Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread

[+Marius+]

You are desperately dragging Ayyubids (Arsuf, Acre etc) into this again because the battles between the Seljuks and the Crusaders don't fit your agenda for obvious reasons, how many more times do I have to repeat that Ayyubids were far from representing mobile, horse-archer based armies?

You do realize that basically the entire cavalry section of the Ayyubid armies were Turks, Mamelukes or any other form of Turkic mercenary/slave?

Saladin reportedly had about 9000 Ghulams in Egypt alone, that is more professional cavalry than the entire manpower pool of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Which reminds me, there was a battle where horse archers and light cavalry were tasked with performing the role of a main battlefield unit without the support of heavy cavalry, it was the battle of Jaffa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaffa_(1192)

...well, that went well.

[the lightning legion]

just a uneducated fellow with a question here; but if the turks were so wildly superior in every way then how did the crusaders even get to the levant to fight the ayyubids? it doesnt make logical sense.

[Danishmend]

just a uneducated fellow with a question here; but if the turks were so wildly superior in every way then how did the crusaders even get to the levant to fight the ayyubids? it doesnt make logical sense.

They were definitely not. The Crusaders had much better heavy cavalry, infantry and so on. The debate is not about "who is superior" or something. He said the engine made horse archers far more powerful than they actually were and wanted mods to reduce their stats, which basically means a disaster for factions like Seljuks, Cumans etc.

[saneel]

Horse archers were the most deadly unit in middle ages. When armies from Europe encountered it for the first time they were shocked and defeated heavily. They only way to counter them was archers and crossbowmen. Mongol army based on fast cavalry and horse archers was steamroalling across every european army in its path. The only problem is that not anyone can do that, ride very fast and shoot accuratly on the move. So they should be very long to train and vunlerable to enemy fire. But when circling around infantry and cavalry they were deadly.

[+Marius+]

He said the engine made horse archers far more powerful than they actually were and wanted mods to reduce their stats, which basically means a disaster for factions like Seljuks, Cumans etc.

No, it does not, because those factions will still have better light cavalry, completely comparable heavy cavalry and better foot archers.

Horse archers were the most deadly unit in middle ages. When armies from Europe encountered it for the first time they were shocked and defeated heavily.

Sigh.

Then this happened magically;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...es_1135-en.svg

When the crusaders faced the horse archers, they proved to be ineffective even against footsoldiers;

"...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks" - Bahā'al-Dīn

The first recorded engagement between horse archers and knights was at Edessa, when Godfrey and his 12 knights were ambushed by 140 Turks(exaggerated probably) and yet they killed 30 of them and forced other to flee.
The larger warhorses of the heavy cavalry could outrun the smaller ponies of the light cavalry, meaning that IRL, only the higher quality horse archers(who could afford better horses) could outrun heavy cavalry.

The main issue of the crusaders were the Seljuk melee cavalry, which was far more numerous than their own cavalry since most of the crusader armies were infantrymen.

That means that they were in a constant threat of envelopment, which is the main reason for their defeats against the Seljuks, the horse archers are barely ever mentioned.

Mongol army based on fast cavalry and horse archers was steamroalling across every european army in its path.

They got their asses kicked numerous times under Nogai khan precisely because Nogai did not have the elite heavy troops Subotai and Batu brought with them to Europe on the first invasion.
They lost numerous times in Poland, Hungary, Serbia and Transilvania because of that.

Heck, in southern Poland a section of their army managed to get completely wiped out a small contingent of knights under György of Sovaru because the larger warhorses of the knights outran the smaller Mongol ponies as they tried to feint retreat.

But when circling around infantry and cavalry they were deadly.

