New units faction roster proposals- Name of unit and brief history (suggestions with content appreciated)

[Ichon]

Wow, I didn't expect so much reaction with my CS posts but honestly, I have no credit. I've just reported some info from Osprey publishing.

Ok, the battle of Hattin is probably not the best choice. what I've tried to explain is the Western Kingdom were less and less able to provide a good support to CS. Ichon has already illustrated that with his explanation about the 2nd and 4th crusades.
So basically, CS had to rely more and more on themselves and their "allies" and mercenaries available. I've probably not been able to make myself clear
Regarding Religious Orders, MWY has already added an unrest factor if the player decide to develop their chapter houses or not and I think it's fine. Then for some elite units, it is possible to make their availability depending on 1 (or several) settlement. For example, Polycarpe did that by the past with his BG submod, making some units impossible to recruit if Jerusalem was lost.
I think these features plus the conversion rate lowered, it will make CS as a very challenging faction.

However, it still has to be "playable" by human player and AI as well.

My main idea is to increase the type of mercenaries (hired or recruited) for CS but without penalizing them with a "too high" cost or upkeep. At present, we have mostly Turcopoles and some Armenians available for CS. Why not reflecting these Maronite Christians from Lebanon? what about Georgian or Roman mercenaries with may be low availability and only recruitable in Anatolia?
About peasants, what's the point of keeping an European peasant model when this is not historically true.
Can we reflect the brotherhoods for early town militias with unrest bonus or penalty?
Can we reflect the fief de soudée with a building or something else to increase the incomes for CS?
Can we add more units available beside the existing one if a merchant guild is built in a CS settlement?

I know that's a lot of question but it might be interesting to consider and discuss about them.

No problem posting about CS Lifthrasir- I was already thinking about CS for the 7th part of roster expansion in the next update- Mercenaries and AOR.

The main issue is that costs of unit are reflected in EDU so for every unit that we make 'mercenaries' it requires a specific slot in the EDU so making 1 version mercenary and 1 version regular is 2x the slots used. Also from historical perspective not all mercenaries are the same. There are companies of mercenaries completely paid for on contract or serving individually in such numbers full units can be fielded. Just as Normans originally served in southern Italy as individuals, then small groups, then even entire families moved from Normandy to Sicily as Guiscard carved out a Duchy and then it became a Kingdom. Many rosters already reflect 'mercenary' units such as Varangian Guard, Scots Guard, Christian Guard, etc.

So I've wanted for awhile to better reflect the types of mercenaries available in game with basically 3 main variants;

Mercenary companies- these would be small in number at game start and use the mercenary pool for recruitment. Such units are recruited in the field and are the typical contracted mercenaries. Besancons, Gascons, Irish Kerns, Galloglaish, Saxon Axemen, Landsnechts, Viking Swordsmen, Flemish Pikemen, Swiss, etc. Starting in 1200s such units become increasingly common and the heyday is between 1300-1500 so majority of famous units like Swiss and Landsnechts become available in late 1300s or early 1400s. Such units can be replenished anywhere its mercenary pool is active but if recruiting Swiss in Italy and traveling to Anatolia for example the Swiss would have to be sent back to Italy to replenish.

The next type are mercenaries available from a mercenary barracks or AOR and are mostly AOR restricted recruitment even from mercenary barracks but with a structured system in place and often in a vassal or client relationship with the faction in question such as; Armenians, Alans, Turkish archers in Sicily, Turkopoles, Pavise Crossbowmen, Bedouins, Arab Cavalry, and many others. Mercenary barracks might be expensive to build and cause some unrest but in many areas hugely expand the number of units available. Also once a unit is recruited in the mercenary barracks often it can be replenished anywhere in its AOR not having to travel back to the barracks to replenish.

Finally the last type of mercenary is actually integrated into faction rosters such as; Scots Guard, Latinikon, Skythikon, Chude militia, Pechenegs, Scandinavian Guard, Christian Guard, and a handful of others so such units are available wherever the right building is when controlled by the faction in which roster the unit belongs.

There are a very few additional units which require a specific region to be owned such as Constable of Jerusalem, Varangians, Scholarii, Knights of Jerusalem, maybe some others I can't remember. Right now I'd suggest removing the hidden resource region Jerusalem and making Constables and Knights of Jerusalem max 1 available and just require Capitol hidden resource and Crusaders ownership. Eventually CS might conquer other capitols but could never have many available anyway because of the 1 limit. Similarly with Varangians and Scholarii.

I am not sure if I got your meaning about Western support for CS Lifthrasir... I take the events as the Kingdom of Jerusalem was strongest between 1st and 2nd Crusades and while it received suppport from Europe it wasn't reliant upon such support until after 2nd Crusade. After losses during Egypt campaigns and the failed 2nd Crusade the Kingdom of Jerusalem needed more and more European support... primarily the Knight Orders began to take over more of the defense while calling a Crusade became almost necessary to have much chance of large scale offensive operations. This is not strictly about falling fortunes of Kingdom of Jerusalem and the northern Counties but also the fact that Muslim factions which had been divided and warring against each other were united first by Zengids and finallly Ayyubids under Saladin securing Syria and Egypt which allowed Muslim control of Jerusalem for rest of the medieval era by treaty when the 3rd Crusade ended. All Crusades after the 3rd failed to accomplish much in Holy lands though 4th Crusade wrecked ERE.

Basically the Knight Orders were most interested in defending Jerusalem so Jerusalem, Acre, and Tyre were their main garrisons (secure ports of Acre and Tyre to receive shipments from Europe while Jerusalem was too exposed to both Egypt and Jordan and required strategic castles to be defended. European Crusader volunteers generally arrived in large numbers only wanting to attack Muslim and heathen lands and were less interested in steady defense of the kingdom's already held territories outside of Jerusalem because such defense did not offer huge loot to offset the costs of the journey and was also a much longer route to spiritual purity than fighting and killing in Crusade as blessed by the Pope compared to guard duty.

