Knights are way too rare

[Endre Fodstad]

Ok, then let's post a reference that makes him right. It's pretty well illustrated, for beginners, and relatively well updated:

http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Armor-Me...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331132332&sr=1-1

Pages 1-189.

please stop flaming. I wouldn't like to report you. If you have something constructive to say, go ahead.

By all means, go ahead. You are such an obvious troll the fallout should be spectacular.

 

[Lys91]

About armour price and other misconception:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm

By the way for Arathian, I never read something like that ever. Hollywood films are ahistorical, as they most of time wore armour from later periods. Not because they can remove them. Actually, it would probably be harder to do an armour that you cannot remove.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

I am sorry, but I don't intend to find the book, find the exact passage and copy paste it on the internet. If you don't want to believe it, feel free, but that doesn't make you right.

In which case your tally remains at zero, no proof offered whatsoever. Only your just-so statement. I would have ignored you several posts ago, but since you seemed willing to rise to the challenge and post proof I gave you the time of the day. Apparently you were all hot air. Good day to you. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll return to the actual topic of the thread.

 

[Grayfox]

I think this was a really interesting discussion before it got sidetracked on some lunacy, I hope it gets back on topic and continues. There's been some very interesting stuff in here.

 

[Jens Z]

Dont want to feed our funny troll further but this contemporal image (13th Cent.) just might be interesting for everyone else as it's one of the very few images that actually show the dropping of chain armour.

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...e_28r_detail.jpg&filetimestamp=20061219130908

On topic: I fully agree that it would make sense for historical reasons to have slightly more hvy cav, especially in the early game time. Those would of course not be as heavily armoured as their late medieval brothers but nevertheless used in a similar manner, namely shock cavalry - which is the reason for having the distinction between light and hvy cav ingame.

 

[Tormodius]

It's not very unreal, because knights were rare to have in a levy. Most medieval armies consisted of hundreds or sometimes thousands of peasants, led by some few nobles, and often mercs. However in the the holy Knight Orders they are not rare, and when you hire them, you will get thousands of knights.

 

[Leisner]

Hmm, I must have read the calender wrong. I could swear it was still early Marts, and not 1. April.

Couldn't take the amour off. Now that is funny. Imagine if he actually meant it, how silly he would look?

OT, the problem here, IMHO, is not so much that there are too few heavy cavalry, but that the cultural buildings are a bit one sided. You can, with the right culture, actually field quite a bit of heavy cavalry.

And, BTW, the devs have said that the light cavalry is also a depiction of early nobles, and that the distinction between light and heavy cavalry is pretty much their gear. Can't find the exact quote, but it's in one of the earlier threads with the same topic.

 

[Holy.Death]

About the part of the holy orders - remember that (at least in the Knights Templar case) all members of the Order has sworn to donate all their land and wealth to the Order. As a result had holdings across the Europe. Also, noblemen weren't all equal in terms of wealth or land and their capabilities varied - some of them were capable of arming their own retinue while others had to borrow money for equipment for themselves. Same goes for realm's military capabilities; poor realm couldn't afford more knights than wealther (or bigger) one, if I am not mistaken England was at the disadvantage here and had less heavy cavalry than France and this forced the King of England to change their laws and their style of warfare as well as to conscript lowborn people.

If I am mistaken somewhere, correct me.

 

[Beagá]

About armour price and other misconception:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm

By the way for Arathian, I never read something like that ever. Hollywood films are ahistorical, as they most of time wore armour from later periods. Not because they can remove them. Actually, it would probably be harder to do an armour that you cannot remove.

Superb link. Thanks a lot.

As for the amount of heavy cavalry, if you focus entirely on squire lists it´s possibe to have 8 times 30 = 240 heavy cavalry (not counting + levy size form keeps, walls etc) as a duchy by 1150, which isn´t that few to be honest.

 

[unmerged(193360)]

And, BTW, the devs have said that the light cavalry is also a depiction of early nobles, and that the distinction between light and heavy cavalry is pretty much their gear. Can't find the exact quote, but it's in one of the earlier threads with the same topic.

In that case they need to buff light cavalry quite a bit in the close combat phase.

 

[Beagá]

Maybe it´s instead the building system for heavy cavalry that should be reworked.

Instead of small increases in cost and in troop increments, each extra level should be very expensive but add many more troops, to represent that only rich duchies and kingdoms could field them in progressively larger numbers as each century passed. You can´t compare Burgundy or France with a single county.

 

[Diet of Worms]

Honestly, I think there is rather too much certainty on this thread. The sources are deeply contaminated, since the armoured and mounted knight was such a popular figure in the literature of the age, and trying to work out actual medieval battle tactics from that is about as easy as deducing the finer points of WWI air warfare from "Biggles Learns to Fly"

I never was much of a student, but I do remember being told during a module of my history degree covering roughly this period, that the real problem was that no-one today actually knows how medieval battles really unfolded. Eyewitnesses are contradictory and frequently provably incorrect, literary sources are impossibly romanticised, and actual teaching materials are patchy due to the sensitivity and secretiveness with which they were regarded.

 

[Jens Z]

And, BTW, the devs have said that the light cavalry is also a depiction of early nobles, and that the distinction between light and heavy cavalry is pretty much their gear. Can't find the exact quote, but it's in one of the earlier threads with the same topic.

That's interesting info. But if they are intentionally designed to be differentiated by their gear instead of their battlefield role then isnt there missing the shock element of cavalry combat? I would think so...

