1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Samurai replace Swordsman?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by zwei833, Jun 30, 2016.

  1. Redaxe

    Redaxe Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,519
    You have to consider the time that the State of Rome existed for.
    The senate ruled from 509-31 BC...
    The Emperor up to 476 in the West and 1453 in the East
    So you are talking over 2000 years.

    Yes the Romans didn't make the best armor early on and they did learn a lot from conquering the Celts but the point I make is that the quality of metal wasn't the be-all and end-all.
    What made Rome so successfuly was their training, organisation, leadership, innovation and a multitude of other factors that less centralised tribal societies couldn't compete with.
    Weapons alone aren't enough. For instance the ARVN of South Vietnam had superior technology at their disposal but still lost to their Communist enemy

    Also iirc Roman soldiers had to pay for their own gear. So if you could afford a higher quality steel blade you could buy one. But realistically in a battle you might kill 3-4 people so there is no risk of a blade going blunt.
     
  2. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Most of the roman equipment was more or less adopted by people they called barbarians. The pike armed phalanx could not work without strong cavalry, gauls managed to sack rome and defeat greeks which was a reason why rome abandoned the pike for a more flexible sword and pilum armed infantry.

    Cavalry became powerful then stirup was invented which eventually made the roman way of warfare obsolete and the pike armed phalanx had to be "relearned".

    The reason why knights became a dominating part in the medieval battlefield was because they was effective. Medieval metalworking did improve over the roman, there is for example no evidance that the romans used blast furnaces but these was definitely used during high medieval.
     
  3. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    15,652
    We actually haven't.
     
  4. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    There were some funny rock-paper-scissors in process. Phalanx made chariots obsolete on former Alexander territories, but once Romans came in, chariots were relearned by Pontus, Armenia etc. and were used quite effectively against Rome for some time.
     
  5. Redaxe

    Redaxe Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,519
    The Stirrup was the defining factor towards the domination that knights had on the battlefield - i'd argue more important then blast furnace steel. And knights were really only dominant on the Western European battlefields, I think throughout Asia the horse archer still dominated. They were lighter and hence faster then heavier European cavalry and could win using hit and run tactics in the steppe and desert environment.

    Blast furnaces didn't really start to become the norm until the late medieval period. They certainly did exist earlier but were not that numerous. The point I'm making is that the quality of steels and iron working varied enormously in both the Roman and Medieval period - you would buy what you could afford. There were some blast furnaces around possibly as early as 1100-1200 but the scale of iron mining and smelting in Europe was only a fraction of that achieved by the Romans.

    By the renaissance period the technology existed to forge incredible suits of armor but these were incredibly expensive and thus mainly reserved for the aristocracy and for ceremonial use and career soldiers. But then the advent of polearms, halberds and larger maces and of course firearms evened the odds against plate armor.

    Also permanent standing armies weren't really common in this period so there for the most part average to low grade steel was the norm.
    The battles that took place with the Longswordsman unit of Civ 5 i.e. the hundred years war etc... was only in numbers of 10,000ish and even then not all the soldiers would be equipped with plate armor - it might be anywhere below 60%.

    And to put things in perspective Rome could field hundreds of thousands of soldiers wearing lorica segmentata.
     
  6. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    horse archer is a stereotypical representation of a nomad warrior although they had alot of heavy cavalry and it was equipped even heavier than opposing cavalry of agricultural societies e.g. Russian boyars and even contemporary European knights

    Spoiler :



    not to mention heavy cavalry (cataphracts) were 'invented' by the nomadic people of Parthians and the strirrup also has come from the steppes. Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Mongols etc etc all employed heavy cavalry of great numbers and quality.


    polearms werent very effective against plate armor and there were even modifications which could protect from arquebus fire. its ecomony which made heavy cavalry obsolete, e.g. with same funds you as a mercenary captain or a royal general could rise an army of 1000 pikemen or only 25 gendarmes (numbers are hypothetical), and while 25 gendarmes would smash and tear apart 500 pikemen in the field, 1000 pikes were still stronger. so the use of heavy cavalry steadily declined through the renaissance until this class was entirely abandoned after napoleonic wars (quirassiers by then). and its not only armor, its also special breeds of horses, e.g. knights' horses weighted up to 1200 kgs what is 2-3 times heavier than an average horse nowdays. heavy cavalry was really heavy :)

    afaik the only mass use of "longswordsman" was in the battle of Agincourt, and those men-at-arms werent actually foot soldiers, they just had to dismount because of weather conditions / terrain (soil became dirty so horses couldnt gallop).
    not to mention it was an utter, disastrous defeat for the french
     
  7. Ravihon

    Ravihon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2016
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Germany
    One of the major factors of what unit type historically has been fielded and in which quantities, is and was upkeep. The amount of work hours, material to equip a knight or Samurai with armor and weapon is huge in comparison with a normal foot soldier.

    And this continues with the maintenance / support of such a unit in the field. So whoever replaces whom, is not the real question imho. The question is how realistic is the upkeep going to be solved, this would btw also reduce the amount of 1up units the AI has to handle.
     
  8. NerdExtrodinare

    NerdExtrodinare Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    If you look purely at time yes, but if you look at advances in weapon craft and armor it's not bad, despite what it's fan boys think Japan has really been behind the technological curve up until the modern era.



    Trueish, Knights and Samurai did not always own land, some were purely combatants, though they were still nobles and afforded that status they did have the right to hold lands, they did not necessarily hold lands of their own in reality. And even lords who were land owners were expected to serve in their Lord's army if called upon to do so through the Feudal system.



    Well, both knights and samurai were both mounted and unmounted combatants depending on the situation. However samurai were unmounted more often than knights were as they had samurai and militia (ashigaru.) Where as the west had knights, militia, but then also man-at-arms and other foot soldiers. So while both fought mounted and not mounter, you'd be more likely to see a samurai going not mounted.



    ... No, just no. There were all kinds of weapon uses, maces were obscenely popular because they're anti-armor weapons that can be used at close range as opposed to spears which are harder to use.
     
  9. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    mace could be a secondary weapon for a knight or spearman. there were no mass-macemen units afaik.
     

Share This Page