"Professional armies"?

[Kelvinator]

I am wondering what the game means by "professional army". For some reasons, the game classify some of the factions' armies as less professional to others on the advantages/disadvantages boxes when choosing a faction. Portugal, having similar units to Spain, has a disadvantage of "lacking professional armies". Similarly, HRE has a disadvantage of "lacks the professional armies of England and France in later periods". Yet looking at units, neither England and France have better gunpowder units than HRE.

[Rowdytavern]

Well it's barely noticible in the game itself IMO. I think it just means that certain units in England (for example) are professional soldiers by trade, not birth right. Retinue longbowmen are a good example of this in that they were not noble men but still trained from a young age. I think what happened is that the king paid a noble man to raise a certain amount of longbowmen into a company which would have to keep a minimum level of battle readiness. The noble men intern paid the longbowmen. I read the above in a novel called Azincourt written by Bermard Cornwell. Not a bad read. Though I don't know how historically accurate it was.

[Jasbob]

Well it's barely noticible in the game itself IMO. I think it just means that certain units in England (for example) are professional soldiers by trade, not birth right. Retinue longbowmen are a good example of this in that they were not noble men but still trained from a young age. I think what happened is that the king paid a noble man to raise a certain amount of longbowmen into a company which would have to keep a minimum level of battle readiness. The noble men intern paid the longbowmen. I read the above in a novel called Azincourt written by Bermard Cornwell. Not a bad read. Though I don't know how historically accurate it was.

Bernard Cornwell is a amazing writer, He always explains at the end of the book what parts are real and which are made up. He uses real battles,times and events and real kings/nobes but normal puts in a fake main person. Azincourt was a gerat book

[AJStoner]

For game purposes this is simply to distinguish main battle units from militia.

[Aeratus]

It's pretty much widely accepted that those faction descriptions have little to no basis in actual in-game units in terms of stats.

Portugal has even better gunpowder than Spain, and better Pikemen.

As described above, "professional" in their terms merely means castle vs. non-castle units, which is a pretty lame distinction. That's why mods like SS call high end city troops as "urban professional" as opposed to just "professional" (for castle troops).

[PrestigeX]

I get the impression that "professional armies" refers to the Faction's ability to produce a high volume of quality troops that work well together, perhaps that the combined arms approach is easier to pull off ?

I do notice that spain, england, and france -- does seem to have an easier time IN CAMPAIGN pumping out lots of armies of considerable quality... where as HRE, portugal, italians -- they have excellent troops, often far better just in stats or individual ability, but they have a harder time making 'perfect' armies...

[Silverheart]

In the example Portugal - Spain, you have to make this comparison: What "mainstay" units do they have?
In Spain, you have units such as Sword&BucklerMen, Chivalric Knights and Spanish Musketeers
In Portugal you more often than not find stuff like Jinetes, Almughavars and Portuguese Arquebusiers.

Notice how Portugals units are not so much "professionally trained soldiers" as they are "some armed dudes we just happened to have hanging around"

I AM oversimplifying the matter now, but that is only because I am trying to convey the picture as clearly as possible to you.
These factions that lack "professional armies" generally have fewer professional units than their respective counterparts, and more "random conscripts we just gave a weekends´ training", like for example the Almughavars.
As others have pointed out, it´s not very noticeable in the game, unless you´re a pedantic historian - in which case, you shouldn´t be playing the game at all ^::^

[Aeratus]

Portugal also has musketeers. They also have a unique arqubusier that's superior to Spain's arqubusier.
Portugal has pikemen superior to Spain's. Portugal's pikemen are the best in the game and probably the only pikemen that is worth anything in combat value in Vanilla.
Portugal also has conquistadores.

Historically, Almughavars were professional mercenaries who fought around the world, from Spain to Byzantium. They are as professional as you can get.

The only thing Spain has that Portugal doesn't are Chivalric Knights and Sword and Buckler. Ironically, Knights aren't considered "professional" troops in SS, but are considered "Feudal" (which have different attributes than professional troops).

The faction descriptions are merely based on popular historical perceptions, but have little to no basis in in-game units.

[.L.]

