Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Huns's descendants horse archery

13567

Comments

  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    darthfanta wrote: »
    I was under the impression that Parthian cataphracts was a copy of the Sarmatian one and the Romans in turn copied the Parthians.

    In my head that end up saying that the Romans copied the Sarmatian :eek:

    Anyway, we do agree that the Sarmatian started the business :cool:
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    There is no proof that cataphracts existed in the steppes before the 4th century bc. Iranians of the Iranian plateau used horse archers till the 19th century so don't say that they didn't at the time of the Sassanids. Also the Medians had the best horses.
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »
    There is no proof that cataphracts existed in the steppes before the 4th century bc. Iranians of the Iranian plateau used horse archers till the 19th century so don't say that they didn't at the time of the Sassanids. Also the Medians had the best horses.
    No one said there weren't any horse archers in Persia,the question is their quality compared to nomadic ones.As for horse archers in Persian til 19th century,I'm under the impression that many of these archers would be Turkoman rather than genuine Persian.
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    If anything The Sassanids had the undisputed heavy cavalry. Don't forget it wasn't just horsemanship, but armor technology and two of the most important yet least talked about elements of the Parthian/Sassanind (specifically Sassanids) Heavy cavalry was the type of steed that were used and chivalry. The code of knighthood started in Iran not in Europe as some claim.

    I agree with you that the Sassanids definitely have the edge in terms of heavy cavalry. Also, your idea that knighthood comes from Iran is partially correct, albeit very, very indirectly. Sassanid horsemanship spread to the rest of the Middle East and was adopted by the Arabs. These Arabs invaded Iberia and attempted to assault the Franks through the Pyrenees. The Franks defeated the Arabs at this battle, the Battle of Tours, but the Franks noted the usefulness of Eastern cavalry, and the Franks began reforming their military to accommodate a new class of heavily armored horsemen which would later become knights for the purpose of having the power to contend with future Eastern threats, which they did successfully a few years later when they expelled the last remaining Arab enclaves in the southeast of France. The code of chivalry and culture that surrounded the knights later had no basis in Iran however, only the fighting style.

    As for horse archer ability, the advantage the Sassanids would have is their organization. From what I understand their military was largely professional and as such they would have advantages on a larger scale due to superior tactical abilities. The Huns however would likely be superior at the individual level. For balance purposes, I think the Huns should have better horse archery, because the tactics is up to the player to be good at, so the Sassanid advantage of organization would not be taken into account.
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    darthfanta wrote: »
    I was under the impression that Parthian cataphracts was a copy of the Sarmatian one and the Romans in turn copied the Parthians.
    Again another mistake Parthian copied Achaemenid Empire on heavy cav department...
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    The romans copied the Sarmatians you fool. :p



    Indeed. Nomad are better horseman as they prouved many times. PEACE OUT



    Same too you mate. Stop with "my ancestor were the best" thing and get back to reality. Sarmatian were renowed for beeing the best shock cavalry of their time...

    I know that the Sassanid counter part does look cool on your little books, but it doesnt mean that they were the best. ;)

    You again so full of yourself arenot you I gaved you facts while you threw nothing but your own word.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Perso-Turkic_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Perso-Turkic_War
    finally last 1 turks win due to fact roman help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Perso-Turkic_War

    Shapur in conclusion of his unsuccessful campaign against Roman empire, signed a peace treaty with Constantius II in which both sides agreed not to attack each other's territory for a limited period of time. The peace treaty gave Shapur security he needed in the western borders of the Sassanid empire and assurance for his forward campaign against nomads. He began eastern campaign and after a prolonged struggle he recaptured those areas previously lost to Sassands and forced nomads to conclude a peace. He also made their king, Grumbates, to accompany Shapur in the war against the Romans. He then started his second campaign against Romans in year 359, a campaign that was overwhelmingly successful for the Sassanid Persians and a total of five Roman provinces were ceded to Persians.
    another vic for persian over nomads facts facts. where is your facts? can I see them? no all you do is talk talk talk no facts.
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    The romans copied the Sarmatians you fool. :p



    Indeed. Nomad are better horseman as they prouved many times. PEACE OUT



    Same too you mate. Stop with "my ancestor were the best" thing and get back to reality. Sarmatian were renowed for beeing the best shock cavalry of their time...

