Yeah, this is too large a retinue. Something is messing with the calculations.
Heavy cavalry retinues outside Byzantium: historical?
- Thread starter brxbrx
- Start date
-
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, this is too large a retinue. Something is messing with the calculations.
But it didn't, not outside Byzantium. Everything I've read indicates that Western knights were levy-only, because maintaining a group of them was simply too expensive. Admittedly, about 50% of "everything I've read" on the matter is Wikipedia, but I don't see anything indicating that any lord had the capability to muster warhorses and heavy armor for more than himself and a few retainers. Large numbers of heavy cavalry in the West were groupings of vassals, not standing armies, not proto-standing armies, and not retinues.
There is also however the gameplay issue of retinues.
That while they may be unrealistic they also plug up other holes in gameplay. For instance the fact that as Russia to conquer a single county I may have to raise troops and march them for months on end to conquer a rebel stack over in somewhere obscure just because all the local dukes don't like me and won't give me levies. With retinues you can just send in your mini army to get that job done. Similarly having to disband your army and get your levies back just to conquer the next county was pretty silly as well.
I'm thinking about tweaking them but it's a lot to balance. Is the massive rebel armies that random people seem to generate with factions based on retinues or manpower? Also massively reducing retinue size (even if we're just talking in the 1200s or 1300s) would heavily impact how easy factions are to deal with, especially if you have a really incompetent king. If he has to rely on levies more than massive retinues than it'll make the game a lot harder.
That while they may be unrealistic they also plug up other holes in gameplay. For instance the fact that as Russia to conquer a single county I may have to raise troops and march them for months on end to conquer a rebel stack over in somewhere obscure just because all the local dukes don't like me and won't give me levies. With retinues you can just send in your mini army to get that job done. Similarly having to disband your army and get your levies back just to conquer the next county was pretty silly as well.
The tech increase is way too large and ridiculous, there's no reason why a lord in 1200ad would have a massive four times larger ahistorical standing army than a 1066ad lord would.
I'm thinking about tweaking them but it's a lot to balance. Is the massive rebel armies that random people seem to generate with factions based on retinues or manpower? Also massively reducing retinue size (even if we're just talking in the 1200s or 1300s) would heavily impact how easy factions are to deal with, especially if you have a really incompetent king. If he has to rely on levies more than massive retinues than it'll make the game a lot harder.
Last edited:
How quickly did medieval Russians muster their armies IRL? Seems to me that it makes sense it takes forever.
Yes but medieval russians didn't have to deal with playing at 5 speed and playing whack a mole with rebels and not bothering to micromanage levies. It'd be nice to if you're large be able to have a retinue of at least 700 or so, as that'd be able to deal with pretty much any rebels ever.
Agreed. This is why I think retinues are great - they provide you with a way to deal with small things without having to deal with gathering up levies.
I'll take fun over irritating realism every day of the week.
A big part of the fun is the realism. And there's no reason anything irritating can't be filed down and streamlined to still be historical without hurting the game. It just takes some thought.I'll take fun over irritating realism every day of the week.
After looking at my France game.The total mapower# is the total possible levy of ALL holdings in a realm.The realm of France(in my game)has 243 holdings.with a total manpower of 200k.Military Organization tech level of :1.44.Thus Retinue Capacity of 28800.My 10k Retinue uses 20.5K of Retinue Capacity.I think the easiest way to fix the "problem" is to change the multipliers that each retinues soldier is worth.(Archers=1,pikemen,Heavy Infantry,Light Cavalry=2,and Knights=4)and change them like this Archers=1,Pikemen=2,Heavy Inf=3,Light Cavalry=5and Knights=10.
With the modifications I'm suggesting HUGE retinues would be eliminated and the large number of Knights the OP fears and says in ahistorical would be mostly eliminated.
In the other thread I the massive doomstacks are tide to retinue capacity......Thus if France were to revolt in this example the rebels would gain 28,800 Free soldiers.(I might be wrong)
That combined with the War Score problem make Faction Wars almost impossible to win........
Also that 200K manpower pool is giving about 42-51K levies with Medium Crown Authority.
With the modifications I'm suggesting HUGE retinues would be eliminated and the large number of Knights the OP fears and says in ahistorical would be mostly eliminated.
In the other thread I the massive doomstacks are tide to retinue capacity......Thus if France were to revolt in this example the rebels would gain 28,800 Free soldiers.(I might be wrong)
That combined with the War Score problem make Faction Wars almost impossible to win........
Also that 200K manpower pool is giving about 42-51K levies with Medium Crown Authority.
