[Faction research topic]: The Great Moravia,Serbia, Anciliaries and titles.

[Majkl]

Actually I know two version of Great Moravia which has been lieing in todays Czech and Slovakia. One from official sources which are used to teach student in schools and one from other autors which I believe a lot more. Dunno what kind of information modders have but there is opportunity to give them view from other angle as well.

[Alucard31]

Amen

[Wareg]

About AI contorled armies: one of main problems with AI in MTWII is situation when they are defending. Although AI army has better position they move toward player army. They don't use terrain adventage and pursue player army even they've got mainly infantry. They don't use shieldwall.
Only in historical battles, Hastings, they behave logically: Anglo-saxon infantry is standing on hill and waiting (simillary Teutonic army in Grunwald)
Can you change all AI armies, if they are defending, to behave like that?
In description of early Norman Knights there is that their tactic is to throw spears and induce spearmen to leave formation and pursue. It will be great if worse trained units could do like that while better trained keep defence formation.
What do you think?

[Heathen Storm]

About AI contorled armies: one of main problems with AI in MTWII is situation when they are defending. Although AI army has better position they move toward player army. They don't use terrain adventage and pursue player army even they've got mainly infantry. They don't use shieldwall.
Only in historical battles, Hastings, they behave logically: Anglo-saxon infantry is standing on hill and waiting (simillary Teutonic army in Grunwald)
Can you change all AI armies, if they are defending, to behave like that?

From what I've seen of Germanicu5' AI (in Third Age 3.0) the AI is definitely using their formations in good tactics. So I think they should do good!

In description of early Norman Knights there is that their tactic is to throw spears and induce spearmen to leave formation and pursue. It will be great if worse trained units could do like that while better trained keep defence formation.
What do you think?

That's already possible, with balancing the EDU. If militia-grade units have a discipline of "untrained" they may charge without orders.

[Wareg]

It's amazing that in TGC almost everything is possible. Thanks for answer.

[martas33]

in czech language is Velegrad Velehrad!

[tomySVK]

Here are few images which are related to the Great Moravia. Sorry for the low quality, but maybe they will help

[Wareg]

As the titles says we are interesting to gather VISUAL info of warfare tactic and army formations that the facions of our list used in 9th-11th centuries!
What we need is to avoid speculations(...)

Maybe discussion about charges and formations which allow to repulse charging cavalry doesn't fit well to that topic frame but It is still tactic maneuver so I'm writing here. I were looking for some informations and here are conclusions:
-Tight formation (especially in schiltron) of infantry with large shield and 1 handed weapon (no matter which) should stop enemy's cavalry charge with minimal losses. There is no space for horses between infantry's lines so horses will stop charging. Of course if infantry not panic and escape.
-Such tight formation in case of infantry without shields, heavy armour or pike should have more problems. Charge also should be stopped but long cavalry lances will give cavalrymen adventage even without maximal charge speed.
-Pikemen-no chance of frontal charge against them.
-Disorganised infantry, loose formation - infantry should be massacred
-Cavalry charge against cavalry. I think main factor is lenght of lance and skills in use It. Looses after this kind of charge should be high.
I know that these conclusions aren't very innovatory but I'm interested how It will work in TGC.
-Is It possible to maximally limit frontal AI cavalry charges against pikemen? (Germanicu5's AI?)
-I don't think that breaking of infantry's morale before cavalry charge is possible to realise. But what do you think about very low morale for most of infatry and 'frigten foot' for all shock cavalry?
-Maybe 'horde' formation and incomparably lower defence against charge for undisciplined infantry? That may show that only disciplined, tight formation can stop charge. Moreover this formation seems to be more natural for that kind of unit than square.
-What factor in descr_unit is defence against charge? Total defence? If It is, increase of infantry defence in relation to charge value will entail also increase of cavalry defence and charges cavalry vs cavalry will be very ineffective... How to find solution?

[NorkeyCZ]

I remember I saw those two images in my school book back at the elementary level, interesting.

As for the GM issue, I think the backbone of the army should consist of the heavy cavalry, 'druzhina', noble professionals, who gained skill and reputation in previous centuries for battling for the Byzantines, Gepids, Ostrogoths, Langobards, Franks.. On the other hand, I never heard about GM using a horse archers at all. Their military tactic was rather different - to stop enemy forces either at fortified place (grad, burg) or deep in the woodland, then gather all available units and defeat them in series of surprising attacks. Thus, most important GM unit should be light armored archer with short, wooden bow and good skill in hiding, together with numerous peasantry.

I also think Bohemian Przemyslid dynasty should be added to the mod, starting with Goriwei/Borivoj who was 19/20 years old back in the 872 and became duke of Bohemia oficially in 873. After it's independence and regaining control over Moravia, Czechs forged alliances with various Elbian Slavs and through them experienced also Viking culture, although not as much as Kyiv and Rus' states. Przemyslids created many legends and 'updated' the old ones from pre-slavic and GMn times, so they could be seen as (hypothetical) descendants of it's rulers, although this is just one of the theories - of course too simple to be true. Rather let them be independent from the Moymirids/Moymirians. I guess there is no way how to make lands like Bohemia freeing themselves from the GM under their own dynasty after few years?

