Medieval Kingdoms Total War: The Holy Roman Empire (REVAMP)

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Okay so I've been doing a lot of digging lately (which turned out to be quite the pain for the HRE in this period, because historians really seem to have an adverseness to studying the medieval German military, probably because the HRE was such a complicated mess and looking at somewhat unified states and Empires is a lot easier), and I have been able to find some useful information.

First I'd like to talk again about unit names:

Heerschild: Now this is a term that honestly makes little sense in its current use. The Heerschild was roughly speaking a legal document that determined the ranking of the feudal social order within the nobility of the HRE and I am not quite sure what the idea of it denoting a personal guard or retinue is based on. If you want to use a German word "Gefolge"(retinue), "Garde"(guard) or "Leibgarde"(body guard) would be more appropriate, otherwise you could just name the general's unit after the ruler it includes, like with many other factions.

Landwehr: This term starts denoting a military unit only in the modern period, coming into common use in the 19th century. In the Middle Ages a Landwehr was a earthen fortification that divided feudal lands and other territories. The proper term for the unit would probably be "Wehrbauer". These were peasants that were encouraged to settle in border regions which they were tasked to defend until reinforcements would arrive in case of invasion, in exchange for freedom from serfdom and certain dues. Equipment would obviously be rather light with a mix of glaives, bills and flails and later halberds as weapons, somewhat similar to the Saxon halberdiers in the Hungarian roster. Due to the constant instability and conflict within and outside the HRE they would probably be decently effective and experienced troops, but definitely on the low-end equipment-wise. The Austrian ones seem to have been particularly effective, apparently being a part of the reason for the successful defense against the Ottomans, so Austria could maybe get a more elite/better equipped version.

Dienstleute: These were privileged serfs that performed administrative and military tasks for their feudal lord in exchange for being provided food, lodging and certain privileges, forming a intermediary class between the peasantry and aristocracy. Militarily, they seem to have fulfilled a comparable role to sergeants as lighter but still well equipped cavalry and infantry supporting their feudal lord in combat. I'd suggest renaming the Aussoldner to something like dismounted/foot Dienstleute similar to the foot sergeants of other factions. Towards the end of the Middle Ages the term "Reisige"(roughly translates to travelers) seems to become increasingly common, denoting paid, usually mounted troops that join their feudal lord on campaign, I would suggest using this name for the tier 3 Diesntleute to reflect its increasingly common use and the decline of the ministerial system to be replaced with paid troops in the late Middle Ages.

Knechte: I'd suggest renaming them "Fußknechte" to identity them more clearly as foot soldiers, as "Knecht" can have a wide range of meanings in German. These would be the common, trained, but not permanently serving foot troops in contrast to the standing force of mounted Dienstleuten/Reisigen. Their main weapons are polearms, initially glaives and biilhooks, later either halberds or pikes.
Depending on whether you give the tier 3 Fußknechte pikes or halberds, you could give the other weapon to a urban unit. Like in many other European countries at the time, these were generally well equipped and organised, but would usually only fight for the defensive interests of their city, making them unreliable campaign troops. I would also suggest creating units specific to a few major cities, like is the case in the Swiss roster, with their own heraldry, colors and symbols, as urban troops took great pride in their urban identity.

So basically this is the changed roster I would suggest:
Wehrbauern: light polearm infantry
Fußknechte: medium polearm infantry (tiers 1 and 2), medium-heavy pike/halberd infantry (tier 3)
Diesnstleute: heavy melee cavalry (tiers 1 and 2)
Foot/Dismounted Diesnstleute: heavy melee infantry (tiers 1 and 2)
Reisige: heavy melee cavalry (tier 3)
Foot/Dismounted Reisige: heavy melee infantry (tier 3)
Miliz/Burgher: medium pike/halberd infantry

Another thing is that I am kinda unsure about the Trabanten. According to wikipedia a Trabant is a personal bodyguard or adjutant and I have found no mention of Bohemian archers fighting as mercenaries in Germany and would therefore like to know what sources the unit is based on.