The result was almost all the Frankish settlers and many of the converted Christians plus many Syrian Christians were exposed to Muslim retaliatory raids and fled the countryside into the cities. Also the Bedouin tribes, Ismailis, and others in the hinterlands became clients to Muslim Amirs rather than Frankish lords and thus the balance of military manpower switched to Muslims with Crusaders relying on Knight Orders to hold strategic castles and the city guilds and some European pilgrims and very small retinues of important lords to hold the cities. This would be reflected in game by AOR units... if Crusaders lose hold of Edessa for example they would lose access to largest source of Turkomen mercenaries. Losing Aqaba means CS loses support of Bedouin Arabs, while losing Antioch and Tripoli loses AOR units of Syrian, Armenian, and Arabs.

On the other hand if CS gains Damascus it gains recruitment of more Arab, and some Ismaili units. Gaining Sis gives great recruitment boost to Armenian units, etc.

EDIT- I forgot one of the core differences in gameplay between mercenaries and other units... most mercenaries are able to be recruited in 1 turn vs 2-4 turns for other units since they are assumed to be fully trained and equipped. Paying for the mercenary barracks and controlling the additional unrest it causes will be the extra costs for access to such units rather than initial recruitment cost or upkeep per turn. Such AOR and mercenary units would be desirable then because they are more flexible than kingdom roster units which take time and planning to recruit. Mercenary barracks will be relatively limited availability- probably only in a few capitols initially and generally contain better units while AOR units tend to be local and rural light or medium units. However mercenary barracks and AOR units will have lower replenishment rates so very difficult to form the core of an army from only such units. Roster units will be needed because despite longer training time such units can be recruited and replenished anywhere the right level of building exists in faction control.

[Lifthrasir]

(...) I am not sure if I got your meaning about Western support for CS Lifthrasir... I take the events as the Kingdom of Jerusalem was strongest between 1st and 2nd Crusades and while it received suppport from Europe it wasn't reliant upon such support until after 2nd Crusade. After losses during Egypt campaigns and the failed 2nd Crusade the Kingdom of Jerusalem needed more and more European support... primarily the Knight Orders began to take over more of the defense while calling a Crusade became almost necessary to have much chance of large scale offensive operations. This is not strictly about falling fortunes of Kingdom of Jerusalem and the northern Counties but also the fact that Muslim factions which had been divided and warring against each other were united first by Zengids and finallly Ayyubids under Saladin securing Syria and Egypt which allowed Muslim control of Jerusalem for rest of the medieval era by treaty when the 3rd Crusade ended. All Crusades after the 3rd failed to accomplish much in Holy lands though 4th Crusade wrecked ERE (...)

Basically, you've got it, explained in a much better manner than I could do

[achilles-91]

@MWY i understand that sry if look like some unpleasent man, im just suggestion, im aware of time that need to be spent in all that work.. i know it cant be implemented all soon and in next version i just trying to help with some info, cause i dont know to mod

[achilles-91]

i have a suggestion. english norman serjents skin is basicly very bad, they could be given skin of norway skjo...(tier 2).. i think it would be represendet historicly..

[Ambarenya]

Would it be possible to work on some fixes for the Byzantines? Some of the names of the units could use some work.

In fact, I'd volunteer to do the honors myself.

[Ichon]

Would it be possible to work on some fixes for the Byzantines? Some of the names of the units could use some work.

In fact, I'd volunteer to do the honors myself.

As in the Greek latinization is wrong or the entire unit name? We are open to suggestions but some examples of what you mean would be appropriate.

[Lifthrasir]

The Abbasid Caliphate

The Abbasid Caliphate (750 – 1258 AD) although influenced by the Byzantine military system, did not maintain a large standing army and the Caliph’s bodyguard was the only standing force in the true sense of them. This bodyguard consisted of 4 types of troops: the Imperial bodyguard itself, supported by “regiments” of heavy cavalry, heavy infantry and archers. The Imperial Guard of 4,000 men consisted mainly of Turks from Transoxiana (corresponding approximately now to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Southern Kyrgyzstan and Southwest Kazakhstan).
To this hard core was added, in times of war, mercenaries, volunteers led by their tribal chiefs, and feudal levies from the provinces. The volunteers, who served Islam and their Caliph for religious reasons, were fed by the Caliph but had to supply their own weapons and mounts. The mercenaries consisted mainly of aliens who had embraced Islam, frequently professional soldiers who accepted Islam only in order to enter the Caliph’s service. Thus an Abbasid army could include in its ranks not just Berbers and Africans, but also Russians, Franks, Greeks and Persians.
In the late 10^th century the army was divided into 4 main corps: men of Northern Arabia, men of Southern Arabia, Persians, and Turks and Africans. Each corps had an attached body of mounted archers, either Persians or Turks. A corps usually consisted of 10,000 men, commanded by an amir. A “regiment” of 1,000 was commanded by a Qā’id, a company or squadron of 100 by a Nakîb, a sub-group of 50 men by a Khalifah, and a section of 10 men within that group by an Aârif.
On the march, the army was divided into 5 divisions: center and 2 wings as for the battlefield, and van and rear guards. The vanguard always remained several miles ahead of the main body and had the task of digging a ditch and throwing up a rampart at a camp site where the army was to stop for any length of time. The supply and siege trains mostly employed camels, which enabled the Arab armies to move faster than their enemies. If long distances were to be covered, the infantry might also be provided with camels and horses, and on short forced marches each cavalryman took a foot soldier up behind him. Physicians and surgeons, with a hospital and ambulances (litters carried by camels) also accompanied the army on the field.

