How far up in time were medieval units used?

[Strategist83]

I am curious to know just how far up in time medieval style military was used. Is the game's depiction correct in the sense that longbowmen were only rendered redundant with musketmen? Were knights the finest military weapons until the introduction of riflemen/grenadiers? Is the game's tech line even remotely accurate?

[The_Reckoning]

The longbow was used until proper rifles were invented afaik, as muskets were wholly unreliable. Knights became useless when guns were invented, since horses aren't great against trench warfare.

Historical weaponry only changed based on what weapons the enemy had.

[Strategist83]

I want more people in the know responding to this topic. Just how historically accurate is the game?

[MadDjinn]

fairly...

the 'uber-weapon' of the day is always based upon what your enemy had for defense.

plate armour was rendered useless by the English Longbow, but it was good against melee weapons.

guns made all forms of previous armour useless and needed much less skilled people to use them.

Firaxis just had to draw a line at how detailed they wanted to go in techs...

[johnmcd]

What's appropriate is very much based on what your up against. In European conflict, which is really what the game's military is based on, then knights were very powerful on the open fields of nations that fielded them. Take such a force to the baking heat of the holy land and things change quite profoundly.

The military in the game is really best not thought about to hard though. From the lack of supply, the frankly bizzare understanding of sige weapons and everything inbetween it's easiest just to consider war in Civ in a very abstract way.

[Zoid]

The longbow was used in battle as late as 1642 during the english civil war.

The classical medieval knight disapeared after the gunpowder made it entrance in the 16th century. It was also affected by the change in society as the knight was a product of the feudal system. As Europe gradually became a continent of nation states the knight was rendered obsolete.

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by The_Reckoning
Knights became useless when guns were invented, since horses aren't great against trench warfare.

This reminds me somewhat of a (boring) movie I saw the other week in which some military leader said something along the lines of: "They say this machine gun will replace 80 rifles!... I'll take the 80 rifles thanks!... Horses are the real key to this war..."

[Dr Strangelove]

Until the flintlock came along it was customary to deploy troops armed with pikes intermixed with musketeers. Musketeers themselves were often given swords in addition to their firearms in order to defend themselves when the enemy closed in. The pikemen pushed away or pinned the enemy while the musketeer/ swordsmen slashed at the enemy under the protecting fence of the pikemen.

The pre-flintlock firearm wasn't terribly effective, yet knighthood by it's very nature involved rather small numbers of heavily protected cavalry. While guns might not have a great effect on larger bodies of troops, owing to their inaccuracy, unreliability, and their slow rate of relaod, against small numbers of disproportionately expensive knights they wreaked havoc. It's also true that as national governments developed they discouraged the locally trained knight, who was a source of power of the feudal lords in favor of nationally trained cavalry. The cavalry could be trained in larger numbers, suitable for charging musket and pike infantry columns, and were equipped with correspondingly less expensive and less extensive armor. While the transition from knight to cavalry occurred simultaneously with the rise of firearms it wasn't entirely the result of the later. Changes in political organization figured in as well.

[troglodyte]

Originally posted by Strategist83
Just how historically accurate is the game?

Everyone who's had an (albeit weakened) tank taken out by a longbowmen has probably asked this question!

Well, this and your other questions are not necessarily the same. I am a military historian, and was a serving officer (Colonel rtd), and often buy and play strategy games to look at this question. Being a historian, my response will be necessarily verbose (I hope it doesn't put people off).

Just some general comments on how long weapons systems persisted. This is generally a matter of context. The Vatican, I believe, still has pike armed Swiss Guards. The Beefeaters still parade in antediluvian uniforms and weaponry. The SADF used infantryman on horses to improve mobility in geographically complex environments (these would technically be not cavalry, but dragoons as they fought dismounted), and Nazi military was actually only 30% motorised).

Your other comment is also valid. "I am curious to know just how far up in time medieval style military was used. Is the game's depiction correct in the sense that longbowmen were only rendered redundant with musketmen? Were knights the finest military weapons until the introduction of riflemen/grenadiers? Is the game's tech line even remotely accurate?"

Again, there is no easy answer - it depends on the geographical context. One of the Romans most traumatic defeat was by a Parthian mixed light & heavy cavalry over their experienced and almost perfected infantrymen at Carrhae.

Also it should be remebered that technology and strategy developes simultaneously, although sometimes military's do not learn at all.

