Why are there no Byzantine Horse Archers?

[bigdaddy1204]

Why are there no Byzantine Horse Archers (or equivalent unit)?

I am aware that you can recruit mercenary horse archers such as Armenian Cavalry Auxilia, but this just isn't the same as a regular Byzantine army unit.

It puzzles me why no such unit has been included. Having read quite a bit about the Komnenian period Byzantine army, I am aware that the exact composition of the Byzantine troops at this time is a subject for a certain degree of debate. But it nonetheless seems somewhat strange that there is no regular Byzantine horse archer type unit.

As I understand it, the standard equipment for the majority of Byzantine cavalrymen during the 12th century was the bow and arrows, small shield and curved sword. There were also units of lancer cavalry, which used not the western style lance, but a lighter Byzantine version of it.

In the time of Manuel I Komnenos, some of the Byzantine cavalry were re-armed and re-equipped in western style, with couched lances and large 'kite' shields. Yet the Byzantine horse archer is hardly likely to have disappeared, since the majority of the army was drawn from provincial levvies and the retinues of the 'archontes' or lords who governed them.

It is said that the Byzantine army during the 12th century was largely similar to the Byzantine army of the 10th century in terms of its types of soldiers. It was a well integrated force, with units of cavalry, infantry and archers grouped together so as to support each other. The presence of Byzantine horse archers is virtually certain.

Therefore I ask, why are there no Byzantine horse archers in Broken Crescent? The historical evidence seems very much to support their inclusion into the game, should the designers wish to consider it...

[Bastables]

BC team decided to go with an older roster for balance and flavor purposes.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=137932&page=8

As pointed out by Aghia and Genralstore down the page the Roman army after the fall of Constantinople 1204 focused more on Knight's and horse archers both light and heavy but pretty much dropped professional infantry units. BC team decided to model a older infantry/ captapract roman army.

[Ahiga]

Like Bastables says. We have some Roman units which are in fact anachronisms to have at this point, so if we wanted to go accurate then the Romans would get horse archers, but for instance lose their javelin/mace cataphracts, as well as other units.

We had to make some creative exceptions to history in the spirit of gameplay. For instance, the Ghorid's of Afghanistan were famous for their infantry, particularly their spearmen who used a mobile pavise, yet in our mod they get no spearmen whatsoever. In the case of Rome, the true Romans of this period were too similar to the Georgians, Armenians, and Turks, and that an older approach would be more entertaining.

[Fenix_120]

Becuase if the Byzantine got horse archers then they would destroy everyone and everything in the path.

I mean, think about it, they already have some of the best infantry and heavy calvary in the game!

[B. Ward]

Balance purposes. Every faction has to have some kinda of weakness ingame. It was the discretion of the mod team and came out pretty nicely.

[bigdaddy1204]

Thanks for the helpful responses.

I see there is a preference for an 'older' unit roster; you have mentioned a focus on infantry/cataphracts. This has got me thinking about the evolution of the army from the Late Roman period onwards.

In the 6th century (the time of Justinian), the Roman army was largely a cavalry-centred army. The cavalry were a combination of light horse-archers and lancers. There were also units of Cataphracts - these were heavy cavalry covered in armour. The infantry were of lower quality, and mostly consisted of foot-archers, supported by spearmen. They were not to be relied upon in battle, but they served as a rallying point and a base from which the cavalry could operate.

During the 'Dark ages' period of the 7th-9th centuries, the Cataphract heavy cavalry largely disappeared, since the empire could no longer afford to equip such an expensive unit. The emphasis remained very much on horse archers/light cavalry, armed with bow and arrows, small shield, sword and sometimes lances.

However, in the Macedonian period, which saw Byzantine expansion and revival, the composition of the army changed once more. The army became more adapted to campaigns of expansion and conquest. This involved the creation of new units of heavy cavalry and heavy infantry. Especially in the reign of Nikephoros II Phokas (died 976AD), the heavy 'Cataphract' style cavalry was revived, and the maces which they used to attack their enemies became a powerful weapon which was feared among the empire's enemies. Under Basil II (967-1025), the empire was at its greatest strength. He maintained units of heavy infantry, which had not been seen in any great numbers for centuries.

Therefore, I see that the Byzantine unit roster in Broken Crescent appears to correspond to the army of the 10th/11th century most closely.

However, it should be noted that in the army of this time, the horse archer still remained a major unit type in the Byzantine armies. This was always the case, ever since the 6th century at the latest, and it continued throughout the Komnenian period (1081-1185AD).

Broken Crescent is by far the best mod for M2TW that I have ever seen. I am greatly impressed by all the excellent work that has been done by the design team. The atmosphere and immersion created are far superior to anything I have seen in any TW game since perhaps the original MTW. I might even go so far as to say this mod is the best TW experience that has ever been made.

With that in mind, I ask you to please at least consider introducing the Byzantine horse archer into future versions.

