I was looking at all the screenshots that were released, and the heavy infantry have axes and knights have swords. This disappointed me somewhat because while it may be a stereotype to a certain degree, most of us imagine medieval armies as infantry with swords (typical medieval warrior) and knights are famous for their charges which are possible because of their lances. So my question is, will technological advances change the type of weapon wielded or will the type of weapon stay fixed, and just get better? I dont know about other forumers, but I would definitely like to see sword infantry and knights with lances in this promising game (at least in latter ages).
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
yeah but it was stated previously that heavy infantry and heavy cavalry represent nobility in the game, so they are rich. besides, there already are militias and pikemen with cheaper weapons, so...
Well, I don't remember that, but i'm not around all the time...also on the pic it just says infantry, even though they have heavy armor...heh, so maybe they just liek axes...pff
The axe was a much more common and reliable weapon then a quality sword at this time. And most cavalry didn't wield lances at all...
But I would like it if the weapon a unit used wasn't set in stone.
But I would like it if the weapon a unit used wasn't set in stone.
Sword-armed infantry was almost totally non-existant in Feudal Europe, with the exception of dismounted knights. I have a hard time understanding why computer games (AoK, M:TW and now CK) keeps using there anachronistic units... 
Speaking of which: Can knights be dismounted to heavy infantry for invading mountain province or so?
Most of the feudal knights (the cavalry the player will probably deal the most with) did...
Speaking of which: Can knights be dismounted to heavy infantry for invading mountain province or so?
Damocles said:
Most of the feudal knights (the cavalry the player will probably deal the most with) did...
anti_strunt said:Sword-armed infantry was almost totally non-existant in Feudal Europe, with the exception of dismounted knights. I have a hard time understanding why computer games (AoK, M:TW and now CK) keeps using there anachronistic units...
Snippesky
Mayhaps a left-over from the Vikings? As some were (not many) were sword weilding, and not mounted.
Vikings did exist after Hastings, though not in quite the same form and number that they used to.
Damocles said:
IMHO it would be pointless to list so carefully what weapon and armor the unit is using if it cannot be changed, so I have hope..
-
About weapons: Spears were more popular even than axes, which can be seen that after swords we find spears with names, but rarely axes. The spear was also the sign of a free man (just as the sword was for the rich/noble).
Swords were the riding mans weapon and as such impopular with infantry, who had to supply thier own leverage when hitting people. As armors grew thicker the swords grew and were somewhat phased out from riders who changed to axes and maces, while footmen could start enjoying 1½-handers and later 2-handed swords - but mainly for prestige (although useful at sea..)
Lances began to come into thier own in late 12th century, before that 'riding spears' were used - just like the ancients used them the spears were meant to be used for stabbing or throwing, not the powerful charges that were to become so feared..
http://hastings1066.com/bayhi4a.shtml (Example of mounted spear use in 1066
)What I think I'm aiming at is that most notions of medieveal warfare come from the 14th century or about while the game begins in the 11th century..
(I was shocked even recently when I realized that the first crusaders wore only chainmails and barrel helmets for armor.. not a plate mail in sight..)
i also think that specific weapons change, but the type stays the same, so for example, a tribal sword becomes a noble's sword and then a longsword as technological advances are made, but the type (sword) stays the same for cavalry. i agree with u guys that swords were not as popular and widely used as most movies/games depict, but they are a cool weapon, and in this game we already have units with pikes/spears, axes, bows, etc, wouldnt kill anybody to have at least one type of sword infantry...
Quartz Arrow said:
Halberds/Bills would have been a better choice for non-spear heavy infantry. And why are there no skirmishers?
EDIT: And I REALLY hope that the game has some mechanic from stopping England (and most of Europe) from building Horse Archers...
EDIT 2: Oh, and I really hope that knights can dismount, the HYW battles will probably look a bit different otherwise.
Last edited:
if there will be no infantry with swords, then i hope that knights can dismount too. it would be a nice tactical option, for example, if you are facing the swiss, with their pikemen or if you are attacking a castle.
anti_strunt said:
Again - Halberds are late 14th century with poleaxes as early 14th century. The older 'spear-axe' (as described by Anna Comnena) weren't popular outside the germanic/scandinavian region and should thus not be seen in england..
The Bill, however (a.k.a. glaive a.k.a guisarme a.k.a fauchard) did exist in basic variants already, but before 13th century seems to have been most prominent among the germanic peoples (who are believed to have 'invented' the weapon during the dark ages by ad-hoc fastening of a 'scramasaxe' to a stick
). The later versions were 14th century inventions.. Scirmishers is more a combination of formation and morale = battle action, just as knights dismounting is a battle action. I'd expect that from MtW, but not CK..
(edit: and since you don't build units the mechanism would seem to be in place to not build horse archers - only if the province mustering the forces has a large population of horse nomads /semi-nomads will you get horse archers..)
