The Medieval Weapons Mod - adding history and logic to the civ4 middle ages.

[Princeps]

I don't pick random sites. I pick sites that are authoritative in some way, or if I don't, I mention the problems with my source.

I think it's fair to say that the gladius was an effective weapon, but probably not nearly as damaging as being hit by a big axe, which would have its own disadvantages.

Well, getting struck by axe or get stabbed by gladius to your stomac... which one do you think is more effective way of killing?

In battle, a dane axe takes incredible amount room, while with gladius you can go so close with your shield, that the enemy cannot use his axe in any real effect before getting banged by the shield, and stabbed to the chest.

I wouldn't, a priori, expect particularly good armor penetration from the gladius, but it would be easier to aim for vulnerable points than with an axe or spear.

Well, you see chain mail did protect from slashes and cuts, but not really stabs because of the way the blade strikes to the mail. In stab the blade point goes between the mail rings, and pushes them aside.

As long as we're clear that both of us are pretty much working on feelings. I'll see if I can't find that study.

Actually, a reinactor in SCC (stratcommandcenter.com), called Valerian, IIRC said that the Parthian bow probably did not pierce the shield. And, in RTW mod, called total realism (made by bunch of history geeks ) the heavy Roman infantries are practically invulnarble to arrows from front.

The idea would be that to fight the cavalry, the legions would have to stop and get hammered from behind by the phalanx, which could easily catch up to them. So the cavalry would just pin them in place while the phalanx did the actual killing.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. The cavalry did the flanking, the phalanx pinned. The Phalanx was very powerful when countering charges, but it wasn't powerful in attacking, and the large curved shields were very effective in defending from pikes.

And, in battle, Romans could simply stay away from the phalanx, because it was so slow.

The actual danger of your tactic, would be that, you would be killing the cavalry. The cavalry, though powerful, was only effective when they struck from weak spots, alone, the cavalry would get slaughtered. When the Phalanx no longer has cavalry, it is good as dead.

(Damn, I'm feeling unusually conciliatory tonight . . .)

I actually had to use dictionary to find out what that meant.

conciliator - someone who tries to bring peace

 

[Simetrical]

Well, getting struck by axe or get stabbed by gladius to your stomac... which one do you think is more effective way of killing?

I don't think either is inherently better. One would be better for some circumstances, one for others.

Well, you see chain mail did protect from slashes and cuts, but not really stabs because of the way the blade strikes to the mail. In stab the blade point goes between the mail rings, and pushes them aside.

All depends. If the chainmail is riveted (as it usually was in Roman times, AFAIK) and the links are comparatively thick, it would take a pretty large amount of force to actually break the links.

Actually, a reinactor in SCC (stratcommandcenter.com), called Valerian, IIRC said that the Parthian bow probably did not pierce the shield. And, in RTW mod, called total realism (made by bunch of history geeks ) the heavy Roman infantries are practically invulnarble to arrows from front.

I used to be a member of RTR (my name is still on the website credits, albeit misspelled, and it's in the opening credits for the 6.0 version, correctly spelled), and am currently a member of Europa Barbarorum, another realism mod. I was meaning to ask EB's steppe person (alias Steppe Merc, fittingly) if he knew of any kind of systematic analysis that could give me an answer, but since you mentioned RTR, I've asked someone who I think is their head historian (or was their head historian, certainly is on their history team)―vindafarna, a lecturer on ancient history at some Irish university. She didn't have much to say, but was inclined to agree that the shields provided decent but less than complete protection.

