Medieval Kingdoms Total War: The Duchy of Lorraine

[Azrien Fox]

Always good to see MK team growing - cool units

PS. Could you show us Pavise Lãng-stëckke Mann instead of their shields?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ooops sorry about that, here's a better photo of them:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Visarion]

You should put that photo underneath in the first post.

[Azrien Fox]

You should put that photo underneath in the first post.

It's there. I added it right after I posted it lol.

[warman222]

Not too shabby dude! My biggest critique is that the "Alsatian Chevalier" units seem to be kinda wonky in terms of their placement and role. The first two tiers look kinda the same with just more (tier 1)surcoat variants and different helms for the second tier. It was very jarring seeing that unit followed up by "Hommes a Cheval" unit which looks like 100 years later in terms of equipment for the same tier. Plus I don't know what the tactical difference is, they look like different tiers of the same unit. I know Sly is working on that transitional tabard, are those surcoats placeholders for that? If not maybe consider either adjust the units a little or incorporating the new model(if it's done yet).

[Azrien Fox]

Not too shabby dude! My biggest critique is that the "Alsatian Chevalier" units seem to be kinda wonky in terms of their placement and role. The first two tiers look kinda the same with just more (tier 1)surcoat variants and different helms for the second tier. It was very jarring seeing that unit followed up by "Hommes a Cheval" unit which looks like 100 years later in terms of equipment for the same tier. Plus I don't know what the tactical difference is, they look like different tiers of the same unit. I know Sly is working on that transitional tabard, are those surcoats placeholders for that? If not maybe consider either adjust the units a little or incorporating the new model(if it's done yet).

Yeah I can always add tabards in with the surcoats. The thing was I made some plain surcoats and heraldic surcoats, and I decided, since the surcoats were still around in the 14th century, that the plain surcoats could be the ones used in the 13th century, and the heraldic surcoats could be used in the 14th century, as well as make the horse caparisons change in variety from 13th to 14th. But you're right, other than helmets and surcoats, the chevaliers are mostly the same. What I could do is take off the guys in the chainmail, and add all surcoats with both heraldic and plain surcoat design to early tier, then in the high tier, still use some surcoats, but start using tabards. That way, it acts as a transition between surcoat and tabard.

[Deathshade]

Yeah, I see what you mean about the technicality of using Halbardde in a polearm unit name. I could always name maybe using Hommes a, and then the translation for polearm. Since it says you are from France, do you know what the French translation for polearm would be? Could make the translation be polearm men, instead of halberd men.

A polearm is a "arme d'hast". Not really simple to use unfortunately ^^. Are those men sergeants (In that case --> Sergents) ? Or men at arm (in that case --> Hommes d'armes) ? If not, I have no great idea of how to name them, sorry.

Also, on the Hommes a Cheval, I wanted to make their name stand out more, since the coutiliers are sort of the lower class, commoner mounted soldiers, I wanted to show their importance, and give them a more unique name. Maybe trying something like armoured Cavaliers, instead of just Cavaliers would work?

Again, if those are supposed to be sergeants or men at arm, you can use "Sergents montés" ou "Hommes d'armes montés". If not, "Cavaliers armurés" could work I guess.

[Azrien Fox]

A polearm is a "arme d'hast". Not really simple to use unfortunately ^^. Are those men sergeants (In that case --> Sergents) ? Or men at arm (in that case --> Hommes d'armes) ? If not, I have no great idea of how to name them, sorry.



Again, if those are supposed to be sergeants or men at arm, you can use "Sergents montés" ou "Hommes d'armes montés". If not, "Cavaliers armurés" could work I guess.

Well, first of all, they would probably be hommes d'armes, just with polearms. The sarjeants would probably be the Lorrainer Swordsmen, in this case.

Also, I think the hommes d'armes montes would do best!

[Visarion]

I kinda like those heart shields amd if there are two sources for them go for it!

[Sarcasm_pt]

Oh and forgot some praise, your work does look great - particularly the early knights, they look sexy as hell.

[Slytacular]

Pikemen were an idea reignited by the Swiss in the 14th century, then popularized by the Landsknechts during the Swiss wars. There are some pockets of influence where Pikemen were used, but there are more evidence of simply wielding spears of various length amongst military units.

These spears are commonly referred to as "lances". In some regulations, people are required to bring lances. Lances were an infantry weapon initially before popularized as a cavalry weapon.

[Azrien Fox]

Pikemen were an idea reignited by the Swiss in the 14th century, then popularized by the Landsknechts during the Swiss wars. There are some pockets of influence where Pikemen were used, but there are more evidence of simply wielding spears of various length amongst military units.

These spears are commonly referred to as "lances". In some regulations, people are required to bring lances. Lances were an infantry weapon initially before popularized as a cavalry weapon.

Yeah, that is why my tiers 1 and 2 pikemen use schiltron spears exclusively. But i could always add those generic Ltd lances too.

[Slytacular]

Yeah, that is why my tiers 1 and 2 pikemen use schiltron spears exclusively. But i could always add those generic Ltd lances too.

I prefer you keep to a taste than try to get a weird mix and match because you need to fit everything historically plausible into one unit.

