horses

[Vanguard13]

Vanguard

Give proof, explain their military and administration or stop this , you know nothing about Seljuks of Rum.

Khassaki

I guess you're talking about this right ?(Seljuks of Rum coins)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I can't read you in to the science of history. I refer at times to Wink, Andre, Al Hind the Making of the Indo Islamic World, Brill Academic Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, ISBN 90-04-09249-8

But for every source, there is also a counter-source, and a lively academic debate. This means that the thinker is left with using their broader understanding of the dynamics and science of history.

Let's leave out the tremendous problems with history, the overlaps, the same historical personages appearing several times though separated by apparent centuries (e.g Qutalmish, Suleiman, Soloman, Cesar, Constantine, Alexander the Great. etc).

How many Romes are there? How many Jerusalems? How many Solomon (Suleiman) temples?

Coins tell us very little, they were not dated in the conventional sense as a 'date' on the coin itself. Sometimes a particular feast is commemorated, and this is similar to a date, but these feasts might happen every two years, or ten years.

All dating methods are essentially relative dating methods. There are few if any independent dating methods for any historical activity prior to the 9th century AD. What happens is that some ruins are dated through relative methods (Since carbon dating is not possible accurately within 2000 years) which are inherently self referential.

So if a coin is found with those ruins, it is also relative dated to the period of those ruins. No independent dating of the ruins however was generally possible. Close inspection of the arguments tend to flow like this: the coin we know to be 5th century AD because it was found in Ruins we've dated to the 5th Century AD. We know the Ruins are from the 5th Century AD because of the pottery we found which looks just like pottery from another site that we know is from the 5th Century. We know that other site is from the 5th century from the old coins found there that we dated to the 5th Century.

So, to heck with Coins - or we'd be hard pressed to explain 11th century AD Coins with Constantine I (supposedly from 4th Century AD!!) which also show him as the Sol Invictus.

Then we'd have to explain how Sol Invictus, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity are distinct without relying on 'different words' naturally used by different cultures, and without relying on 'relative dating' methods. First one must understand the Byzantine Roman methods of adaption and organization.

The Indo-Aryan-Arabic world stood generally on at least as high or higher level of organization and sciences than the Western Roman.

The fusion of Roman and Persian culture and organization, and later Roman and Tartar, Roman and Russian, Roman and Turkish systems cannot be overlooked then.

From the time at least of Alexander the Great, whether we place him in the 4th Century BC or the 11th Century AD, the recognition by this 'west' that the east had better organizational sciences is understood. Hellenic world changed from collection of Hellenized City States into a more Centralized Persian model, thanks to Darius.

One cannot distinguish his 5th century BC Satrap system which delicately balances central and local power from the successor states of Alexander and Constantine.

So you see, when the Turks arrived from the Tartar region, and immersed themselves in the Persian system (though also Turkified to their extent), it was a system which already for centuries, or millennium, depending on how you view historical chronology, was a Persian-Roman system.

Mainstream and modern contemporary views of this period are heavily tainted by secondary source or relative dating methods, colored heavily by religious neo-fundamentalism and neo-nationalism which exaggerates differences between Orthodox world and Muslim world of Anatolia.

[Tureuki]

Again a empty massive post.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Other side of that coin


"Duribe haza el dirhem bi-Sivas sene sitte ve erba'in ve sitte mie"

Minted in Sivas at Hijri 646(1248)

[Vanguard13]

Again a empty massive post.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Other side of that coin


"Duribe haza el dirhem bi-Sivas sene sitte ve erba'in ve sitte mie"

Minted in Sivas at Hijri 646(1248)

I'm not trying to convince you. If it says very little to you, I'm not trying to speak to your expectations. Already clear you are brainwashed by the smallness of your petty nationalisms and cultural commitments. I look at the big picture. You are unable to. That is all.

Actually that coin establishes what I'm saying.

I'm saying that 9th, 10th, 11th century Anatolia had many muslims, but quasi-nomadic Turko cultural influences were not predominated for TWO MORE CENTURIES LATER.

Get it?

Does Dr. Sevkullah have Turkomans on Anatolian coins prior to 7th Century Islam/13th Century Christian?

Now that I've seen your baseless protest against historical citation which says that Anatolia couldn't support the grazing needs of vast light cavalry used by the Seljuks' Tartar ancestors, I see where you're coming from and where you're headed.

Arguments based on logic of history and pure reason = for you "massive empty post"

Argument based on academic peer review citation = for you "What do you mean by the lacked of horse"

LOL!

You are like the Turkish version of Americans who think George Washington cut down a cherry tree but could never tell a lie about it lol.

You're the one saying nothing. I see the coin, and have no idea what you believe it establishes. Yes, there were coins. And?

Was there ever a claim that Anatolians didn't have their own coins, or that the Seljuk administration didn't have a currency? No, there wasn't. One would expect this, especially by the 13th Century - two and three whole centuries after Tartas migrated into Anatolia.

Don't you understand that, or are you too foolish, to see that the debate centers around the 11th century?

We are talking about 5th Century of Islam. Not 7th Century!

