DISCUSSION: The Principality of Antioch

[Ahiga]

Antioch currently is not planned to be included in the 1.0 release, or possibly any future ones. While I would not expect or campaign for it to be in the 1.0 release (It does not require the amount of work which the Rajputs, or Ghaznavids, will, but it requires more work than a minor faction like the Emirate of Merv or emerging ones), I would like to see if Mirage and Alpha are interested in the Principality enough to consider it's inclusion in the future.

While it is not entirely necessisary, because they have skins and models and the muslim factions did/do not (And trust me, I'm still a diehard eastern centric.), I do think that we should consider relooking at the KoJ in the future, and perhaps with them, Antioch. Thankfully the basic meshes of vanilla are pretty much what we'd need, except that there would be some alterations in their accessories, specifically the helmets (Currently the clone-soldier greathelms and iron-bucket spearmen helms are really bad. The current textured helmets are very good as a placeholder), and perhaps in their shields. It's important to feature the many and interesting Muslim factions, as is our focus, but I think Antioch's inclusion would help garner interest in the Mod from those who might not be, because as you will see, Antioch promises to 'bring the west to the east', much as the Seljuk Turks do in Vanilla, except vice versa.

Please note, however, that this is all conceptual, and may or may not be included. Alpha, I do not wish and do not mean to make it feel like I'm haphazardly suggesting you take on a lot of responsibility. We could perhaps use some of Burrek's skins for some of the Antiochean units, and also my suggestions about the Crusader Orders is remedied in the task of making them by the fact that their outfits were plain and uniform, requiring little work.

And lastly, this is all research for you and Mirage to do with it as you see fit. I merely wish to see if Antioch bites your interest with what I've pulled up. If it doesn't, then the research done can still be put to use in the KoJ roster.


Principality of Antioch Summary

• Antioch seems to be the more Western of the Outremer States. It has the strongest ties to the west in its Norman identity. It was not stubbornly so, and interacted with Armenia and Byzantium and the native muslims, but where the Kingdom of Jerusalem seems to have made it's own name, Antioch seems to have been another 'satellite state' of the Norman Culture.
  
  With an Infantry Levy made up of Western immigrants (Said to have possibly made up half the population of the city of Antioch), along with Norman Knights and Armenians, Antioch could contrast the Kingdom Of Jerusalem (Who I need to do research for). Not in a major way, but similar to the division between Ghorid and Ghaznavid, or Seljuk and Rum.
  
  
  

Historical Research

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'll admit the information is not solely for it, but neither is it against. There are comments to the decline of Antioch's importance, yet at the same time a mentioning that it was the richest of the Outremer States.

#1


#2


#3


#4

• Antioch Info #1

1) Antioch is established by Italio-Normans.
2) Normans from elsewhere in europe were encouraged to immigrate to Antioch
3) It was constructed strictly to Norman and Feudal styles, different from the KoJ (What were they then?).

• Antioch Info #2

1) Antioch and Edessa (Gone now) were different in politics, economy, and defense considerations/military planning than Tripoli or Jerusalem.
2) Antioch was the richest of the Crusader States (We may also surmise that given it's Italio-Norman heritiage, along with being a big trade center, they may have access to some Italian Units, though so would the KoJ).
3) Western Immigrants may have come to make up at least half of the Urban Population
4) Despite the direct line of Norman Princes disappearing in 1130, a Norman spirit remained strong
5) The military of Antioch was overwhelmingly organized in a Western Style [one may also surmise it was more unadulterated by Muslim influence. Not entirely, but less influenced than the KoJ].
6) They had more steady access to horsemen than KoJ or Tripoli.

• Antioch Info #3

1) Light cavalry were used modeled after the Arabs
2) Infantry were more important.

• Antioch Info #4

1) Turkopiles may have fought less like Nomadic Turkoman and more like Ghulams, meaning Volley Fire [Fast firing of bow, low damage, large quiver].