Portugal also has musketeers. They also have a unique arqubusier that's superior to Spain's arqubusier.
Portugal has pikemen superior to Spain's. Portugal's pikemen are the best in the game and probably the only pikemen that is worth anything in combat value in Vanilla.
Portugal also has conquistadores.

Historically, Almughavars were professional mercenaries who fought around the world, from Spain to Byzantium. They are as professional as you can get.

The only thing Spain has that Portugal doesn't are Chivalric Knights and Sword and Buckler. Ironically, Knights aren't considered "professional" troops in SS, but are considered "Feudal" (which have different attributes than professional troops).

The faction descriptions are merely based on popular historical perceptions, but have little to no basis in in-game units.

Nah Scotland has better pikes, attacks worse, but Scots pikes are better when their pike formation is broken and are better armored.

[Silverheart]

Portugal also has musketeers. They also have a unique arqubusier that's superior to Spain's arqubusier.
Portugal has pikemen superior to Spain's. Portugal's pikemen are the best in the game and probably the only pikemen that is worth anything in combat value in Vanilla.
Portugal also has conquistadores.
Historically, Almughavars were professional mercenaries who fought around the world, from Spain to Byzantium. They are as professional as you can get.
The only thing Spain has that Portugal doesn't are Chivalric Knights and Sword and Buckler. Ironically, Knights aren't considered "professional" troops in SS, but are considered "Feudal" (which have different attributes than professional troops).
The faction descriptions are merely based on popular historical perceptions, but have little to no basis in in-game units.

And of course, you totally missed my point.
I was NOT pointing out Portugals´ worthlessness for the sake of starting a debate on that subject, as you seem to have concluded, but rather trying to describe this:

These factions that lack "professional armies" generally have fewer professional units than their respective counterparts, and more "random conscripts we just gave a weekends´ training", like for example the Almughavars or the Jinetes.
As others have pointed out, it´s not very noticeable in the game, unless you´re a pedantic historian - in which case, you shouldn´t be playing the game at all

I am well aware of Portugals´ unit roster, and their military strengths - to think I am not is merely folly -
I was also intentionally oversimplifying the matter to convey my message more clearly, and I even made sure to remind eventual readers that I agree it is not very noticeable in the game.

And:
The Almughavars were no professionally trained soldiers.
A knight is a professionally trained soldier.
A pikeman is a professionally trained soldier.
The Almughavars were more self-trained than professionally trained (not to say that they didn´t receive any training at all, of course), but their wide-spread use as mercenaries does not make them classify as profesional soldiers in my opinion.
Sure, they were way more professional soldiers than the average militiaman or conscripted light-weights, but still nowhere near a knight or the like.

[eibelandr]

The term Professional Army just means that Army is made up of volunteer soldiers that have chosen military service as their profession. As opposed to militia forces which consist of individuals who make a living not as soldiers, but band together as a military force temporarily. Conscript forces consist of those individuals who do not volunteer to be soldiers, but instead are forced to fight. Spartans are among the first nations to have a professional army and after the Marian reforms Rome had a professional army.

[Aeratus]

I was actually trying to point out that Portugal doesn't have many fewer professional units than Spain. Spain only has 2 more professional units than Portugal.

Portugal: Mailed Knight, Feudal Knight, Portuguese Knight, Conquistadores, Knights of Santiago, Mounted Crossbowmen
Spain: Mailed Knight, Feudal Knight, Chivalric Knight, Conquistadores, Knights of Santiago, Mounted Crossbowmen, Gensdarme

So as far as cavalry goes, Spain only has one more professional unit.

For infantry, Spain has 1 more professional unit (Sword and bucker men).

All for a total of a difference of 2 professional units.

[.L.]

I was actually trying to point out that Portugal doesn't have many fewer professional units than Spain. Spain only has 2 more professional units than Portugal.

Portugal: Mailed Knight, Feudal Knight, Portuguese Knight, Conquistadores, Knights of Santiago, Mounted Crossbowmen
Spain: Mailed Knight, Feudal Knight, Chivalric Knight, Conquistadores, Knights of Santiago, Mounted Crossbowmen, Gensdarme

So as far as cavalry goes, Spain only has one more professional unit.

For infantry, Spain has 1 more professional unit (Sword and bucker men).

All for a total of a difference of 2 professional units.