And finally after doing some more research on them, I am completely convinced that the Landsknechte should be a HRE-specific unit. In the time frame of this mod and even well into the 16th century they were the standing army of the Empire during the somewhat stable rule of Maximilian I. and fiercely loyal to the Emperor.
I have also found that their distinctive look seems to have already emerged in the mod's time frame. Apparently the slashed and puffed style of their clothing developed, because they found the tight clothes of the late 15th century to be impractical in combat and derided to modify them to be more comfortable, and also as an expression of their emerging corporate identity. By 1503 their style of clothing was already causing enough controversy that their right to wear what they wanted was guaranteed by the 1503 Reichstag. I also found two pre-1500 images displaying the typical Landsknecht look.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Edit: Just to be clear I dont think that the whole unit should have this look, but I think combining this with a more traditional style could create a very cool and unique look. Like giving maybe around half the unit slashed and puffed sleeves and/or trousers and having the rest look like more traditional late era pikemen.


Also what are the "Marscher"? I have never heard that name.

This is some good info. Thanks. I took some time tonight to make some stuff for the Landsknechts. Was denkt ihr?:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Knight2708]

This is some good info. Thanks. I took some time tonight to make some stuff for the Landsknechts. Was denkt ihr?:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Happy to hear that you're taking some of my feedback into account. I really like the changes you've made so far, the Landsknechte are already looking quite similar to what I had hoped they would look like tbh. I like how you've done the puffed sleeves, although the textures could probably still be improved somewhat and I hope you can add the slits in a more 3D-looking way. I really like the choice to mostly use open Schallern as helmets, they look very fitting, although adding in some cervelliers (afaik there were still used in the time due to their cheap cost) and maybe even some of the typical hats could spice their look up a bit more.
One thing that I think looks rather out of place is the widespread use of padding/gambesons which seem to have been gone largely out of use by the late 1400s. I'd suggest removing the padding that can be seen below the chest plates of numerous models and replacing the gamebesons with a short brigandine like those you used for some of the tier 3 Castilian units for the units that wear only gambesons.
It would also be cool if you could make the mail coifs longer to look like the Bischofskragen which were used very frequently by the Landsknechte, although I assume that making them too long could do result in clipping issues.

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Not bad looking at all! You should stop using my horrible and disgusting breastplate that extends past the hips. I regret creating that asset. I'm working on some better looking stuff I can show you the next time you're on Steam Chat

ok. I like the style of that breastplate as something simple for lower-class troops in late period, but the other, more accurate versions you made of it clip with almost everything. I'll see what else you have for me :-)

Happy to hear that you're taking some of my feedback into account.

For sure, man. Like I said, I generally do take people's feedback into account. I just get defensive when some people tell me my work is crap without adding anything useful to the discourse. It makes me feel like crap and makes me not want to put effort into making units anymore. Good news is that it seems that the discussion in this thread has become a bit more civilized as of late, and there is some useful info here I can start incorporating into the rosters. Instead of rushing and keeping all the german rosters the same as they were before, I will focus first on making a good HRE roster, then going on from there.

I agree that I need hats, but there wasn't anything good in the asset list (that I saw), and based on the vitriol I got last time, I was afraid to take any risks. I haven't checked in a while with Sly or anyone though, perhaps there is some new stuff.

Brigandines are an interesting idea, I'll see how that looks. I don't really want to use cerveilliers for the tier 3 unit. Even though they would definitely be historical, I'd like to keep them in Tier 2 in order to maintain some distinction in equipment. I try to keep equipment overlap between tiers to a minimum for stylistic reasons.

[Knight2708]

ok. I like the style of that breastplate as something simple for lower-class troops in late period, but the other, more accurate versions you made of it clip with almost everything. I'll see what else you have for me :-)

For sure, man. Like I said, I generally do take people's feedback into account. I just get defensive when some people tell me my work is crap without adding anything useful to the discourse. It makes me feel like crap and makes me not want to put effort into making units anymore. Good news is that it seems that the discussion in this thread has become a bit more civilized as of late, and there is some useful info here I can start incorporating into the rosters. Instead of rushing and keeping all the german rosters the same as they were before, I will focus first on making a good HRE roster, then going on from there.