Nobody is denying that they were deadly, I am merely stating that they weren't that deadly.
Which is resulting in people, for some reason, believing that I want their bows removed

[the lightning legion]

Horse archers were the most deadly unit in middle ages. When armies from Europe encountered it for the first time they were shocked and defeated heavily. They only way to counter them was archers and crossbowmen. Mongol army based on fast cavalry and horse archers was steamroalling across every european army in its path. The only problem is that not anyone can do that, ride very fast and shoot accuratly on the move. So they should be very long to train and vunlerable to enemy fire. But when circling around infantry and cavalry they were deadly.

to be fair, the same thing can be said for hoplites, pikemen, heavy cavalry etc all throughout history one thing is unstoppable the first time its fought against (perhaps the best modern example is in RTS' where they add a new faction that destroys everyone because they dont know how to counter it yet.)

[+Marius+]

Just for comparisons sake, this is the entire military force of the Holy Roman Empire recorded in 1337, the month of May;

Henry Burghersh compiles a list of troops amounting to nearly 7,000 men, as follows:

The Emperor 2,000

The Duke of Brabant 1,200
The Count of Hainault 1,000
The Count of Guelders 1,000
The Margrave of Juliers 1,000
The Count of Loos 200
Rupert, Count Palatine 150
The Count of La Marck 100
The Margrave of Brandenburg 100
The Lord of Falkenburg 100
Others 96

Compiled in an army of 6,946 men in total, at a cost in excess of £160,000. up front, plus fixed wages to each purveyor of troops (15 florins per man per month being the usual rate).

...and then they speak of 20 000 German crusaders under Conrad, or even 100 000 under Barbarossa

[Heisenburrg]

Do you see? The whole game would be absolutely unepic if it were COMPLETELY historically...

No... but dont get me wrong. I am also a great fan of history and very interested in historical facts. There´s no conflict in that.

IMO horse archers should be effective (especially the elite,well-trained or "borned-in-the-saddle" guys), maybe not against heavy armored infantry (but theres a "armor penetration stat" or sth like that for this problem if I remember right)... and for close combat horse archers in heavier armor (or elite...) should be able to stand against medium infantry at least for some time. I think M2TW would be a good model for balncing in this point.

[Heisenburrg]

My apprehension is only that finix, warman, slytacular and the other teammembers will be bored at some point from such endless and (sry but also a bit pointless) discussions, if everybody only tries to push his own position, so they dont follow the thread anymore and simply decide to make their own thing.
I hope that this wont happen, so...

[finix]

Yes definitely is boring already and irritating. Don't forget that this is a game ..and should be fun

[saneel]

Marius March your lack of history knowleadge is very disturbing. You do realise that Crusader states existed just because almost all small muslim emirates at that time were at war at each other and some even helped crusaders? That when Saladin united Syria and Egypt the war was over? That noone helped Saladin? Horse archers was the most effective unit until gunpowder. You are just picking some battles but ignoring most of them, Mongols defeated easily knights of TO, Poland, HRE, Hungary, and other countries that paid tribute to them. No one says that knights are weak, but against horse archers they are weak, you cannot chase someone faster. LOGIC

[zsimmortal]

They got their asses kicked numerous times under Nogai khan precisely because Nogai did not have the elite heavy troops Subotai and Batu brought with them to Europe on the first invasion.
They lost numerous times in Poland, Hungary, Serbia and Transilvania because of that.

Heck, in southern Poland a section of their army managed to get completely wiped out a small contingent of knights under György of Sovaru because the larger warhorses of the knights outran the smaller Mongol ponies as they tried to feint retreat.

The whole back and forth regarding horse archers reeks absolutism. Even in the late 14th, early 15th century, the European Mongol successor states still inflicted crushing defeats to the Eastern European domains (Edigu's defeat of the combined Lithuanian, Polish, Teutonic and other forces and subsequent invasion of Muscovite Russia, razing Nizhny Novgorod and Moscow). Tatars notably used light cavalry armies, which suggests sufficient effectiveness. The mod will have to give adequate power to these units, as maneuverability, stamina, discipline, ingenuity, logistics and such don't necessarily translate well to the Total war battlefield. But to make them Attila HA level would just be improper. Most Turkish/Mongol/Turko-Mongol armies used auxiliaries (from tributaries) and native troops to complement their well-disciplined and well-trained cavalry corps.

