About Medieval period games:
Were weapons-based meme divisions a real thing? I mean beyond archers/infantry/cavalry. I mean in medieval II total war has divisions like "spearmen," who all have spears, and then "halberdiers" who all had halberds, then "swordsmen" like sword bearing infantry, and "macemen" or some shit.
Pikemen, archers, and crossbowmen were a thing I know, but what about the rest.
Lets limit this shit to 900's-1400's.
>>804894
Do you really need to ask this fucking question?
>>804894
Medieval 2 isn't very reflective of actual history the Normans in England don't even have access to Norman knights. Most of the one weapon only units comes from the problem of who wins in rock paper scissors and how to implement that using shit computers. Total War sacrifices historical accuracy for game play and balance that's why the HRE is such shit there is a limit to what they could do. I hope to see as computers improve bigger and better games I really want Agincourt with historical numbers and units
If we're talking about non-noble soldiers then a lord would generally supply their own retinue's arms and armor and then march off to convene with the rest of the army by a certain time frame. This resulted in low standardization across the entire army as a whole but across the lord's retinue you may have something like, say, 20 archers, 30 spear men, 10 men at arms etc all equipped in a varied and good fashion; so a reasonably standardized mix of 'sub-units' among the lord's retinue.
These small sub units were usually cobbled together into larger regiments under the command of a captain. This resulted in these regiments having differences in training and tactics but reasonably similar arms and armor at least.
Knight's retinue's were different, however, as each knight or man-at-arms was generally accompanied by several non-knight warriors to support him. Knights were generally armed as best they could afford and varied considerably based on their wealth.
TLDR: The medieval world was a quartermaster's nightmare and standardization was shit tier.
>>804894
Usually, there's no such thing as a "Swordsmen" unit during this time (in the west at least). Everyone had a hand weapon of sort and knew how to use it.
Shorter weapons were pretty much brought ought when a general press is expected. Or you lost your ""main"" weapon.
>>804894
>or some shit
>Lets limit this shit
protip: you overuse the word "shit"
>>804894
battle of Najera: "Divers of them held their spears in both their hands, foining and pressing each at other, and some fought with short swords and daggers."
Agincourt: "The English took instant advantage of the disorder in the van division, and, throwing down their bows, fought lustily with swords, hatchets, mallets, and bill-hooks, slaying all before them."
>>804894
To be honest even the Archer/infantry/cavalry is not really correct. Archers are both archers and infantry and men-at-arms are both cavalry and infantry.
The ordnannces of Charles the Bold requires one group of soldiers to have a spear or voulge or any kind of polearm, not specified which kind.
>>804894
Somewhat.
Peasants and yeomen drafted into the army would have had either spears or bows (or billhooks) because they wouldn't have been able to afford horses or full arms and armor. So the idea of a large unit of men with spears all fighting under the same banner isn't wrong per se.
Knights on the other hand provided their own arms and armor. So a uniform unit of knights all with swords and shields probably wouldn't have happened. The unit in your picture for example is wearing full plate (developed during the 14th century) but fighting with long swords which were rarely used one handed with a shield, and had already been largely supplanted by weapons such as the poleaxe, shortened lance and estoc (a two handed thrusting sword) because of their Superior ability to penetrate armor.
>>804894
the heraldry makes no sense... like wtf...
If you look at the battles of Courtrai, Falkirk and Stirling Bridge, and maybe Sempatch you can see some standardization in weak nations to offset enemy cavalry most of these were pike and spear units along with crossbowmen. for the most part nations in western Europe had no standard units and most troops supplied their own equipment. The knights dominated due to no real training or equipment for infantry once this changed the knight lost much of their status in outright charges. The 14th century is probably the start of actual infantry tactic in the west again. I figure most peasants would have a spear shield and helmet and fight with others from their region or town. Knights had simliar weapons to each other but it depends on what they favoured and how much money they had. I would assume archers and ranged units fought together with fairly similar weapons and the English long-bowmen would have had decent organization to use volleys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sempach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stirling_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
>>804968
That's not 100% correct. Infantry stood up to cavalry plenty of times and was an essential part of the crusader armies. People tend to see those victories you listed as the end of cavalry dominance when (I argue) that such a dominance was never really present to begin with.