I agree that I need hats, but there wasn't anything good in the asset list (that I saw), and based on the vitriol I got last time, I was afraid to take any risks. I haven't checked in a while with Sly or anyone though, perhaps there is some new stuff.

Brigandines are an interesting idea, I'll see how that looks. I don't really want to use cerveilliers for the tier 3 unit. Even though they would definitely be historical, I'd like to keep them in Tier 2 in order to maintain some distinction in equipment. I try to keep equipment overlap between tiers to a minimum for stylistic reasons.

Okay cool. I do agree with Sly though that that particular chestplate doesn't look that good and better assets are probably available.
And yeah parts of this thread got rather heated. Personally I don't agree with every change you made, but I always tried to keep all my posts polite and constructive. I will say though that it probably wasn't a good idea to change all the units without posting a full preview beforehand and giving people the opportunity to give their feedback. It would have been better to first post a preview and ask the community for thoughts and further research and ideas and than implement the new units.

[Heisenburrg]

Was denkt ihr?

Was ich denke? Very Landsknecht-ish!

Fun-fact about Landsknechts; Did you know, that many of them padded out their pants to suggest to have a big cock? Does not have to be included in this mod, just saying...

[Knight2708]

BTW, when was this poofy clothing trend started? What would most people wear in the 15th century? If possible, we would like to keep 16th century influences minimized when most of the T3's aesthetics are embedded within the 15th century.

I looked into this earlier and this is what I found:

I have also found that their distinctive look seems to have already emerged in the mod's time frame. Apparently the slashed and puffed style of their clothing developed, because they found the tight clothes of the late 15th century to be impractical in combat and derided to modify them to be more comfortable, and also as an expression of their emerging corporate identity. By 1503 their style of clothing was already causing enough controversy that their right to wear what they wanted was guaranteed by the 1503 Reichstag. I also found two pre-1500 images displaying the typical Landsknecht look.
DISCLAIMER: The second Image is actually not an authentic primary source but an early 20th century illustration, so take it with a lange grain of salt

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think we can assume that the Landsknechte would have worn this type of clothing already in the 15th century, but perhaps it would be best to have a mix with some men wearing puffed and slashed clothes and others wearing the tight clothes that seem to have been standard at the time.

[Imperator Karl franz IV SIGMA]

that was certainly fairly hard work to research nice work the pictures a nice but will the game really touch on that late pike style ?

[Salahoudin]

Good evening, know how I should proceed to get this mod because I downloaded it, but I can not find the file 1295_1 beta TEST1.3 (open)

Thank you for your advice.

1295_1 beta TEST1.3 (open)



http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=872702351



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=469doJ3ri-I

[Salahoudin]

Good evening, know how I should proceed to get this mod because I downloaded it, but I can not find the file 1295_1 beta TEST1.3 (open)

Thank you for your advice.

Should install medieval kingdom 1212 to install it?

1295_1 beta TEST1.3 (open)



http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=872702351



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=469doJ3ri-I

[KEA]

I was asked to give some comments on German military back then:

(1) Militia
There was no peasant militia in Medieval Germany. Everything you read about it is either Carolingian up to late 11th Century or post 1500.
There was urban militia, quite some. Urban militia can be composed of, say, three units:
- Spiesser commoners armed with polearmes, later pikes. This would be a purely garrison unit, not for recruitment. Said militias were meant to man the walls and only went on campaign in the direct vicinity of their towns. Medium armour, good moral, poor stats
- Schützen. Semi-professional crossbowmen. These were paid citizens that did go out on campaign, so both garrison and recruitment. Medium to better armour, good moral, medium stats
- Ratherre. Patricians, often equipping themselves as knights - but lacking the lifelong training. This too would be a pure garrison unit. Excellent armour, good moral, poor stats