Nikolai II said:
The main reason behind the appearence of these longer swords (which are more of a renaissance business anyways), I belive, was increased reach more than anything. AFAIHU, full plate (again, a renaissance thingie) was pretty invulnerable against anything cutting or piercing (even, say, arrows shot from longbows) so the evolution wouldn't have made much sense armour penetration wise.
Last edited:
anti_strunt said:EDIT: And I REALLY hope that the game has some mechanic from stopping England (and most of Europe) from building Horse Archers...
Unfourtunately, you need not to look any further than screenie number 4 to see bunch of English horse archer trotting near Salisbury.
What I find even sadder is the equipment used by the units.
Unarmoured peasants with hayforks? Oh my...
Tribal sword? Can't it be just a war/long sword, or even just a plain sword? Plate hauberk in 1137? I don't think even brigandine was used at the time, let alone plate... Full suit of mail would be a better term. Oh, and did such thing as a plate reinforced hauberk even ever exist? I think the pikemen with shortspears are the winners though... *sigh* Well, at least nobody used the term "chain mail" in all it's sillyness.*Hopes really hard that none of the beforementioned things are set to stone*
Väinö I said:
Yup. I just wanted to follow the evolution of them, although 1½ handers would only have to face 'plate hauberk' (the real one, mid 14th century)..
Maximilians and full plates are 16th century which is rather out of the game - 'gothic' plate can just about sqeeze in at the end..
But you're right - 1137 had just about seen the introduction of chain-mail trousers.. plate metal additions are still a 'future tech'
Well.. let us hope for the best... *crosses fingers*
While I agree that the weapon make-up seems a bit strange, it's important to remember that a horse archer is not always a horse archer. There were quite a few bow or crossbow-armed horsemen trotting around in latin europe during the middle ages; however, the mass deployment of horse-archer nomad cavalry was of course not a western phenomen.
As for swords being knights' or noblemans weapons, well, it is true...to a degree. Swords and axes were, as they always have been, backup weapons to pikes, spears, 'Danish' axes, lances, assorted polearms and of course missile weapons, but in spanish muster rolls of the 11th century, richer peasants are to be found with swords, and the norwegian laws of the 13th and 14th centuries dictate that craftsmen and certain peasant assemblies are to bring spears, shields, helmets, padded cloth armour(better than it sounds-a copy of a 12th century vaapentroya(gambeson) has been found to stand up to 120-pound bowfire ) and shields to the muster.
'Bastard' swords, more correctly called 'long swords' or (ge)'langenschwert' begin to appear in the late 14th century and are the most common weapon featured in the fencing manuals of the 14th and 15th centuries. True two-handers were a late 15th and earlt 16th century affair and were not all that common. Long Swords were, again, a dueling and backup weapon. They appear around the time shields go out of fashion and the armoured combat manuals show them to be used mostly after entering techniques, when the fighter are able to strike at the maille or unarmoured face.
As for swords being knights' or noblemans weapons, well, it is true...to a degree. Swords and axes were, as they always have been, backup weapons to pikes, spears, 'Danish' axes, lances, assorted polearms and of course missile weapons, but in spanish muster rolls of the 11th century, richer peasants are to be found with swords, and the norwegian laws of the 13th and 14th centuries dictate that craftsmen and certain peasant assemblies are to bring spears, shields, helmets, padded cloth armour(better than it sounds-a copy of a 12th century vaapentroya(gambeson) has been found to stand up to 120-pound bowfire ) and shields to the muster.
'Bastard' swords, more correctly called 'long swords' or (ge)'langenschwert' begin to appear in the late 14th century and are the most common weapon featured in the fencing manuals of the 14th and 15th centuries. True two-handers were a late 15th and earlt 16th century affair and were not all that common. Long Swords were, again, a dueling and backup weapon. They appear around the time shields go out of fashion and the armoured combat manuals show them to be used mostly after entering techniques, when the fighter are able to strike at the maille or unarmoured face.
The Norwegian 'peasant levy' you mention sounds like it is composed of freemen though.. in a county where peasants are more oppressed I wouldn't think they would be entrusted with so much weaponry..
edit: or was it 'craftsman levy..'?
edit: or was it 'craftsman levy..'?
Nikolai II said:The Norwegian 'peasant levy' you mention sounds like it is composed of freemen though.. in a county where peasants are more oppressed I wouldn't think they would be entrusted with so much weaponry..
edit: or was it 'craftsman levy..'?
Common levy. Every man of a certain means equipped himself, and the peasant freeman(no serfom ever in norway in the classical sense) were organized in groups that each equipped a warrior(and had him trained, hopefully). Plus, of course, the nobility, who equipped a certain amount of men. Remember also how few countries really had only serfs as opposed to freemen: some parts of france, germany and italy and eastern europe springs to mind.
Medieval society was a lot more free than most people think. Even the dirt-poor Pyrenees peasants of Montaillou had a few swords here and there...