Since you seem to be more interested in the ancient and medieval aspects we can look at that closely. Basically the appropriate schematic, borne out by the deaths of thousands during battles upto around 1200 AD indicates the following, when used in the appropriate geographical context - although the superiority direction would probably hold in general:

Heavy infantry defends succesfully against Heavy cavalry
Light infantry defends succesfully against Light cavalry
Light infantry attacks succesfully against Heavy infantry
Light cavalry attacks succesfully against Heavy cavalry
Light cavalry attacks sucesfully against Heavy infantry
Heavy cavalry attacks succesfully against Light infantry.

You can analayse this at leisure, just put in the appropriate units like in the first line =
Pikemen defends succesfully against Knights. Obviously, you need to classify the weapons systems accurately (and there is an endless debate over this).

Basically it is a development of the weapons system matrix: i.e

___________________Foot____________Mounted
Shock.....................Heavy infantry............Heavy cavalry
Missile.....................Light infantry.............Light cavalry.

If you take this schematic and superimpose the attacks/defends succesfully "rules" with arrows, it makes more sense. I am not computer literate enough to do this online.

Another aspect of warfare, which no game really captures is in the "strategy matrix" of actual warfare, as used in the ancient/medieval era: Here you have the choice of four strategies that can be applied in terms of DEFENCE or OFFENCE, although the best generals (Alexander, Hanibal, various Romans not to denigrate others) i.e

_______________Persisting_______Raiding
Combat.......................C/P.....................C/R
Logistic........................L/P.....................L/R

What this incredibly complex (lol) schematic shows is that you could have an Offensive-Combat-Raiding strategy and then switch to a Defensive-Logistic-Persisting Strategy.

Did the generals, think like this and is it important? No they mostly didn't, and it's only really important to historians. The only point that the ability of the general to force the opposition to combat depended on whether he was able to "get inside the decision loop" of the opposing general and force him to combat, usually through interdiction of his logistics or more usually navigation snafu's. Looking back at ancient/medieval history, one is usualy confronted by how long it took manouvering General's to atually come to grips with each other - and this depended to a great deal on the strategy mix above.

The above comments apply mainly to the ancient/medieval way of warfare if we can put it that way. Dr Stranglove is quite correct that from 1200 - 1600 onwards we see a new tactical synthesis of combined arms starting to develop, the transition of this synthesis through 1600 - 1700, the "line of bayonets" from 1700 - 1800 until the tactical and strategic transformation of the military brought about by Napoleon. Unfortunately, we then entered a period of doctrinal stolidity in a period of rapid technological change and which ended tragically in the trenches of 1914.

Many of the other thread participants are also correct in what they are saying. Actually, all of the above sounds more pompous than I intended, but it is an incredibly complex and interesting field and there are no easy/pat anwers.

My congratulatons go to Firaxis for giving us a game that is playable, without immersing us in the oft dreary technical details. My conclusion from the 20 odd games that I have played is that combat is generally historically okay - although there are some things that are annoying at the time (my cavalry geting wiped out by swordsmen in grassland tiles) and I can live with it. Firaxis have made a generally playable game and have tied the general tech development in quite well with the military units.

Now I will retire and await the storm that is to come from the other experts...

[Strategist83]

The military in the game is really best not thought about to hard though. From the lack of supply, the frankly bizzare understanding of sige weapons and everything inbetween it's easiest just to consider war in Civ in a very abstract way.

In what way are the siege weapons bizarre? You mean to tell me they did not send the catapults in first, one by one, fighting it out with a small group of defenders while simultaneously damaging the rest of the defenders?

Surely, you must be quite mad.

[Strategist83]

Thanks

I want to thank everybody for the history lessons. An interesting set of people at these boards - much better than over at PlanetBattlefield Forums. Thanks go out to Troglodyte, not the least of all - what a fine thing to have our own private board historian! I must admit most of what you tried to relay was lost on me, though.

The classical medieval knight disapeared after the gunpowder made it entrance in the 16th century. It was also affected by the change in society as the knight was a product of the feudal system. As Europe gradually became a continent of nation states the knight was rendered obsolete.

This paragraph has inspired me to start a new thread about the musketman unit. Stay tuned...

[Yaga]

My personal Civ4 grievance/troll :

Knights should come as soon as you have ironworking and horseback riding; not too much else you need save a stirrup and the economic means to maintain the knight; feudalism is more an economic and legal system than a political or military one. Guilds have nothing to do with knights in any way, and post-date their appearance by a good three hundred years.