(2) Feudal units
- Ritter. Knights. Variations like "Imperial Knights", "Ministeriales" and the like are just legal definitions (an imperial knights is a knight belonging to an imperial manor, as opposed to his neighbor who is, for example, a man of the archbishop. So that's no elite or guard or such). There should be no "dismounted" variations. German knights usually always fought on horseback, unless sieges or when they lost their horses on crusade. I don't know any examples of deliberate dismounting in battle like the English knights did. Heavy armour, good stats, good moral
- Knappen. Squires. As "knights in training", good, but not "complete", armour and moral, poor stats.
- Loufende Reisknehte (Reisknechte, Kriegsknechte. The term Landsknechte does not appear before the 1500s). Footsoldiers armed with polearms. Their primary task was to guard the castle, or in times of war, to guard the camp. Not really front-line troops. Medium armour, medium stats, poor moral
- Ritende Reisknehte. The same as mounted units. May be different weapons for fighting on horseback In campaign usually all of them were mounted.
- Schiesser Reisknehte. Crossbowmen of the same class

(3) Mercenaries
These played an important role in Germany. The feudal lords often hired themselves out as mercenaries, but there also were specialized mercenary companies of all classes. The Germans also imported mercs from all directions, such as Turkish Horse-Archers. Mercenary companies, such as the Brabanzones, often were mini-armies with infantry, cavalry and missile, commanded by knights. A lot of recruitment was done in the cities in western Germany, so the infantry would be identical in equipment to the urban militias. The Swiss would be another important group from the late 14th Century onwards.
Can be any unit you see appropriate.

[Knight2708]

(2) Feudal units
- Ritter. Knights. Variations like "Imperial Knights", "Ministeriales" and the like are just legal definitions (an imperial knights is a knight belonging to an imperial manor, as opposed to his neighbor who is, for example, a man of the archbishop. So that's no elite or guard or such).

While there is no practical distinctionot between say Imperial and other Knights, Ministeriale were as I understand a completely different social class and not members of the nobility and I would assume that due to their lower position they would be lighter though still well equipped than Knights and serve as support troops to the Knights similar to sergeants in other armies.

- Loufende Reisknehte (Reisknechte, Kriegsknechte. The term Landsknechte does not appear before the 1500s). Footsoldiers armed with polearms. Their primary task was to guard the castle, or in times of war, to guard the camp. Not really front-line troops. Medium armour, medium stats, poor moral
- Ritende Reisknehte. The same as mounted units. May be different weapons for fighting on horseback In campaign usually all of them were mounted.
- Schiesser Reisknehte. Crossbowmen of the same class

I think there should be more of a distinction between Reisige/Reisknechte and Fußknechte/Fußvolk. With the former being permanently maintained, mostly mounted troops thato remain within their lord"s service for longer periods of time and would be better equipped, trusted and experienced retainers and the latter being common foot troops that are raised for defence or individual campaigns.

Also the Landsknechte were founded by Emperor Maximilian I in an attempt to create a standing Imperial army in the late 15th century. He favored the name Landsknechte, because it reinforced the idea of them being the soldiers of the Empire. I've read on Wikipedia that the name Lanzknechte became more common in the 16th century, maybe because the Landsknechte turned more towards mercenary work in the 16th and 17th century. Not sure whether that's true, but the Landsknechte were definitely around in the 15th century. While they are very much from the end of that century, quite a few factions' tier 3 units are based on troops from the very late part of the 15th century.

[KEA]

While there is no practical distinctionot between say Imperial and other Knights, Ministeriale were as I understand a completely different social class and not members of the nobility and I would assume that due to their lower position they would be lighter though still well equipped than Knights and serve as support troops to the Knights similar to sergeants in other armies.

No, certainly not. The ministeriales functioned as commanders of castles and the respective men, for example for a bishop or duke. I would expect them to be at least as well equipped as knights - if not better, because knights often were rather poor.

I think there should be more of a distinction between Reisige/Reisknechte and Fußknechte/Fußvolk. With the former being permanently maintained, mostly mounted troops thato remain within their lord"s service for longer periods of time and would be better equipped, trusted and experienced retainers and the latter being common foot troops that are raised for defence or individual campaigns.

The Knechte were retinue, the Reisläufer mercenary. The Knechte were not trained to fight in large formations and were not expeted to seriously contribute to battle. That would be the main difference when setting them up as a TW unit.