[Nov 17, 21:58:29] <+Simetrical> vindafarna, how well do you think scuta would stand up to composite bows?
[Nov 17, 21:58:51] <+Simetrical> Plutarch and Cassius Dio say they got pierced straight through at Carrhae, do you think that's plausible?
[Nov 17, 21:59:26] <vindafarna> allowing for the need to produce an excuse for the disaster (hey, their tech was ahaead of ours!)
[Nov 17, 21:59:55] <vindafarna> i'd say that there was a possibility that the bow they faced was new to them
[Nov 17, 22:00:41] <+Simetrical> But do you think it would have provided good protection against them?
[Nov 17, 22:00:59] <vindafarna> i'm sure that it did
[Nov 17, 22:01:26] <vindafarna> but very rarely had the romans been exposed to 10000 bowmen shooting at them, in the open, with impunity
[Nov 17, 22:02:52] <vindafarna> and remeber; at carrhae the romans were broken as a fighting force; but so far as one can tell, the didn't BREAK and run, not on the battlefiled
[Nov 17, 22:03:14] <vindafarna> so the casualties, while heavy, were not overwhelming
[Nov 17, 22:03:21] <vindafarna> you catch my drift here?
[Nov 17, 22:05:07] <vindafarna> anyway; they knew they were mere targets, that they couldn't run from cavalry with inexhaustible ammo, and they kept together
[Nov 17, 22:05:21] <vindafarna> but -and this is prolly the pertinent point here -
[Nov 17, 22:05:43] <vindafarna> they weren't *slaughtered* by the uber-bows :)​

I've asked Steppe Merc if he knows anything, though. I'll tell you what he says. vinda was on IRC, so I asked her then and there.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. The cavalry did the flanking, the phalanx pinned.

And the legions retreated from the front of the phalanx, and the cavalry could thus (so the idea goes) intercept them and delay them long enough to keep them from getting away. Or that's my understanding of the idea, anyway. I don't see how it would have worked either, so maybe I'm missing something.

The Phalanx was very powerful when countering charges, but it wasn't powerful in attacking, and the large curved shields were very effective in defending from pikes.

Nope. Phalanxes could charge, and it was deadly when it did so. Even if a legionary could get through one row of pikes, there were four more he had to get past before he was within attack range, and furthermore the tighter ordering of the phalanx meant each legionary was faced with two pikes per row. See Polybius' Histories, Book 18:29 ff. for an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the phalanx. Polybius is generally regarded as very impartial as a historian, as opposed to more fanciful ancient historians like Livy (or, of course, plenty of modern historians). A notable line is "it is easy to see that, as I said at the beginning, nothing can withstand the charge of the phalanx as long as it preserves its characteristic formation and force."

And, in battle, Romans could simply stay away from the phalanx, because it was so slow.

It wasn't that slow. It could run, for limited periods of time; it would just start to break up if it ran too far, especially over uneven ground. But yes, as I said, Romans could fall back and the phalanx would be unable to pursue. That's where the cavalry are supposed to come in: the Romans are disarrayed, running away from the somewhat slower phalanx, when the cavalry come crashing in to stop them for a few seconds, and they get smashed in the back by the phalanx. In theory.

 

[khakhan007]

I would also change the name from Praetorian to Legionairy. Praetorian units were basically glorified firefighters and town guards.

Last time I checked... Praetorians were imperial guards

A prefect (from the Latin praefectus, perfect participle of praeficio, to make in front, i.e. put in charge) is an official of various different types. A prefect's office, department or area of control is called a prefecture

* Praefectus urbanus : city prefect
* Praefectus vigilum : commander of the Vigiles (city guard town watch)

just wanted to point that out. like the way the mods are comin together... now we need to consolidate some of them.

 

[P-51D]

The pikemen equipment was in no way superior to the legionary. Each unit was adapted to the era it ruled.

The legionary were the soldiers that were to go against the phalanx. nothing more nothing less. the strength they developed figting Pyrrus was then adapted and honed fighting Hannibal. Scipio Africanus was Hannibals very able student and he learned everything he could before salting Carthages fields.

the fall of the Roman empire was not in their armies. Although their armies were later poorly adapted to figting skirmishing huns, gallic warlords and germanic axemen and lancemen.

I would also change the name from Praetorian to Legionairy. Praetorian units were basically glorified firefighters and town guard.

And that's why the Roman legions lasted for so long? Legions weren't just for phalanxes they were the bulk of the Roman army.
Praetorians were elite legionares and were NOT town gaurds. I agree with you about the pikeman being more poorly equiped though. Pikes are for use against horsemen and probably couln't hold their own against a swordsman when in close combat.

Well, you see chain mail did protect from slashes and cuts, but not really stabs because of the way the blade strikes to the mail. In stab the blade point goes between the mail rings, and pushes them aside.