Ironically, the longbow was one of the death knells of feudalism. It was considered, like the crossbow, an unholy weapon for it allowed the lowest of peasants to kill the noblest of knights. The use of both was prohibited by the Church on various occasions.

The classical medieval knight disapeared after the gunpowder made it entrance in the 16th century. It was also affected by the change in society as the knight was a product of the feudal system. As Europe gradually became a continent of nation states the knight was rendered obsolete.

Knights and gunpowder did co-exist for a while, though the essence of this comment is correct, as much as the battleship in modern times has given way to frigates and submarines. But this is not related to feudalism; this is a pendantic point, but feudalism grew up to support the knight, not the other way around. Feudalism itself was on its way out in the mid-12th century, as least in England, while the 'bastard feudalism' of indenture, which began in the late 13th survived, in economic terms, through to the Americas in the 18th century.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Yaga
My personal Civ4 grievance/troll :

Knights should come as soon as you have ironworking and horseback riding; not too much else you need save a stirrup

In my Civ3 mod I had a stirrup advance...as I felt the stirrup was an important enough advance to warrant it.
But I think more should be necessary to build a knight...

and the economic means to maintain the knight;

That was the problem for hundreds of years. While the stirrup was invented in later ancient era, between 500-1000 not very many govts had the money to maintain knights.

feudalism is more an economic and legal system than a political or military one. Guilds have nothing to do with knights in any way, and post-date their appearance by a good three hundred years.

I think the reason Firaxis did this was because it was precisely these economic advances (Feudalism and Guilds) that allowed for a little more money in the hands of the nobility, and therefore, knights appeared in the true sense of the word.

[Hauptman]

Polish "Cavalry" charged german tanks with Lances in 1939. I think that qualifies...

[Mace]

Re: How far up in time were medieval units used?

Originally posted by Strategist83
I am curious to know just how far up in time medieval style military was used.

(this is kinda long, but history interests me)
To add what I know to what others have said:

Battle of Chalons, 451 A.D. Roman/Goths vs. Huns, the Roman/Goth forces were called "Knights" although in my opinion, this was because medieval and renaissance scholars referred to any mounted soldiers this way. BUT it is important to realize that the Romano-Goth army must have had a high percentage of cavalry in it. This is noteworthy in itself, because IIRC the classic ancient Romans usually fought and marched on foot. Tactics had already changed somewhat.

1000-1200 Gradually, as metallurgy improved among the Europeans, better armor and weapons appeared. As the European economy recovered from the early middle ages (500-1000), more money was available to outfit soldiers with these weapons. It's no coincidence that the First Crusade (1096) took place at this time. In 896 or 996, the Europeans didn't have the means nor the money to do a Crusade.

1280-1310 Longbow appears during the reign of Edward I (Longshanks) in England. It is used to devastating effect in the Hundred Years War (approx (1315-1430), was found on the shipreck Mary Rose in Plymouth harbor from 1525, was part of standard English footsoldier gear in 1625, and as Dr. Zoidberg says, was still used in the English Civil War (1642-1648).

Battle of Flodden Field (1513): The Longbow was the decisive weapon at this late date!

c. 1325 ?? First report of Cannon (called "bombards") used in battle in France. how this got to West Europe is debated, theories are via Middle East from the Crusades, which in turn came from Chinese gunpowder knowledge. At any rate by 1400's crude cannon were in use throughout Europe. The Ottoman Turks used massive cannon to batter down the walls of Constantinople in 1453.

Arquebus, 1400's. This was a crude firearm, using a matchlock mechanism. If it rained, your matchlock gun would not fire. And when they did fire, it took 2 men and a good several minutes to prime the gun again. Sadly, this isn't really modelled in Civ, they skip the early firearms and go straight to Musketmen...and ignore the fact that pikemen were the dominant defensive unit in the late middle ages/early renaissance period!

Musket. Early muskets were actually just large arquebuses, and required 2 or 3 men to aim and wield. Later, about 1600-ish, the flintlock mechanism appeared, and it quickly took hold. Muskets became smaller, and could fire more quickly, and in damp conditions.

Bayonet. I researched the bayonet one time, but I can't remember it all. I think it was either 1590 or 1690 when the bayonet appeared, and it really helped the foot soldier against the mounted soldier. It also eliminated the Pikeman once and for all. Civ doesn't really model this either. My Civ3 mod did.

Hope that gives some more info to you. So no, Civ isn't exactly 100% accurate, but it's not bad, imo. There are game balance issues involved that I'm sure Firaxis and the beta guys went through a lot.