Pesants.

[Anaatti]

Are pesants really historially accurate unit?, because my thought about them is that they could be removed because i heard that RR/RC has reached the unitlimit, and removing pesants could get some new units to the mod, and did BC remove pesants, because cant remember seeing them in BC?

[Jean=A=Luc]

Peasants are among the most historically accurate units in the mod though I hear they didn't actually go to war armed with pitchforks. But who knows...

[Anaatti]

Yeah, who goes war with pitchfork and routs when he sees enemy, doesent make any sense?

[Awellesley]

Dont worry, they are being worked on. You will be impressed with the change.

Peasants were often called to war by their lords if for no other reasons then they were much cheaper to replace than a trained warrior. Think of it like this: A lord builds a castle to protect an area. Until he can build up his training and resources, the only troops he can use would be his personal retinue, mercenaries and the peasants working for him (farmers, etc.). This is why peasants are recruited in general and why they are recruited first. Also, why they are not recruited from cities is because the working men in a city would have been more along the lines of craftsmen, artisans and merchants.

[Point Blank]

Dont worry, they are being worked on. You will be impressed with the change.

Well that is very good news, they are less than satisfactory as is.

[Gorrrrrn]

All depends what you mean by peasants - if you mean tenant farmers, those with small landholdings, they might be required to attend (in England anyway) a county muster.
They were required to bring a minimum of weaponry, including sword, helmet, any armour they had got hold off, bow - (if they were any use with it), plus any other items - shield, dagger.

(The records of such county musters often still exist and printed versions issued by county record offices, archaeological societies etc. - so says a former local history librarian)

Pitchforks and the like would not be used.

Any soldiers brought along as personal retinue of lords etc, would be equipped by them, and possibly sporting some badge relating to the Lord.
A lord who equipped his troops with pitchforks would not be welcome in any army.

Town craftsmen etc would be brought together either by guild or generally by the town as a militia force.
The guild or town itself would be responsible for equipping and training them.

Farm or town labourers, those paid by the day, or worth less than a certain amount generally wouldn't be required to attend musters,
indeed putting weapons into the hands of such folk was downright dangerous - they might use them against their social superiors.
--
Part of the problem lies in the term "peasant" which can mean persons of different social and economic status in different cultures, countries, economic systems etc.

I's suggest avoiding the term in case people take it mean persons of the lowest social and economic standing - people who generally weren't called upon to fight wars.

[Point Blank]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_Middle_Ages:
The most common infantry throughout the early medieval period were peasants and commoners who were obliged to fight for the local lord, due to their place in the feudal system. They were usually unarmoured and fought either with simple agricultural tools such as axes, forks and flails, or with a spear and shield.

Are the current Peasant quality 'Peasants' so ahistorical? It would be nice to have 'Peasants' with more variety of weapons, but I think they are not so bad as they are meant to represent the absolute lowest quality early medieval unit. The term 'Peasant' can turn people off ('Levied Peasant' would be better) but these men were levied and shooed in the direction of the battlefield. We already have Peasant Militia quality units with spear and shield that are recruited from settlements, and soon Peasant Militia quality 'Peasant Infantry' units with simple polearms available in rural (castle) areas that will replace 'Levied Peasants'.

If we are talking about men equipped with a sword, helmet then IMHO we are not really talking about early medieval Peasants as depicted here. They would be more accurately set as Peasant Militia quality units.

From RR Guide:

Rural Levies
Pool Size: High
Pool Priority: Very Low
Replacement Rate: High
Training Time: Next Turn
Recruitment Cost: Equipment/Mounts Discounted (usually have none)
Upkeep Cost: Normal
Special: Very Low Morale
As can be expected by the name this category summarizes all units that are recruited from the rural
population, mostly by drafting them. These units are mostly peasants and have little to no military

skill. Against any substantial opposition, they are likely to run away.

Perhaps it should be more varied by faction.

Anyway I'm looking forward to see what AW comes up with

[Anaatti]

Ok, pesants are historially accurate, but i think they could be replaced by more useful unit?

[axnsan]

Peasants are not useless.