Good chain mail could protect from stabs but the key word being good. Plate mail was chosen over chain mail because plate mail, when layered could stop most stabs/slashes.

 

[Simetrical]

Last time I checked... Praetorians were imperial guards

It varied. Praetorianus was initially a generic term referring to any general's bodyguard (from praetorium, "general's tent, headquarters"). Later, Augustus founded the Praetorian Guard, an organized group of imperial bodyguards. Eventually, these were used in general combat to some extent as elite units, although their effectiveness in later times is questionable.

A prefect (from the Latin praefectus, perfect participle of praeficio, to make in front, i.e. put in charge) is an official of various different types. A prefect's office, department or area of control is called a prefecture

* Praefectus urbanus : city prefect
* Praefectus vigilum : commander of the Vigiles (city guard town watch)

When you quote a source, it's bad form not to attribute it (in this case, to Wikipedia). This source isn't really relevant anyway . . . there was a Praetorian Prefect, but you didn't quote that part, and anyway it's only tangentially mentioned there. The article you want is Praetorian Guard, which largely agrees with what I said but with lots more details.

Praetorians were elite legionares and were NOT town gaurds.

Augustus' Praetorians, in their role as imperial bodyguards, were quite naturally stationed in Rome, where ordinary soldiers were not traditionally allowed. They were, therefore, theoretically a sort of City (with a capital C) guard as well as an imperial guard, in that they did their guarding in the city instead of outside of it. However, Rome proper was never attacked between Augustus' time and the beginning of the end of the Western Empire, AFAIK, so it's kind of misleading to say they had a real role as town guards.

Pikes are for use against horsemen and probably couln't hold their own against a swordsman when in close combat.

"Close" combat? No, being as a twenty-foot pole is rather ineffective when your enemy is five feet away. But in a direct frontal attack on a proper Macedonian pike formation (I would expect medieval pikemen to have lousier training and morale), any swordsmen would get totally skewered.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Enjoyable debates here, IMO. Just thought I'd say, from intuition, that a spear or arrow would have a much better chance of penetrating chainmail, and as compared to an axe or a even a sword for which I (think) it was specifically designed to resist. Reason being you could apply much greater focused velocity to the weapon, and thereby levy much greater PSI.

For Stacked Combat Ideas, see:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142750#1

 

[Dracleath]

(I would expect medieval pikemen to have lousier training and morale)

Yeah, those crappy medieval pikemen, they only managed to obsolete the knight, dominate the battlefield for 200 years, fight side by side and against gunpowder troops until the invention of the bayonette, and along with the musket reintroduce the idea of professional soldiers to europe.

Too bad no one thought of using heavy infantry with a simple shortsword against them eh.

You guys really need to stop watching gladiator and alexander long enough to go read about the hundred years war, the thirty years war, the swiss mercenary tradition, the spanish tercios, the english civil war, etc.

 

[Simetrical]

Yeah, those crappy medieval pikemen, they only managed to obsolete the knight, dominate the battlefield for 200 years, fight side by side and against gunpowder troops until the invention of the bayonette, and along with the musket reintroduce the idea of professional soldiers to europe.

There I went generalizing myself, methinks. Silly of me to go outside the one era where I actually more or less know something. But note the weasel words! My expectations aren't worth much when it comes to the medieval times, by and large . . .

Too bad no one thought of using heavy infantry with a simple shortsword against them eh.

And a big shield, and mobility-oriented tactics . . . possibly, did anyone? I don't recall making any claims that Roman-era tactics applied to the Middle Ages regardless.

What were the typical compositions of medieval armies in the periods you refer to anyway? Successor state armies were usually around half phalanx, give or take a substantial amount, with the remainder mostly being made up of a combination of more mobile light and heavy infantry to harrass the enemy and guard the flanks, plus maybe 5–15% cavalry and sometimes some elephants. Obviously the pikes weren't the only important part of either army archetype.

You guys really need to stop watching gladiator and alexander long enough to go read about the hundred years war, the thirty years war, the swiss mercenary tradition, the spanish tercios, the english civil war, etc.