Source: Osprey

[Ichon]

In addition to Lifthrasir's post above the Abbasids were often able to make use of the prestige of the Caliphate and had an extensive network of informants as well as many futuwwa groups all over the Muslim world but particularly influential in the larger towns of Mesopotamia, Persia, and Syria who channeled volunteers and even formed military units to enforce the Caliph's requests. Before the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258 Abbasid power had been expanding based on a mix of military power and the order and prestige the Abbasids Caliphate still retained for many Sunni Muslims especially in comparison to the corrupt and power hungry Amirs that ruled many parts of the Muslim world.

The Abbasids did support pogroms and other forms of persecution of 'heretical' Muslim sects such as Ismailiis, Shia, and some esoteric Sufi orders and the incorrect practices or beliefs of 'barbarian' Muslims who retained many of the pagan ideas of their ancestors. Baghdad was still a huge city under Abbasids and had many trade contacts and the Abbasids controlled the port of Basra from which significant Indian Ocean trade entered Mesopotamia and thence to Syria and the Mediterranean. Much of the Abbasids antagonism against the Fatimid Shia dynasty of Egypt was sharpened by competition for the Indian Ocean trade where the best routes were to Basra and on as described above or around Aden to the Red Sea and then overland to the Nile and embarking from Alexandria to the Mediterranean. The Abbasids also received much tribute from other Muslim dynasties in supplication of the approval of the Caliphate to 'just' rule and many letters between Zengids and later Saladin to the Caliph exist indicating a complex game of propaganda and power where even if the military power of the Abbasids fell short, political dynamics of religion and tradition gave Abbasids a unique position amongst the competing Muslim dynasties.

The constant calls by the Abbasid Caliphs to kick the Crusaders out of the Levant and abolish the Fatimid Shia dynasty are also an important element in the eventual unification of Syria and Egypt against the Crusaders.

[Lifthrasir]

In addition to my post about the Abbasid Caliphate (see above) and in its continuity, here is the next one:

The Great Seljuk Empire

The Turks who served in Abbasid armies were soldiers of fortune who penetrated the whole of the Moslem world in much the same way that Norman adventurers penetrated Western Europe at this time. By about 1,050 Turkish regiments were maintained by most of the newly independent provinces of the caliphate. The most notable of these warriors were the Seljuk Turks, who by 1055 AD had seized their power in Persia and Baghdad and subsequently took Syria and Mesopotamia from the Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt.
The Seljuks did not change the basic military organization of the Arabs but they did improve on the system whereby each province had to finance its own contingent of the army from its revenue, by introducing a more feudal system under which the government and revenue of a province or district were placed in the hand of an amir, who was required in exchange to pay a yearly tribute to the Sultan and in time of war to bring to the Sultan’s army a fixed number of troops. Some amirs sub-let portions of their districts or individual towns to lesser amirs, who in turn had to furnish troops to their overlord. However, these sub-tenants owed no allegiance direct to the Sultan and were bound only to their local amir.
Seljuk armies, therefore, consisted of a large regular force in the form of the Sultan’s bodyguard and household troops, together with the feudal contingents of the amirs, each of whom also had a smaller regular force as his own bodyguard. These bodyguards, or regular forces, were known as askars, the men being askaris. The sultan’s bodyguard was mainly Turkish, divided into regiments and all mounted, as indeed were all the askars. In time of war all askars were usually strengthened by mercenaries, mostly Turcoman mounted archers and regiments of Daylamites*, natives of the mountainous regions South-West of Caspian Sea.
The numerical strength of an askar varied according to the stature of the amir and little is known of actual numbers. However, during the 1^st Crusade we know the askars of Aleppo and Damascus were each about 2,000 men, and they were the leading amirates of Syria. The great city of Mosul, in Northern Mesopotamia, could field an army of 15,000 men at the beginning of the 12^th century, and in mid-13^th century the Caliph of Baghdad could command 120,000 horsemen, presumably including a large percentage of mercenaries.
The feudal levies were only called out in times of emergency and most fighting was done by the askars and mercenaries. Another force was the territorial reserve, troops who were maintained by grants of land. They were also called out only in emergencies. Both the feudal levies and the territorial reservists were mounted but were armed with spear and sword, not the bow. They normally provided their own weapons and horses, but were sometimes equipped from the arsenals, wherein were stored the arms for the askars.
The infantry was formed from townsmen and countrymen pressed into service, volunteers seeking religious reward, and camp followers, etc. Their role was usually limited to garrison, camp and siege duties, though some bodies of infantry – notably the citizen bands of Aleppo, Damascus and Hama – appear to have achieved a high state of discipline and were well equipped.
The proportion of the different types of troops within an army varied from campaign to campaign. At the battle of Baban on 18^th of April 1167 AD, the Seljuks fielded 9,000 askaris, 3,000 archers and 10,000 Arabs armed with spears. When Shirkuh, the commander of the Ayyubid army, entered Cairo in 1169 AD, he had with him an askar of 2,000 men and 6,000 mercenaries led by their own chiefs.
In the field the army was accompanied by a large supply and siege train, and by physicians and surgeons with hospital equipment.

Source: Osprey

* The Daylamites or Dailamites were an Iranian people inhabiting the mountainous regions of northern Iran on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea. They were employed as soldiers from the time of the Sasanian Empire, and long resisted the Arab conquest of Iran and subsequent Islamization. In the 930s, the Dailami Buyid dynasty emerged and managed to gain control over much of modern-day Iran, which it held until the coming of the Seljuk Turks in the mid-11th century (source: Wikipedia).