    I know that the Sassanid counter part does look cool on your little books, but it doesnt mean that they were the best. ;)

    In the West, the fashion for heavily armored Roman cavalry seems to have been a response to the Eastern campaigns of the Parthians and Sassanids in the region referred to as Asia Minor, as well as numerous defeats at the hands of cataphracts across the steppes of Eurasia, the most notable of which is the Battle of Carrhae. Traditionally, Roman cavalry was neither heavily armored nor all that effective; the Roman Equites corps were composed mainly of lightly armored horsemen bearing spears and swords to chase down stragglers and to rout enemies. The adoption of cataphract-like cavalry formations took hold amongst the late Roman army during the late 3rd and 4th centuries. The Emperor Gallienus Augustus (253–268 AD) and his general and would-be usurper Aureolus bear much of the responsibility for the institution of Roman cataphract contingents in the Late Roman army. SO NO NO ONE COPIED DESTROYED NATIONS CATA cause they sucked.
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Turanist wrote: »
    Its better to hear fairy tails from Persians.

    Its a known fact with evidence that Turkic(Turanian) people were the best in archery. No offence.
    they were after fall of sassanids, as matter of fact after fall of Persia Turkish people ruled over Iran for 1000 years or so respect. but during this era sassanid were kicking *** pretty good. as evidence is Turkish Persian wars during that time.
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »
    There is no proof that cataphracts existed in the steppes before the 4th century bc. Iranians of the Iranian plateau used horse archers till the 19th century so don't say that they didn't at the time of the Sassanids. Also the Medians had the best horses.

    Who said that they didnt have some cataphract?
    You again so full of yourself arenot you I gaved you facts while you threw nothing but your own word.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Perso-Turkic_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Perso-Turkic_War
    finally last 1 turks win due to fact roman help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Perso-Turkic_War

    Shapur in conclusion of his unsuccessful campaign against Roman empire, signed a peace treaty with Constantius II in which both sides agreed not to attack each other's territory for a limited period of time. The peace treaty gave Shapur security he needed in the western borders of the Sassanid empire and assurance for his forward campaign against nomads. He began eastern campaign and after a prolonged struggle he recaptured those areas previously lost to Sassands and forced nomads to conclude a peace. He also made their king, Grumbates, to accompany Shapur in the war against the Romans. He then started his second campaign against Romans in year 359, a campaign that was overwhelmingly successful for the Sassanid Persians and a total of five Roman provinces were ceded to Persians.
    another vic for persian over nomads facts facts. where is your facts? can I see them? no all you do is talk talk talk no facts.

    Since when is wikipedia a source? :p
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Since when is wikipedia a source? :p

    Wikipedia is typically pretty reliable. You can count on its information being accurate or at least pretty close to accurate. Wikipedia also beats no sources hands down.
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    gage2617 wrote: »
    Wikipedia is typically pretty reliable. You can count on its information being accurate or at least pretty close to accurate. Wikipedia also beats no sources hands down.
    So true.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    gage2617 wrote: »
    Wikipedia is typically pretty reliable. You can count on its information being accurate or at least pretty close to accurate. Wikipedia also beats no sources hands down.

    It doesnt if the source doesnt talk about the right topic... We're talking about the Alans and the Huns here... not the Turcs.