Looking at the files basically the only things you can change with levies through modding is what percentage of manpower of the realm they are, and how much technology affects that percentage. There isn't anything else you can atm apart from a base increase or decrease of the amount you get. If you made the HRE have a far more reasonable retinue there's a high chance smaller kingdoms would just never get any ever.
Changing the "subunit" types of retinues doesn't really help anything, having massive loads of peasants (archers) standing around isn't really that realistic either.
Changing the "subunit" types of retinues doesn't really help anything, having massive loads of peasants (archers) standing around isn't really that realistic either.
What about linking it to de Jure? You can have retinues the de Jure turf of primary title for instance.
I will say i'm not an expert, but i'm pretty sure that the bulk of heavy cavalry were infact men at arms as opposed to knights. By the 13th century it was down to 30% knights out of all heavy cav and it continued to decline into the 15th century at around 3-1%. The rest where men at arms. These were often payed men as well, receiving pay depending on the quality of their horses/armour. I do not know through which avenues they were payed but i'd say this was likely feudal. That said a lord would have his own retainers that he could call upon i imagine. But its debatable weather these fit into the retinue system or merely the demesne levies. Various english kings had a small number of 20 to 40 dubbed sergeants at arms.
But again the gendarme are a good example of a late period standing army. At their peak in the 15th century there were 4000 'lances'. Each lance was a unit of 6 mounted soldiers (functionally 1 heavy, 1 light, 1 non-combatant and 3 horse archers) Thats still a retinue of 20,000 combatants of which were 4000 heavy cav.
Early in the game Western Feudal kingdoms shouldn't be able to do so, but as the game progresses I can see the monarchs of France, England and even the HRE with a knight retinue.
I think part of the problem is that people are looking at retinues as standing armies in the Roman or modern sense when they really just represent your personal household guard. They're the sergeants and men-at-arms that you keep on military standby. Your levies, even those that come from your own demesne, represent commoners and minor nobles who have day jobs other than fighting for you. If the system were totally consistent then your retinue would be most of your cavalry and heavy infantry and your levies would mostly be archers and pikemen, but because the retinue system was added on after the levies had been fleshed out that's not the case.
Also, keep in mind that the idea of retinues being a percentage of realm manpower is to help offset the power of factions. But I agree that currently it might be unbalanced in the favor of the liege (it's a big contributor to the stability of the HRE, for example).
Also, keep in mind that the idea of retinues being a percentage of realm manpower is to help offset the power of factions. But I agree that currently it might be unbalanced in the favor of the liege (it's a big contributor to the stability of the HRE, for example).
Okay, but 400 standing heavily armed mounted soldiers? Even 100 seems like a lot. How many men-at-arms did a lord keep around back then?
@brxbrx
A King probably a lot. As some said earlier the King of France in 15th CA 4,000 Lances of (6 soldiers each) or 24,000 men.I agree that the numbers are off somewhat......but Kings are Rich and would have as many as they can afford.
I think the Knight's Retinue and Cataphracht Retinue your whining about were implemented to fix the fact that levies don't provide enough Heavy Cavalry.
Also the Combat System is simplified and lumps the Seargeants and Men at Arms as Knights for game purposes.
For Comparison purposes Krak des Chevaliers(the most famous Crusader Castle) had stabling for 2,000 horses. and I'm sure there was a Royal Castle or Two as big in Europe.
A King probably a lot. As some said earlier the King of France in 15th CA 4,000 Lances of (6 soldiers each) or 24,000 men.I agree that the numbers are off somewhat......but Kings are Rich and would have as many as they can afford.
I think the Knight's Retinue and Cataphracht Retinue your whining about were implemented to fix the fact that levies don't provide enough Heavy Cavalry.
Also the Combat System is simplified and lumps the Seargeants and Men at Arms as Knights for game purposes.
For Comparison purposes Krak des Chevaliers(the most famous Crusader Castle) had stabling for 2,000 horses. and I'm sure there was a Royal Castle or Two as big in Europe.
For the Komnenian Army circa 1200, we've got 30,000 standing troops and 15,000 mercenaries out of a total force of 60,000. Cavalry is estimated at 12,000 men, not including allied contingents from Antioch or the Balkans, so roughly 1 in 5 men were mounted but I can't find information on how many of those men would have been kataphractoi. The tagma units, which were all kataphractoi, seem to have numbered a few thousand each but there was only a handful of them.
So, taking the Byzantines as the gold standard for a centralized army of this time, we can expect an advanced, rich and centralized state to put about half of its realm manpower into retinues and to be able to afford to mount a little less than half of their full retinue. But standing armies of this type simply didn't exist in the rest of Europe at this time and it's hard to find figures on feudal manpower.