[Lifthrasir]

The Fatimid Caliphate

Part 1: before Saladin
Because of its great wealth, unity and organization, the Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt was able to field enormous armies. However, the Egyptians were not a martial nation and therefore the armies were for the most part formed from an assortment of nationalities, mercenaries hired with Egypt’s wealth. The elite of the army, as always, was the Caliph’s bodyguard, composed of white slaves from various Turkish tribes, who provided the mounted regiments, and the more unusual Sudanese guard of foot soldiers, for, unlike other Islamic powers of the Middle East, Egyptian armies contained a good proportion of well trained and well equipped professional infantry. The total strength of the bodyguard was normally about 5,000 men, but there was also a “Young Guard” (known as the youths or squires of the Chamber) of about 500 youths from leading families, who were trained for military posts and had pledged to execute at once any command given them. Those who distinguished themselves (and survived) raised the rank of amir. As in the Seljuk army, each amir of note also maintained his own smaller bodyguard, which accompanied him in the field when served the Caliph.
The remainder of the army was recruited mainly from the Arabs, Berbers and Sudanese, but their military quality was generally inferior to that of the Seljuk and Frankish armies. The Sudanese fought on foot and provided the archer arm of the army; the Arabs and Berbers fought on horseback with lance and sword but relied on mobility and superior numbers for victory over the more heavily armed Frankish knights. There were no mounted archers in the army, but from time to time, as politics dictated, contingents of allied Turks did sometimes join the army on campaign.
The Bedouin were also employed by the Fatimids, filling the light cavalry role. Bedouin society was patriarchal and the warriors were never ordered to do anything – they followed the example of the sheik voluntarily. This was not conducive to success in regular battle, and in general Bedouin were unreliable on the battlefield, liable to join the winning side at the last minute in order to participate in the pillaging; nonetheless, they were employed extensively by all the Moslem dynasties, as well as by the crusaders, in a reconnaissance role, and by the Moslems as light cavalry on the extreme flanks of armies on the field.
The army was supported by a system of territorial reservists similar to that of the Seljuks.
The amirs who provided the officers for the army were of 3 classes: amirs of the gold chain, who commanded the various divisions; sword bearers, who escorted the Caliph; and the lesser amirs who formed the chivalry of the army with the squires of the Chamber. The lighter armed Arab and Berber cavalry formed a 2^nd line to the amirs and squires.

Part 2: The Ayyubid armies
When Saladin came to power in 1169, his 1^st action was to crush a revolt of the Sudanese guards and to form an entirely new bodyguard, loyal to him, from about a thousand Kurdish free men from his own family’s retainers and from 2,000 strong askar of Shirkuh, which was serving under him in Egypt and which transferred its loyalty to him “en masse”. Saladin then began to rebuild the rest of the forces of Egypt into an efficient fighting machine capable of invading the Frankish states and reinstating Islam.
Saladin found the old feudal system totally inadequate and he lacked the resources to maintain a huge mercenary army. He therefore introduced the Seljuk system of appointing amirs to governorships of provinces, districts and individual cities in return for an annual tribute and military service in the field with a fixed quota of troops.
It naturally took some years for this system to become fully established, and his early campaigns to crush the major Moslem princes and reunite Islam were achieved mainly with an elite force of askaris and mounted archers – at its peak a force of about 8,000 men – backed up by the old feudal levies. The last of the independent princes, the amir of Aleppo, was not crushed until 1183, but thereafter Saladin could count on the active support of the strongest Moslem princes in his holy war against the Franks.
In his campaigns against the crusaders Saladin’s armies resembled those of the Seljuks, although swollen to greater size by a large number of contingents from the amirs. Firstly there were Saladin’s own Kurdish guards, the mamluks or white slaves which formed the rest of his bodyguard, and the bodyguards of his amirs; secondly there were hired mercenaries, the Turcoman mounted archers; and thirdly there were the feudal levies from the amirs.
At Ascalon in 1177, when he was still relying heavily on the old Fatimid system, Saladin had an army of some 26,000 men, of whom only 8,000 were askaris or mercenaries, the other 18,000 being spearmen, Sudanese archers, and Arab and Berber cavalrymen. However, by the time of Hattin in 1187, he was able to muster some 12,000 askaris and mercenaries, backed by between 6,000 and 12,000 feudal levies.
Mention has been made of mamluks. These were white (which meant Turkish rather than Berber , Arab or Sudanese) slaves, either captured in war or purchased in the market, who were converted to Islam and (if purchased) trained from boyhood in the art of war for sole purpose of forming elite and loyal bodyguards for the amirs. Such bodies of troops had been maintained from the time of the Saracen Empire but these were not strickly speaking mamluks, who were of exclusively Turkish origin. The “Turkish” bodyguards of the Abbasids, for example, were Turkish speaking but were not ethnically Turkish, including in their ranks Slavs, Armenians, Russians and Greeks. The change to purely Turkish bodyguards did not begin until the 1230s, when the bodyguards became almost exclusively Turkish owing to an influx of Kuman warriors from the Kipchack steppe, fleeing before the Mongol invasions.
These bodyguards had become very strong under the Abbasids and under Saladin they became both more numerous and powerful, often constituting half of the field army. The system was perfected by Saladin’s successors, who had seen the advantages of such an army over a mainly feudal one, and they used their strengthened askars in the civil wars which followed Saladin’s death. This served to increase the power of the bodyguards still further, until it was the askars, the mamluks, who named the heir to the throne.
Aiyub (1240-49) was the last effective ruler of the Ayyubid dynasty founded by Saladin and it was Aiyub who imported great numbers of new mamluks, from whom he then selected approximately a thousand of the most loyal and fierce warriors to form a new personal bodyguard. This bodyguard became known as the Bahri Regiment ans was stationed in a castle he had built on the island al-Rawda opposite Fustat.
By 1249, when Aiyub died, some of the amirs of the Bahri Regiment had their own bodies of mamluks, but the regiment at first remained loyal to Aiyub’s successor and distinguished itself at Mansourah in February 1250, where the Egyptian commander-in-chief was killed and the leader of the Bahris took his place.
Aiyub’s heir arrived from Mosul in the same month but soon lost the support of the Bahris and other Egyptian mamluks by giving all appointments to his own personal bodyguard of mamluks, and on the 2^nd of May 1250, he was murdered by the Bahris. Aiyub sultana was married to the senior Bahri amir, Aibek, and so began the rule of the mamluk sultans.

