I need some images for reference to build these units:
- Coroline: Swedish Musketeer
- Gazis: Seljuk Knight, a Turkish tribe.
- Boxer: Manchu Rifleman, maybe mounted. Manchu is "part" of present China today and I really don't know if this units used in Boxer's Revolt fire weapons or were just marcial fighters.
- Kuo Min Tang: The infantry that fought in Taiwan "Independence War"

If someone has suggestions to change these units, they are welcome. :)

Thanks!!!

Kuo Min Tang infantry were made already http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=97412

...I have some boxer images I can dig up for you.

I think that boxer was made by Dom Pedro, or not? :confused:

Caroline reenacters:
http://www.yamaha-custom-club.com/Traffar_2002/rikstraff2002/Bosse%20Cogne%20-Stromstad%202002/Karl%20XII%20karoliner.jpg

Color scheme for wargamers:
http://www.princeaugust.ie/s901/901.jpg

Cavalryman:
http://hem.passagen.se/nykopinginsats/caroline.jpg

Artillery reenacter:
http://www.nrk.no/img/312544.jpeg

'Nother cavalryman:
http://www.nrk.no/img/312533.jpeg

More colour schemes:
http://home.swipnet.se/lek_hobby/images/tenn2.gif

There is already one, converted from Cossacks mod 1.

these ones that were already done are not necessary to be done again :) , just need the links. My idea is doing these 4 units to join to my civilizations, if they are ready, is not ncessary I do them again.
I have to PM DPII asking about the Boxer and I think just the Gazis of Seljuks is missing. If someone find this one too, tell me :D

I don't know about the Gazis, (or Ghazis) as knights...my best knowledge of them is that they were more along the lines of light-armed auxiliaries, some of whom also served on foot. In fact you'll find that the DBA army lists (which are pretty accurate and well researched) show Ghazis to be light horse, mostly Arab, Turkic, Tadjiki or Kurdish in origin.

I do know the Seljuks relied on the Ghulam, (slave soldiers) a heavily armed and armored horseman, as their heavy cavalry, and there is a nice pic from the Osprey books at this link:

http://www.allempires.com/empires/seljuk/seljuk_warriors_enh.jpg

So if you're looking for a Seljuk knight, you'd do better to go with the Ghulam, which by this pic would make a damn fine looking unit.

just need the links.
They are in my signature. Cossacks mod 1

As I understand it, 'Ghazi' doesn't refer to a particular mode of fighting, but to a kind of military "employment" - the semi-autonomous frontier soldiers of the jihad.

Ghulams would appear to be Mamelukes under another name?

As I understand it, 'Ghazi' doesn't refer to a particular mode of fighting, but to a kind of military "employment" - the semi-autonomous frontier soldiers of the jihad.

Ghulams would appear to be Mamelukes under another name?

Ghulams (Ghulam means "slave") were the dominant professional soldier of the Ghaznavids (962-1186). Like the Mameluks, Ghulams were bought as slaves while boys. They were then trained as disciplined horse-archers and freed when their training was complete. Some ghulams rose to considerable rank in Seljuq and Ayyubid armies. Most ghulams were of Turkish origin, but Khurasanians, Kurds, Circassians, Armenians and Greeks were also employed.

Unlike Central Asian horse-archers, ghulams were well protected, rode larger horses and used a variety of tactics. This included rapid volleys of arrows at short-range to break up an opponent's attack. These were supplemented by light arrows that were fired into zones at long-range to harass an opponent. The descriptions make the Ghulams seem closer in armament and tactics to the Romaioi kataphraktoi, right down to the use of maces for the melee weapon of choice.

Regular ghulam infantry wore mailed coats and carried leather-covered of metal shields.

I have also seen the term Ghulam employed in regard to the armies of the Fatamids as well as the various Islamic rulers in Spain.

As you said, TLC, the Ghazis were religious fighters, but they were used as auxiliaries. I didn't myself refer to a mode of fighting but the purpose for which they were employed, which is as auxiliaries. In other words, they supplemented the regular forces of the sultan, emir, atabeg or what have you and were apparently lighter armed, whether mounted or afoot. For example, the Ghaznavid regulars were supplemented by mercenary ghazis (either seeking plunder or fighting as Soldiers of the Faith intent on jihad against the Hindu), ally/subject troops, and local auxillaries mobilized for specific campaigns. Ghazis also served against the Romaioi in Anatolia.

My point is that the Ghazis are not representative of any sort of Seljuk knightly class; not in social status and not in a military sense either in armament or use. The Ghulams are a better choice, though they were no more specific to the Seljuks than the Ghazi.