Unit Ideas

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At the core of this concept is the minimizing of new meshes or major reskinning, because this would put a lot of work on the plate of Alpha. However, the lucky thing is that compared to the Muslims there seems to be much less of that strong individuality in armor or garments. For example, if you just add on a few helmets, the vanilla spearmen fit the bill of many spearmen perfectly.

• Antioch's Norman Charge

A way we could give Antioch it's own edge is to feature the best Norman Knights with them. We could tier the abilities of a horsemen's charge in this way, from the lowest charge (Of the elites. The lowest here would be higher than most other cavalry) to the highest.

Ghulams - Khwarezm Cavalry - Crusader [KoJ/Crusader Order] Cavalry - Norman Knights.

A Norman charge may not carry the weight of the Ghulam or the Khwarezm cavalry, but it is more flexible and maneuverable.

• A difference between Secular and Religious Order Knights

One might ask 'why feature secular knights when you can have crusader order? Well, I think we should remedy that beyond just differences in when they are recruited.

Order Knights could have higher discipline (And should), as well as higher Moral. They could, perhaps, have a higher charge than most secular knights (Not the Normans). Secular Knights would have lower discipline (Not rabble, but not high discipline), lower moral (They are less devoted to the Crusade ideology. They are faithful, but not as much. Hence why Saladin would ransom secular knights but execute Crusader Order ones.), and have a higher melee ability than most Order Knights (Who we can for gameplay reasons, conclude that their discipline and focus on fighting as a unit takes away from individual martial feats.

Order knights could also be rarer, recruitable only at castles which historically held them (like Kerak).

• Evolution of Helmets

I really dislike the greathelm. It's so final, so boring, so clumsy looking. It seems that they were being used more often in the later crusader periods, specifically in the 13th century. Back at the start of the campaign, it's mostly norman helmets and the like. So what I would suggest is that the lower level horsemen use older helmets, the later era ones the better helmets. I also suggest that a unit never be -wholly- greathelms, as that tends to look too much like a clone army.

• Lance size for Hospitallers and likely most other Crusaders is a 3 meter (9 feet) one, often of spruce wood.

• Caius's The Crusades

It's a pretty valuable tool for helping us come up with faction rosters.
His Forum: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=134
Crusader Unit List: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61088
Previews: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61091

So from the information, we can deduct that:

1) Antioch was much more Western than the other Outremer States.
2) They had a strong Norman Tradition
3) They still used native cavalry or infantry despite their Western traditionalism [this makes us question what the KoJ are like, if Antioch is western and uses them]

My suggestion would be that Antioch carry a much firmer Western heritage than the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Here's a concept on how it could be implimented to give each faction diversity while cutting down on the work needed:

Concept: Faction Roster (Antioch + KoJ in +1.0 Update. Not first release)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Both would have a core selection of Outremer/Latin infantry/archers, possibly cavalry too [A generic 'outremer' knight + Strelac's Turcoman]. We could have a different texture for their units, though it would be minor alterations. I'll do some research into it, but it'd be the usual faire.

Both, probably, would have access to Templar and Hospitaller Units (Much like the Ghulams, we could have Mounted T/H Sergeants and T/H Knights.) Because the textures will be mostly the same for all of these, and so will the mesh, we can be a bit liberal with their roster. I would suggest:

1) T/H Knights
2) T/H Foot Sergeants (Spearmen)
3) T/H Foot Knights
4) *Optional* T/H Crossbowmen.

1-3 would be using the same mesh and very similar textures, with differences in helmet, weapon, and shield. Maybe there'd be a slight variation in the mesh for the knights, if it was historically shown.

4 Would use some other mesh/texture and isn't a really needed unit. This isn't really too much, because the Muslim Factions will get 3 Ghulams (Junior, Bow, heavy) along with 2 Turkomans (3 if they are Turkish).

I can't say there'd be any difference stat wise between the two. But we would basically be using the current Hospitaller/Templar texture, and just alter the helmets, so there isn't much work cut out for Alpha. We could maybe for gameplay make each cover a different field, as is done now in the KoJ Roster: Templar Knights and Foot Knights, Hospitaller Foot Spearmen and Knights. But what I figure is that T/H units are basically slightly superior to their secular counterparts, yet are rare enough (Recruitable for Crusaders only in castles which historically held them? Or in guildhalls?) that you cannot rely on them instead of your secular units.