Source: Osprey

[Lifthrasir]

The Fatimid Caliphate

Part 3: The mamluk armies
For 130 years after Aibeck came to the throne, the amirs of the Bahri Regiment and their successors were the sultans, for the throne was not hereditary but went to the strongest and most powerful amir. Therefore, every Mamluk sultan was posed with the dilemma of whom to appoint as commander of a distant region; a strong commander might overthrow the sultan, a weak one lose the province. It was normal therefore to appoint 2 commanders, 1 as governor of the district, the other to command the citadel of the district’s city – and to change both frequently.
The safety and power of the sultan also depended on the loyalty of his mamluks and the greater part of the land of Egypt therefore came to be held by the amirs of the sultan’s bodyguard in fiefs granted by the sultan. The amirs in their turn were obliged to divide up to 2/3 of their fiefs between their own mamluks to secure their loyalty.
The nucleus of any Mamluk army therefore consisted of 3 main parts: the royal bodyguard (the sultan’s favourite and most loyal regiment, and indeed often the one which had placed him on the throne); the other mamluk regiments of the sultan; and the private companies and regiments of the officers within his bodyguard. Bedouin, Turcoman and Kurdish mercenaries were hired to augment this force.
The strength of the royal bodyguard at the beginning of the 14^th century was 2,000 men and 40 officers, though it may have been slightly smaller during the 2^nd half of the 13^th century. The sultan could field a total of about 12,000 mamluks in 1290, and an estimated of 20,000 in 1299. Theoretically there was an Amir of a Thousand for every 1000 mamluks and under him lesser amirs for every unit of 40 men, with a sub-section of 10 men within that.
The rapid increase in the number of mamluks towards the end of the century was mainly caused by the sultan Kala’un (1279 – 1290) taking the Burdiyya Regiment as his royal bodyguard after they had murdered his predecessor. This regiment consisted of 3,700 men stationed in the towers of the citadel of Cairo. They were mainly Circassians (North Caucasian ethnic group), with possibly some Armenians, and constituted a powerful and loyal force. The bulk of the other 2/3 of the bodyguard remained Kipchackis, though many Mongols were taken into the mamluks after being defeated in 1260 and 1281. The Burdiyya seized the throne at the end of the century.
Third-rate troops, such as the Bedouin, and members of the now rapidly declining Bahri Regiment, were used to garrison the fortresses of the Egyptian coast against the crusader’s sea-borne invasions. In time of great danger the royal mamluks were forced to join these garrisons, but they stayed for only short periods and frequently return to Cairo – the seat of all power – before being ordered to do so.
On campaign the army was accompanied by a large camel caravan; mules were rarely used and wheeled vehicles were used only for siege engines. The largest armies needed between 800 – 1,000 camels just to carry the light armament and usually every mamluk was entitled to 2 camels for his gear, non-mamluk soldier having 3 camels for every 2 men. Physicians, surgeons and hospital equipment travelled with the army.
The mamluk also placed great value on bands and at one time the sultan’s band had 44 drums, 4 hautbois (oboes) and 20 trumpets. Permission to have a band was highly coveted distinction and those amirs who received it were known as Lords of Drums. There were about 30 such amirs, each in command of 40 horsemen, with a band of 10 drums, 2 hautbois and 4 trumpets. The mamluks made great use of these bands in war, and the drums are believed to have been particularly effective at creating chaos in the ranks of armies whose horses were unaccustomed to the noise.
The sultan Baibars (1260 – 1277) established a well organized system of posting houses connecting every part of the empire with the capital, and relays of horses were maintained in these houses. Report from each part of the empire were received and answered twice a week. There was also a pigeon post (copied from the Arab caliphs) with cots in the citadel at Cairo and at various stages, the pigeons being trained to fly only between these stages.

Source: Osprey

[Ichon]

Good posts Lifthrasir, can't think of much to add that is relevant other than some of the mercenaries which were common amongst the different dynasties.

Fatimids made use of many Armenian and Turk mercenaries from Anatolia who had to be kept in separate camps and had a residual dislike for each other due to conflicts in Anatolia caused by Turkic migrations into historical Armenian homelands and led to many Armenians moving to Tarus mountains and then into Antioch with the establishment of Crusader Counties after the 1st Crusade. Byzantines had formerly used Armenians heavily in its armies but as eastern Anatolia was lost to Turkic tribes many Armenians used to working for the Byzantines sought other employment opportunities.

The Fatimid dynasty grew weak in the late 11th century and was often dominated by viziers who rose from amongst the most ruthless of the Fatimid court- such weakness and proxy rule meant the viziers often distrusted the soldiers who nominally were loyal to the Fatimid dynasty rather than personally loyal to the vizier. The result was that the vizier and Fatimid court sought to keep the army balanced between different groups so no one group gained ascendency and threatened the viziers own position. Fatimid dynasty had come to power out of the Berbers of north Africa and maintained tribal ties and some family connections with the Berbers and often relied upon the balance between Berbers, Turks, Armenians, and the Nubians to keep power. As the Fatimid dynasty was thrown into turmoil by the advance of the Kingdom of Jerusalem which seized Aqaba and raided the Red Sea trade from east Africa and India the viziers who lacked Berber supporters made increasing efforts to marginalize the Berber and Arab tribes who had brought the Fatimids to power. Such conflicts spilled over into civil war provoked by the alliance of elements of the Fatimid court with the Crusaders. Saladin and his uncle were dispatched with the onset of this civil war by the Zengids to prevent the Crusaders conquering Egypt while it was weak and torn by internal conflict.

