Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Genghis Skahn]

I think missile damage should be nerfed. Missiles were not battle winners. They were more harassing tools trying to break formations and reduce morale. For that reason I think that units should only use flame shot (with normal shot animation) and have their damage slightly reduced. This way missile damage will break formations while causing less casualties giving them a chance to return to the battle. Just my 2cts.

making missiles less effective than they are will result in battles that only require melee infantry which invalidates a whole host of other unit types

Not to mention that the above statement makes no sense for much of Asia, IMO, where missile units are abound and good melee infantry are hard to come by. Also saying that missiles are not battle winners totally contradicts the supposed Parthian strategy which they used against invading nomads like the Saka, which was loading camels full of missiles, which their light horse archers would use to re-stock their quivers with, giving them a gigantic edge over their nomadic counterparts who had no such arrow reserves. I think the statement that "missiles were not battle winners" makes 0 sense for Steppe warfare in this time period, where almost every troop type carried a bow of some sort...

[mAIOR]

True. I was just offering my opinion though. It makes sense in combat with low numbers of heavy infantry involved to use more missiles though and if you can do a kind of rolling retreat (which you can't do in this engine) until the enemy has been weakened enough due to loss of cohesion and losses in general and then move in for the kill. Again, not meaning to offend anyone and just my 2cts. I find the level of losses generally too high with the winning side losing as much as 20% or more. Literally my 2cts.

[QuintusSertorius]

True. I was just offering my opinion though. It makes sense in combat with low numbers of heavy infantry involved to use more missiles though and if you can do a kind of rolling retreat (which you can't do in this engine) until the enemy has been weakened enough due to loss of cohesion and losses in general and then move in for the kill. Again, not meaning to offend anyone and just my 2cts. I find the level of losses generally too high with the winning side losing as much as 20% or more. Literally my 2cts.

You're entitled to your opinion, no one is questioning that. However, your assertion that losses are too high doesn't really bear any resemblance to the period, barring the hoplite-centric battles of the Peloponnesian War.

[Mamlaz]

Not to mention that the above statement makes no sense for much of Asia, IMO, where missile units are abound and good melee infantry are hard to come by.

That is because they had so many cavalry, and the melee cavalry did that role.

Also saying that missiles are not battle winners totally contradicts the supposed Parthian strategy which they used against invading nomads like the Saka, which was loading camels full of missiles, which their light horse archers would use to re-stock their quivers with, giving them a gigantic edge over their nomadic counterparts who had no such arrow reserves. I think the statement that "missiles were not battle winners" makes 0 sense for Steppe warfare in this time period, where almost every troop type carried a bow of some sort...

Aren't you actually contradicting your point here?

If Central Asian archers, considered the top of the game, are so ineffective at killing(each other mind you, meaning largely unshielded targets) that the solution one faction had against the other was to heavily increase the arrow load available to shoot at the enemy, then how the hell are they actually battle winners?

So if your thousands to tens of thousands of archers, cannot decide a battle with what, x30ish arrows...meaning tens to hundreds of thousands of arrows, to take the field, then there is something major to be said about their ability to decisively take the field.

There is a major reason those same Parthians spilled mountains of gold to create as large as possible and as heavy as possible lancer troop.

[Genghis Skahn]

Again, not meaning to offend anyone and just my 2cts

Well, worry not, I'm not offended in the slightest. You're entitled to your opinion.

barring the hoplite-centric battles of the Peloponnesian War

Well, even considering that, there are several mentions by Thucydides where missiles played a significant role in victories. The first would be the siege of plataea, where he describes how the plataeans are quite proficient with the sling and warded off a Peloponnesian assault(before later succumbing to the siege) via this proficiency. The second I can think of was during the failed Athenian expedition to Sicily, whereby the retreating Athenians were described as essentially being harassed to death by javelineers and the like(horsemen included of course), after they gave up on Syrakousai and attempted to return home. Do note that I'm going off of memory here, so errors are to be expected.

[QuintusSertorius]

There was also Sphacteria, where a surrounded and greatly outnumbered Spartan force was whittled down by javelin-armed oarsmen from the Athenian fleet. But like the examples you picked out, they did tend to be exceptions from the general rule of the Peloponnesian war having relatively low casualty rates.