Mailed and Feudal knights weren't professional.

[Silverheart]

I was actually trying to point out that Portugal doesn't have many fewer professional units than Spain. Spain only has 2 more professional units than Portugal.

Portugal: Mailed Knight, Feudal Knight, Portuguese Knight, Conquistadores, Knights of Santiago, Mounted Crossbowmen
Spain: Mailed Knight, Feudal Knight, Chivalric Knight, Conquistadores, Knights of Santiago, Mounted Crossbowmen, Gensdarme
So as far as cavalry goes, Spain only has one more professional unit.
For infantry, Spain has 1 more professional unit (Sword and bucker men).
All for a total of a difference of 2 professional units.

So, all in all, they DO have less professional soldiers, as I said...
And still, I was not attempting to start up a debate on the subject Portugal vs. Spain.
Rather I was using it as an example - if you want to, why not compare Portugal in this same way to any of the other factions that have supposedly more professional troops, like France or England.
In all cases, you´ll see that Portugal does in fact have fewer "professional" troops, the very reason to why it says so in the S&W description.
Also still, I agree with those people who say that it is not very noticeable in the game, since Portugal can and always does spit out tonnes of what professional units they have - units which also happen to be rather strong in comparison to the same troop types of other factions.

Mailed and Feudal knights weren't professional.

All knights were professional soldiers.
They were basically trained from the moment they could walk, and they were all part of a class in society that was expected to, and supposed to, dedicate itself to fighting and warfare.
I´d say that´s as professional as it gets.

Or did you mean that they are not classified as professional troops in the game?

[.L.]

All knights were professional soldiers.
They were basically trained from the moment they could walk, and they were all part of a class in society that was expected to, and supposed to, dedicate itself to fighting and warfare.
I´d say that´s as professional as it gets.

Or did you mean that they are not classified as professional troops in the game?

They did not fight for trade, like a trained volunteer army, rather they fought by birth, and inherited land and were expected to fight in order to keep it.

[Silverheart]

They did not fight for trade, like a trained volunteer army, rather they fought by birth, and inherited land and were expected to fight in order to keep it.

How does "fighting by birth" not make you a professional?
They were given land by their lord, and were expected to fight when their lord demanded it in return for being granted the land and the servants to work the land - that´s the way the feudal system works.
And hence they were professional soldiers - they were basically not expected to do anything else but fight. Fighting was indeed their trade, simply BECAUSE they were born into it.

Or what, are you saying that a man who has been trained for combat from his first steps cannot be called a professional soldier? A man who has access to all the proper equipment, and has been given all the proper training through his entire growing up?
In that case, you must have a very narrow definition of professional.

[Aeratus]

Well there is a difference.

Professional soldiers like Roman legionaires were paid a salary to be soldiers. Knights were not paid to fight. Their whole social class was to fight.

[Silverheart]

Well there is a difference.

Professional soldiers like Roman legionaires were paid a salary to be soldiers. Knights were not paid to fight. Their whole social class was to fight.

You mean except for the land, the servants, the authority and the monetary gifts for faithful service?
Yeah, they were paid.

Just because the nations of medieval Europe didn´t have the same recruitment system as the ancient Roman empire doesn´t mean there were no professional soldiers.
That is also a very narrow definition of professional.

[AJStoner]

Well there is a difference.

Professional soldiers like Roman legionaires were paid a salary to be soldiers. Knights were not paid to fight. Their whole social class was to fight.

They were paid to fight, they were just paid in land and title. The economies of feudal states were set-up differently but economics were still, and had always been, in play. There were also any number of commoners who could also be called professionals in this field. Mercenaries were extremely important to all armies of the period and various military duties needed to be preformed year-round that were beneath the station of a knight: Acting as foresters, guarding tax collectors, acting as castle garrisons, etc. Often they had cut their teeth as mercs and then made their way home to take service with a wealthy lord or merchant. When war would break-out, they would be divided amongst the levies to act as low-level officers and provide some rudimentary training. This is where "sergeant" comes from--which is what these men were called in England. They were peasants who had managed to acquire some serviceable war gear and had experience in war--remember that, numerically, most of an "army" was just a bunch of guys with pitchforks back in those days.