I suppose that can serve as a reminder on the validity of Wikipedia being brought into question. Let's play hardball. I'll bring in resources beyond Wikipedia. Osprey, actually, which has been hailed as a go-to-resource and is quite reliable.
Probably the only argument you can have is that a knight's best armor would be all-covering mail, whereas the Saracen's would leave certain parts unarmored, but compensate for that by increasing the armor on their chests. So while a knight armored more of his body, a Saracen would armor more of his chest. Norman Knights who adopt lamellar chestpieces seem to be in a real rarity. Not to mention the Muslims and Romans had a monopoly on metal barding at this point - you have a
Crusading author comment during the Siege of Antioch of this:
-
http://www.bu.edu/english/levine/gdpf5%2B6.htm
If the contemporary Franks seeing these guys as Godless Pagans comment on their enemies fielding three thousand cavalry completely armored like Parthian Cataphracts of old, why can't you?
Some more examples:
(The specific amount varies, but I had read that Jerusalem around before Hattin had 675 Knights, Tripoli could bring 200, Antioch 700), in addition to 5,000 sergeant horsemen, as well as mercenary knights.
Of Muslim Infantry:
- There are some Muslim Factions which get more armored infantry than they would have historically used. This is simply because they had a tradition of dismounting to fight when the time called for it (The Abbasid Caliphate defeated the Umayyad Caliphate by dismounting and forming a spear wall), which is the same reason why Armenia and Georgia get more armored infantry then they might have otherwise used.
- The Abbasid army formed a spear wall, a tactic they had adopted from their Syrian opponents, presumably from witnessing it in earlier battles. This entailed standing in a battle line with their lances pointed at the enemy (similar to the stakes used by English longbowmen at Agincourt and Crécy many centuries later). The Umayyad cavalry charged, possibly believing that with their experience they could break the spear wall. This, however, was a mistake on their part and they were all but butchered. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Zab
- In the future if we provide a difference between a dismounted troop vs a dedicated infantrymen, then those who have professional foot soldiers like Jerusalem's Sergeants or Ghazni's Spearmen and Archers will have an edge.
I'm surprised the author of that article was smart enough to even note a difference between Turks and Saracens. Probably figures the Fatimids fought the same as the Seljuks, though. Lesson of the day? "More Armored than their Peers" is complete and utterly false as an absolute. It varied depending on what the individual could afford, or what the state could afford its soldiers. Why you guys don't want to have the enemy the Crusaders faced be equal in arms and armor, and greater in numbers, yet take over a hundred years to defeat Outremer, is beyond me. It's far more epic and noble to face an equal foe than it is to face gibbering hordes of
Orcs Saracen Foes.
Then there should be no dismounted Knights. None. Ever. Because they dismounted for specific instances. The only offensive strength the Crusaders had was in the charge, and we will in future releases be further enhancing and promoting the superiority of the Frankish Charge to it's neighbors in most cases. Their infantry was otherwise meant to serve a defensive purpose, spearmen and crossbowmen being an anchor for the knights to operate from.
Let's face the facts. All factions have more armor than they would have had historically, and we chose to do that because it's more exciting and fun to be inspired by history than rigidly based. if you wanted a truly historical atmosphere, then not only would the Saracens have less armor, but the Crusaders would have less too. The only thing I'd agree with you on is that our Ayyubids may be using more of their dismounted troops than their mounted. In the future when we tweak recruitment rates, there'll probably be more horsemen than dismounted horsemen available.
Why is it Middle Eastern Factions are so heavily armored?
Reply With Quote
", games do that just for fun but that wasn't true, there were heavily armored folks with solid steel helms and plate armor and that was true, look at the mamluks, elite knights that u wont never let them go without armor,
Originally Posted by mirage41
). They often wore mail underneath their clothing, with a very specific style of armor whose name I am forgetting utilized by the Muslims and Byzantines which was mail sewn in between two pieces of cloth.
. I totally destroyed the Ayyubids in my KOJ Campaign (VH/H), but maybe the difference there was I that I made the first move against them, wiping out their Northern territories of Damascas and Homs before they could surmount to anything. As soon as I was done there, I drove south through Egypt and wiped them off the map.
