A Dismounted Knight Unit

[Monster33333]

Wouldn't be a good idea to add Dismounted Knights for some of the factions like the HRE and Hungary and Teutonic order could use some more infantry men instead of just the Knight Brothers, they're just awful.

[Påsan]

Most factions have men at arms or some version of it. They are essentially the evolution of "knights" as a battlefield force.

[You_Guess_Who]

But they are already in the mod? What are Foot Cavaliere, Foot Riddere, Knightly Retinues, Man-at-Arms?

[warman222]

I'm going to just repeat what YGW just said. What's in a name guys?

But they are already in the mod? What are Foot Cavaliere, Foot Riddere, Knightly Retinues, Man-at-Arms?

[MartinJ51]

I agree, it wasnt uncommon for knights to leave their horses because certain conditions like the ground not being stable enough to carry the weight of both heavy knights and their horses or in sieges. Sure you could just use knights on horses and disembark in game but it would be nice to have options to also add/use already dismounted knights when starting a costume game (multiplayer).

[lion8000]

I agree

[Gunfreak]

1. Foot knights and foot men at arms are the same thing gameplay wise. All knights are men at arms but not all men at arms are knights.
Man at arms is simply heavily armored soldiers. Could be a knights or well equipped mercenary or soldiers.

2. Foot knights, foot cavaliers, ridder til fots are all foot knights.

3. What the mod is missing is tier 2 men at arms.
The unit called men at arms are all tier 3. There should be a foot men at arms (High) unit too.

[Kjertesvein]

3. What the mod is missing is tier 2 men at arms.
The unit called men at arms are all tier 3. There should be a foot men at arms (High) unit too.

I concur. Man-at-Arms is used overwhelmingly to describe a 'melee' soldier throughout the 14th century in thesis' and muster rolls, not just 15th century.

I think it's a matter of renaming Heavy Serjeants (the 2handed unit for HRE) to Men-at-Arms (High Period).

Muster Rolls

~Wille

[Monster33333]

I know that there are foot men at arms and other unit swordmen types, but for factions like the HRE and Hungary, they just have sergeants and those early era sergeants stand no match against the dismounted knights of France and England. All i'm asking is that if they have a dismounted knights unit for factions that don't have them already.

[hessam]

I believe noble and dismounted noble units will get a recruitment cap (either campaign cap or per army cap) so the less heavily armored units, specially in tier 1, will still retain their significance. As to the tier 2 dismounted nobles/knights/men-at-arms (whatever you wanna call them), I agree with Gunfreak and Kjertesvein. The evidence for knights and nobles preferring to fight on foot in the 14th century is overwhelming, that's why I personally made a tier 2 Dismounted Nobles unit for Portugal. Even 13th century had its share of knights and nobles fighting on foo, though perhaps not as commonly as later centuries.

[Monster33333]

so does that mean u guys could add like a Dismounted Knights unit for the HRE and Hungary. The knights look beautiful and they would look so badass on a siege tower approaching a burning city.

[Slytacular]

Try dismounting some knights and make them push a tower.

[Ltd.]

At least in the case of Hungary I am not aware of the particular use if dismounted regiments on the battlefield. Hungary has always been a proud cavalry nation so anyone who could afford a horse would prefer fighting on horseback. And as matter of fact horses were in abundance in Hungary.
For sieges I guess the foot sergeants are more than adequate to fight other foot soldiers.

[Kjertesvein]

As to the tier 2 dismounted nobles/knights/men-at-arms (whatever you wanna call them)

We all have different perspectives on these things I suppose, so people are free to discuss. I think it's worth having some semblance of definitions when we talk about these things, so to clarify on the standards that I personally use and why:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's based on comparing muster rolls, weapons requirements and cost of equipment. Other places and periods than 14th-15th century England and where it had influence may vary. The list below doesn't include lighter support troops, e.g. Archers.

During the 14th century England, a Knight Banneret, Knight or Squire was a social status, often dependent on total wealth. Man-at-Arms was a catch-all military title of heavy units and non-archery units, and could encompass all the previously mentioned social titles and more. In the English Muster Rolls, 1369 - 1453, the 29 222 soldiers with the military title 'Man-at-Arms' included the following social titles:

12 Duke
55 Earl
78 Baron
74 Banneret
1751 Knight
8784 Esquire
47 Gentleman
1 Gunner
5 Master
6 Yeoman / Valettus

= 10813

As we observe, 4/5 of the men above consisted of Squires, lower nobility, the gentry. However, about two thirds of the Men-at-Arms in total had no social title. For the sake of simplicity, I'll just dub them "Grunts", while they were probably of notable wealth to support the Man-at-Arms requirements (coats of plate, gauntlets, poleaxe, mail, etc.). From the above list, a knight was a rarity (1,84% of the total English Muster Roll or 6% of those labeled as Man-at-Arms).