I remember there were some units in some mod, maybe IBFD for RTW:BI, don't know now. They looked quite okay to me, apart from fact that they were only few and characters couldn't gain christian faith by any mean!

[Wareg]

A large amount of weapon was found in Lednica lake. Weapons are from X-XI centuries (probably most of them were lost during raid of Břetislav I, duke of Bohemia, in 1038). I think that these weapons, both Polish and Bohemian, may be similar to these used in Moravia.
There were about 120 axes(some with handles), including 2 handed axes with 110-120 cm handle and 2 czekans, several dozen of spears' heads(also some with 2-3m handles) and 7 swords.
We can conclude that axes were very popular (most popular?) weapon in that region, spears/javelins also, swords-not.
Some axes weren't typical weapons but they could be used as it.
I hope that there will be many axemen units and at least one with 2 handed monsters
http://www.dzikibez.pl/index.php/new...WAw3d1M&imgurl

[Heathen Storm]

A large amount of weapon was found in Lednica lake. Weapons are from X-XI centuries (probably most of them were lost during raid of Břetislav I, duke of Bohemia, in 1038). I think that these weapons, both Polish and Bohemian, may be similar to these used in Moravia.
There were about 120 axes(some with handles), including 2 handed axes with 110-120 cm handle and 2 czekans, several dozen of spears' heads(also some with 2-3m handles) and 7 swords.
We can conclude that axes were very popular (most popular?) weapon in that region, spears/javelins also, swords-not.
Some axes weren't typical weapons but they could be used as it.
I hope that there will be many axemen units and at least one with 2 handed monsters
http://www.dzikibez.pl/index.php/new...WAw3d1M&imgurl

Many of those two-handers (or at least, what looked like two handers - can't understand the language ) look highly nordic/viking influenced:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Odovacar]

There is quite a debate among historicians concerning the location of the slavic state from the IX. century known to us as Great Moravia (actualy this name was first used by the Roman emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos more than 40 years after the state cease to exist). The above mentioned theory of Boba and others is supported by some statements in the Frankish conterporary sources (however, Frankish chroniclers did not necesary have to be 100 % accurate about the geography of the areas where they may never had been). One of the main argument reversing this theory is that acording archeological research area around Syrmium seems to be very spearly populated in IX. century in contrary to the area of Todays Moravia and Western Slovakia.

Off topic: I myself have a great respect to every scholar no matter what nationality is he. Unfortunately, I must also admitt that I experinced the unwillingness of some Hungarian scholars to accept the clear evidence supporting the contradictional theory. However, I do not want to judge Hungarian scholars in general neither to say that they are all evil kind of bastards

Those are earlier theories, guys. And not motivated by some bias as far as I am aware of such things. Hardly unbiased are the slovak, the romanian historians also.
The southern Moravia theory is based on Constantinos the byzantian emperor who wrote that the moravians are southwards from the turkoi (hungarians).
Frankish sources are very correct usually because in the 10th century the Bavarian Geograpjher made a list about the slavic tribes and their locations, castles in order to launch a christianizing mission. Therefore that source is the best to consult.

In my opinion the theory that Great Moravia (or Old Moravia ) was on the lowlands or around Sirmium is not convincing. One important central was Mosaburg and another Brezlauspurc as we know it

Some historians tried to relocate these too but as far as I am convinced Mosaburg was todays Zalavár in Hungary, and Brezlauspurc was Bratislava, Slovakia.

[Wareg]

Many of those two-handers (or at least, what looked like two handers - can't understand the language ) look highly nordic/viking influenced

It is possible but viking influences weren't significant in most parts of Poland (stronger only in Pomerania). Some of 2 handed axes could be tools but in case of danger could be used as weapon.
So maybe unit of woodcutters or something like that from most forested parts of Great Moravia?

[absinthia]

the large axe is not uncommon over most of Europe and beyond, it is a quite ordinary tool which is handy for chopping wood.
look at the angle of the cutting edge and the thickness of the axe head when considering if it is mainly tool or weapon.
also keep in mind that axes were a common tool among anyone using wood for material and fire wood. this making it a obvious weapon of convenience among most ordinary folk, among it large axes. still this does not warrant a unit organized on a specific axe design, unless that is attested by other sources.
the 2 handed axes more or less disables use of shield, which is not a good option for a lightly armoured and hardly trained combatant. on the contrary a troop of 2 handed axemen must be considered a specialist troop for tactical usage and preferably heavily armoured to compensate for the lack of shield. also the effective usage of great axes would require trained techniques comparable to fencing. i believe this require an amount of time on training that is not for the common levied man.

obviously a commoner could use a large axe from behind a shieldwall, giving him range while quite protected, somewhat like spears. but that would require animation combinations or formations that is not available in M2TW. that AI would not understand to use 2 or more units to set up a proper shieldwall, it would just charge ahead with the unprotected 2 handed axe men.