[Slytacular]

My apprehension is only that finix, warman, slytacular and the other teammembers will be bored at some point from such endless and (sry but also a bit pointless) discussions, if everybody only tries to push his own position, so they dont follow the thread anymore and simply decide to make their own thing.
I hope that this wont happen, so...

Sorry, but I actually do like these discussions. If I'm not so busy I would probably throw my comments in there as well. Lol. I took the time to read their comments and it is helping me to create ideas on how to balance horse archers. I can't speak for the other teammates, but I would rather have our little part of the forum spawned with activity then a dead one.

I have a question about the horse archers and I think this might be a decisive matter in this argument, did the horse archers from the East ever use bodkin arrows? People have actually found bodkin shaped arrows dating before the 100 years War between England and France before England's famous longbowmen. The design of the arrowheads and the material used to create the arrows can play a factor on how well it deals with one to three layers of chainmail and padding. From some observation alone I think chainmail can protect a user better than a coat of plates when it comes to bodkin arrows because of the fact that chainmail is not a flat surface but a mesh of rings; however, if the horse archers go for headshots than it may become a different story.

[+Marius+]

Marius March your lack of history knowleadge is very disturbing.

That is such a sad attempt at banter.
Pathetic.

You do realise that Crusader states existed just because almost all small muslim emirates at that time were at war at each other and some even helped crusaders?

What are you talking about?

The Seljuk princes joined arms to relieve Antioch from siege and they failed, after that the princes were very often joined in various alliances and federations against the Crusader states.
Even those that did not still do not make up a good argument because nearly every single Muslim political entity in the Middle East was larger by itself, alone, than the Crusader states combined.

The kingdom of Jerusalem was smaller than Slovakia.

Also, the Fatimids and their successors had a country larger than the Holy Roman Empire and they were at war with the Crusaders pretty much constantly.

Not to mention the Ayyubids;

http://i.imgur.com/HDDzQaI.png

That when Saladin united Syria and Egypt the war was over? That noone helped Saladin?

Nobody had to help Saladin, he had a much larger army than the Crusaders, it was merely a matter of time.

Horse archers was the most effective unit until gunpowder.

No, that is laughable.

Especially when you consider the cost of training, equipping and maintaining a single horse archer.

You are just picking some battles but ignoring most of them

No, I am not.
Even if you look at all the crusader defeats you will notice, as was already stated here, that they were all won by melee engagements and heavy cavalry charges, the horse archers are barely ever even mentioned as a tool of victory.

Mongols defeated easily knights of TO, Poland, HRE, Hungary, and other countries that paid tribute to them.

1)Teutonic Order did not participate at Legnica and the knights in those battles were very few, most of the European armies were drafted foot levies.

2)During the battle of Mohi, Batu khan nearly died and his personal bodyguards were nearly wiped out by a knightly cavalry charge.

3)The countries that payed tribute to the Golden Horde did not have knights and they also had smaller armies than the Mongols, more importantly, they had far to few horsemen.

4)The Mongols were horribly beaten in their second invasions of Poland, Hungary and in Serbia, consequently, because those countries employed more knights and crossbowmen.

No one says that knights are weak, but against horse archers they are weak, you cannot chase someone faster. LOGIC

How are they weak if they are reported as being stupendously effective against them in nearly every engagement they fought in?
Do you even realize how few knights were in numbers on the battlefield?

Firstly;

"...and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they would cover him with arrows. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described." - Joinville recounts an incident involving Walter of Châtillon

That right there is a historical account of an engagement between a band of horse archers and a single knight defending a village...a single knight.

Secondly, knights could catch up with horse archers because they usually had bigger horses who were faster even with armor on.
It happened many times.

What you fail to realize is that the knights actual enemy was not the horse archer, it was this dude;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...and that dude was very good at his job.

The whole back and forth regarding horse archers reeks absolutism. Even in the late 14th, early 15th century, the European Mongol successor states still inflicted crushing defeats to the Eastern European domains (Edigu's defeat of the combined Lithuanian, Polish, Teutonic and other forces and subsequent invasion of Muscovite Russia, razing Nizhny Novgorod and Moscow).