[mAIOR]

There was also Sphacteria, where a surrounded and greatly outnumbered Spartan force was whittled down by javelin-armed oarsmen from the Athenian fleet. But like the examples you picked out, they did tend to be exceptions from the general rule of the Peloponnesian war having relatively low casualty rates.

And they are usually after hard fought battles with demoralized troops or armies in retreat and usually where the forces suffering the losses are "vastly outnumbered". Let's do some quick math with the parthian vs Sarmathian example. So in order to have a battle winning chance Let's say that 3k parthian horse archers have 1k camels with 1k arrows each. That is one million arrows in order to stop the opposing army. Let's say the army was 10x the size that is 30 arrows per soldier to what casualty rate? 20% 30% (and that is pushing it) that is 6k Saka dead for 1 million arrows spent or about 170 arrows per casualty. To note that armies in any other period in history when having such high attrition pretty much had their morale completely destroyed. We are talking about 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 casualty rates. And mind you, using a tactic where they weren't worried about losing ground but could retreat at leisure. In TW terms it would be a string of battles where you use your missile troops, expend all your missiles and retreat, get engaged again and do the same until you witheled them down to a force you can engage with your troops. That is what i mean when ai say they weren't battle winning weapons as you had to resort to ludicrous schemes in order for them to be viable on their own. And again, against a force that lacks heavy infantry they should pack more of a punch but still, how much is it really worth It?


Taking Heraclea battle into account, I am of the firm opinion that Dionysius numbers are as correct as Hyeronimus however, they represent different casualties. The latter one represents dead or permanently disabled while Dionysius represents lightly wounded that could be pressed back into service and routed men who could then return after the battle.

Why this battle, well because it is an open field battle like the ones we have in total war games.

That is why I say that casualties are too high. But of course this happened 2500 years ago give or take so I may be wrong in these casualty numbers. I honestly doubt it based on general history and all kinds of military engagements.

[Genghis Skahn]

That is because they had so many cavalry, and the melee cavalry did that role.

Except that much of this melee cavalry still oft wielded bows as well. The line between melee cavalry and missile cavalry was not always as clear as in the case of Steppe Nomads, as opposed to European armies. In fact, as our Steppe FCs often mention, the cataphracts are thought to have carried more weapons than the engine can simulate, including javelins and bows in some cases. By the way, it's also consistently mentioned that this melee cavalry arm(especially cataphracts, who were usually so small in number such that they would be useless without supporting troops) was unable to function without proper support from their lighter troops. Indeed, cataphracts are utterly useless against HAs without their own supporting light cavalry, because HAs are almost impossible to catch with cavalry as slow as cataphracts(let alone normal cavalry).

If Central Asian archers, considered the top of the game, are so ineffective at killing(each other mind you, meaning largely unshielded targets) that the solution one faction had against the other was to heavily increase the arrow load available to shoot at the enemy, then how the hell are they actually battle winners?

How is this a contradiction? The weakness of horse archers, as the parthians found out, was their ammo count, not their effectiveness(HAs are a very effective unit type, history has pretty much decided that IMO). This meant that steppe nomads had to retreat when out of arrows, whilst the parthian horse archers, who were not that different from their steppe counterparts, instead could resupply at these camels. The weakness of the HA was not that missiles are "weak" or not battle deciding, but that they had to retreat once their arrows ran out(we're assuming light HAs here, not medium HAs or lancer/archer hybrids); the parthian arrow-bearing camels are thought to have solved that problem, causing great mischief to both the Roman and Sakan invaders.

Also, if HAs suck so much, would you please explain why the Mongols, who conquered 1/5th of the Earth's surface, organized their armies with a 6/4 ratio of HA to lancer? It seems very Euro-centric, if you ask me, to believe that only melee cavalry played decisive roles in battles(for example, at the battle of Liegnitz where HAs were crucial to the Mongol victory)...HAs survived so long as a unit type because they were a highly successful military innovation. Their tactical flexibility, speed, endurance and of course, their bows, made them an invaluable asset to any army; certainly miles more useful than the many light troops fielded by Hellenic Poleis which are often mentioned by Thucydides, and who rarely played a decisive role in victories.