Because of course, no one could ever learn about ancient Mediterranean warfare except through watching Gladiator and Alexander, right? And those eras are totally insignificant compared to the Middle Ages, there's no reason for anyone to learn about them instead of medieval warfare.

FYI, I've never watched Alexander or any other ancient war-oriented movie except Gladiator, and a) I recognize it for the historically inaccurate piece of popular entertainment it is, and b) it deals with a period long after the pike phalanx had given up the ghost (and over a millennium before its later resurgence). Don't be a jerk.

 

[Dracleath]

Sorry, there seems to be a popular school of thought though that romanticizes the ancient world and especially ancient warfare beyond the point of reason. It's fine to talk about roman legions and macedonian phlanxes but remember that those formations did fall out of use, and it wasn't just because of the fall of rome as many of the same types of transitions to cavalry and heavy infantry that happened in the west happened in the east as well, and ways of fighting used in europe were hardly outmatched when facing the east, as shown in the crusades and wars against the eastern roman empire.

If macedonian phlanxes and roman legion formations were so effective then one has to wonder why in a period of some of the greatest strife no one ever chose to use them?


One answer is that people did, and huskarls and similar types of infantry were the natural evolution of legion type units in the climate of the middle ages, and late middle age pikemen were a revival of the classical phalanx. The knowledge of how to make simple shortswords and shields was hardly lost with the roman empire (and of course the roman empire wasn't even lost with the roman empire, but in the east they still chose to move to more of a medieval way of fighting, relying on heavy cavalry rather than infantry, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_army). The art of pikes wasn't either, but it's reasonable to assume with the great success of rome against them that they had been discredited to the point of falling out of favor with most of the empire's successors.


Why did pikes suddenly come back into favor in the 1400s then?

For the first time in history effective missile weapons appeared in widespread use in europe in the form of crossbows, longbows, and later muskets. When missile weapons came about that were capable of damaging cavalry and heavy infantry an effective way of protecting them was needed. The pike filled that need.

Composition of armies varied, but a typical mixture of forces in the late 1400s to early 1500s can be seen in the spanish tercio. In a tercio the pikemen would line up in a large phalanx-like formation, with musketeers stationed at the corners in smaller, mobile groups. The musketeers would fire at the enemy and retreat behind the pikemen when threatened. The composition of such armies varied but generally the earlier periods were much more pike focused and the later periods were more musket focused. A typical tercio formation consisted of about 3000 men.

The landsknects of the german empire are also a good example. A regiment would consist of 4000-10000 soldiers, typically a quarter to half of these would be arquebusiers and the rest pikemen, depending on era again with pikemen being common early and arquebusiers becoming more dominant as gun technology progressed.

The landsknects also used heavy infantry with two-handed swords and halberds as shock troops. The use of cavalry at this point had declined and would remain in decline (one of the really silly things about civ3 and to a lesser extent civ4 is that cavalry is so dominant in the late medieval to early modern era when in real life it was pretty much dead as a main combat force after the hundred years war and was mainly just used to rout broken infantry in that period).

 

[Willowmound]

Hey Dracleath, I've been playing your mod extensively and it has become clear that we need a new mounted unit to come between Knights and Cavalry. I thought you might have an idea as to what unit that should be (dragoons perhaps?) Of course, then would come the task of creating it...

 

[Dracleath]

Caracolers (pistol cavalry) with maybe strength 12 availible around the time of grenadiers would be appropriate but I don't have any skill with unit making and it probably couldn't be done until the sdk is out.

I was going to put in some unique units for christianity and islam but I'm still having trouble getting them to actually be adopted by the ai so I've given up at this point. Also I'm waiting to get patch 1.09 (I don't have access to broadband right now) to play with the time scale settings, after playing with slowed down research some I actually sort of like the originals because with greatly slowed tech swordsmen/horse archer/etc. rushing becomes very powerful.

I've been thinking of adding in the companion unit as light cavalry (avalible with copper/iron and horseback riding) with strength 5 and maybe a 50% bonus to other cavalry.

The knights templar would also make a decent medieval swordsman unit, perhaps 8 str +10% vs cities, availible with the same techs as macemen?

I can't think of a good use for the hysasist right now though.