I know that there is no obligation to any of you to do this; it is merely a request from a concerned fan with a love of all things Byzantine/Roman. Broken Crescent has already far exceeded the boundaries of what I thought possible, and I will continue to play and enjoy it whatever the outcome; my only thought is that it could be that little bit better, for the inclusion of a Byzantine horse archer unit.

Respectfully,
Bigdaddy1204

[Shatov]

I agree with the above post.

Considering how important ranged warfare was to the Byzantines when dealing with Steppe invaders, I think it is slightly odd for them to have no useful unit that can hit anything beyond the range of a javelin.

Also, maybe it is just my play style (in Vanilla and SS I play as the Russians, Keivans or Byzantines because they all get excellent horse archers and heavy cav), but I don't know how one can argue that the Byzantines are, at present, over powered. Infantry powerful maybe, but in Broken Crescent infantry are not much more then pin cushions for Muslim/Georgian/Armenian archers.

[Ahiga]

Well for 1.1 there won't be any such changes, but I think for 2.0 we will be taking a second look at every faction in seeing how they fit into our renovated vision of the mod. Cannot guarantee we'll see them acquiring horse archers, though - If they were to, they would probably need to sacrifice something else they have. If the Romans were to have a medium horse archer for instance, it'd challenge Armenia's Diebuls. If they were to have a heavy horse archer, it'd challenge the Georgian's horse archers.

Not to mention the Turks would be weakened further by their late-era access to a shieldless Sipahi horse archer. So it's difficult to weigh such decisions without considering more than just the individual faction, but rather those around them.

[Basileos]

aah this reminds me of the discussions we had a long time ago:laughing:!(remember?)
well,i have to say ahiga,that i'm still pro-byzantine HA,becuase of the reasans mentioned above,and because they would be such cool units.but whatever your dicision might be,i think it would be the best.
but you want no HA because of unbalance and the reasons you mentioned above,but i find the byzantine units exspensive, not particulary strong and you have to wait for a long time before you can train the best/good units. and i find this especially if you compare the byzantine units to units of factions like KoJ,the Turkish sultanate,ayyubids.some factions (like abbasids) are realy rich,so they can afford those units and upgrades of buildings easily,but not the byzantine empire,who is not particulary rich at the beginning of the game.
the AI byzantine empire is strong,but not the one the human plays,and i find that faction quite difficult in comparing to other factions.
Cheers!

[Fenix_120]

The funny thing about this is that because of all the Axillary Armenian HA's close to the ERE when I play as them I usually have more and better HA's in my army than the Rum Turks...


The Seljuk's tend to train more than I do though.

[neoptolemos]

Indeed lack of HA is a big problem dealing with the Steppe warriors

[neoptolemos]

aah this reminds me of the discussions we had a long time ago:laughing:!(remember?)
well,i have to say ahiga,that i'm still pro-byzantine HA,becuase of the reasans mentioned above,and because they would be such cool units.but whatever your dicision might be,i think it would be the best.
but you want no HA because of unbalance and the reasons you mentioned above,but i find the byzantine units exspensive, not particulary strong and you have to wait for a long time before you can train the best/good units. and i find this especially if you compare the byzantine units to units of factions like KoJ,the Turkish sultanate,ayyubids.some factions (like abbasids) are realy rich,so they can afford those units and upgrades of buildings easily,but not the byzantine empire,who is not particulary rich at the beginning of the game.
the AI byzantine empire is strong,but not the one the human plays,and i find that faction quite difficult in comparing to other factions.
Cheers!

I am signing the above post,
I am totally agreed Basileos

[Basileos]

i use the auxilia HA's a lot too when i play the ERE,so that is why it won't make much difference (for me) when there is a byzantine (mercenary) HA.

(ps:funny squirel!)

[ArnyBoy]

I would also like to see Byzantium horse archers, however it has to be taken into consideration that alot of people want faction balance as it creates fairer gameplay. Like Ahiga stated The Ghorids have no spearmen, but historically they had good spearmen. Could you imagine Ghorids with excellent swordsmen and spearmen they would rip through the surrounding factions.
I guess that there are the fans who enjoy a historically accurate gameplay no matter the difficulties they would have to face with supreme factions.

[Ahiga]

Well one thing I'd consider for the historical accuracy statement is that we tend to think a nation would retain it's earlier troop type even as they evolved their tactics, which is not often the case. The English did not still field the fyrd in the 100 years war, nor did the Romans continue to use Triarii after they shifted towards the Maniple. So I think that it can be risky for us to assume that an earlier troop type would remain when often they did not. In a similar case, I remember some saying that as Armenia used heavy horse archers in antiquity, they would in this period - Yet the research done points only towards spears, swords, javelins and maces. Armies change, and with that change is often but not always a loss of the old in exchange for the new.

The Romans are also, for lack of better term, very bureaucratic. Far more an organized state than the warlord-realms of their neighboring states, so where the Ghaznavids might just lump their spearmen by nationality or by being ghulams, the Romans would have very specific terms for very specific variations of those soldiers. So we need to make sure that we aren't inflating the importance of what might have been in reality a very small unit. Vestiari, those heavy swordsmen, are after all guardians of the palace armories...yet the player can field as many of them as he wants.