The Fatimids also had a long tradition of using Nubian archers and Beja spearmen from the upper Nile and Makuria who sent annual tribute of slaves to the ruling dynasty in Egypt in return for luxury gifts and open trade and pilgrimage routes for these southern Christian and Jewish kingdoms. Saladin continued to accept the slaves and send gifts when he took power in order to keep peace on his southern borders while the war against the Crusaders and his former overlords the Zengids continued. However Saladin wanted a strong central government in Egypt and made small use of Nubian soldiers, Berber tribes, or the Armenians whom he saw as allied to the Crusaders. Saladin imported Turkomen from Persia and Kurds from his families homelands while increasing the use of feudal land grants and beginning the process of establishing strong city militias which showed their strength under the later Ayyubid dynasty.

Seljuks even with the division in their territories and competition between different princes were able to draw upon a wide range of mercenaries. The main group of Seljuk mercenaries appears to have been from Khorasan where the later Khwarezmian dynasty sprang from but various Turkic and Persian mercenaries were also widely recruited. Seljuks did not have the same concerns about Christians that Abbasids or Ayyubids maintained and also recruited Armenians, Franks, Greeks, and even some Italians from Black Sea trade colonies as well as various men from mountains of of the southeast where in the mid 1100s strife between declining Ghaznis and emerging Ghurids provided many armed and experienced men for the Seljuks even after the Ghurids gained ascendency and rebelled against their nominal overlords the Seljuks.

The other most important group of mercenaries for all the Muslim dynasties of the east were the so called Ghazi who were most often Turkomen slaves taken into service by landless Amirs who trained the men as warriors and then sold their services to whatever atabeg, amir, or local ruler could pay or at least offer secure refuge between raids on neighboring enemies the loot from which raids formed the Ghazis pay. When a region had been stripped of easily carried off loot Ghazi bands often moved on to new raiding grounds and were often seen as a plague of brigands not so different from the complaints recorded about the mercenary companies in Europe. Many Ghazi bands pushed the frontiers of their Muslim hosts outward with the constant pressure of their raids but were rarely reliable in serious battles preferring to gauge the victor and then join in the pillaging in the final minutes.

The success of the Ghazis particularly in Anatolia under the Ottomans where the Ghazis formed the basis of the Akincis eventually changed their perception and the word became the title for a Muslim champion but during the 1100s the term was normally disparaging because Ghazis showed little preference if their raids targeted Muslims or unbelievers. With the Mongol invasions of Persia and west all the way to Kayseri and Damascus the Ghazis began to see themselves as holy warriors fighting the pagan unbelieving Mongols and the former mercenary bands adopted Islamic codes of chivalry and set out to expand the frontiers of Islam by making continual war on any who resisted subjugation to Muslim rule.

[Ichon]

Lifthrasir, a very nice piece of work, +rep

As you know from the research that I did for ss7.0, the Cistercian Order were key behind the formation of the miltiary orders, they stated and specified in how they would have to conform. You also know my thoughts on how the farming and religious building trees could change to reflect the importance of this order.

It would be nice to reflect the proposals you made for SS7.0 at some point for almost all factions but is quite a bit of work to change building trees and unit availability on such a large scale. Frankly a bit too much to consider right now other than how nice it might possibly be.

Regarding Religious Orders, MWY has already added an unrest factor if the player decide to develop their chapter houses or not and I think it's fine. Then for some elite units, it is possible to make their availability depending on 1 (or several) settlement.

However, it still has to be "playable" by human player and AI as well.

My main idea is to increase the type of mercenaries (hired or recruited) for CS but without penalizing them with a "too high" cost or upkeep. At present, we have mostly Turcopoles and some Armenians available for CS. Why not reflecting these Maronite Christians from Lebanon?
Can we reflect the brotherhoods for early town militias with unrest bonus or penalty?
Can we reflect the fief de soudée with a building or something else to increase the incomes for CS?
Can we add more units available beside the existing one if a merchant guild is built in a CS settlement?

Integrating Knight Orders into CS is a good start as the Religious Orders became the most dedicated defenders of Jerusalem as the Kingdom of Jerusalem weakened and even prior to that played increasingly important role. Knight Orders are also the cheapest units to use getting a cost break on recruitment and upkeep due to the donations received and the poverty vows of the knights who gave loot taken back to the Order.

It is a very good point that roster has to be playable by both AI and human... this is something we'll have to watch carefully with introduction of mercenary barracks where AI will see available mercenary units in settlements and recruit them.

Full mercenaries have to be recruited at standard cost but I'm looking at adding some normal priced AOR units for commonly integrated units such as Turkopoles, Armenians, Italians, and possibly Orthodox Christians, Maronites, or even Druze and Bedouins. Finding models to represent Maronites and Druze is something I'm looking into.

I'm not sure the brotherhoods should give or lose unrest as such groupings were common in most urban areas all over medieval world to some extent.

Adding special building to CS is possible but for now they aren't too poor especially with MWY's script of donations from other faction missions.

For guilds... I can't remember the rules right now- is more than 1 guild building allowed? If there is a merchants guild or theologians guild there cannot be a Religious Order as well? I always build theologians guild in Jerusalem, Templars in Tyre, and Hospitallers in Acre and usually merchants in Antioch but unless we've changed something I think only 1 guild is allowed per city.

We can certainly add unit availability to guilds... already merchant militia cavalry and some other units are increased by guilds and I think some of the urban militias could be tied to merchants guilds in similar way and less dependent on barracks. That wouldn't be something I'd plan on doing this release as I'd like to just get rosters stable than fine tune availability and which buildings units are recruited from in future release.