 

[Tormodius]

About the part of the holy orders - remember that (at least in the Knights Templar case) all members of the Order has sworn to donate all their land and wealth to the Order. As a result had holdings across the Europe. Also, noblemen weren't all equal in terms of wealth or land and their capabilities varied - some of them were capable of arming their own retinue while others had to borrow money for equipment for themselves. Same goes for realm's military capabilities; poor realm couldn't afford more knights than wealther (or bigger) one, if I am not mistaken England was at the disadvantage here and had less heavy cavalry than France and this forced the King of England to change their laws and their style of warfare as well as to conscript lowborn people.

If I am mistaken somewhere, correct me.

I seem to recall having read that sometime before, so I think you are right. The term chivalry was also derived from the french word 'cheval' meaning horse, and the french noblemen were the pioneers of this. Instead the english succeded with superior archery skills and tactics. I think they could hire anyone skilled with a bow, not being limited to higher strata.

As someone said earlier, the localization of this knight phenonomen is very relevant, allthought it's somewhat problematic in game if it uses the ruler's culture for determining which buildings are possible. Is is really so that buildings are destroyed if ruler have incompatible culture?

 

[Galaahd]

there are sources describing armies where the knights outnumber the other troop types (an example would be the Lombard League at Fossalta in 1249). There were battles with no knights (most scandinavian ones pre-12th century, for one).

Nice that you mention this battle, since according to Paradox italians didn't have knights at all

Could those italian pike barracks be modified in the next patch, please? It's absurd that italian rulers can't have heavy cavalry.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Ok, then let's post a reference that makes him right. It's pretty well illustrated, for beginners, and relatively well updated:

http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Armor-Me...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331132332&sr=1-1

Pages 1-189.



By all means, go ahead. You are such an obvious troll the fallout should be spectacular.

Just because you don't believe his statement, doesn't make him a troll. So stop calling him that.

 

[Conch]

And, BTW, the devs have said that the light cavalry is also a depiction of early nobles, and that the distinction between light and heavy cavalry is pretty much their gear. Can't find the exact quote, but it's in one of the earlier threads with the same topic.

Yes, they said that. And it is historical.

In the medieval period we're talking about, a knight was a noble, which means he had been training with arms and armor alot, he had a mount he could ride very good, and alot of nobles back these days fought for money. But as well, alot of nobles simply didn't have the funds to afford heavy armor. And it's not only the armor. They would as well need some horse to carry their "luggage", another horse just for the travelling (most battlefield horses were not just used for simple riding, a knight wanted it to be rested when battle began) some guy to help him with the horses. Most nobles of that weren't counts or dukes. Alot of them did not rule more than a small town. Heavy armor was a huge, huge investment. Simply too expensive for most of them. The meaning of a knight being a heavy cavalryman is not really wrong, but the heavy cavalry were just a part of the knights. And in some cultures, knights didn't even fight from horseback. You will find nobles fighting on foot when you do the research.

So, as a conclusion, knights were in general the fighting nobles. In western cultures, they fought from horseback, in eastern cultures this was often not always the case. If a knight could, in today terms, be considederd as a "heavy" or a "light" cavalryman, was dependant on his equipment. If he could afford the heavy armor and the additional horses and personal that would require, he was a heavy "shock" cavalryman, otherwise he was a light skirmisher and pursuer. In eastern cultures and, for an example, the scots and irish the nobles often were the bulk of heavy infantry, and some of them were the light cavalry, as in these cultures heavy cavalry was not used, or very rare.

 

[FrozenWall]

Just because you don't believe his statement, doesn't make him a troll. So stop calling him that.

But... his claims are on their face absurd. How exactly would one create a set of plate armour that could not be taken of any other way than by outright "destroying it"? Welding it together?

The PLATE armor (the most common armor during the game's period and the one the vast majority of "heavy cavarly" wear) could not be removed without being destroyed.

I mean, literally. The armor, once worn can never never be removed as it was sewed together and wasn't couldn't be removed unlike what you see in movies. To removed it, they had to rip out the chest of armor, open it in half and then saw off the plates on the shoulders. This completely destroyed the armor in process.

At worst a smith might make a set of armour that necessitated a set of links or straps to be cut up, but that is not outright destroying it.

Secondly his assertion that they wore armour for life, as it could not be taken off, is also absurd on its face. Sooner or later the clothes bottled up inside would rot and fester fer goodness sake. Even a knight who wore armour every waking hour for practice must have been able to take it off at the very least every once in a while.

It is one thing to make claims that do not convince others, but this is just counterlogical.

 

[Jaol]

Nice that you mention this battle, since according to Paradox italians didn't have knights at all

Could those italian pike barracks be modified in the next patch, please? It's absurd that italian rulers can't have heavy cavalry.

I have no problem with Italian levies having no heavy cavalry (although they should have access to some HC mercs). Even where the communes failed to maintain republican power, they still significantly weakened the power of the feudal lords. Society in Italy was much more based around city-states and commerce, so a bonus to pikemen instead of HC makes sense.

 

[Galaahd]

I have no problem with Italian levies having no heavy cavalry (although they should have access to some HC mercs). Even where the communes failed to maintain republican power, they still significantly weakened the power of the feudal lords. Society in Italy was much more based around city-states and commerce, so a bonus to pikemen instead of HC makes sense.

The problem is that it is related to culture. As it is currently in the game, it would seem like that italians simply didn't have heavy cavalry. That wasn't true, of course. The italian wars in the Renaissance are full of tales of those soon-to-be-obsolete knights with glamourous armours. What is true is that they were mostly mercenaries (but still some feudal lords had their own knights). But what if I manage to carve a strictly feudal italian kingdom? Does it still make sense for me not to have heavy cavalry?

Crusader Kings' original system was better as it could offer troop variety based on the balance of power between social classes, not on culture.