To be honest, I hadn't heard of much of a mounted archery tradition amongst the Greek nobility. What I've read lends them more towards following the typical Eastern practice of heavy horsemanship with spears and sidearms or with javelins, with the heavier elites practicing along with the Persians that Eastern tradition of Volley Fire. It seems like their great usage of Cumans, Pechenegs, and Turkopoles reflects the need to augment a weakened light horse archery arm of their military. Keravnos mentions the Stratiotai being the mainstay of the Roman horsemen, with it being suggested that as much as 50 or 60% of them were such cavalrymen. Especially in the Komnenian period, the only references I have seen in my own reading to light horse archers has systematically been recruited soldiers from outside the Greek and Armenian Nobility - Christianized Turks, Cumans, Magyars, or Pechenegs.

I imagine there were Ethnically/culturally Greeks of the 10th, 11th, or 12th century who fought with bows from horseback, but I think they would both have been a real minority and likely poor horse archers. Else they would not have had to so augment their forces with Turkish Nomads. Which in itself could be a balancing mechanic - Smaller size than Turkoman/Cuman Horse archers, and with far less of a potency. This is excluding the Cataphracts armed with bows, surely better horse archers, which right now is my personal lean - I could never see a native light horse archer for the Romans right now, unless it was smaller in unit size and far weaker in power.

Otherwise it's just "Lol, you turks don't even get spearmen, while I can beat you in every single unit field imaginable". If we were re-designing them and gave them a light or medium horse archer of average quality, I think it would have been at a cost of a lot of their other units (the Emperor's guard, Heavy Swordsmen, old school Cataphracts), as with the addition of horse archers they really become an unbalanced roster.

But we will consider such thoughts for 2.0. Not much is out of the realm of possibility.

Lol Irony:

[gary]

Just reading the post and i agree with some of the above... Broken cresant is not an infantry mod... i think it is a mobile mounted mod. i have played allot of hours and 95% of all the battles i have fought have been characterized by cavalry and very little infantry.
i do not think i have had a real one on one infantry battle... it is nearly all cavalry... so why not give the Byzantines horse archers...as i can not see it making any great difference to the game as nearly all the AI seem to use them.... lots of them .........curse
them alllllllll.

[Ahiga]

We'll be trying to improve the presence of infantry in future updates. I'm sure we all recall 1.0 with my insane charge rates, and while that's been toned down cavalry could still use a further downward balancing. So expect for infantry to take on a greater presence in future updates, although there will still be a good home for the horse archer.

[Request a new user name]

Just reading the post and i agree with some of the above... Broken cresant is not an infantry mod... i think it is a mobile mounted mod. i have played allot of hours and 95% of all the battles i have fought have been characterized by cavalry and very little infantry.

Its the opposite for me. My battles are mostly Infantry fights with my Cavalry on the Flanks.

[whhyy]

I don't see whats wrong with just keeping the Byzantine reliance on merc horse archers. Those Diebuls HA are all you need.

[Ahiga]

I don't see whats wrong with just keeping the Byzantine reliance on merc horse archers. Those Diebuls HA are all you need.

Odds are those guys will be made much more expensive (They currently cost the same, or even less, than less armored Turkomans), much more rare, or replaced altogether with Javelin/sword Armenian Armored Horsemen (Contemporary research points to javelins, lances, swords and maces being the lead Armenian weapons, with the javelin one of the most premier). The Auxilia system is likely to lessen the amount of mercenaries available by providing many of such soldiers as local troops instead. And those that remain are probably due for a MASSIVE upkeep boost, as being able to field full stacks of mercenaries when you aren't in the "No chance of ever being poor" financial range is just not realistic or fun. Turkomans and such Nomads should be hired for a quick campaign and then disbanded afterwards.

However if Diebul's go, then I'd want to see the Turkopoles replace them as bettered armored horse archers. Since, well, they were first used by the Romans. Just made expensive in upkeep so that mercenaries are a different source & style of troops, rather than a different source used the exact same way your native troops are.

techically i dont think the ERE should ever have the capability to beat turkish or kypchak horse archers ( one on one) with their own as it would just be unhistorical and unbalancing

Exactly. I don't mean to be offensive, but while people are worried about Byzantine Balance, there's very little thought on how this would effect the neighboring factions. Not just the Turks but also Georgia (Crap cavalry until the 4th tier, really), or Armenians. While we would like to strengthen the role of infantry and melee cavalry for the non nomadic factions, we'd want to make sure that the role of horse archers is strengthened in those Nomadic (Seljuk, Rum, Khwarezm, Cumans) factions.

Something due is a moral and melee weakening of such horse archers, so that the light cavalry of the Romans, if able to catch up and attack them, would be likely to set them to rout.

We haven't made any decisions on the presence of native light horse archers, but will be sure to consider it for 2.0. If it's done for the Romans, it'll surely be smaller in numbers and weaker in power, obligating them to field mercenaries.