To conclude, the military title 'Man-at-Arms' has a wide meaning to it. A comparison of armour from mid 14th century range from those who could afford a mail hauberk or simple Coat of Plates with hemp cover, to knights with with the highest quality coats of plate with velvet covers or more. This opens up the possibility for difference of degree in stats when it comes to a Noble unit and a unit of more Grunt caliber Man-at-Arms.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

William Rothwell’s account provides similar information about pairs of plates in the 1350s, which varied in price from 13s. 4d. for plain ones covered in hemp, better ones covered in plain fustian for £1 6s. 8d., or the best covered in velvet or other silks with gilded rivets for £2. By the 1370s the accounts for armour made for the king and members of the royal family show that the very finest pairs of plate could cost £4 13s. 8d., and the very finest complete armour could total £21, a sum roughly four times the price of a complete armour of plate in the middle of the fifteenth century.

12 d. per s.
240 d. per £.

The English Muster Roll database: http://soldier-lews1.rdg.ac.uk/search.php
£sd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%A3sd
Page 252. Summery of 14th century prices. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919/...esis_final.pdf

Cheers.

~Wille

[Teutonic]

We all have different perspectives on these things I suppose, so people are free to discuss. I think it's worth having some semblance of definitions when we talk about these things, so to clarify on the standards that I personally use and why:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's based on comparing muster rolls, weapons requirements and cost of equipment. Other places and periods than 14th-15th century England and where it had influence may vary. The list below doesn't include lighter support troops, e.g. Archers.

During the 14th century England, a Knight Banneret, Knight or Squire was a social status, often dependent on total wealth. Man-at-Arms was a catch-all military title of heavy units and non-archery units, and could encompass all the previously mentioned social titles and more. In the English Muster Rolls, 1369 - 1453, the 29 222 soldiers with the military title 'Man-at-Arms' included the following social titles:

12 Duke
55 Earl
78 Baron
74 Banneret
1751 Knight
8784 Esquire
47 Gentleman
1 Gunner
5 Master
6 Yeoman / Valettus

= 10813

As we observe, 4/5 of the men above consisted of Squires, lower nobility, the gentry. However, about two thirds of the Men-at-Arms in total had no social title. For the sake of simplicity, I'll just dub them "Grunts", while they were probably of notable wealth to support the Man-at-Arms requirements (coats of plate, gauntlets, poleaxe, mail, etc.). From the above list, a knight was a rarity (1,84% of the total English Muster Roll or 6% of those labeled as Man-at-Arms).

To conclude, the military title 'Man-at-Arms' has a wide meaning to it. A comparison of armour from mid 14th century range from those who could afford a mail hauberk or simple Coat of Plates with hemp cover, to knights with with the highest quality coats of plate with velvet covers or more. This opens up the possibility for difference of degree in stats when it comes to a Noble unit and a unit of more Grunt caliber Man-at-Arms.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

12 d. per s.
240 d. per £.

The English Muster Roll database: http://soldier-lews1.rdg.ac.uk/search.php
£sd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%A3sd
Page 252. Summery of 14th century prices. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919/...esis_final.pdf

Cheers.

~Wille

Excellent post Kjertesvein! This issue is both complex and simple when you get your head around the basic principle. It does require at least some knowledge of the societal and military changes between early and late middle ages.

And thanks for the link to the Muster rolls database. I am a real sucker for this kind of thing, fictional or historic, and I am always on the lookout for stats like this (e.g. I was delighted when I finally got my hands on the full list of men owed to the King of Jerusalem by his vassals in the 1180s).

[Heisenburrg]

I guess HRE will be revamped one more time anyway as soon as the work on the remaining german states will be done... just like England and France. Maybe then you could expect some "special" troops, renaming or knight-units in the traditional sense (maybe Teutonic Knights )
Some representations of local HRE-troops, maybe "Italian Militias" or "Saxon halberdiers", would be cool, too.

Am I right about that?

[Slytacular]

I think you guys are taking this thread a little more seriously than you should be taking the fact that Monster didn't care to understand the first half of posts made to clear misunderstandings.

[warman222]

I agree with Sly and I am closing this thread. We gave our explanations.