The Seljuks also utilized the Turcomans, as did the Ghaznavids, and the Seljuks, as they became more settled themselves, went to great lengths to keep the Turcomans out of the more settled areas. These fellows made up the bulk of the Seljuk armies.

The term Mameluk originates in the Abbasid Caliphate in the 9th century. Mameluks are also slave soldiers so they obviously have a great deal in common with the Ghulams. But it would make more sense to associate the Mameluks with the Abbasids or Fatimids than with the Seljuks, since it was under the Abbasids that they first appeared and it was their service to the Fatimids in Egypt that brought them to prominence in popular imagination, since it was there that they formed their own dynasty in 1260. I've yet to see the word Mameluk associated with either the Seljuk Turks or the Ghazvanids.

Hope that helps.

CivArmy: Here's a picture of Boxer rebels below. They weren't a part of the Imperial Army, but they were supported by the Dowager Empress.

http://www.tracks-n-troops.com/Orion%20Sterlets/OR72009.jpg

That helps indeed. :)

(Surely, refering to the Byzantine as Romaioi is needlessly obscure?)

I do not see the use of the term "Romaioi" as needlessly obscure, but rather accurate, TLC...I would say rather that "Byzantine" being both invented and inaccurate should be dispensed with. While a term of convenience, there were, in fact, no Byzantines. Every scholar is in agreement on this point. I see no reason to perpetuate the use of a term that is not only universally recognized to be inaccurate but which originated as an insult. I have no wish to diminish their memory by use of that term. The "Byzantines" were Romans, and continued to call themselves Romans (Romaioi) even after the fall of Constantinople.

I know that I myelf have used the term "Byzantine" but I've never believed that making a mistake yesterday obligates me to repeat it today. Romaioi is accurate and also serves to differentiate between Romans of the Empire up to 476 and the East Romans, who by default became the ONLY Romans after that period.

By the way, still haven't managed to locate any images of Ghazis online. Will keep looking should you choose to go with the Ghazis, CivArmy. I'm hoping that something will turn up. Wish I had that Osprey book!

"Romaioi" is certainly obscure - very few people know it compared to "Byzantines".

It's also awkward in English. There should be an anglicization like "Rhomaeans" or something. (In Swedish, the from roméer is sometimes encountered.)

As for you reasons to reject "Byzantine", well, I disagree, but that's an ideological question that should be debated, if at all, in OT, or perhaps World history.

Actually, "Byzantine" really is an innacurate term. According to Wikipedia...
The term Byzantine Empire was invented and popularised by the 18th century French historian Montesquieu. Like many classicists of his time, Montesquieu regarded the Empire after the 5th century as corrupt and decadent, and not worthy of the name Roman. So he coined a new name, taken from Byzantium, the Latinized form of the original Greek name (Byzántion) of the capital, Constantinople.

It's sanctified by common usage, which is enough for me.

There's any number of etnonyms out there that orginate as insults, misunderstandings or mispronunciations. "Correcting" them is, IMHO, almost always more trouble than it's worth.

Kinboat made a unit way back called a Chin Spearman...

its pretty much concluded to be a boxer-style spearman... thought it lacks that cool looking guan-dao ;) (in ogedei's picture.)

...perhaps someone can make that boxer rifle-man....


oh, he also did a chin swordsman too!

both have that "manchu hair" and sword wears that "rice farmer hat".

The Chin Spearman is a Chinese man. You can tell by his hair. Honestly, I think the Manchu UU should be a nomad looking unit with a musket and not called a Boxer at all. Would be better suiting for when the Manchus invaded the Ming Dynasty in 16whatever.

i am not talking about a UU for the manchus, im only informing civarmy what i was informed:

it ("chin spearman and swordsman") can qualify as boxer reb. members.

(loulong may of told me that, too far back-cant remember what post)

I suppose I never read CivArmy's "explanation" of Boxer. That's odd. The Boxers were, as far as I know, exclusively Chinese (Han). A Manchu unit, presumably, would be a professional military unit, not a rebel.

Some Manchu units during the Sino-Japanese War 1894-95 were, apparently, the last regular solidiers to go to war armed with composite bows. Conservativism at it's best.

We will have to agree to disagree then, TLC, on the use of "Byzantine." I agree that this is no place to keep up a running debate on the subject.

On the other hand, I'd be very excited to see a new unit for the Seljuks, whatever form it may take. Ghazis or Ghulams would be equally useful and help cover a much neglected area in Civ, since they could be used as Ghaznavid, Khwarzmian or Seljuk, etc. Sadly, I've had no luck turning up a pic of a Ghazi. Maybe somebody else out there has access to the Osprey book and a scanner.

yes, I think the Boxers would only be used for Han chinese. For Taiwan, are you talking about Han Taiwan? Real Taiwanese are Polynesians.