The great thing about archers is that their training did not really need to be together as a unit, that was something only typically done after the muster.
>>804988
You are correct that it wasn't always the case with cavalry crushing infantry they tended to charge spots that had been weakened knights were shock units. Though their dominance did last until Courtrai simply due to the lack of good infantry in northern europe. The muslims had some of the Best cavalry in the world and more of it than the crusaders but they were the same as knights. If you look at tactics everything was set up for a cavalry charge in crusader battles when they had horses. Many knights lost their horses with no replacements and had to fight on foot but were well trained enough to still be effective. I use Hastings and Courtrai as basic markers in history were you can see shifts in how battles are won and the importance on units. From around 1066- 1302 Cavalry were dominant if you had more and better Cavalry you usually won terrain not withstanding. Infantry were very neglected and where you see them well trained feed and equipped they could repel a direct cavalry attack maybe. It's not until the 14th century that this becomes a a fixture of the battlefield until then you could charge infantry and most time they would rout quick. That being said the feudal armies of Europe were shit and knights are over hyped which may be why people ran even back then when they could probably have won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dyrrhachium_%281081%29
(i love how double the losses is a victory)
What i would give to see Long-bowmen firing on mass at french cavalry in my opinion its ranged units that killed the knight.
>>805039
Arsuf springs to mind when it comes to excellent infantry action. At Falkirk, Coutrai etc etc. the infantry was still in a stationary defensive position with man-made or natural obstacles though. Longbows had the same thing in that longbow fire alone never managed to halt a cavalry or infantry charge in it's tracks.
There's a good thread on AskHistorians on it. There are documents on paygrades and prices of particular weapons but more in the sense of missile/polearms etc. So no, they probably wouldn't be like "Billhooks over there and halberdiers over here, guys!"
related question, did armies also divide units up by company into their own "squares" or were army formations usually just huge masses of dudes
>>805099
>>805062
Arsurf isn't a battle against western cavalry and while the Saracens had better horse riders they were not as heavily armed as a Knight. From what professors have said the Saracens used light cavalry and he crusaders used big heavy shields while Richard kept his cavalry which couldn't catch the Saracens from attacking to early. The battle was the one side throwing itself against an enemy to strong to beat but that couldn't catch them. Once they were tired and Richard had a good position he routed the Saracens with a cavalry charge. The heavier infantry the crusaders used were trained and better equipped than they would normally be and the discipline of the army was why they won. The cavalry were still a major part for the battle and probably won it.
As for the Longbows its more about seeing a few thousand of them firing that the effect.
>>804894
Is medieval 2 total war worth a buy? I've recently just got the first rome total war and I really like it but apparently the second one is shit. Also is mount and blade good? I don't want to ask /v/ they too jaded
>>805108
At Arsuf the saracens repeatedly charged the infantry, not all of them were horse archers. Although they managed to break the crusader infantry formation a few times it rallied and closed it's ranks every time. They weren't part of the winning charge but victory without them would be impossible.
>>805110
i haven't played in years but mod the shit out of it if you do play. I did enjoy it but it has draw backs and can be annoying at times.
>>805118
Ahh thanks m8
>>805113
The Infantry have always been important in war but without both infantry and cavalry neither stood a chance. What i mean to say is that in northern Europe at the time of 1066-1302 cavalry superiority usually meant victory. Infantry are important to hold the line but cavalry give mobility and shock power and were really good at fear scaring the enemy from fighting. The Saracens also had infantry who got beaten back and failed to be useful.
>>804929
>you will never bludgeon frogs with a mallet for God, England and St George
why even live
>>805110
Medieval 2 is good if you play Stainless Steel and Third Age, but it definitely feels jaded.
The only good TW from recent times is Fall of the Samurai because it feels fluid while not buggy as shit. I've bought napoleon but the UI triggers me and feels like something done by amateurs.
>>805378
>you will never buttfuck sissy English archers
Pourquoi vivre ?
>>804894
Total War games were not designed as simulations. They were a spin-off of RTS games that captured a niche market that wants into wargaming but in approachable vidya format. Units were not modeled after historical army organization but after AoE style individual soldiers multiplied by a few hundred and grouped together as one unit.