[Kjertesvein]

These two sources does not point that troops from Lorraine had pike and shielded troopes, but if we're looking for textual source to support the idea of pike and shield in general, this is it. Here are two weapons requirements for the demand to bring combined pikes and portable defenses. These are in relatively close proximity to your faction, but the final judgement on this matter is yours to take. First source is late 15th century, the latter is late 14th century.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1472, The Ordinance of Bohain en Vermandois, targe and pike.

"Les piquenaires porteront jaquette de haubergerie à manches et plastron, au bras droit sur la maille des lames de fer à petites gardes, au bras gauche ils n'auront que la manche du haubergeon, afin de porter plus aisément la légère targe qu'ils recevront quand ils en auront besoin."
http://legioburgundiae.unblog.fr/200...novembre-1472/

Eng. translation. http://www.wolfeargent.com/ordonnances.htm

---

1390 Vyland, north of Bremen, pike and shield.

"En jewelik lantman in de zulven Vylande schal hebben to ewigen tyden ene troyen, eyen yseren hud, en par wapenhanschen, enen schilt, ene worpbarden unde enen peck van zesteyn voten unde kortere nicht, by broke ener mark, ..."

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...his-is-strange

In this image below, we can see that several of the pikemen standing at ease in the second row have shields infront of them.
Fresco, Padua, Italy. Altichiero da Zevio, 1378. Showing the beheading of Saint George. Link.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Since I've shown artwork which combine pikes and shields, I'd like to stress that it's not such a simple thing and extract what ever you want from these images as if the artist 100s of years ago intended for this to be the case. The artists could have other motivations than for realism to be accurately portrayed. If we're talking about art, I think it's wise to take a short refresher course in how to interpret medieval art. Ian Laspina makes some good points in the following video.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Essentially you should ask yourself "what is the artist trying to depict?"

Stuart Gorman talks about this subject in further detail see Chapter 3. The Bow in Medieval Art, Page 92-132, but below is a shorter summery from the Conclusion bit of his Phd Thesis. His paper is about the complexity of crossbows and longbows in the later middle ages, but I'd argue the general principles carry on in this debate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The use of medieval art as a substitute for gaps in the archaeological record haslong been an appealing methodology and has gained support from some academicscurrently working in the field of medieval archery.607 This practice and the methodsassociated with it are not without their problems, however. To begin with, artistic imageswere usually only reliably informative on general elements of weapon design.Comparing bow thickness or the nuances of crossbow design was more difficult thancomparing how long the bows appear in a given image; while longbow thicknessdifferences were usually only the matter of a few millimetres, and thus too detailed todetect in medieval images; length could be a variation of hundreds of millimetres, andthus much easier to see. This sort of approach neglected the often important nuances ofweapon design, by focussing too much on the more obvious differences in weaponappearance. Medieval art has been an invaluable resource for historians to study but ithas also been a difficult subject to engage with and required a careful approach.Medieval art was not created with the goal of complete realism in mind and containedmany stylistic flourishes. Treating medieval art as if it were a literal and realisticrepresentation of medieval life is an inherently flawed approach. Figures were depictedas varying greatly in size within a single work, and the same was true of theirsurroundings.608 Expecting a universal scale to apply to a work of medieval art will resultin disappointment and flawed conclusions. Even variations in length, which seem soobvious to the casual observer, might not be significant. Medieval artists were oftenanonymous and their reasons for creating their image the way they did will foreverremain obscured from historians. A smaller weapon in an image could be reflective ofreality, but it could just as easily be a stylistic choice, or simply a part of the image thatthe artist was not particularly interested in. What is now of great interest to modernscholars was not necessarily the most important part of the image to the medieval artistwho made it. This is not to say that medieval art should not be included in the study ofmedieval archery, or medieval warfare more generally. While the images have notprovided a level of detail sufficient to draw nuanced conclusions from them aboutweapon design, they could be used to indicate weapon usage. The types of weaponsshown in an image could indicate when and where those weapons were used. Similarly,images of archers stringing their bows or using a spanning device on a crossbowprovides insight into how these weapons would have been operated by medieval archers.

607 Ibid. pp. 336-40.
608 Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy, The Great Warbow, pp. 44-6.See Chapter 3.

Page 246, The Technological Development of the Bow and the Crossbow in the Later Middle Ages Ph.D. Thesis by Stuart Gorman Trinity College Dublin 2016.

~Wille

[Azrien Fox]

I have added the photos for melee cav tiers one and two as well the tier one militia crossbowmen.

[Visarion]

I was hoping 4 tgat heart shield like in pic 4 cav... they look 2 plain now...

[Azrien Fox]

I was hoping 4 tgat heart shield like in pic 4 cav... they look 2 plain now...

Pic 4 cav? And are you talking about the new cav units I just added?

[Azrien Fox]

New and improved Hecht de Mann unit. Went in and fixed the armour and look of the unit, adding more brigandines and less full gothic breastplates.

[Visarion]

Keep that heart shape shields as well but adapt another maybe not to resemble the spanish one too much

[Visarion]

Yeah

[Visarion]

Hmmm pics not showing... anyway you could keep those great pikemen with full plate since the Flemish Pikemen were mostly mercs and very close...