I suppose I never read CivArmy's "explanation" of Boxer. That's odd. The Boxers were, as far as I know, exclusively Chinese (Han). A Manchu unit, presumably, would be a professional military unit, not a rebel.


Which further proves my point that the Boxer would be a bad UU for the Manchus. They aren't even Manchu!

Another Think... Civ.. could you make the Caroline yourself? Steph's units are CONVERSIONS from another game, and I don't think they look very good. Your units look much better...

Thanks for all the suggestions fellows! I had few time to post these days, but now I am with time. Here comes my points:
- In the future I can change the UUs of the Swedish and Abyssinian civilization, people look like didn't enjoy the units. I love these two units. I can do the alterations in the future :)
- For the Seljuks UU, what people suggest me for change Ghazis (or continue with them)? BTW, images for references could be great :) Also the kind of unit (weapon, foot or moutned, era...)
- The same above question to the Manchu unit, the Boxer doesn't look like the best option for what I read :)
- I can do the new units or use already made ones, just need the links ;) While I didn't decide about these 2 last UUs I can continue other Unit pack mine (Brazilian ones).

I suppose the Manchu UU ought be some fellow with a composite bow. A Cavalry replacement would make the most sense, chronologically.

I suppose the Manchu UU ought be some fellow with a composite bow. A Cavalry replacement would make the most sense, chronologically.

A mouted archer, u mean? I think there is not problem this unit replaces Horseman, remember the Mounted Warrior (Iroquoi UU) replaces Horseman and the NA civilizations just got the horses in 1600' or late. It is better then replace Cavalry, in spite of it could be chronologically correct. :)

One question, CivArmy - if you're going to do a new UU for the Abyssinians, why not do something *other* than the existing Javelin Thrower? Then those who are happy with that unit as it is (like you and me) would have two to choose from. And wait! Haven't I just created a thread of unit requests which include an Ethiopian one? Coincidence! or was it?

A mouted archer, u mean? I think there is not problem this unit replaces Horseman, remember the Mounted Warrior (Iroquoi UU) replaces Horseman and the NA civilizations just got the horses in 1600' or late. It is better then replace Cavalry, in spite of it could be chronologically correct. :)


But there are so Many Mounted Archers already! A mounted musket would be much cooler.. and... more betterer.

This is the first artworks of the Manchu UU, the Boxer. what do u people think? I used the image reference in the page 1. :goodjob:

icon
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Boxer01.jpg

attack
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Boxer-Attack.gif

fortify
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Boxer-Fortify.gif

default
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Boxer-Default.gif


EDITED: I DELETED THIS UNIT AND STARTED THE ABOVE BOXER VERSION

Mounted Boxers?

Hm... Would it be too much to ask you to do an un-mounted version of it as well? =)

As far as I know, the boxers were foot fighters...

me too
it should be a chinese peasant, with the shaved head and breaded ponytail. with maybe a spear, sword or musket

So, I deleted the mounted version and did the foot version of Boxer. I also changed his weapon.

icon
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Boxer011.jpg

default
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Boxer-Default1.gif

run
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Boxer-Run.gif


One more question: the name Boxer is okay? I saw some posts saying the term is wrong. I choice the name, cos the Boxer Rebbelion happened in the time Manchu Dinasty ruled China. I accept suggestions to change his name :)

The name Boxer is good as far as the unit is concerned, but I don't think a Boxer - or any other sort of Chinese rebel - is a good UU for the Manchu.

The name Boxer derives IIRC from the Chinese translated as "The Society Of Harmonious Fists" -- of course, I'm not certain if this helps or not ;) -- "Boxer" works for me.

-Oz

So, the name Boxer will be used :) In some hours I post the file to download of this unit

-------------------------------

I hope make this unit today too, the Ethiopian Archer. It will reaplace the Ethiopian Javelineer that I added in my Abyssinian civilization. I used the art conception of TopGun for reference :goodjob:


icon
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/EthiopianArcher01.jpg

default
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/EthiopianArcher-default.gif

run
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/EthiopianArcher-run.gif

If you dare say this is a manchu UU I will personally give EVERYONE is Brazil an atomic wedgie, Civ Army.

If you dare say this is a manchu UU I will personally give EVERYONE is Brazil an atomic wedgie, Civ Army.

If u talking about the Asiatic Spearman, it is a Boxer unit (I used like reference the images of page 1) and it is used as a Manchu unit :) . Check other posts where people are talking about if Boxer is good or not for the Manchu UU.

I don't think anyone is actually saying that a Boxer as UU for the Manchu is a good idea.

I don't think anyone is actually saying that a Boxer as UU for the Manchu is a good idea.