There are a number of standing armies founded in the 15th century, so just at the tail end of the game, in France, Hungary, and elsewhere. The Hungarian Black Army of the mid-1400's started out with only around 6-8k permanent soldiers but seems to have swollen to nearly 30,000 by the end of the period, most of them mounted (though probably as horse archers and gusars rather than as knights or kataphractoi). But it collapsed once the founder Matthias Corvinus died because the cost became prohibitive. The French established companies of the king's ordinance in the closing days of the Hundred Years' War, and while these seem to have been roughly a quarter heavy cavalry (and half dragoon) I can't find a solid number of how many there were.
So I guess the best I can say is that in the best case, heavy cavalry would make up between a quarter and a half of standing forces, which themselves could make up up to half of available manpower. But the biggest obstacle to establishing a large, effective standing army was a matter of income rather than technology or military doctrine. Those who could afford to do it, did. So maybe to balance things, retinues should have a small cost while not reinforcing, so that a large retinue isn't so easy to maintain in peacetime and would require high taxes?
I don't know, guys. I'm unconvinced. The examples given are from the late 15th century (except for the Black army, I'll look that up).
@brxbrx it is only a game, with some Historical elements in it. It becomes Ahistorical as soon as you unpause.
In general i agree with you.......the military manpower numbers make NO sense.In 1066 the Armies in the Stamford Bridge are within reason.About 10000 a side.(which after some Campaign wastage would give the 7-8,000 aside at Hastings.)
That being said.....Crecy(1346)was 10-14k on English side,4k knights and Men at arms and 6-10k Archers.French side 12k knights and Men at Arms,6k Genoese crossbowmen and 40-60k Peasant levy.
These are two of the richest Kingdoms in the game and 300 years after game start England can field only 50%-100% more than 1066.
Yes the numbers in the game make no sense....against RL.In game I can launch D-Day styles Invasions,fight inumerable hordes.If every "lord" was like RL the game would be like watching paint dry.......very boring.
In general i agree with you.......the military manpower numbers make NO sense.In 1066 the Armies in the Stamford Bridge are within reason.About 10000 a side.(which after some Campaign wastage would give the 7-8,000 aside at Hastings.)
That being said.....Crecy(1346)was 10-14k on English side,4k knights and Men at arms and 6-10k Archers.French side 12k knights and Men at Arms,6k Genoese crossbowmen and 40-60k Peasant levy.
These are two of the richest Kingdoms in the game and 300 years after game start England can field only 50%-100% more than 1066.
Yes the numbers in the game make no sense....against RL.In game I can launch D-Day styles Invasions,fight inumerable hordes.If every "lord" was like RL the game would be like watching paint dry.......very boring.
It depends whether you see heavy cavalry in absolute or relative terms. In relative terms, William the Conqueror's knights were heavy cav and he had quite a number. On the other hand, in absolute terms, those had nothing on the full man plate full horse plate guys of early 16th century. So compared to the latter, they're light horse. But compared to some guys in fur jackets, they're heavy cav.
For the record, early feudalism was all about retinues, especially in central and eastern Europe. The rulers of Poland were particularly famous for their druzhina and IIRC that was about 3,000 heavy cav several decades before 1066. However, this type of cav seems to be represented under light cav so far. There's a bit of mess.
Retinues of regional lords and high nobles are a trademark of the early feudal culture. They're actually more native to Poland, early HRE, Breton or even Frankish lands, or the Wessex, Dane and Godwinson England than to BYZ and its aristocrats and governors (which is what those guys really were, at least in earlier periods). It's more exotic in Byzantium than in the Catholic realms, really.
Household guard or household followers. Guys whom you support, whether through payroll or hospitality. Some of them can be your extended family. Some may be the descendants of former allies whose power was broken at some point. Others are professional warriors and not particularly interested in watching over a manor, so it'd basically be only a form of income to them anyway. Yet others, if you're important, might be the relatives of your vassals, your allies, your neighbours--as something akin to hostages but not really that drastic.
Last edited:
From memory this was at the point where France shifted from feudal to royal (standing) army. Still as a comparison, France at endgame, with Mil Org of average 4, would be throwing up retinue numbers much larger than this.
They probably need to readjust the numbers and tie it in to crown authority more (so MP from demense + a proportion of MP from realm). The HRE shouldn't get 10% of his realms manpower at game start for his own personal army. He struggled to get any troops from much of it at all.
The concept of retinues is ok, its just the calculations of what goes into it that need work.