[mAIOR]

Because they were a professional force facing mostly levies? Their tactics were to draw infantry away from main body and shoot it from the flanks with feigned attacks and retreats. Exactly the ideal ground for horse archers. Especially for levies that had no clue of military tactics and had little to no armour. Quite a different beast to lets say a professional heavy infantry army which operated efficiently.

[Mamlaz]

Except that much of this melee cavalry still oft wielded bows as well. The line between melee cavalry and missile cavalry was not always as clear as in the case of Steppe Nomads, as opposed to European armies. In fact, as our Steppe FCs often mention, the cataphracts are thought to have carried more weapons than the engine can simulate, including javelins and bows in some cases. By the way, it's also consistently mentioned that this melee cavalry arm(especially cataphracts, who were usually so small in number such that they would be useless without supporting troops) was unable to function without proper support from their lighter troops. Indeed, cataphracts are utterly useless against HAs without their own supporting light cavalry, because HAs are almost impossible to catch with cavalry as slow as cataphracts(let alone normal cavalry).

You are missing my point.

I am not arguing that archery was not effective, merely that melee forces were required for victory.

How is this a contradiction? The weakness of horse archers, as the parthians found out, was their ammo count, not their effectiveness(HAs are a very effective unit type, history has pretty much decided that IMO). This meant that steppe nomads had to retreat when out of arrows, whilst the parthian horse archers, who were not that different from their steppe counterparts, instead could resupply at these camels. The weakness of the HA was not that missiles are "weak" or not battle deciding, but that they had to retreat once their arrows ran out(we're assuming light HAs here, not medium HAs or lancer/archer hybrids); the parthian arrow-bearing camels are thought to have solved that problem, causing great mischief to both the Roman and Sakan invaders.

Again, as I said, if the horse archers are unable to decide their role with so many arrows that the solution to their role is a load of more arrows, then this argues against the deadliness of their bows and arrows.

Also, if HAs suck so much, would you please explain why the Mongols, who conquered 1/5th of the Earth's surface

Name a single battle they won mainly through archery.

Basically every single open battle of their conquests were won by massive cavalry charges(to my knowledge), and the two occasions in Europe where their archers tried to decide the field, they failed miserably, at Kalka and at Mohi.

organized their armies with a 6/4 ratio of HA to lancer?

To my knowledge, the ratio of horse archers to lancers in the Mongol army that is constantly repeated by so many, is based on nothing.

But also, as you yourself have stated, their lancers also often carried bows, so I do not even see how this could be determined.

It seems very Euro-centric, if you ask me, to believe that only melee cavalry played decisive roles in battles

But I am not arguing that at all, what I am arguing is that archers by themselves could not decide the field, and required melee forces to exploit the advantage of the field given to them by those same archers.

(for example, at the battle of Liegnitz where HAs were crucial to the Mongol victory)

You really picked the worst example, not only was that battle decided by a feint retreat and an immediate counter heavy cavalry charge, but it was a battle where a significant part of the opposing forces were drafted peasants, workers and miners.

...HAs survived so long as a unit type because they were a highly successful military innovation.

Yes, absolutely.

But there is still a good reason why heavy cataphract charges are mentioned just as much in the sources describing the battle of Carrhae as the Parthian arrows are.

Even the vaunted Megas Alexandros and his veterans couldn't beat the steppe peoples.

?

If he really won the battle of Jaxartes, why did he not cross the river, nor advance any further into Skythian territory?

What was there to conquer lol?

[Genghis Skahn]

Because they were a professional force facing mostly levies? Their tactics were to draw infantry away from main body and shoot it from the flanks with feigned attacks and retreats. Exactly the ideal ground for horse archers. Especially for levies that had no clue of military tactics and had little to no armour. Quite a different beast to lets say a professional heavy infantry army which operated efficiently.

