Missing Historical Accuracy

[bobwalt]

I was very disappointed to find out that some of the best trained soldiers in history were so short-changed by this game. The Byzantine cataphracts were trained in melee, lance and bow and were quite adept at all three and yet it does not even appear that they have a bow capability. Admittedly they were at their peak around the turn of the millennium but they still were a force to be reckoned with in medieval times. It may be true that some of the later European knights might be a bit more powerful man for man but as a group they were mostly armored ironheads who would trample their own infantry. (Yes I know that is a gross generalization) Still they were nothing like a trained standing army. Everyone judges Byzantium by Manzikert but it was their army's leadership that lost Manzikert and not the ability of the troops.


Bob

[Imperator_Maximus]

I'm a Roman nut so I know a thing or two about the Byzantines. At the time the game starts they were the most powerful people at the time. CA just downsized them do to the fact that historically they are doom to fall. However I have downloaded a mod that gives the Byz gunpowder units and have done my own moddding to give them more variety of cannons, some units you would think they have and make Byzantine Infantry recruitable in castles. Hopefully future mods will further give the Byzantines a more fighting chance.

[Dunecat]

What are some decent mods that present a more enjoyable way to play the Byzantines?

[odrid]

at the start of the game byzant has the most powerful unit -> Vardariotai (you get alot of those just from missions)
you can use them till the very end, they still rock

[bobwalt]

Is there a way to give the cataphracts back their bow capabilities?

Bob

PS Games should not fake history in order to ensure an outcome.

[Kamos]

Wait you're complaining about historical accuracy in a TW game, you havn't been playing them very long have you?

[sporkyness]

lets see.. a super heavy armoured, mounted melee unit + the ability to shoot at range....

dont you think they would be abit overpowered?

anyone remember the immortals from BI?

[therussian]

lets see.. a super heavy armoured, mounted melee unit + the ability to shoot at range....

dont you think they would be abit overpowered?

anyone remember the immortals from BI?

You forgot about the issue of price. The main reason the Eastern Empire largely abandoned it's heavy klibanophoroi was because of the huge strain on the treasury that was placed upon it by the recruitment of such troops. After Manzikert I don't think the Empire was in any position to used tons of money to train their infamous cavalry.

[Saiah]

Yeah, the cataphracts might be overpowered if they're given bows. Besides, they already have great unit selection.

[bobwalt]

lets see.. a super heavy armoured, mounted melee unit + the ability to shoot at range....

dont you think they would be abit overpowered?

anyone remember the immortals from BI?

If it was so overpowered why aren't we all speeking Greek? It was a common tactic for part of the cataphracts to give fire support while the rest attacked. Also I would not be complaining about historical accuracy if M2TW was not advertised as being such.

Bob

[Janissary]

The Janissaries were the strongest forces during Medieval times, they are underpowered as well in this game. Deal with it and stop nagging.

[bobwalt]

If the cataphracts were treated as well as the Janissaries it would be a good thing. I fully believe that when something is wrong it should be pointed out and fixed.

Bob

PS: If the cataphracts had been handled correctly it would have been Suleyman the nobody as he would have been herding donkeys instead of leading an empire.

[Imperator_Maximus]

Playing the Byzantines in late game against other factions has given me reason to try to get them more late game units and so forth. Particularly, as people have said, Cataphract Archers or maybe even Dismounted Kataphractoi . Especially in the late Middle Ages the more armour, the better, so say Cataphract Musketeers?:hmmm:
Perhaps that was overkill but Kataphractoi Archers would be pretty neat if anyone can give Kataphractoi bows.

[Lopus]

Point of fact, the game starts (vanilla) in 1080, this is 9 years after Manzikert where the cream of Byzantine armies were wiped out by the Seljuks. Shortly after, they lost the Anatolian and Armenian provinces (which I think) provided the greatest number of recruits for their forces, thus they were unable to (re)build a new army.

Furthermore, even before Manzikert, for almost half a century, the Byzantine armies were in draw-down as less and less men were recruited and money was "saved" ostensibly for use in hiring mercenaries, although the number of mercenaries hired were low. The last fighting Emperor (before game starts) would be Basil II, under whom the Byzantines had reached their greatest height of empire for centuries (extending from Antioch and Edessa to the Austria and parts of Italy).

Unfortunately with an army that was steadily shrinking, most of those gains were lost by 1080.

While it is true that Kataphractoi were (supposedly) a force of heavy cavalry-archers/lancers, the game only allows a primary and secondary weapon, thus we would have to use two different models to show the lancer (with sword/mace as secondary weapon) and archer (with sword/mace as secondary weapon) types even though historically they used lances, bows, swords, and maces as weapons. However, as of the time the game begins, they probably wouldn't have many (if any) of these types of units left and would have to rebuild the infrastructure to train and create these units.

I do like the concept though.

[Germanicus75]

The Janissaries were the strongest forces during Medieval times

Well naturally you're gonna think that :-)

[bobwalt]

The aftermath of Mazikert was serious but Byzantium did not have that many casualties. Indeed, they actually were winning and would have won if not for bad leadership. So no they did not lose the "cream" of there army. As to what the game allows; it needs to allow historically accurate capabilities. A resurgence of Byzantium is one of the great "what ifs" of history.

Bob

[Douchebag]

Personally, I dont give a **** about historical accuracy. I just want Total War. MUAHAHAHAHA!

[Lopus]

The aftermath of Mazikert was serious but Byzantium did not have that many casualties. Indeed, they actually were winning and would have won if not for bad leadership. So no they did not lose the "cream" of there army.

My oh my, I guess you had better instruct Encyclopedia Brittanica and Colliers Encyclopedia as well since they BOTH list Manzikert as a serious loss for the Byzantine armies ... which basically did not exist anymore afterwards.

All the Roman Emperors (Michael Doukas, Nikephoros Botaneiates, and Alexius Comnenos) which ruled within the decade following Manzikert had to rely on the shattered remnants as well as the few garrison units (and the Varangian Guards), as well as hiring Patzinak (Pecheneg) mercenaries to ward off the invading Italo-Normans under Robert Guiscard de Hauteville.

As to what the game allows; it needs to allow historically accurate capabilities. A resurgence of Byzantium is one of the great "what ifs" of history.

Bob

Needs to and Does are two different words. I wish it would allow it, but it does not.

As for historically accurate capabilities, that would depend, first of all, the median (not high or bottom end) of each unit type must be determined.

I do agree though, a Byzantine resurgence would be a great "what if".

[bobwalt]

No offense, but one should never use Encyclopedia entries as one's sole source but rather as a starting place for study. There are a great many good books on Byzantium and a wealth of information on the net. The thing to always remember is to check author's the bibliography for accuracy of their work.

Bob

Encyclopedias are to the study history as comic books are to the study of Literature

[Lopus]

None taken, however, very few history books about Europe and Middle East are written in Chinese so I tend to rely on what sources I can find.

Also, even various online sites I could find (including the terribly inaccurate Wikipedia) do all agree that although Byzantine armies were truly professional (in early 1000s) by the time of Manzikert they were in serious decline.

It is nice to have an adult discussion here without it degenerating into a series of "no you newb, me l33t" commentaries.

Very nice thread Bob.