That was because they had an absolute numerical superiority.

Also, the Mongols had crushing defeats of their own.

...and again, read the damn battle descriptions and you will realize that it was, again, a bunch of heavy cavalry charges that won the day, not the horse archers.

Tatars notably used light cavalry armies, which suggests sufficient effectiveness.

Oh sure, they were surely effective, lets see how they fared against a couple thousand Moldavian footmen;

"30,000 Tatars under Meñli I Giray, attacked with their cavalry from the north and started to pillage the country. The Moldavians took chase after them, and routed and killed most of them. "The fleeing Tatars discard their weapons, their saddles and clothes, while some, as though crazed, jump into the River Dniepr." Giray wrote to Mehmed that he could not wage more war against Stephen, as he had lost his son and two brothers, and had returned with only one horse." - Stephen the Great, Aftermath of the Battle of Vaslui, The Annals of Jan Długosz, pp. 592, 594

did the horse archers from the East ever use bodkin arrows?

I would not be so bold as to claim that they did not use them, but they were apparently very rare.
I do not remember seeing them in images of arrowhead findings.

From some observation alone I think chainmail can protect a user better than a coat of plates when it comes to bodkin arrows because of the fact that chainmail is not a flat surface but a mesh of rings

That is actually wrong.
Bodkins developed specifically to deal with mail armor.
The long bodkins are actually horrible against plates because the point blunts itself on impact, meaning that, even if it does penetrate, the dull point of the arrowhead will now loose penetrative power and will probably be stopped even by a simple cloth.

This is a composite bow tested on a 16 gauge(relatively thin) plate of hammer hardened iron;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE4o3JA_YSo

Also, even if it penetrates it, it has to go through this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

So, its a no go even if it goes through the metal armor, which is why the combination of mail and gambeson worked so well.

if the horse archers go for headshots than it may become a different story.

Well, the chance of hitting an exposed area are miniscule...and the helmet steel quality was usually superb because it was the most important part of the armor.

Headshots were extremely rare, but they did happened.

I remember a source where a knight is described as tilting his head downwards to protect his face as some arrows deflected off his helmet(hitting a curved surface in a proper degree is also a big problem).

[Slytacular]

I have stopped looking at youtube videos of people shooting arrows into armour because there are many results that show the armour either being penetrated or deflective. It really depends on the quality of the metal, the quality of the arrowhead, distance, power, weather, and maybe temperature. All factors and qualities are easily assumed because the weapons and armour of the time are not carefully factory made. The design of the bodkin arrow has no original known creator, but its a coincidence that it happens to work well against flat surfaces, as you can ask any science teacher why stabbing a pencil through paper is easily achieved.

[zsimmortal]

That was because they had an absolute numerical superiority.

Also, the Mongols had crushing defeats of their own.

...and again, read the damn battle descriptions and you will realize that it was, again, a bunch of heavy cavalry charges that won the day, not the horse archers.

When did I say the Mongols were undefeated? I said they could still, well into the period, inflict serious defeats on typical European armies, including armored knights. From reading the accounts of the battle, it just sounds like tactics and artillery won the fight. Parts of the tactics comes from mobility, but there's nothing about heavy cavalry charges, so unless I've misread something about it, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Same thing for the invasion of Russia.

Oh sure, they were surely effective, lets see how they fared against a couple thousand Moldavian footmen;

"30,000 Tatars under Meñli I Giray, attacked with their cavalry from the north and started to pillage the country. The Moldavians took chase after them, and routed and killed most of them. "The fleeing Tatars discard their weapons, their saddles and clothes, while some, as though crazed, jump into the River Dniepr." Giray wrote to Mehmed that he could not wage more war against Stephen, as he had lost his son and two brothers, and had returned with only one horse." - Stephen the Great, Aftermath of the Battle of Vaslui, The Annals of Jan Długosz, pp. 592, 594

Possibly that time, but Crimean Tatars were valuable auxiliaries to the Ottoman troops throughout their conquest of the Balkans. However, this hardly suggests anything more than a support role, compared to the Janissaries and Sipahi, not an organized army based on it. They were just skirmishers and raiders by this point.