Also the Landsknechte were founded by Emperor Maximilian I in an attempt to create a standing Imperial army in the late 15th century.

Yes, but that's no longer Middle Ages.

[Knight2708]

No, certainly not. The ministeriales functioned as commanders of castles and the respective men, for example for a bishop or duke. I would expect them to be at least as well equipped as knights - if not better, because knights often were rather poor.

What are sources you basing this on? What I've found on them so far indicates that their status was rather low.

From "The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare":
MINISTERIALES (DIENSTLEUTE) Knight-serfs, unfree soldiers (or servants) in Germany. Ministeriales is Latin for Dienstleute (servants), appearing under Conrad II (HRE) in the 11th century. They gave military service to their lords. Some held land to which the service was tied. They had to defend their lord’s land, but were compensated for additional service.

The Knechte were retinue, the Reisläufer mercenary. The Knechte were not trained to fight in large formations and were not expeted to seriously contribute to battle. That would be the main difference when setting them up as a TW unit.

What I'm trying to say is that there should be a distinction between the common Fußvolk and more professional mounted Reisige.
I'm also not convinced that Knechte were as ineffective as contemporaries made them out to be. I remember reading numerous times that contemporary comentators who mostly beonged to the nobility would quite commonly discount the role of "common" foot soldiers, who were not eligeble for ransom, in battles, as the glory of battle was seen as the prerogative of the nobility and the contributions of non-nobles were commonly ignored. IIRC this is also one of the resons why troop numbers for medieval battles are often difficult to pin down, because certain noble commentators did not percieve the non-noble combatants as worthy of mention, unless they were a source of national pride like the longbowmen were for the English.

Yes, but that's no longer Middle Ages.

The mod's official end date is 1500 and quite a few factions' tier 3 units are based on soldiers from the very end of the 15th century. The 15th century is also still what I would consider late Middle Ages.

[KEA]

What are sources you basing this on?

For example, Christopher Gravett "German Medieval Armies 1000 - 1300": At the end of the 12th Century, the ministerialis was a land-holding knight similar to the free knights, who looked upon this development with distaste. Some ministeriales became extremely powerful, holding several castles and leading retinue.
You might also check Joachim Ehlers "Die Ritter".

Do you by chance have any sources supporting your point of view?

From "The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare":
MINISTERIALES (DIENSTLEUTE) Knight-serfs, unfree soldiers (or servants) in Germany. Ministeriales is Latin for Dienstleute (servants), appearing under Conrad II (HRE) in the 11th century. They gave military service to their lords. Some held land to which the service was tied. They had to defend their lord’s land, but were compensated for additional service.

And was does that say about the material status of the ministeriales as opposed to feudal knights?

What I'm trying to say is that there should be a distinction between the common Fußvolk and more professional mounted Reisige.

You should first get those terms straight: what Fußvolk, what Reisige? Are you talking about retinue, mercenaries, the Landwehr of your earlier posts?

I'm also not convinced that Knechte were as ineffective as contemporaries made them out to be.

And what is that based upon?

I remember reading numerous times that contemporary comentators who mostly beonged to the nobility would quite commonly discount the role of "common" foot soldiers, who were not eligeble for ransom, in battles, as the glory of battle was seen as the prerogative of the nobility and the contributions of non-nobles were commonly ignored. IIRC this is also one of the resons why troop numbers for medieval battles are often difficult to pin down, because certain noble commentators did not percieve the non-noble combatants as worthy of mention, unless they were a source of national pride like the longbowmen were for the English.

Of course, the commoners were not caught for ransom because they didn't own any lands from which said ransom could be paid. All a mercenary owned he carried with him. So you would kill him and take it. No need to hold him for ransom.

The sources are a different problem, I had discussed that earlier. While knights usually were called milites, implying everyone else would be a non-combatant, we also find terms like populi designating the non-noble part of an army. This doesn't say a thing. Don't forget who wrote those sources and who was the audience. We do have a fair image of those armies, and there are no hints that the retinue played a major role unless we suppose that there was much, much more fighting going on with absolutely no connection to the recorded battle at all (which indeed did record fighting of non-nobles when relevant).