[Diocle]

I want to add few suggestion about Langbards and Frankish kingdoms; The Langobards now are absorbed in the Frankish Empire and its feudal system, from the 774 they adopted Frankish Cavalry tactics, infantry (now Italic and Lombards were amalgamated) is of low quality, at Olivetti 1024, Lombard foot were considered virtally useless, having no shields and were left in reserve with few cavalry "to maintain their courage", Caballarii/Milites fight mounted, and dismounted as Heavy infantry, only to attack or defend fortifications, the archers were drawn from the free Langobards and were good quality troops; The deployment was yet similar to the medieval times: A strong Noble Heavy Cavalry (now light armured followers are absorbed in the Knights groups forming the rear ranks), a mass of low quality infantry, frequently also without/or very few shields, incapable to perform a real shieldwall, and good or medium quality archers (the Langobards had good bows similar to the later saxon longbows).

The real difference IMO is the feudal system developed during the Carolingian age: were the feudal system is developed, in the post Carolingians Western and Eastern Frankish Kingdoms, we can safely say that the main role in battle was performed by the Milites/Caballarii strike force, similar to the later medieval knights, who fought mounted and preferred a direct charge into the enemy line with the 'Iuvenes or Pueri', that is the followers, in the rear ranks of the formation, while the infantry, being low quality feudal levies, mainly spearmen, was barely able to defend its ground, played only a secondary support role for the Knights, and the bowmen, where available, provided the missile fire in the rear ranks ( more mass fire on the rear than skirmishers).
In the areas were the feudal system not yet arrived the tactics (well described in the previous posts) are the boarhead/cuneus and shieldwall, here the tribal social structure allowed to deploy a good infantry but few or no heavy Cavalry.

My informations are mainly from Gregory of Tours 'Historia Francorum', Eginard 'Life of Charlemagne', Erchempert 'Historia Langobardorum' and being a miniature wargamer I read many Wargame (really well documented) Books, Rules and army lists and obviously Osprey.

[Wareg]

Good post, I can't disagree with you. So If there isn't any evidence that 2 handed axes were used by better equipment druzhina I give up I hope that Varangians will compensate It

[NikeBG]

In my opinion the theory that Great Moravia (or Old Moravia ) was on the lowlands or around Sirmium is not convincing. One important central was Mosaburg and another Brezlauspurc as we know it.

The main confusion, I think, comes from the fact that besides Great Moravia, there was also indeed the Moravia (as a region) to the south of the Danube, in the area of the Morava rivers, which still exists today. Although, while I also find the theory unconvincing, I'd have to say it nevertheless deserves attention. Imre Boba (IIRC it was him), f.e., has some interesting works on the matter.

[Majkl]

There is an article about "different moravias" (geographic name moravia) in europe, nevertheless it is in slovak languguage... on the picture with red area are shown different lands called moravia ,they are four actually.
LOL EDIT: forgot to post link lmao http://sclabonia.sk/2011/01/patranie-po-velkej-morave/

[Heathen Storm]

I want to add few suggestion about Langbards and Frankish kingdoms; The Langobards now are absorbed in the Frankish Empire and its feudal system, from the 774 they adopted Frankish Cavalry tactics, infantry (now Italic and Lombards were amalgamated) is of low quality, at Olivetti 1024, Lombard foot were considered virtally useless, having no shields and were left in reserve with few cavalry "to maintain their courage", Caballarii/Milites fight mounted, and dismounted as Heavy infantry, only to attack or defend fortifications, the archers were drawn from the free Langobards and were good quality troops; The deployment was yet similar to the medieval times: A strong Noble Heavy Cavalry (now light armured followers are absorbed in the Knights groups forming the rear ranks), a mass of low quality infantry, frequently also without/or very few shields, incapable to perform a real shieldwall, and good or medium quality archers (the Langobards had good bows similar to the later saxon longbows).

The real difference IMO is the feudal system developed during the Carolingian age: were the feudal system is developed, in the post Carolingians Western and Eastern Frankish Kingdoms, we can safely say that the main role in battle was performed by the Milites/Caballarii strike force, similar to the later medieval knights, who fought mounted and preferred a direct charge into the enemy line with the 'Iuvenes or Pueri', that is the followers, in the rear ranks of the formation, while the infantry, being low quality feudal levies, mainly spearmen, was barely able to defend its ground, played only a secondary support role for the Knights, and the bowmen, where available, provided the missile fire in the rear ranks ( more mass fire on the rear than skirmishers).
In the areas were the feudal system not yet arrived the tactics (well described in the previous posts) are the boarhead/cuneus and shieldwall, here the tribal social structure allowed to deploy a good infantry but few or no heavy Cavalry.

My informations are mainly from Gregory of Tours 'Historia Francorum', Eginard 'Life of Charlemagne', Erchempert 'Historia Langobardorum' and being a miniature wargamer I read many Wargame (really well documented) Books, Rules and army lists and obviously Osprey.

They actually got the Langobards perfectly. The Principality of Benevento was never conquered by the Franks and so didn't truly adopt their style of warfare. So therefore they would be using the tribal warfare you described

[Automatix]

Yes i have made and school work on this theme and there were moravia and great moravia but this is just a geological names such as poland and great poland.