Horn of african infantry and cavalry units

[LinusLinothorax]

also is that a feather on their head. I've noticed it's pretty common in the horn. Take for example this pic

also bro

WE REALLY NEED A FULL FLEDGED MOVIE ON THE ADAL-ABYSSINIAN WARS

OR THE IFAT-SOLOMONIC WARS

OR THE AXUM-HIMYARITE WARS


or any wars that happened in the horn of africa. Specifically medieval because, most of what we are talking about isn't know by many horners.

do you agree?

Anything that isn't related to slaves shiped to the US or the Zulu and faithfully depicts the African perspective would please me. However, I wouldn't necessarily suggest a movie about the Ethiopian-Adalese war with improving the historical knowledge of the horners in mind. That one was full of brutality and fanatism, so I don't see it contributing to the abysmal Ethiopian-Somali relations. Could imagine a movie about the battle of Adwa 1896 tho.

 

[maman halyey]

Anything that isn't related to slaves shiped to the US or the Zulu and faithfully depicts the African perspective would please me. However, I wouldn't necessarily suggest a movie about the Ethiopian-Adalese war with improving the historical knowledge of the horners in mind. That one was full of brutality and fanatism, so I don't see it contributing to the abysmal Ethiopian-Somali relations. Could imagine a movie about the battle of Adwa 1896 tho.

how about ajuuran-portugese wars?

and what the hell is he wearing on his head? i don't think that's a feather

 

[Lacost]

So that I get destroyed as soon as I get attacked by some minor that teched up. Brilliant plan.

Well, what do you expect from a military that relies on spears to fight their wars against firearms and canons? If you want to play historically correct, you would need to stop teching in military so you don't get troops that focus on firearms. In reality this lack in military technology was devastating for those nations which is why the Europeans had such an easy time conquering land in Africa.

If you want to stay a recognised global power, your nation has to adapt to the new way on how wars are fought. This is the reason why the last unit types of African units are called "Westernized Infantry" and "African Western Franchise Infantry".

Do you want unit models with spears and swords that get as many fire and shock pips as the Napoleonic Square? Because that would be highly historically incorrect.

 

[maman halyey]

Well, what do you expect from a military that relies on spears to fight their wars against firearms and canons? If you want to play historically correct, you would need to stop teching in military so you don't get troops that focus on firearms. In reality this lack in military technology was devastating for those nations which is why the Europeans had such an easy time conquering land in Africa.

If you want to stay a recognised global power, your nation has to adapt to the new way on how wars are fought. This is the reason why the last unit types of African units are called "Westernized Infantry" and "African Western Franchise Infantry".

Do you want unit models with spears and swords that get as many fire and shock pips as the Napoleonic Square? Because that would be highly historically incorrect.

The dervishes were fighting with swords,cavalry,spears,archers and old rifles since the british and french navies blockaded them and destroyed what little ships the dervishes had, but they scored huge victories and defeated the british 4 times the greatest one being the defeat of richard corfield.
it's only that they weren't fully supported especially with airpower by turks and germans that they lost. So even the greatest of armies can be defeated by spears and swords

also beden ships and boats under the ajuuran sultanate defeated the most powerful navy in the middle ages the portugese navy...

britain had a hard time conquering nomads so they supported the christians against the muslims

you can be armed to the teeth but not be strategically gifted.... somalis were crippled by the european navies but they still fought and when they used small beden boats to attack british patrol boats stealing weapons

he started receiving maxim guns from trading with ottomans after defeating the british which made the dervishes win 3 more battles before being defeated by airpower.

the only thing africans specifically horn of africans lacked was unity against europeans which they would have easily defeated but everyone had imperialistic ideas against the other and the europeans took advantage of this....

 

[Lacost]

the dervishes were fighting with swords,cavalry,spears,archers and old rifles since the briotish and french navies blockaded them and they defeated the british 4 times it's only that they weren't fully supported with airpower by turks and germans that they lost. So even the greatest of armies can be defeated by spears and swords

britain had a hard time conquering nomads so they supported the christians against the muslims

I highly disagree. Not the historical facts that the British Empire was beaten, but that medieval military technology played a huge role in it.

In a lot of cases the British Empire lost because it was highly underestimating it's foes strenght and underestimating an enemy is always a really, really bad idea. Also hostile climate and local geography played hugely into the hands of the natives. Diseases, lack of supplies, unusual heat and the issue that generals didn't know where to best march through unknown landscape were in my opinion far more decisive than any medieval weapon technology.