The main problem with your argument, which I don't necessarily disagree with on the whole, is that part of the mod's timeframe is going to be golden age of light cavalry warfare. It's simply unthinkable for some of the Eastern factions (namely the Mongols, the Cumans, the Ayyubids and the Khwarezmians) to not have the corps of their army as light cavalry and be thoroughly effective with it. I'm more than inclined to say that their late army should be more mixed, with auxiliary ground troops and such, and have light cavalry lose some potency over the course of the game, but horse archers and hybrid spear/archer cavalry should get a solid spot in the game.

[saneel]

HAHAHHA people there is no point in replying. Serious lack of historical knowleadge. That's why you need to read history from different sources to have some opinion and not be blind follower of some propaganda. HAHAHAHAH

[+Marius+]

When did I say the Mongols were undefeated? I said they could still, well into the period, inflict serious defeats on typical European armies, including armored knights.

Nobody is denying that they could.
The issue here is only why they could.

From reading the accounts of the battle, it just sounds like tactics and artillery won the fight. Parts of the tactics comes from mobility, but there's nothing about heavy cavalry charges, so unless I've misread something about it, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Same thing for the invasion of Russia.

Read again in a bit more detail, there are a couple of books on amazon that specifically describe battles.

Basically, after the envelopment, it was an all out charge into melee, every single time.

Possibly that time, but Crimean Tatars were valuable auxiliaries to the Ottoman troops throughout their conquest of the Balkans. However, this hardly suggests anything more than a support role, compared to the Janissaries and Sipahi, not an organized army based on it. They were just skirmishers and raiders by this point.

You are mistaken, the Tatars that are mentioned in that engagement were the Tatars of the Crimean Khanate and they were still separate of the Ottomans at the time.
What you just read there was a full out Tatar invasion of Moldavia led by their khan that failed miserably.

The main problem with your argument, which I don't necessarily disagree with on the whole, is that part of the mod's timeframe is going to be golden age of light cavalry warfare.

That's the thing.
It wasn't.

Which is my whole point.
Basically every single major engagement was won by either infantry or heavy cavalry.

It's simply unthinkable for some of the Eastern factions (namely the Mongols, the Cumans, the Ayyubids and the Khwarezmians) to not have the corps of their army as light cavalry and be thoroughly effective with it.

Again, that's the thing.
They were effective because the light cavalry allowed the heavy cavalry to actually do the work.

Rarely will you see a source describing light cavalry being described as the pivotal part of any battle...ever.

Decades of movies and video games have changed this image and people are fighting against it like it is a religious belief.

[+Marius+]

HAHAHHA people there is no point in replying. Serious lack of historical knowleadge. That's why you need to read history from different sources to have some opinion and not be blind follower of some propaganda. HAHAHAHAH

I provided something of worth, even historical sources.

You have done nothing but provide textual dysentery.

[zsimmortal]

Nobody is denying that they could.
The issue here is only why they could.



Read again in a bit more detail, there are a couple of books on amazon that specifically describe battles.

Basically, after the envelopment, it was an all out charge into melee, every single time.





You are mistaken, the Tatars that are mentioned in that engagement were the Tatars of the Crimean Khanate and they were still separate of the Ottomans at the time.
What you just read there was a full out Tatar invasion of Moldavia led by their khan that failed miserably.




That's the thing.
It wasn't.

Which is my whole point.
Basically every single major engagement was won by either infantry or heavy cavalry.




Again, that's the thing.
They were effective because the light cavalry allowed the heavy cavalry to actually do the work.

Rarely will you see a source describing light cavalry being described as the pivotal part of any battle...ever.

Decades of movies and video games have changed this image and people are fighting against it like it is a religious belief.

I'm not sure what you define as heavy cavalry, but rarely (if ever) did Tatar or Turko-Mongol armies have heavy cavalry comparable to Europeans, later Turkish cavalry (like the Ottoman Sipahi) or even armored cavalry like some of the Mamluks. They were comparatively wearing windbreakers.