Then both would have some special units:

• Antioch:

Armenians (Simply use a few Armenian units. Not sure which)
Norman Knights - Best charge in the game, disciplined (Not highly), high moral, high close combat abilities.

You could feature 2 types of Norman Knights. One, with only heavy mail hauberk but much more colorful and noble looking than other knights, and another with scale and lamellar (As some have adopted), being a Knight whose closer to the Eastern Ghulam. I can't say that Normans should be a universal Crusader Unit, but the stereotypical norman look would be, in the Outremer Secular Knight.

Dismounted Norman Knights

• Kingdom of Jerusalem:

[This hasn't been researched, is just creative idea regarding the impression gained that Antioch was Western and KoJ along with Tripoli more adopted from the locality than Antioch.]

"Saracenized Knight" - A Knight whose realized the value of less rather than more. Adopting the Arab style, they fight as lighter cavalry with a strong charge but less armor. [Basis is in seeing some artwork of Crusaders who had adopted Muslim styles, with a cloth wrapping on their helmet, or a colorful arabic-like lower garment]

"Saracenized Heavy Knight" - Possibly a Knight whose chosen to adopt the heavier armor of some of his Muslim Foes, with lamellar or scale added. [Basis is in concept art which showed lamellar used by Eastern Normans.]

Concept Art

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It could be their general unit, though I'd like to see something a bit more neat looking than just generic great helm guys.



These guys (Excluding Lamellar and scale) could work as the "Outremer" secular knights. I'm not sure though, I think one might argue the secular knights fighting out in the east would start wearing surcoats to help keep their mail from turning red hot under the sun. Norman Knights could look a little more like this, except I think they should be rather aristocratic-knightly looking, not purely austere (Like Crusaders)



While the Knights in this photo look different with their red, the very next photo shows a Hospitaller knight, and it's important to note that they look nearly the same as the Sergeants in the photo. Which look nearly the same as they do in Vanilla. So the Mesh for the Hospitallers and Templars will require only light editing to the helmet, and possibly the weapons or armor.



Here's another Hospitaller Knight. The Helmet is currently ingame on the Norman Knights. I would use an edit of the Norman Knights for these guys, and possibly most other knights, because the Greathelm Clone ones in Vanilla strike me as shorter, and much less interesting. Though you could also just edit the Hospitaller mesh and remove the greathelms, or put in a myriad of helmets (1 norman, One proto greathelm, 1 greathelm, one helmetness with a mail hood).

[scannerfish]

Hey does this mod cover the Era of Cecilia Armenia ? If so they might be a better option than The Principality of Antioch .

[Hissing Fauna]

Er... They would, which is why they are already in the mod.

[Drtad]

I still don't like the idea of Antioch, they were conquered by the Armenians a little ogver twenty years after the mod begins, and were very small and not very influential anyway.

[Miraj]

I still don't like the idea of Antioch, they were conquered by the Armenians a little ogver twenty years after the mod begins, and were very small and not very influential anyway.

Well regardless of whether the princ. of antioch is a good idea, you have to consider that "20 years" is actually quite a significant amount of time and does make a difference. For example I initially had the "Sultanate of Delhi" as a start faction, but I've removed them and instead made them emergent. Why? Because the mod starts about 1175 while that faction was born around 1200.

[Ahiga]

I still don't like the idea of Antioch, they were conquered by the Armenians a little ogver twenty years after the mod begins, and were very small and not very influential anyway.

Well, a difference of 4 years would make our mod quite different in this area. It was moved 4 years back for that very reason. In 1175, Saladin holds Egypt, and has just recently taken Damascus, beginning to rally the rest of Syria behind him to fight Outremer. Merely 5 years back and Nur-Al-Din is about 52 years old (If not a few years younger), healthy as a horse (Yet to gain the Fever which killed him at 59), and beginning to eye Egypt and Saladin with suspicion. 5 years makes a difference of a powerful empire's existence (Whether the powerful Empire of Saladin in Syria and Egypt, or the powerful Empire of Nur Al-Din in Syria), and the possibility of bloody war between Syria and Egypt.