[Lifthrasir]

That's fine to me, Ichon. I know that we can't do everything in one go

Regarding the Brotherhoods for CS, what we can do for now is just to use the town militia model and add a "brotherhood texture" to make it more "unique".

[Ambarenya]

As in the Greek latinization is wrong or the entire unit name? We are open to suggestions but some examples of what you mean would be appropriate.

In some cases, both. For example, the term Scholarii, referring to the Byzantine cataphract unit in SS, is not only latinized (or else would have been the proper transliteration Scholarioi), but it is also incorrect for this period. Historically, the term had been phased out by the 9th Century, after a period where the Scholai had been relegated to only imperial parade duties. The proper name for heavy cavalry units in the 9th, 10th, and 11th Centuries would have been Klibanaphoroi or Kataphraktoi, as observed in the Taktika of Leo VI the Wise and the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros II Phokas, among others. By the 12th Century (when the game begins), even these terms were probably seen as rather old-fashioned, but are passable within the scope of the game. Athanatoi would have been the umbrella term for heavy cataphracts during the Komnenian period, but since this is already used for the bodyguard unit, it seems fine to use either Kataphraktoi or Klibanaphoroi. The Archontopoulai are fine, however, since they were an actual unit raised and cared for by Alexios I Komnenos himself.

[Ichon]

In some cases, both. For example, the term Scholarii, referring to the Byzantine cataphract unit in SS, is not only latinized (or else would have been the proper transliteration Scholarioi), but it is also incorrect for this period. Historically, the term had been phased out by the 9th Century, after a period where the Scholai had been relegated to only imperial parade duties. The proper name for heavy cavalry units in the 9th, 10th, and 11th Centuries would have been Klibanaphoroi or Kataphraktoi, as observed in the Taktika of Leo VI the Wise and the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros II Phokas, among others. By the 12th Century (when the game begins), even these terms were probably seen as rather old-fashioned, but are passable within the scope of the game. Athanatoi would have been the umbrella term for heavy cataphracts during the Komnenian period, but since this is already used for the bodyguard unit, it seems fine to use either Kataphraktoi or Klibanaphoroi. The Archontopoulai are fine, however, since they were an actual unit raised and cared for by Alexios I Komnenos himself.

I'm not an expert on Byzantine military- in fact probably read least about that than anything other than Serbs and Novgorod but I'm pretty sure Scholae as a unit are mentioned still in reign of Alexios Komnenos or basically at least into early 1100s. After that it does seem mention of the Imperial Guard Tagmata disappears though the 2 works I see most references and sources from are in French and Greek so I'm unable to read that.

There is still mention of heavy cavalry under Manuel Komnenos but what would such a unit be named? Archontopoulai were supposedly the sons of nobility... where were the older guys serving? Wiki calls it oikeioi or part of the imperial household guard or would hetaireia consist also of some cataphracts?

CBUR has Scholae as well as Archontopoulai but then seem to go right to Pronarii and Latinikon as the later heavy cavalry- what was after Alexios Komnenos I reign but before 4th Crusade?

The general terms for heavy cavalry do appear to have been Klibanaphoroi or Kataphraktoi but what was the heavy cavalry of the Imperial Guard in order to replace the name of Scholae with? Probably need to reduce charge stat as well matching the lower speeds and more brawler style. We are using Athanatoi for the bodyguards and considering how few cataphracts probably existed the plan was I think to represent such unit mostly by the bodyguards and the elite imperial guard units. Most other Byzantine roster cavalry would be lower quality units but in much higher numbers.

[Ambarenya]

I'm pretty sure Scholae as a unit are mentioned still in reign of Alexios Komnenos or basically at least into early 1100s

There are two sources that cover the reign of Alexios I Komnenos. His daughter, Anna Komnene, and Ioannes Zonaras. Anna I have read extensively, Zonaras, not so much, because his work is obscure and poorly studied (but it is on my list of things to look into!). But here's the thing: while the name "Scholai" does appear in Anna Komnene's Alexiad, it does not appear in the way that you think. Alexios' father, Ioannes, was known as the Domestikos ton Scholon, or Domestic of the Schools, which historically was the position that held command of the Scholai regiments. However, by this time, this position's title was merely a traditional one - the Domestic of the Schools held little real command, and mostly partook in ceremonial functions. It was the Megas Domestikos (a title held by Alexios himself) which actually commanded the armies of Byzantium, including the cataphracts, the few that were left after the neglect of the military following the death of Basil II.

There is still mention of heavy cavalry under Manuel Komnenos but what would such a unit be named?

According to Birkenmeier and Luttwak, Manuel's indiginous cavalry were called kataphraktoi. I have searched through my copies of Kinnamos and Choniates (the primary sources) and couldn't find any direct mention of the names of the cavalry units, aside from the pronoia and the latinikon.

CBUR has Scholae as well as Archontopoulai but then seem to go right to Pronarii and Latinikon as the later heavy cavalry- what was after Alexios Komnenos I reign but before 4th Crusade?

Athanatoi and Archontopoulai would be for Alexios, Pronoiarioi and Latinikon would be more for John and Manuel, and perhaps later rulers like the Angeloi and Palaeologoi.

The general terms for heavy cavalry do appear to have been Klibanaphoroi or Kataphraktoi but what was the heavy cavalry of the Imperial Guard in order to replace the name of Scholae with?

The Excubitors. But again, there is little to no mention of the Scholai, the Excubitors, or any of the old palace guard with the exception of the Varangians throughout the primary sources that cover the Komnenian period.

We are using Athanatoi for the bodyguards and considering how few cataphracts probably existed the plan was I think to represent such unit mostly by the bodyguards and the elite imperial guard units.