Yes, I agree. But what name the Manchu UU would have? Manchu Spearman?


-----------------------

Seljuk UU, the Ghulam (again: feedback welcome! ;) )


My first work with Michael 3 model, Poser users know what I'm talking about :)


icon
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Ghulam01.jpg

default
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Ghulam-Default.gif

Yes, I agree. But what name the Manchu UU would have? Manchu Spearman?

The Manchu army was organized into "banners" - eight in all - and troopers were thus called "bannermen". I suppose "Bannerman" would do as a UU name.

(This is the "old" army. In the 19th C, there was also created a "new" army, using Western equipment and organization.)

The quintessential Manchu warrior would be a mounted archer with a composite bow. They actually sent composite bowmen to fight Japanese riflemen during the Sino-Japanese War (and lost horribly, too).

If you dare say this is a manchu UU I will personally give EVERYONE is Brazil an atomic wedgie, Civ Army.
Canstandja...! :lol:

The Manchu army was organized into "banners" - eight in all - and troopers were thus called "bannermen". I suppose "Bannerman" would do as a UU name.

(This is the "old" army. In the 19th C, there was also created a "new" army, using Western equipment and organization.)

The quintessential Manchu warrior would be a mounted archer with a composite bow. They actually sent composite bowmen to fight Japanese riflemen during the Sino-Japanese War (and lost horribly, too).

do u have any image for reference? I can try to do this unit :)

Google isn't being particularly helpful, but here's a model of a Manchu cavalry officer:
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/SR002C.jpg

Google isn't being particularly helpful, but here's a model of a Manchu cavalry officer:
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/SR002C.jpg

I think Kinboat did this unit or a very look like one. I'll check, in case the unit was not done yet, I can try do myself.

EDITED: I think this unit is in this pack: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=67279 .

That seems to be a munit?

The Ghulam is beautiful, CivArmy! I'm glad you chose that one to do. Will be a great unit for all those MidEast civs that get ignored.

The Ghulam is beautiful, CivArmy! I'm glad you chose that one to do. Will be a great unit for all those MidEast civs that get ignored.

I did this one yesterday, check the Unit library.
I also have to do this real Manchu unit, it is cool!

TLC, what "munit" means? :blush: munition?

I did this one yesterday, check the Unit library.
I also have to do this real Manchu unit, it is cool!

TLC, what "munit" means? :blush: munition?

I believe its "MULTIPLE UNIT"

I believe its "MULTIPLE UNIT"

Correct, generally a group of identical units combined in one set of animation sequences; there are some exceptions that use more than one unit type.

-Oz

Alittle historical info on the boxer....

The Boxers were in fact a term given to them by foreigners in the country. The rebels actually called themselves "The Order of the Sacred Fist", but "Boxer" stuck... :lol:

Great work Civ, as usual

Just a suggestion: You could try using different horse models for alittle diversity, If you check the Unit Libruary, theres a FREE horse model. Hope that helps...if you want I could get you the link

Alittle historical info on the boxer....

The Boxers were in fact a term given to them by foreigners in the country. The rebels actually called themselves "The Order of the Sacred Fist", but "Boxer" stuck... :lol:

Great work Civ, as usual

Just a suggestion: You could try using different horse models for alittle diversity, If you check the Unit Libruary, theres a FREE horse model. Hope that helps...if you want I could get you the link

free model, here? :confused: tell me the links :cool:

As you command...

http://www.civ3files.com/cgi-bin/Main.cgi?Page=Civ3ShowUnits&Start=500&SortBy=2&Reverse=0&PerPage=20&Previews=1

Its called "Riderless Horse" btw, scroll down to see it, Kryten is the author

Thats not a model, thats a Cut and Paste Unit part...

Honestly, I think you horse model is fine Civ. You just need to work on Animating thier deaths, thats all.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Civ's Horses, I just thought Civ might like to have some alternate models to choose from.

SoG, thanks, but I'm not able to use this model in Poser ;) If I use the copy/past technique I could use the model, but I din't use this technique to create units.
Goldflash, thanks for the suggestion, I'm working to get better and better, so, I continue working to improve the death animations of the horses and all the other animations of all the other units (mounted or not) :)

:( I didn't know, I apologize. Can you change the Horse color by any chance? Thats another good way to add diversity to your Cavalry units.

:( I didn't know, I apologize. Can you change the Horse color by any chance? Thats another good way to add diversity to your Cavalry units.

It is easy to be done and I do that in all my mounted units.

I'm busy with CivArmy's Mod launch (in CFC in next hours), so, I added the Kinboat unit instead to do one myself :) The unit was part of the Mongol Mounted Units pack, I choice the 3rd one.