A difference of a year in the 1180s would determine whether Outremer stood with a strong army or following Hattin, it was left to the mercy of Saladin.


In fact, I don't really see anything to say that Antioch was conquered by Armenia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Twenty years from 1170 would be 1190, in which "Neither Antioch nor Tripoli participated in the Third Crusade, although the remnants of Frederick Barbarossa's army briefly stopped in Antioch in 1190 to bury their king. Bohemond III's son, also named Bohemond, had become count of Tripoli after the Battle of Hattin, and Bohemond III's eldest son Raymond married an Armenian princess in 1194. Bohemond III died in 1201."

And then, following that, the closest thing I'm seeing to Armenian's conquering Antioch is that in 1254, Bohemond VI married an Armenian Princess (Sibylla), and at this point Armenia was the more powerful one and Antioch was basically it's vassal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Antioch

Is there a point in time that wiki missed when Armenia conquered them?

[IrAr]

It was, but it wasn't Armenia's for long. If I remember correctly, the Byzantines tried to flex their muscles again and pillaged Kilikia, forcing a rebuild and all the troops in Antioch to withdraw.

[Drtad]

This is from the wiki article on Levon II of Armenia:

Leo continued to support the claims of Raymond-Roupen, who had married Helvis, another daughter of Amalric II, in 1210, and had him crowned "King Junior" of Armenia on August 15, 1211. However, Bohemund's allies, including the Knights Templar, and the Ayyubid emir of Aleppo Az-Zahir always forestalled attempts to eject Bohemund from the citadel of Antioch, although Leo several times entered the city. In 1216, with the aid of the Knights Hospitaller, Leo was finally able to capture Antioch and install Raymond-Roupen as prince.

So he did conquer it, if only for a short time. After Raymond-Roupen was ejected in 1219 when Levon II died, Antioch survived only to become a vassal of Armenia's again a little later. What I am trying to say is that Antioch was simply not powerful enough of a force in the region to be considered. It wasn't as influential as other possible states.

[Ahiga]

This is from the wiki article on Levon II of Armenia:

So he did conquer it, if only for a short time. After Raymond-Roupen was ejected in 1219 when Levon II died, Antioch survived only to become a vassal of Armenia's again a little later. What I am trying to say is that Antioch was simply not powerful enough of a force in the region to be considered. It wasn't as influential as other possible states.

So he installs Raymond Roupen as Prince. That does not really strike me as conquest, which to me would be making it entirely a part of the Armenian Kingdom, rather than installing his nephew as the prince of it (Hereby showing a respect to the Principality nature of Antioch.) He was not becoming an Armenian lord of it, but an Antiochean who was Armenian. That's up for debate and is based on one's opinion, but the fact that Raymond-Roupen was easily ejected, and that they were only a Vassal, shows that Antioch had to deal with the strong presence of Armenia, but that it was more than just a truly weak force, else Armenia would have conquered and held them.


Assuming we start at 1171 or 1170, that's I think 45 years after the start of the campaign. A lot can change in a very short time. In merely a decade or so, the might of Outremer is crushed and one could argue set on the path to oblivion by the results of Hattin. Yet before Hattin, Outremer was very strong. What's to say that Antioch was not strong at the start, and only came to decline over the next 50 years?

With Antioch, we could have the rich dynamics of the Byzantine, Zengid, Armenian, and Antiochean politics. Without them, they would either be a KoJ city, or a rebel one merely there for the picking.

With them, we will attract a lot more people with their Norman Knights and Western style.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found more information in that God's warrior book to justify that difference in Order Knights and Secular. It should help give diversity to their ranks, similar to the difference of native horsemen vs Ghulam horsemen. Like that division, Order Knights have higher discipline (Tighter formations) with much higher charges, and Secular Knights (Excluding Normans) have lower discipline, lower charges, and higher melee skills.