The mod's official end date is 1500 and quite a few factions' tier 3 units are based on soldiers from the very end of the 15th century. The 15th century is also still what I would consider late Middle Ages.

If the mod-designers wish to. I wouldn't bother with units that historically would appear in the last turns of the game and most likely no player will be ever be seeing in his campaign (you either quit or win much earlier).

[Kjertesvein]

I was asked to give some comments on German military back then:

(1) Militia
There was no peasant militia in Medieval Germany. Everything you read about it is either Carolingian up to late 11th Century or post 1500.
There was urban militia, quite some. Urban militia can be composed of, say, three units:
- Spiesser commoners armed with polearmes, later pikes. This would be a purely garrison unit, not for recruitment. Said militias were meant to man the walls and only went on campaign in the direct vicinity of their towns. Medium armour, good moral, poor stats
- Schützen. Semi-professional crossbowmen. These were paid citizens that did go out on campaign, so both garrison and recruitment. Medium to better armour, good moral, medium stats
- Ratherre. Patricians, often equipping themselves as knights - but lacking the lifelong training. This too would be a pure garrison unit. Excellent armour, good moral, poor stats

(2) Feudal units
- Ritter. Knights. Variations like "Imperial Knights", "Ministeriales" and the like are just legal definitions (an imperial knights is a knight belonging to an imperial manor, as opposed to his neighbor who is, for example, a man of the archbishop. So that's no elite or guard or such). There should be no "dismounted" variations. German knights usually always fought on horseback, unless sieges or when they lost their horses on crusade. I don't know any examples of deliberate dismounting in battle like the English knights did. Heavy armour, good stats, good moral
- Knappen. Squires. As "knights in training", good, but not "complete", armour and moral, poor stats.
- Loufende Reisknehte (Reisknechte, Kriegsknechte. The term Landsknechte does not appear before the 1500s). Footsoldiers armed with polearms. Their primary task was to guard the castle, or in times of war, to guard the camp. Not really front-line troops. Medium armour, medium stats, poor moral
- Ritende Reisknehte. The same as mounted units. May be different weapons for fighting on horseback In campaign usually all of them were mounted.
- Schiesser Reisknehte. Crossbowmen of the same class

(3) Mercenaries
These played an important role in Germany. The feudal lords often hired themselves out as mercenaries, but there also were specialized mercenary companies of all classes. The Germans also imported mercs from all directions, such as Turkish Horse-Archers. Mercenary companies, such as the Brabanzones, often were mini-armies with infantry, cavalry and missile, commanded by knights. A lot of recruitment was done in the cities in western Germany, so the infantry would be identical in equipment to the urban militias. The Swiss would be another important group from the late 14th Century onwards.
Can be any unit you see appropriate.

Thank you for your contribution.

While not required, it's highly encouraged to share ones sources by everyone who make suggestions for the mod. Primary sources are good, secondary sources are acceptable. This supply the modders with the appropriate context which allow them to see the bigger picture in all aspects of the mod, not just the unit rosters. Also, while everyone should assume all input are in good faith, adequate sources provide a verifiable reason to believe suggestions to this mod are authoritative.

Cheers.

~Wille

[Heisenburrg]

Sry, for double post and editing... Had a few issues with my tablet.

Well, if the reason would have been the loss of horses, than it would make no sense that Tyre describes it as the "custom of the Teutons", as they would have a choice. It sounds rather, like they had the choice and chose to dismount. Have to confess that I don´t know the full source, so I have to make my conclusions from this short example given by Marmelade.

In terms of Crecy; I know the general views about the course of battle, but apart of this I heard a few times the statement that many knights -english, french and germans alike- fought dismounted in this battle. So thats the reason of my writings.

Indeed we only may guess, what Ullrich´s intentions have been and maybe it was an rare event, but obviously it is described as "Rittersitte". This should have a reason.

To your last point: Yes, you are right about that. This was surely no organized militia and rather a random selection of peasants, which were forced to fight. Sorry, I thought that you are talking about the standardized use of peasants for the noble´s campaigns in general.