[Byg]

I used to always remove peasants before RRRC was invented because the ai would make armies containing many of them, which I would destroy with ease due to chain routing. Would it not be possible to have 1 rather generic looking peasant unit to free up slots, if it works that way?

[Point Blank]

I used to always remove peasants before RRRC was invented because the ai would make armies containing many of them, which I would destroy with ease due to chain routing. Would it not be possible to have 1 rather generic looking peasant unit to free up slots, if it works that way?

The AI shouldn't recruit many peasants, their recruit priority is -50. I think a generic unit might still look a bit out of place in muslim factions, but if one can be made that works, it would save a couple of slots.

[Jean=A=Luc]

We already have Spear Militia that could very well be peasants (among other things), Peasant Archers, various "rural" AoR units, billmen or voulgiers(?) that also have rural origins, not to mention all the "woodsmen" and such. Technically one could claim that the issue has already been resolved and that there are many peasant units in the game even though not all of them have the word "peasant" in the name.

Making a whole new line of peasant units could actually provide a lot of duplicates depending on what's done.

[Point Blank]

Yes I tend to agree. In any case, the 'Levied Peasants' will start to be replaced by 'Peasant Infantry' with crude polearms (ie -attack, + attack delay) probably around the heavy mail event. Don't worry they still get butchered, but can do a bit of damage if they hold their morale, especially to halted cavalry.

[Awellesley]

Here is my concept for the basic Northern peasant-flat shirt, pants. Other items may include a vest or something like that. Perhaps slightly different colours for the factions and maybe some fur for the Nordic factions? I was also thinking that Southern, Eastern and M/E peasant would have different weapons. Thoughts?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Gorrrrrn]

I don't see the need for these new peasant units.

We already have enough basic spear and archer units for all factions, why introduce even worse units?

As for town and country one could generalise along the lines of:

large towns /cities had solid spear / pike militia who trained together in guild units.
Their choice of weapon reflected a lack of individual strength and skill, offset by collective discipline and cohesion.
A county muster was unlikely to have such cohesion.

Bows, javelins etc would be better suited to country folk - they were more likely to have the individual skill and strength to use them to maximum advantage.
as skirmishers their lack of armour would be an advantage - unless they came up against superior skirmishers.

Better to use the EDU slots for some generic garrison units for all factions.

[Awellesley]

I don't see the need for these new peasant units.

It s not a new peasant unit, its replacing "peasants" with something with a little more substance. No new EDU slots are used up.

[algorath]

i second that

[TaronQuinn]

I've always thought the same thing about Peasants...kinda pointless and useless, except in a pinch. So, what I've done with every mod I've played, is switch out Town Militia for Peasants. I leave them in the lowest level of barracks for cities only, then let Spear Militias take over from there. Then I add them to all the castle barrack line in the EDB. Rename them to Levies, Militia or whatever in the export_unit in text folder, and you have a nice, simple spear-armed peasant unit who can represent local folks levied for garrison duty.
Perhaps not what a purist would like, but I find it fills in that lowest rung of the unit ladder.

[zchmrkenhoff]

I never use peasants. If my nation is poor and undeveloped enough that the only units I can equip for war are my peasants, then I have no business invading and attacking anyone else... I should be building alliances and my nation's infrastructure.

[Point Blank]

I don't think peasants are useless. They can absorb enemy missiles, cavalry charges, tire opposing heavy infantry, push battering rams, flank etc. In any case, they were a part of the early medieval, and some times later, battlefield so should be represented.

As another example, if I was creating a game about the battle of Stalingrad in WW2, I would need to consider the hordes of conscripts, sometimes with no training, uniforms, or weapons, that the Russians threw at the Germans. But these units absorbed German ammunition, tired them, forced defenses to be made and resources redirected, and demoralised the Germans by the ruthless and callous way the Russian commanders sent them into action to almost certainly die. Well, these units are also technically rather useless, but the enemy couldn't just ignore them, and they would need to be represented in such a game.

AW: Peasant looks great. Maybe a simple 2H weapon, or if 1H a mix in each unit of a crude axe, and some kind of 1H farming implement?