1. Actually, the description of the battle suggests that they also employed those exact same tactics against the professionals in the army too--and FTR it was the cavalry which they drew away from the main body first, not the infantry. Their tactics were to separate any force from the main body, cavalry are not an exception. Not to mention, that this isn't really a counter argument, in fact it only suggests that you openly admit that HAs can be decisive in nature. The tactics of feigned attacks, retreats and flanking maneuvers were all used by the Steppe peoples of our time period, those weren't innovations by the mongols. What was a mongol innovation was just how organized the mongol army became such those HAs could perform unbelievable maneuvers when compared to what the Euros were capable of, due to their intense discipline and organization. Also, you're again ignoring the synergistic effect that HAs and heavy cavalry had in Steppe armies--in the battle described above, the HAs attacked the flanks while the heavy lancers charged head on at the enemy cavalry, meaning that the attacking Euros were surrounded on 3 sides by enemy cavalry(the mongols reportedly avoided totally encircling an enemy army, so that the enemy could still escape--an escape that would often turn fatal because it's much easier to kill routing men than those who are forced to fight to the death).

2. Oh really now? Well for the record most of the armies related to this mod weren't even close to being professional in nature, AFAIK. The Romans are one of those exceptions(and in reality, not until the Marian reforms). The Hellenes did not fare particularly well against the Steppe peoples, despite their ample supply heavy infantry. Now why is that? I'm sure the tactical flexibility of HAs had nothing to do with it . I'm sure that it was just a big coincidence that Baktria, Armenia, the Getai and the KB(their current BG is actually a HA) all adopted HAs; it was probably just because they looked nice, not because they were basically a requirement when it came to effectively fighting their nomadic neighbors

[QuintusSertorius]

Even the vaunted Megas Alexandros and his veterans couldn't beat the steppe peoples. If he really won the battle of Jaxartes, why did he not cross the river, nor advance any further into Skythian territory?

[Sarkiss]

Even the vaunted Megas Alexandros and his veterans couldn't beat the steppe peoples. If he really won the battle of Jaxartes, why did he not cross the river, nor advance any further into Skythian territory?

iirc, steppes were a detour, it began by chasing Darius... the main target was India, along the line of Dionysus legendary exploits and all that.

[QuintusSertorius]

iirc, steppes were a detour, it began by chasing Darius... the main target was India, along the line of Dionysus legendary exploits and all that.

It's easy to rationalise it that way - but where else did Alexander stop, when he appeared to be on a roll?

[NapoleonMaster]

Even the vaunted Megas Alexandros and his veterans couldn't beat the steppe peoples. If he really won the battle of Jaxartes, why did he not cross the river, nor advance any further into Skythian territory?

Alexander’s intention of winning this battle was not to pave the way for further conquests into the northern steppes. Instead its purpose was to pacify his empire’s northern border so that he could turn his attention to the south, where a revolt raised in Sogdiana by Spitamenes demanded his attention. His main focus was on the developed and densely populated east and south, he did not have the time, desire or any reason to go chasing nomads into vast sparsely populated land.

In fact, in the aftermath of the battle Alexander immediately released all his Scythian prisoners of war to make the conclusion of the battle acceptable for them. They agreed to peace, and Alexander’s northern border was never seriously threatened until after his death.

[NapoleonMaster]

You are missing my point.

I am not arguing that archery was not effective, merely that melee forces were required for victory.

I think he has a point tbh, HA/Archers weren't the only essential element of armies nor the most important winning factor.

You can almost see that in every battle that involves nomads begins with the HA softening and wearing down the infantry formations with a continous shower of arrows with the purpose to break their cohesion and then that is followed by a cavalry charge that breaks and routs the enemy army.

Archers had other roles, like helping to break the lines in a formation, much like closed ranged pelstats, as anti-HA, as skirmishers e.t.c.

I would say that the only ones to win through archery in all of history were the English. (Agincourt is the best example)

Otherwise they needed to be complemented by other types of units to achieve victory.

[Mamlaz]

I would say that the only ones to win through archery in all of history were the English. (Agincourt is the best example)

Even that can be argued, as at both Crecy and Agincourt, the archers failed to take out the heavy armored men or halt the French advance, but rather dislodged the French capability to properly field their troops in good order.