[marmalade]

It's from William of Tyre's Histories, specifically his chronicle of the Siege of Damascus in 1148.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/tyre-damascus.html

End of Paragraph 10. This translation refers to them as Germans instead of Teutons, but same quote essentially.

When be learned of this, the Emperor was angered and, together with his lieutenants, he speedily made his way through the French King's ranks to the place where the fight for the river was going on. They dismounted from their horses and became infantrymen-as the Germans are accustomed to do in the crisis of battle. With shields in hand they fought the enemy hand-to-hand with swords. The enemy, who had earlier resisted valiantly, were unable to withstand the attack. They relinquished the river bank and fled at full speed to the city.

According to William, they did not lose their horses but willingly dismounted. It is a siege however, so that would make sense, but at the same time, he deliberately stated that this was a thing that "Germans are accustomed to do."

[KEA]

According to William, they did not lose their horses but willingly dismounted. It is a siege however, so that would make sense, but at the same time, he deliberately stated that this was a thing that "Germans are accustomed to do."

And the next one.

I think I had ruled out the Crusades in my first post because during the crusades the knights had serious problems replacing their horse (and no, any random horses to be found in the Orient cannot be used as destiers; these were particularly breeded and trained horses you only got in Europe). And in think I had ruled out sieges as well for the obvious reasons. On top of that William of Tyre can hardly be taken as an expert of what "Germans are accustomed to" because he never would have seen German knights in combat outside the Holy Land.

If you don't believe me, just check the battle reports of the Staufian period, these were the Germans William speaks of, on how "common" dismounting in battle was for German knights.


@ Archilles

At Sempach they dismounted in a defensive position after being slaugthered at Morgarten mounted. In 1386 we are completing the Middle Ages' military history and start the development that led to the Landsknecht pike blocks a century later where knights (usuall still mounted!) were pushed to the edges of the battlefields.

[Archilles]

And the next one.

I think I had ruled out the Crusades in my first post because during the crusades the knights had serious problems replacing their horse (and no, any random horses to be found in the Orient cannot be used as destiers; these were particularly breeded and trained horses you only got in Europe). And in think I had ruled out sieges as well for the obvious reasons. On top of that William of Tyre can hardly be taken as an expert of what "Germans are accustomed to" because he never would have seen German knights in combat outside the Holy Land.

If you don't believe me, just check the battle reports of the Staufian period, these were the Germans William speaks of, on how "common" dismounting in battle was for German knights.


@ Archilles

At Sempach they dismounted in a defensive position after being slaugthered at Morgarten mounted. In 1386 we are completing the Middle Ages' military history and start the development that led to the Landsknecht pike blocks a century later where knights (usuall still mounted!) were pushed to the edges of the battlefields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Marchfeld

Yes i am with you... german Knights nearly ALWAYS fought on the back of a horse!
And mostly only the kights fought the battle (i dont know it for the whole HRE but at least the austrians)... non mounted troops protected the camps!

But at the end of the day - it is still a game. and a game should be balanced so I think we Need dismounted Knights

[KEA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Marchfeld
Yes i am with you... german Knights nearly ALWAYS fought on the back of a horse!

Yes, Marchfeld would be my favorite example too. It not is surprisingly that both examples for dismounted knights named here (Döfflingen and Sempach) were from late 14th Century Southern Germany (including Switzerland and Austria at that time): that's when and where the Swiss blocks appeared first - and they really changed the game. Up to 1400 the German knights dominated the battlefields they appeared on, a century later they had gone into obscurity.

But at the end of the day - it is still a game. and a game should be balanced so I think we Need dismounted Knights

It is a matter of stats. Knights should be the strongest unit you can get in Europe and should usual be able to ride down any other unit one-on-one. Common spearmen are in general seriously overpowered against horsemen in TW games. But the later pike and helbard-blocks might have some excessive boni versus mounted troops so that using cavalry against them would be a no-go. That gives a good recreation of the period so that your former über-unit becomes more or less obsolete towards the end of the campaign.