This is historically accurate. The Athanatoi are mentioned many times in the Alexiad as Alexios' chosen bodyguard in battles.

[Lifthrasir]

Ichon, if you have sources in French, that's not a problem. If you're able to, just forward them to me and I can translate them

[AnthoniusII]

In some cases, both. For example, the term Scholarii, referring to the Byzantine cataphract unit in SS, is not only latinized (or else would have been the proper transliteration Scholarioi), but it is also incorrect for this period. Historically, the term had been phased out by the 9th Century, after a period where the Scholai had been relegated to only imperial parade duties. The proper name for heavy cavalry units in the 9th, 10th, and 11th Centuries would have been Klibanaphoroi or Kataphraktoi, as observed in the Taktika of Leo VI the Wise and the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros II Phokas, among others. By the 12th Century (when the game begins), even these terms were probably seen as rather old-fashioned, but are passable within the scope of the game. Athanatoi would have been the umbrella term for heavy cataphracts during the Komnenian period, but since this is already used for the bodyguard unit, it seems fine to use either Kataphraktoi or Klibanaphoroi. The Archontopoulai are fine, however, since they were an actual unit raised and cared for by Alexios I Komnenos himself.

There are two sources that cover the reign of Alexios I Komnenos. His daughter, Anna Komnene, and Ioannes Zonaras. Anna I have read extensively, Zonaras, not so much, because his work is obscure and poorly studied (but it is on my list of things to look into!). But here's the thing: while the name "Scholai" does appear in Anna Komnene's Alexiad, it does not appear in the way that you think. Alexios' father, Ioannes, was known as the Domestikos ton Scholon, or Domestic of the Schools, which historically was the position that held command of the Scholai regiments. However, by this time, this position's title was merely a traditional one - the Domestic of the Schools held little real command, and mostly partook in ceremonial functions. It was the Megas Domestikos (a title held by Alexios himself) which actually commanded the armies of Byzantium, including the cataphracts, the few that were left after the neglect of the military following the death of Basil II.



According to Birkenmeier and Luttwak, Manuel's indiginous cavalry were called kataphraktoi. I have searched through my copies of Kinnamos and Choniates (the primary sources) and couldn't find any direct mention of the names of the cavalry units, aside from the pronoia and the latinikon.



Athanatoi and Archontopoulai would be for Alexios, Pronoiarioi and Latinikon would be more for John and Manuel, and perhaps later rulers like the Angeloi and Palaeologoi.



The Excubitors. But again, there is little to no mention of the Scholai, the Excubitors, or any of the old palace guard with the exception of the Varangians throughout the primary sources that cover the Komnenian period.



This is historically accurate. The Athanatoi are mentioned many times in the Alexiad as Alexios' chosen bodyguard in battles.

Answers:
Scholae Pallatinae
Cataphracti
Clibanarii
All these terms are generic ones and refer tp spesific kind of soldiers by armor or by recruitment.
Tagmata (Tagmatic Armies) had a number of separated units that difered from age to age.
Preview Here.
Video Here.
Each of that unit had a name and a role in the Imperial Army.
Many Emperors and atleast one Empress disbanded some of them and created others.
Those "new" Tagmata worked as their most trusted battlefield guards and as the finall strategic reserve (Ioannes Tzimeskes creating Athanati/Immortals).

Things got a but complicated after the 2 years civil war (1071-1072) when right after the legitimate's Emperor's blindness the next one ordered the disband of most of the Tagmatic units in favor of mercenary ones. That happened because the new Emperor was not legitimate and feared that Army would overthroned him (remember that Romanos Diogenis was an officer)!

Things you need to know:
When Nikephoros Phokas -as a general- reformed the Roman armies had no Athanati. Athanati created by Ioannes Tzimiskes 1st as his personal guard agaist other Tagmatic troops!
Athanati were at that point of Armenian origin (Tzimiskes was actually Ioannes Qurqua the Junior).
When Leon VI the Wise describes "cavalarii" equipment and refers to clivania and cataphracts he describes a kind of soldiers and not the units they will serv in.
Thematic Armies (like Limmitanei of the past) always had "cataphract" style soldiers but they were rare espesialy when Egypt and Syria was lost back in 7th century.
Thematic lands were to small to provide 6 lib of gold as a rent to their owners to allow them equip themeselves as cataphracts.
Only those that had personal lands and/or large income from land/other sources could afford to buy such armor and a Nisean horse!

Archontopulla (the name actually means children of the nobles or nobles sons).
Actually that unit may replaced all other Tagmatic units in the Komnenean era after the previus years Tagmatic units disband!
The name could mean that the provincial huge land owners send their 1st borns to the capital. It was a place of honor but the same time they had two purposes:
They served as "cataphracts" buying the equipment with their own expenses.
They served as political hostages to prevent their fathers to rebel!
In the medieval Roman history info is blure...That is why we see unit with the name Archontopulla in atleast two battles and in the capital that unit (or other?) still has the name Athanati.
Things get even more starnge when in 1202 80 knights confront a Tagma (regiment) of Loricati!
That term (despite the fact that loricion means chian mail) also describe a Tagmatic unit (the number of 512 men refers directly to 512 men of Tzimeskes' Athanati).

Proniarii originaly ment to replace Stratiotae by increasing the size of Oiconomiae lands to the size of Proniae.
Komneneans were fasinated by the feudal system and wanted to transform the Thematic armies to "vassal" ones!
But Proniarii found themselvs with huge power and they actually became the new Aristocrats of their time under the name Dynatoi (the powerfull ones).
In the end Komneneans found them selves without medium cavalry (kavalarii/stratiotae) and without control of their heavy cavalry (Dynatoi).

[Lifthrasir]

Good post AnthoniusII, very instructive!
Now, I have to read the thread linked in your post for more details