Also I thought of switching the keshik and camel archer in terms of what they replace (and also obviously unit strength) as the keshik was used much later, by the 800s the arabs had moved mostly to cavalry instead of camelry and the mongolians of course rose to power much later.

 

[Dracleath]

Hmm actually the cavalry in the lost units mod would make a good hussar. Maybe I'll ask permission to use it and put it in with chemistry and education (chemistry representing advanced gun technology to make smaller cavalry weapons like pistols and carbines, education representing that cavalry often consisted of well trained officers.) Or something like that.

Also I've thought about replacing my cannon with the bronze cannon in the unit graphics forum(calling it a bombard or something like that) and readding the firaxis cannon with steel.

Also if anyone can think of a use for the hypsasist please let me know, right now all I can think of is making it a UU for celts or something like that which is outside this mod's scope. The ancient age melee units are well covered, and the only ancient age UU I'd replace would be the immortals but the hypsasist is completely innapropriate for a persian UU.

 

[Dracleath]

double post...

 

[Dracleath]

Double post...

 

[washington00]

about the quote by Dracleath on the movies, they were pretty accurate, and also, some of use do actually have in interest in ancient warfare and know what were talking about.

 

[washington00]

i disagree in your idea that the Legions were not as good as the pikeman and other units of the medieval age. You say they were not as good in armor or weapons, but if the empire had lasted till then, they probably would have adopted a different approach to these new types of units. After all, the Romans had proven themselves to be very flexible over the years. Other than the many reformations, they also were one of the first civs to abandon the Phalanx formation which had been adopted by almost everyone else thanks to the greeks and macedonians. So i think that if they had lasted that long, they simply would have thought of something else that would be a good fighting force against things like pikeman.

 

[washington00]

I agree with P-51D, the Praetorians were once again, NOT TOWN GUARDS. They were the the guardians of the emporer himself, and recieved double a soldiers pay including a special bribe for "loyalty". I believe the job of guarding towns was done by an Urban Cohort, though i'm not sure. Another thing, a preatorian
cohort also consisted of calvary, not just infantry, so someone might be able to expand on that. Another thing, when it comes to calvary and the phalanx, the legion did have a repel calvary formation, (for a picture go to roman-empire.com) and also, though not greatly used, the Legion did have calvary of their own, Equites and such. So don't think that the legion was vulnerable to calvary.

 

[Simetrical]

i disagree in your idea that the Legions were not as good as the pikeman and other units of the medieval age. You say they were not as good in armor or weapons, but if the empire had lasted till then, they probably would have adopted a different approach to these new types of units.

And so can you. Pikemen, longbowmen, knights, etc. exist for a reason, you know.

they also were one of the first civs to abandon the Phalanx formation which had been adopted by almost everyone else thanks to the greeks and macedonians.

If by "almost everyone else" you mean "the Greeks and, to a lesser extent a handful of civilizations they came into extensive contact with", yeah . . . the Roman fighting style owes more to the Gauls than the Greeks after the 4th century BCE or so.

So i think that if they had lasted that long, they simply would have thought of something else that would be a good fighting force against things like pikeman.

Such as Macemen, who get a +50% bonus against infantry like Pikemen?

I believe the job of guarding towns was done by an Urban Cohort, though i'm not sure.

The distinction of the Urban Legion was that it was permitted to enter the borders of the city of Rome, while no other military unit traditionally was (other than the Praetorians). Ordinary legionaries and auxilia guarded cities other than Rome, when it was necessary to keep a full military garrison rather than a police force and/or militia.

 

[Willowmound]

So has anyone tried this mod with the new patch yet? No problems?

I'm too busy at the mo' to do any civving myself...

 

[AThousandYoung]

Hello Dracleath. I am highly frustrated with the unit stats so I am going to use your mod to work off of. I'm adding Better AI, and this is now the 1.74 patch, but I have Vanilla so I had to use an old mod.

I'm removing the Warrior City Defense bonus and am wondering about changing the Swordsman. You kept the City Raider bonus and didn't give the Sword a bonus against melee, which I think I'll change. However I'm interested in listening to other opinions.

There are lots of weird error messages going on before I start though. Does anyone know about where these things come from?