[Khassaki]

What do you mean by the lacked of horse

Central anatolia is fitting well for the horse producing, travellers often mentioned famous horses of Anatolia, its stated in the Seljuk sources besides the Sultan also many Emirs have their personal stables

The horses mentioned in both Seljuk and non-Seljuk sources;

Yörük horses, Arab horses, Nisa horses(as far as I know relative or ancestor of Akhal Teke), Acem(Persian) horses, Turkoman horses(mentioned by Marco polo but not origin is not clear), İğdiş horses(Mixed I think), Rahvan horses,Syrian horses,Frank horses

Their horses were particularly fine, and they traded extensively in them, selling geldings all over the place. Being semi sedentary though, their numbers were too high for every warrior to have the half dozen mounts that would have been normal on the steppe. A couple horses at most for the richer warriors while the poorest warriors fought as camel mounted infantry, again, according to Zachariadou. Though this is in the 14th century, so it might not be entirely relevant for the period of the Saljuqs of Rum

[Tureuki]

Petty nationalism, brainwash right, you showed nothing but just talking, anatolia was Byzantine so Seljuks should be Helleno-İraniaaaans can you tell me their administration system, administration terms, military terms etc. ? If you read that source of you and claiming that you should be prove that with them. Tatar ancestors is another joke...

About horses, I answered from sources too.

You showed nothing, why should I explain anything ?

Khassaki especially 13th-14th century travellers mentioned and praised horses of anatolia very much, Germiyan and Karaman horses was very famous, may not half dozen true but there clearly not lack of horse in anatolia, also horse's importance continued even in the 20th century, villagers played Jereed and did horseracing in the weddings even in 20th century.

[Vanguard13]

Anyhow, moving forward, since anyone is free to dispute historical sources, I think Dago Red's proposals make sense.

We all agree that there were not Jannissary units until 1350's or after.

The rest of us agree that Turks in Anatolia were prone to adapt to the levy spear and armor systems already effectively in use in the region, but also heavily relied upon the horse archers.

Its clear the direction of development was towards first Ghulam and then Jannissary which are widely understood as pedestrian units.

Just because they arrived by horse doesn't mean it was a sustainable system en masse. Certainly equistrian culture was stronger due to their Tartar/Bulgar and Hannish/Mongol cultural heritage, and would continue to flourish and play a significant role nonetheless.

[Khassaki]

Khassaki especially 13th-14th century travellers mentioned and praised horses of anatolia very much, Germiyan and Karaman horses was very famous, may not half dozen true but there clearly not lack of horse in anatolia, also horse's importance continued even in the 20th century, villagers played Jereed and did horseracing in the weddings even in 20th century.

Of course, they had many fine horses though the period and down to the present. They did not have the ludicrous numbers of horses a central asian army like the Mongols would have, with 10 to 16 horses per rider.

My point is simply that in Anatolia, according to my reading, they did not use the the same tactics as the Turks further east, but instead relied on static "shower" shooting and melee in the same way the later Ghulams, and the Mamlukes of Egypt would be famous for.

My degree is many years old and I have no access to the libraries that I used for research, so I will not keep labouring this point. It is simply something to consider in regards to the Turks of Anatolia.

[Vanguard13]

Thank you Khassaki

[Dago Red]

But the Turks of Rum were not a monolithic group, so what you are saying about the static shower shooting, while probably accurate for the later era of BC, does not account for the entirety of their tactics. From what I've read, the prominence of professionals who fought as horse archers rose over time, but keep in mind the Seljuk Turks of Rum encompassed large numbers of Turcoman tribes -- they did not fight that way.

Also, accounts at least as late as the Third Crusade (1192) describe the exact same tactics the Turks used in the First Crusade (1097).. which is fast moving hit and run tactics, shooting on the move -- not standing static and showering the way professional ghulams did more and more. Since the latter technique required fewer horses and could support an armored man, reason stands that this became more prominent as time wore on, but this should still only be 1 part of the Rum Turks array of fighting options.

[Tureuki]

True Dago.

Vanguard, they started to use infantry as mercenary in 13th century since its sometimes necessary especially for sieges, complicated armours not used very often, common troops probably just used Jawshan cuirass and chainmail, Ghulams should be used high quality lamellar armor, Kazaghands also recorded. in the 13th century imported armours also mentioned from many different origins like Frank,Venetian etc. but these are most likely not in common use but just personally imported.

[mAIOR]

But the Turks of Rum were not a monolithic group, so what you are saying about the static shower shooting, while probably accurate for the later era of BC, does not account for the entirety of their tactics. From what I've read, the prominence of professionals who fought as horse archers rose over time, but keep in mind the Seljuk Turks of Rum encompassed large numbers of Turcoman tribes -- they did not fight that way.

Also, accounts at least as late as the Third Crusade (1192) describe the exact same tactics the Turks used in the First Crusade (1097).. which is fast moving hit and run tactics, shooting on the move -- not standing static and showering the way professional ghulams did more and more. Since the latter technique required fewer horses and could support an armored man, reason stands that this became more prominent as time wore on, but this should still only be 1 part of the Rum Turks array of fighting options.

Judging from what's been discused and concluded in this post, Seljuks of Rum will be awesome to play. If these ideas are implemented we can have armies with different purposes for different kinds of enemies.

One question, is it possible to add for factions troops that come in small numbers to form the scouts of an army removing spies in the process? I don't know if the AI will be able to use this kind of troops properly but my idea was to have small units (15 guys or so) of light cavalry and mounted infantry to send ahead of an army. This way you'd have small armies with large LoS unable to attack even the weakest of settlements or regular army and you could have battles using scouts to gain the overview of an area that is, trying to take out the opponents eyes so you can outmaneuver them or ambush them giving you a broad new range of strategies to work on in the process and yet a new kind of army.
Only way I see this working would be to make these units unmergeable with regular armies...



Cheers...