Which resulted in the English knights and men at arms(the forgotten section of the English army of the period) engaging the incoming French, weakened by the archers(whilst being supported themselves by said archers), and taking them out easily.

At Poitiers is a similar story, with also the utterly overlooked English heavy cavalry charge, that swept around the field and charged the French rear, that seized the day.

So again, you have the archers being very effective at dealing the purpose they were meant for, and the melee section of the army engaging on the field prepared for them by the archers.

[Genghis Skahn]

Again, as I said, if the horse archers are unable to decide their role with so many arrows that the solution to their role is a load of more arrows, then this argues against the deadliness of their bows and arrows.

No, it really doesn't IMO. Remember that this innovation is thought to have first been developed against Steppe invaders, and it was this hefty supply of arrows which allowed them to gain superiority over other HAs. Since HAs are so fast and light(basically uncatchable by many melee cavalry, even for the Parthians), an ample supply of HAs and arrows was an effective tactic against Steppe armies. It speaks to how necessary a good supply of arrows was in order to kill enemy HAs, since catching them was a near inhuman feat.

Since you seem a bit obsessed by the Carrhae example, a load of arrows still works as a tactical example, since a near constant stream of arrrows would force the Romans into anti-arrow formations--formations which their Cataphracts could then exploit(again, proving my point that HAs were crucial to the effectiveness of cataphracts), since the testudo wasn't very effective against a cavalry charge, as Cassius Dio mentions specifically in reference to Carrhae:

For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their rank to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows.

If it were just a regular steppe army, without this ample supply of arrows, then the Romans could have easily held out until the enemy ran out of arrows. The sheer amount of Parthian arrows prevented this.

Basically every single open battle of their conquests were won by massive cavalry charges(to my knowledge)

[citation needed]. And even if I could believe that, none of that would be possible without the effective support of HAs; claiming that only heavy cavalry charges won them victories is absolutely ridiculous especially since so many of those successful charges were set-up by(who then assisted in carrying the day) horse archers; it's robbing them of the credit they deserve. And again, that claim is Eurocentric as hell.

Mongols won battles through superior maneuverability(read HAs, although even their lancers are thought to be lighter than most contemporary heavy cav), tactics and effectively picking and choosing their battles. The example of Liegnitz, despite your rejection of it, is perfect in that regard, since the attack was made after hearing that a larger supporting army was coming to merge/assist the losing European army, in order to prevent this merger from occurring.

To my knowledge, the ratio of horse archers to lancers in the Mongol army that is constantly repeated by so many, is based on nothing.

Most of the Mongol army was made up of light horse archers. The same is true for our Steppe factions: the heavy cavalry was always a minority when contrasted against the much larger hordes of lighter HAs. If we are to believe the 6/4 ratio, then the Mongols employed much more heavy cavalry than our Steppe factions in game, but it's still an army predominated by lighter HAs. If we're to discount the 6/4 ratio then I suspect that the predominance of HAs would be even greater, since that's how Steppe armies had functioned for a very long time(basically everyone could afford a bow, a horse and even a lance, but only some could afford heavy armor). If you can find me evidence that suggests that the Mongol army was predominated by heavy lancers, I'll be impressed, because it's stated almost ad nauseum that their army was composed primarily of lighter HAs.

But also, as you yourself have stated, their lancers also often carried bows, so I do not even see how this could be determined.

It could be determined by the amount of armor they wore. The Mongol HAs were notoriously light. Their lancers on the other hand, who still wore less heavy armor than Euro knights, wore lamellar armor.

You really picked the worst example, not only was that battle decided by a feint retreat and an immediate counter heavy cavalry charge, but it was a battle where a significant part of the opposing forces were drafted peasants, workers and miners.