Of course you can ambush and charge a vastly technologically superior army and in close combat you might win but battles don't win wars. Eventually, the Europeans overcame their initial problems, marched to the capital of the natives and occupied their lands. The Europeans always "won" the war, if we draw an abstract paralell to EU4. Which is the reason why almost all of sub-Saharan Africa eventually fell under European control.

If at all, fighting with swords, cavalry, spears and old rifles doomed those nations into military defeat rather than allowing them to repel the European threats. Imagine this same army in the Ethiopian mountains equipped with modern canons, rifles and military tactics .... what would be possible?

 

[maman halyey]

I highly disagree. Not the historical facts that the British Empire was beaten, but that medieval military technology played a huge role in it.

In a lot of cases the British Empire lost because it was highly underestimating it's foes strenght and underestimating an enemy is always a really, really bad idea. Also hostile climate and local geography played hugely into the hands of the natives. Diseases, lack of supplies, unusual heat and the issue that generals didn't know where to best march through unknown landscape were in my opinion far more decisive than any medieval weapon technology.

Of course you can ambush and charge a vastly technologically superior army and in close combat you might win but battles don't win wars. Eventually, the Europeans overcame their initial problems, marched to the capital of the natives and occupied their lands. The Europeans always "won" the war, if we draw an abstract paralell to EU4. Which is the reason why almost all of sub-Saharan Africa eventually fell under European control.

If at all, fighting with swords, cavalry, spears and old rifles doomed those nations into military defeat rather than allowing them to repel the European threats. Imagine this same army in the Ethiopian mountains equipped with modern canons, rifles and military tactics .... what would be possible?

as i said the ethioipians specifically the habesha(orthodox christians) were supported and aided and they were the only ones allowed to buy or receive weapons. Britain if it wanted could easily colonise them but it had no use for the land and only wanted the red sea trade, so it heavily militarised the former peasant ethiopian army to attack surrounding anti colonialist peoples it alongside the french supplied more than 100k men with weapons to defeat the 17k mostly eritrean ascari italians.

so as you can see the british were masters in divide,weaken and conquer the ethiopians later on with the blessings of the europeans constantly attacked the somalis and were constantly defeated even as the somalis were armed with mere spears and cavalry

i do agree that europeans vastly under estimated their enemies but the fact that they had to use their airforce(for the first time in african history) assures you that they had a hard time colonising and defeating a few thousand rebels no need to sugarcoat it.

the somali landscape had no diseases it was mostly arid and with some bushes here and there in the north and the brits had massive supplies. but they still couldn't defeat a few thousand rebels...

 

[LinusLinothorax]

Well, what do you expect from a military that relies on spears to fight their wars against firearms and canons? If you want to play historically correct, you would need to stop teching in military so you don't get troops that focus on firearms. In reality this lack in military technology was devastating for those nations which is why the Europeans had such an easy time conquering land in Africa.

If you want to stay a recognised global power, your nation has to adapt to the new way on how wars are fought. This is the reason why the last unit types of African units are called "Westernized Infantry" and "African Western Franchise Infantry".+

Do you want unit models with spears and swords that get as many fire and shock pips as the Napoleonic Square? Because that would be highly historically incorrect.

Typical fanboy-apologetics. In Game of Thrones, ravens and dragons can fly thousands of miles within a couple of hours, fanboys will defend it. In EU4, non-European nations have 100% copy&paste tech-trees from Europeans from the very start because the dev's are too lazy to think of something custom, fanboys will defend it and tell you that you should let you get yourself destroyed by some minor like Ennarea just because they unlocked "Standardized pikes".

It's really simple, even fanatic fanboys should understand it: Get rid of the European tech-trees as long as you are not 100% westernized (Which historically, no one did during the EU timeframe anyway, except perhaps of Congo and Russia, but I can see someone westernizing in game when he actually becomes a world power). Instead, introduce custom tech-trees as well as a system that simulates the spread of different gunpowder weapons and horses, just as it was historically.

and what the hell is he wearing on his head? i don't think that's a feather

A crown with feathers.

 

[Lacost]

Typical fanboy-apologetics. In Game of Thrones, ravens and dragons can fly thousands of miles within a couple of hours, fanboys will defend it. In EU4, non-European nations have 100% copy&paste tech-trees from Europeans from the very start because the dev's are too lazy to think of something custom, fanboys will defend it and tell you that you should let you get yourself destroyed by some minor like Ennarea just because they unlocked "Standardized pikes".

