Civilization specifics

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Both Hungarians and Turks employed horse archer tactics "Parthian style".And both discarded them after coming into contact with europe, although the Turks much later.

I learn something new every day. I didn't know that about the turks. I was more intested in their actions after the conquering of Constantinopole, when they became a real danger for Europe. Too bad the europeans didn't help Byzantium to hold off the turks

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by Duddha

Spain was not militaristic. I hardly call taking over civilizations which practically roled over and died for the Spanish a military accomplishment. When faced agianst European opponents the Spanish were squarely defeated.

Well I see we agree on my things but on this one I've a different opinion:

Spain has a very long and glorious military tradition. It began with the Reconquista and from this point on nobody was able to rival them on the battlefield. They had a large and strong army with many well-experienced commanders at their side. That's why they were able to be such a long time at the top because of their military power and in my opinion it surely is an accomplishment to conquer a whole continent almost alone and even the European powers at this time like France and Portugal were not able to rival them.

I think the Conquistadors are a very good choice in representing this military might as they were feared wherever they appeared and actually they managed to achieve the military successes in SA. The Tercios would also be a good choice but in the end they didn't have this reputation and the fearful aura the Conquistadors had therefore I agree with the decision on the unit from Firaxis.

[Palaiologos]

Too bad.Yes too bad...

Actually the III Crusade was launched for the purpose of steming the barbarian tide and helping out the "Schismatic Greeks" as the Byzantines were reffered to.

It had limited success though.

[Xanthippe]

Re: Carthaginians.

They used Elephants, but had very few. Hannibal for example set out from Africa with 32 Indian Elephants (bought from the Greeks, who'd bought them from the Indians, Afroican Elephants cannot be trained as war elephants or labouring elephants). By the time he got into Italy he had only 8 left. After his first battle he had one left !

The infantry unit suggested should be Libyan (or maybe Liby-Phoenician ?) rather than Numidian. Numidian infantry were light javelinmen, Libyan infantry were equipped like unarmoured hoplies (e.g. big sheild and long spear, fight in close formation, but litle or no body armour).

[Xanthippe]

Also re: comments about the crusades.

Remember the fourth crusade. Crusader army headed for holy land and deeply in debt to Venetian Bankers was told it could pay off its debts by attacking and looting Byzantium instead !

[kring]

Originally posted by Palaiologos


I checked the information on civfanatics myself and i found no reference on the new civ's leaders.Any hints?

Isabella, Spanish
Brennus, Celts
Hannibal, Carthag.
Temujin (aka Genghis Khan), Mongols
Osman, Ottomans
Wang Kon, Koreans
Abu Bakr, Arabs
Ragnar Lodbrok, Vikings

[connorkimbro]

my problem is with the hwacha. don't get me wrong, it's not bad, but that's not what i'd've wanted for a UU. the kobukson turtleships would have been so much better.

ah, well.

That's what i said!

and refering to commercial/scientific:

The traits suit them.

Religious/scientific would have been more accurate of the koreans, i think.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Xanthippe
Re: Carthaginians.

They used Elephants, but had very few. Hannibal for example set out from Africa with 32 Indian Elephants (bought from the Greeks, who'd bought them from the Indians, Afroican Elephants cannot be trained as war elephants or labouring elephants). By the time he got into Italy he had only 8 left. After his first battle he had one left !

The infantry unit suggested should be Libyan (or maybe Liby-Phoenician ?) rather than Numidian. Numidian infantry were light javelinmen, Libyan infantry were equipped like unarmoured hoplies (e.g. big sheild and long spear, fight in close formation, but litle or no body armour).

I agree completely, and i have already made these points in other threads.But i don't remember anything about Hannibal purchasing elephants from the Greeks.It is impossible to have done so because that would mean the elephants of Hannibal's army were of the indian variety.According to Polybious they were of the African variety.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by kring


Isabella, Spanish
Brennus, Celts
Hannibal, Carthag.
Temujin (aka Genghis Khan), Mongols
Osman, Ottomans
Wang Kon, Koreans
Abu Bakr, Arabs
Ragnar Lodbrok, Vikings

Thanks a lot.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Xanthippe
Also re: comments about the crusades.

Remember the fourth crusade. Crusader army headed for holy land and deeply in debt to Venetian Bankers was told it could pay off its debts by attacking and looting Byzantium instead !

Yes, but in my oppinion the crusaders were at no fault.The Crusader army was planning to head for Egypt
and requested ships from the Venetians enough to transport a 35.000man army.They only managed to assemble 14.000 and could not afford the required fee.

At that point former Emperor Alexius intervened and offered the crusaders 200.000 marcs(more than enough to pay the fee) in return for his reinstate to the Roman throne with the Crusader's aid.The Franks of course accepted.

What is the sadest thing in the story, and to my oppinion, bears the burden of the responsibility for the sack of Constantinople, is the Roman Army.A 50.000 man garrison failed to protect the city against 14.000 exhausted Crusaders.It was the army's duty to protect the Empire from any threat, no matter where and why it came from.In this the Imperial army failed.

[Xanthippe]

Hannibal's Elephants

To correct both myself and you Palaiagos. To quote from Phil Barker's "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars":

"The elephant which roamed North Africa was the forest sub-species which is now mainly found in the Congo, and is domesticated there for timber work.

This is not only different in shape to the African bush elephant, but is considerably smaller, standing only 8 feet (2.45m) at the shoulder compared with the bush elephants 11 feet (3.35m), and the Indian's 9 feet (2.75m).

Most of the elephants used by the Carthaginians and the Successor rulers of Egypt (the Ptolemies) were of the small African breed, but they eagerly obtained Indian elephants when they could, as these had a far better fighting reputation, possibly due to better training as much as size differential."

The other Macedonian successor states - the Seleucids, Antigonids, etc. in Asia Minor and the Middle East used Indian elephants. Some were obtained by Ptolemid Egypt and Carthage.

[Palaiologos]

Re: Hannibal's Elephants

Originally posted by Xanthippe
To correct both myself and you Palaiagos. To quote from Phil Barker's "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars":

"The elephant which roamed North Africa was the forest sub-species which is now mainly found in the Congo, and is domesticated there for timber work.

This is not only different in shape to the African bush elephant, but is considerably smaller, standing only 8 feet (2.45m) at the shoulder compared with the bush elephants 11 feet (3.35m), and the Indian's 9 feet (2.75m).

Most of the elephants used by the Carthaginians and the Successor rulers of Egypt (the Ptolemies) were of the small African breed, but they eagerly obtained Indian elephants when they could, as these had a far better fighting reputation, possibly due to better training as much as size differential."

The other Macedonian successor states - the Seleucids, Antigonids, etc. in Asia Minor and the Middle East used Indian elephants. Some were obtained by Ptolemid Egypt and Carthage.

Ok, point taken. And by the way would it be too hard if one of you people learned to spell my name correctly?

[Xanthippe]

My apologies Palaiologos, oh ancient and wise one !

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Xanthippe
My apologies Palaiologos, oh ancient and wise one !

Your apologies are accepted.

Palaiologos is pleased.

[Dinner]

The Celts seem to be a very strong civ a great UU and strong CSAs. Religious is stronger the Militaristic but still a potent combo. The Eygptians have the best combo of CSAs but their UU sucks. In the end it seems I will be playing alot of the Celts.