    You guys want some ****** Wiki sources? Heres some for you ;)
    Iranian tribes such as the Massagetae were believed to be the originator of the class of heavy cavalry known as cataphract.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry
    Up to the 5th century, Sarmatian cavalry units were stationed in Britain as part of the Roman army (see End of Roman rule in Britain), allowing for a direct influence of Roman cataphracts on Migration Period Europe.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry
    Notable peoples and states deploying cataphracts at some point in their history include: the Scythians, Sarmatians, Parthian army, Achaemenid army, Sakas, Armenian army, Seleucids, Pergamenes, the Sassanid army, the Roman army, the Goths and the Byzantine army.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract
    The reliance on cavalry as a means of warfare in general lies with the ancient inhabitants of the Central Asian steppes in early antiquity, who were one of the first peoples to domesticate the horse and pioneered the development of the chariot.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract
    Archaeological excavations also indicate that, by the 6th century BC, similar experimentation had taken place among the Iranian peoples inhabiting the Khwarezm region and Aral Sea basin, such as the Massagetae, Dahae and Saka. While the offensive weapons of these prototype cataphracts were identical to those of the Assyrians, they differed in that not only the mount but also the head and flanks of the horse were protected by armor.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract
    Eastern Iranian cataphracts employed by the Scythians, Sarmatians, Parthians, and Sassanids presented a grievous problem for the traditionally less mobile, infantry-dependant Roman Empire.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract
    The cataphract-style parade armor of a Saka (Scythian) royal from the Issyk kurgan, dubbed "Golden Man". Note the overlapping golden scales, which is typical of cataphract armor.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract

    HAPPIER? :p
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • ShadowmaneShadowmane Senior Member Posts: 103Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    This thread seems to be descending into pointless arguing about stuff that has little to no bearing on the game.
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    Shadowmane wrote: »
    This thread seems to be descending into pointless arguing about stuff that has little to no bearing on the game.
    So discusions on Hun, Sassanid, Sarmation, Massagetae heavy cavalry and horse archery is irrelevant? Strange, I thought these were important aspects of the game considering it's is called 'Total War Atilla'.

    @Belialxv All those links don't really prove Massagetae/Sarmation had the best heavy cavalry, so it's still open.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    From the same Wiki entry for cataphracts:
    The successive Persian Empires that followed the Medes after their downfall in 550 BC took these already long-standing military tactics and horse-breeding traditions and infused their centuries of experience and veterancy from conflicts against the Greek city-states, Babylonians, Assyrians, Indo-Scythians, and North Arabian tribes with the significant role cavalry played not only in warfare but everyday life to form a military reliant almost entirely upon armored horses for battle.

    Sounds to me like the Persians, Sassanids included, took the idea from the steppes almost a thousand years before the time of Attila and improved on it by adding organization and professionalism. This is the same reason I believe that on a tactical level, the Sassanids could probably outperform steppe horse achers due to superior tactical leadership and professional troops, but the steppes peoples would be superior on an individual level. Because the tactics is up to the player, though, the steppe peoples should have superior horse archers at least stat-wise.
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    gage2617 wrote: »
    From the same Wiki entry for cataphracts:



    Sounds to me like the Persians, Sassanids included, took the idea from the steppes almost a thousand years before the time of Attila and improved on it by adding organization and professionalism. This is the same reason I believe that on a tactical level, the Sassanids could probably outperform steppe horse achers due to superior tactical leadership and professional troops, but the steppes peoples would be superior on an individual level. Because the tactics is up to the player, though, the steppe peoples should have superior horse archers at least stat-wise.
    Introducing professionalism and organization does not equal superior tactical leadership.If anything,nomads actually had better leadership most of the time because an incompetent commander will generally find himself shortlived. He will generally be killed and replaced by a more competent male relative if he showed weakness.Another thing is that professionalism doesn't actually mean better soldiery until much latter on.The ERE for example,probably had one of the most professional armies in the world from the Dark Ages till the fall of Constantinople during the fourth Crusade. It didn't stop them from being defeated again and again by nomadic armies despite having horse archers of their own.What motivates a soldier to fight better during this period is PLUNDER.Soldiers are extremely reluctant to fight defensive wars in areas they are not from because there isn't any plunder for them.Nomadic armies on the other hand is well motivated because they are often on the offensive and get plunder.Finally,it's been shown from time to time that organization can only compensate so much when you fielding soldiers who were trained as a adult against soldiers who were trained since childhood. Again,just look at how the professional East Roman Army got whipped by feudal and nomadic armies consistently.
  • ShadowmaneShadowmane Senior Member Posts: 103Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    So discusions on Hun, Sassanid, Sarmation, Massagetae heavy cavalry and horse archery is irrelevant? Strange, I thought these were important aspects of the game considering it's is called 'Total War Atilla'.