The Mongol army in that battle was only a diversionary force, and one that had recently suffered casualties from past battles. It's estimated that they numbered at around 8k-10k men, whereas the Christians may have been at most 25,000 strong(some say 30k). The heavy cavalry charge wasn't immediate: it was the Silesian cavalry who initiated combat with the vanguard, but they were repelled. Then the cavalry of Greater Poland and Opole attacked the vanguard, who then feigned retreat. Then the horse archers flanked them and peppered them with arrows as they charged forward. Once cut off from both infantry and cavalry support, only then did the melee cavalry charge forward, with light horsemen attacking the flanks--all the while being peppered by HA arrows. There was nothing immediate about that counter charge... It was painstakingly set up by the vanguard and the lighter HAs.

You can use the levy argument all you like, but there were a number of allied knight contingents supporting Henry's army(not even considering that it is generally thought to have been larger than the Mongol army), but those were all wildly disorganized when compared to the Mongol's own organizational hierarchy. I could also make the argument that it was this superior organization which allowed them to win, since Mongol commanders were selected based on competence, whereas the Euros selected their commanders mainly by birthright. Inbred, pompous and incompetent noble commanders can explain a defeat just as easily. That's not even touching the fact that Europeans had no system of sophisticated long-distance military communication, in stark opposition to the Mongols who had a sophisticated system of communication that allowed commanders to give orders to their troops during a battle, or the fact that European commanders fought in the thick of battle, unable to give orders to far off contingents or able to see the bigger picture, unlike the Mongol commanders who usually didn't take the risk of being at the front line....Henry also made the critical mistake of marching to meet the allied army coming to join him(only 2 days away and which was more than enough to take on such a small diversionary force), rather than staying safely behind his fortifications, a mistake that would prove fatal. There's a lot more to this defeat than the presence of levied miners...

A bit more on the subject, including the claim that "every single one of their victories were won by massive cavalry charges"(I don't think that his 20k mongol army estimate is right--it was probably smaller than that; contemporary sources place them at 10k horsemen and that's not including earlier casualties):

http://www.historynet.com/mongol-inv...f-liegnitz.htm

Mongol armies were made up entirely of cavalry, but the Mongol, in contrast to the European knight, depended primarily on his bow, and usually did not favor close-quarters combat on horseback. His protection lay in speed and maneuverability, not in armor, and he often wore no armor aside from an open metal helmet with a leather drop behind the neck and a silk shirt under his coat that followed an arrowhead into a wound and allowed it to be withdrawn without tearing the flesh. There were more heavily armored Mongols, but even those heavy cavalrymen generally wore relatively light and flexible lamellar armor, consisting of a multitude of overlapping leather or iron plates. The Mongol bow was a recurved composite bow, a lamination of wood, horn and sinew that could cast an arrow more than 300 yards. The Mongols shot their arrows with great accuracy while riding at a fast pace and could even shoot accurately backward at a pursuer. Each warrior carried 60 arrows of different weights for shooting different distances and often carried more than one bow.
....

The first of Duke Henry’s divisions, that under Boleslav, charged into the Tartar ranks to begin the usual hand-to-hand combat, but the more lightly armed Mongols on their agile ponies easily surrounded them and showered them with arrows. Finding that they could not get any support from the other formations, Boleslav’s men broke off their attack and fled back to the Polish line.
....
Things were not as they seemed to the European knights, however; they had fallen victim to one of the oldest tricks in the Mongols’ book–the feigned retreat. The riders of the steppes, unlike the knights, had been taught to retreat as a tactical move, and in so doing, they drew the knights away from their infantry. Once that was accomplished, the Mongols swept to either side of the knights, who had strung out and lost their own measure of order, and showered them with arrows. Other Mongols had lain in ambush, prepared to meet the knights as they fell into the trap. Whenever the Mongols found that the knights’ armor afforded effective protection against their arrows, they simply shot their horses. The dismounted knights were then easy prey for the Mongol heavy cavalrymen, who ran them down with lance or saber with little danger to themselves. The Knights Templar made a determined stand, only to be killed to a man

Seems like a lot of soldiers(if knights being killed by arrows are mentioned, then we know that even more unarmoured troops were killed by them) were killed by bows, and your claim that most of their victories resulted from massive cavalry charges seems a bit dubious given that the Mongols did not favor hand-to-hand combat the way the Europeans did. So again, I'm gonna chalk that claim up to Eurocentrism. Again, that's not even touching the fact that, when massive cavalry charges did occur, it was usually painstakingly set up by HAs, assisted by HAs, and on top of all that, the HAs would relentlessly pepper the enemy while such charges were occurring.