It's really simple, even fanatic fanboys should understand it: Get rid of the European tech-trees as long as you are not 100% westernized (Which historically, no one did during the EU timeframe anyway, except perhaps of Congo and Russia, but I can see someone westernizing in game when he actually becomes a world power). Instead, introduce custom tech-trees as well as a system that simulates the spread of different gunpowder weapons and horses, just as it was historically.

Do you want to uphold this discussion or are you simply labelling people who disagree with you as fanboys? Because if I'm the stupid fanboy then nobody can talk sense into me and further discussion is useless. So leave this kind of toxicity out of this discussion!

A crown with feathers.

I never wrote that. Please get your quotes right.

 

[LinusLinothorax]

Do you want to uphold this discussion or are you simply labelling people who disagree with you as fanboys?

Correction: I label those who defend even the most blatant errors as fanboys.

Because if I'm the stupid fanboy then nobody can talk sense into me and further discussion is useless.

Since you don't even adress any of my actual points it is indeed.

 

[maman halyey]

Correction: I label those who defend even the most blatant errors as fanboys.


Since you don't even adress any of my actual points it is indeed.

damn it looks badass!

bro as i said never ever expect these europhiles to even care about your history and it's accuracy just be thankful that they actually made these african civilisations in the game

i'm gonna end this with this quote

"an african can build the greatest civlisation in world history, but europeans will try to find a way to europeanise or white wash it"

 

[otaats]

 

[Lacost]

Correction: I label those who defend even the most blatant errors as fanboys.

bro as i said never ever expect these europhiles to even care about your history and it's accuracy just be thankful that they actually made these african civilisations in the game

i'm gonna end this with this quote

"an african can build the greatest civlisation in world history, but europeans will try to find a way to europeanise or white wash it"

*Sigh*

For the record: I always was talking about the military. I never wrote that Africans were inferior in general.

However, you will have to acknowledge the fact that an army with napoleonic tactics will anihilate any opposition that it meets on the battlefield, if it is not countered with equally powerful military tactics. And fielding swordsman and armored horses is definitely not an equally powerful military tactic.

EU4 is an alternate history simulation. That means that from the date you start the game, the history will play out differently. The main objective of the game is to survive as your nation throughout the ages --> don't get annexed. In light of European ambitions in Africa this would mean that those nation would have to find a way to defeat European armies, which is simply not possible with medieval weaponry (as history clearly shows).

This is the reason why I defend late game napoleonic-looking unit models for African units because adopting European military knowledge would have been the only way on how to maintain full sovereignty as an African nation.

 

[CoolSpin]

I just read the title, but I misread it as
Horny of african infantry and cavalry units

 

[otaats]

I just read the title, but I misread it as
Horny of african infantry and cavalry units

So you're into that kind of stuff?

 

[maman halyey]

*Sigh*

For the record: I always was talking about the military. I never wrote that Africans were inferior in general.

However, you will have to acknowledge the fact that an army with napoleonic tactics will anihilate any opposition that it meets on the battlefield, if it is not countered with equally powerful military tactics. And fielding swordsman and armored horses is definitely not an equally powerful military tactic.

EU4 is an alternate history simulation. That means that from the date you start the game, the history will play out differently. The main objective of the game is to survive as your nation throughout the ages --> don't get annexed. In light of European ambitions in Africa this would mean that those nation would have to find a way to defeat European armies, which is simply not possible with medieval weaponry (as history clearly shows).

This is the reason why I defend late game napoleonic-looking unit models for African units because adopting European military knowledge would have been the only way on how to maintain full sovereignty as an African nation.

ok this makes sense

 

[deserk]

Like others have said, the Mare Nostrum content pack was pretty bad. I would say the North Africans (save for Morocco and Mamluks) look the most atrocious. An army of peasants seemingly too poor to even afford sandals or tunics evidently

 

[otaats]

Like others have said, the Mare Nostrum content pack was pretty bad. I would say the North Africans (save for Morocco and Mamluks) look the most atrocious. An army of peasants seemingly too poor to even afford sandals or tunics evidently

I don't know.. Mamluks, Tunis, Morocco, Ethiopia, Nubia all look really good to me.

 

[SolSys]

... In EU4, non-European nations have 100% copy&paste tech-trees from Europeans from the very start ...

I think you may have confused this game with AoE.

There are *no* copy-paste [or any other kind] tech-trees in EU4. There is only *1* tech tree.