    @Belialxv All those links don't really prove Massagetae/Sarmation had the best heavy cavalry, so it's still open.

    Well forgive me for not reading every single post but what I have read just seems to be an argument about who were the greater horse archers.
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Shadowmane wrote: »
    Well forgive me for not reading every single post but what I have read just seems to be an argument about who were the greater horse archers.

    But that's the whole point of this thread. Whether the Huns were the best or not, so while it is arguing, it's also entirely relevant.
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    "The further evolution of these early forms of heavy cavalry in Western Eurasia is not entirely clear. Heavily armored riders on large horses appear in 4th century BC frescoes in the northern Black Sea region, notably at a time when the Scythians, who relied on light horse archers, were superseded by the Sarmatians."

    Central Asia=/= the steppes. If you have read the Achaemenid inscriptions you would have known that the Khwarezmians weren't Scythians or nomadic. The Parni(Arsacids) are from the Dahae. Also, could you tell me when did the nomads beat the Persians? Don't bring up the White Huns becauae they weren't nomads.
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »
    "The further evolution of these early forms of heavy cavalry in Western Eurasia is not entirely clear. Heavily armored riders on large horses appear in 4th century BC frescoes in the northern Black Sea region, notably at a time when the Scythians, who relied on light horse archers, were superseded by the Sarmatians."

    Central Asia=/= the steppes. If you have read the Achaemenid inscriptions you would have known that the Khwarezmians weren't Scythians or nomadic. The Parni(Arsacids) are from the Dahae. Also, could you tell me when did the nomads beat the Persians? Don't bring up the White Huns becauae they weren't nomads.
    The White Huns were nomadic and besides them,they were also defeated by the Turks.Another thing is look at what happened to Darius the Great and Cyrus the Great when he decided it was a good idea to invade Scythia or fight the Massegetae.Take note that this is around the time when Herodotus said that Persians have been horse archers for many years,from fathers to sons.
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    darthfanta wrote: »
    The White Huns were nomadic and besides them,they were also defeated by the Turks.Another thing is look at what happened to Cyrus the Great when he decided it was a good idea to invade Scythia.
    "The Ephthalitae are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in name ; however they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to us, for they occupy a land neither adjoining nor even very near to them ; but their territory lies immediately to the north of Persia ; indeed their city, called Gorgo, is located over against the Persian frontier, and is consequently the centre of frequent contests concerning boundary lines between the two peoples. For they are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples, but for a long period have been established in a goodly land. As a result of this they have never made any incursion into the Roman territory except in company with the Median army. They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and countenances which are not ugly. It is also true that their manner of living is unlike that of their kinsmen, nor do they live a savage life as they do ; but they are ruled by one king, and since they possess a lawful constitution, they observe right and justice in their dealings both with one another and with their neighbours, in no degree less than the Romans and the Persians. Moreover, the wealthy citizens are in the habit of attaching to themselves friends to the number of twenty or more, as the case may be, and these become permanently their banquet-companions, and have a share in all their property, enjoying some kind of a common right in this matter. Then, when the man who has gathered such a company together comes to die, it is the custom that all these men be borne alive into the tomb with him."-Procopius