Oh, and the levy argument makes even less sense when it comes to EB. Professional armies were the exception, not the norm, and many times a player is fighting an enemy army with a decent portion of levies in it--levies who make easy arrow-fodder. I would treat Carrhae as an example where two professional armies(or at least near professional, in the Parthian case) were fighting one another.

But there is still a good reason why heavy cataphract charges are mentioned just as much in the sources describing the battle of Carrhae as the Parthian arrows are.

I have never once argued that cataphracts weren't effective, only that they're useless without supporting cavalry, which is true for our time period because most cataphract contingents weren't large enough to decide a battle on their own(the sheer cost to equip a cataphract meant that for a very long time, they only existed in small numbers).

[Mamlaz]

No, it really doesn't IMO. Remember that this innovation is thought to have first been developed against Steppe invaders, and it was this hefty supply of arrows which allowed them to gain superiority over other HAs. Since HAs are so fast and light(basically uncatchable by many melee cavalry, even for the Parthians), an ample supply of HAs and arrows was an effective tactic against Steppe armies. It speaks to how necessary a good supply of arrows was in order to kill enemy HAs, since catching them was a near inhuman feat.

How does that not agree with what I have said?

The Parthians themselves used loads of HAs as well, and the choice of increased ammo supply as being necessary for gaining the upper hand by itself speaks of the ineffectiveness of those same HA to take the field with a "regular" amount of ammo.

Since you seem a bit obsessed by the Carrhae example,

?

I brought it up since Parthians were mentioned.

load of arrows still works as a tactical example, since a near constant stream of arrrows would force the Romans into anti-arrow formations--formations which their Cataphracts could then exploit(again, proving my point that HAs were crucial to the effectiveness of cataphracts), since the testudo wasn't very effective against a cavalry charge, as Cassius Dio mentions specifically in reference to Carrhae:

If it were just a regular steppe army, without this ample supply of arrows, then the Romans could have easily held out until the enemy ran out of arrows. The sheer amount of Parthian arrows prevented this.

Yes?

[citation needed].

Yes, by you, as I politely asked you to provide a single of their battles won mainly through archery.

And even if I could believe that, none of that would be possible without the effective support of HAs

Yes, I already agreed with that.

claiming that only heavy cavalry charges won them victories is absolutely ridiculous especially since so many of those successful charges were set-up by(who then assisted in carrying the day) horse archers; it's robbing them of the credit they deserve.

Except that I did not deny the presence and activity of those horse archers nor did I state that the heavy cavalry won by themselves.

Try to read better.

And again, that claim is Eurocentric as hell.

Using that word here does not make any sense and is pathetic, stop doing it.

Mongols won battles through superior maneuverability(read HAs)

Any cavalry has mobility, a bow does not make you more mobile.

The example of Liegnitz, despite your rejection of it, is perfect in that regard, since the attack was made after hearing that a larger supporting army was coming to merge/assist the losing European army, in order to prevent this merger from occurring.

But it is not perfect for your argument at all, since it was basically a feint retreat followed by an immediate heavy cavalry charge, thus again, not a battle won through archery.

The Mongol HAs were notoriously light.

Were they?

Perhaps at the start of their rise, but they probably started decking themselves as conquests went on.

Because the oldest European descriptive source on them describes them as being decked in armor and horse barding.

Their lancers on the other hand, who still wore less heavy armor than Euro knights, wore lamellar armor.

They were more likely to have horse barding and about as heavily armored as the average 13th century knight.

Lamellar is not lighter at all than mail by default.

The Mongol army in that battle was only a diversionary force and one that had recently suffered casualties from past battles. It's estimated that they numbered at around 8k-10k men, whereas the Christians may have been at most 25,000 strong(some say 30k).

Except modern historiography puts the number of the Christian force as low as 3800....

Some argue about 6-7-8 000.

20 000+ would be very unlikely for Henry to field.

The heavy cavalry charge wasn't immediate: it was the Silesian cavalry who initiated combat with the vanguard, but they were repelled. Then the cavalry of Greater Poland and Opole attacked the vanguard, who then feigned retreat. Then the horse archers flanked them and peppered them with arrows as they charged forward. Once cut off from both infantry and cavalry support, only then did the melee cavalry charge forward, with light horsemen attacking the flanks--all the while being peppered by HA arrows. There was nothing immediate about that counter charge... It was painstakingly set up by the vanguard and the lighter HAs.

That sounds pretty damn immediate to me.

An initial engagement, a follow up, and then charge.

You can use the levy argument all you like, but there were a number of allied knight contingents supporting Henry's army

Yes, about a few hundred of them in total, at most.

The entire Templar contingent lost 3 knights out of a whooping 88 present in that battle.

(not even considering that it is generally thought to have been larger than the Mongol army)

By whom?

If we go by modern historiography, the numbers are similar, if we go by contemporary chronicles, then the numbers vary wildly.

but those were all wildly disorganized when compared to the Mongol's own organizational hierarchy. I could also make the argument that it was this superior organization which allowed them to win, since Mongol commanders were selected based on competence, whereas the Euros selected their commanders mainly by birthright. Inbred, pompous and incompetent noble commanders can explain a defeat just as easily. That's not even touching the fact that Europeans had no system of sophisticated long-distance military communication, in stark opposition to the Mongols who had a sophisticated system of communication that allowed commanders to give orders to their troops during a battle, or the fact that European commanders fought in the thick of battle, unable to give orders to far off contingents or able to see the bigger picture, unlike the Mongol commanders who usually didn't take the risk of being at the front line....Henry also made the critical mistake of marching to meet the allied army coming to join him(only 2 days away and which was more than enough to take on such a small diversionary force), rather than staying safely behind his fortifications, a mistake that would prove fatal. There's a lot more to this defeat than the presence of levied miners...

What are we even talking about by this point?

This was a talk about war archery on the battlefield, and you turned into a youtube level introductory lesson on the Mongols.

uding the claim that "every single one of their victories were won by massive cavalry charges"(I don't think that his 20k mongol army estimate is right--it was probably smaller than that; contemporary sources place them at 10k horsemen and that's not including earlier casualties):

http://www.historynet.com/mongol-inv...f-liegnitz.htm

What are you doing lol?

Some off brand websites are not historical sources.

Get that out of here.

Seems like a lot of soldiers(if knights being killed by arrows are mentioned, then we know that even more unarmoured troops were killed by them) were killed by bows

Seems through what?

What are you talking about?

The website you linked?

If their bows were so effective, why the hell did they charge at Kalka, why did they cross the river at Mohi and charged nearly immediately across the main bridge to engage the Hungarians in close combat?

and your claim that most of their victories resulted from massive cavalry charges seems a bit dubious given that the Mongols did not favor hand-to-hand combat the way the Europeans did.

Utterly wrong.

The amount of times they engaged their enemies in close quarters is many.

They did not scare away from clashes at all.

So again, I'm gonna chalk that claim up to Eurocentrism.

Yeah, because that is all you have lol

Again, that's not even touching the fact that, when massive cavalry charges did occur, it was usually painstakingly set up by HAs, assisted by HAs, and on top of all that, the HAs would relentlessly pepper the enemy while such charges were occurring.

Yes?

[mAIOR]

There are levies and there are levies. Were the hoplites from ancient Greeks levies? Mostly yes but well armed levies. The ones at liegnitz were not well armed. In this time period levy armies were common but they were also decently equipped usually.

And I don't argue against the HA having a role. Just archery in general being too deadly in this mod. Archers in all these battles are good examples where horse archers harass and disrupt and not necessarily defeat the enemy army. At Carrhae the Roman army was exceptionally poorly led and Cassius with a fraction of the force at Carrhae soundly defeated the parthian armies. As for Alexander stopping at the border of the steppes, he was indeed a genius. Why would he go after illusive armies in a vast empty wildland he knew nothing about.