    The Eastern Romans won with the help of the Turks. The story of Cyrus being killed by the Massagetae is just a story from Herodotus. Xenophon who travelled to Persia mention that Cyrus died peacefully. As for Darius he advanced so far into Scythian territory that there was no one left to fight.
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »
    "The Ephthalitae are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in name ; however they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to us, for they occupy a land neither adjoining nor even very near to them ; but their territory lies immediately to the north of Persia ; indeed their city, called Gorgo, is located over against the Persian frontier, and is consequently the centre of frequent contests concerning boundary lines between the two peoples. For they are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples, but for a long period have been established in a goodly land. As a result of this they have never made any incursion into the Roman territory except in company with the Median army. They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and countenances which are not ugly. It is also true that their manner of living is unlike that of their kinsmen, nor do they live a savage life as they do ; but they are ruled by one king, and since they possess a lawful constitution, they observe right and justice in their dealings both with one another and with their neighbours, in no degree less than the Romans and the Persians. Moreover, the wealthy citizens are in the habit of attaching to themselves friends to the number of twenty or more, as the case may be, and these become permanently their banquet-companions, and have a share in all their property, enjoying some kind of a common right in this matter. Then, when the man who has gathered such a company together comes to die, it is the custom that all these men be borne alive into the tomb with him."-Procopius

    The Eastern Romans won with the help of the Turks. The story of Cyrus being killed by the Massagetae is just a story from Herodotus. Xenophon who travelled to Persia mention that Cyrus died peacefully. As for Darius he advanced so far into Scythian territory that there was no one left to fight.
    Having one city doesn't mean they aren't nomadic. The Golden Horde also have a city, Sarai.
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    darthfanta wrote: »
    Having one city doesn't mean they aren't nomadic. The Golden Horde also have a city, Sarai.
    He didn't say they had one city. He said their city was close to Persia.
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Rapid fire shuld be fore any proffesional archer, not only hunns.

    Think the Hunns shuld have the best horse archers naturaly as this were theyre main life style both in hunting and fighting.
    Best accuracy and rate of fire of mounted troops maby. Don`t know about range or damage of the hunns, but if they had the same bows as mongols then best here to.

    Reading abit of the mongols wich i think were wery simmilar to the Hunns theyre main advantage was theyre ponnies (not kiddin). Theyre Ponnies had an extreme endurance compered to any other horse. They could cover long distances on minimal grass/food. endure extreme temperatures. The Mongols used theyre ponnies when food were scarse mixing the milk and blood of the horse drinking it. This making the rider survive were there only was some grass for theyre horses.

    This gave them the advantage of close to none supply lines. Were other huge armies neded vast supply lines the mongol/hunnic nomad could blitzkrieg themself past enemy borders without thinking about supply lines. The Mongol/hunnic riders together with theyre ponnies and composite bows was the blitzkrieg of ancient times.
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • madwapitimadwapiti Senior Member Posts: 602Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Nortrix87 wrote: »
    This gave them the advantage of close to none supply lines. Were other huge armies neded vast supply lines the mongol/hunnic nomad could blitzkrieg themself past enemy borders without thinking about supply lines. The Mongol/hunnic riders together with theyre ponnies and composite bows was the blitzkrieg of ancient times.

    I think this kinda goes to the heart of the issue.

    There seems to be a fare amount of debate in this post over who had the "best" horse archers at the time. Unfortunately, until we come up with a magical time machine device to go back a view historic events we can never know. The question becomes how do you best represent the Hun's abilities in Attila.

    Notrix87 is completely right to point out that the true strength of the Huns lay in their nomadic lifestyle and "blitzkrieg" tactics. Unless CA's programmers have developed a completely different AI for the campaign/battle tactics of the Huns versus other faction's AIs, I think it's safe to say that every faction will use horse archers pretty much the same. So how do you give the Huns (right now a late game "boss") an edge up that makes them a terror on the battlefield? Give their horse archers/units bonuses, even if they're not historically accurate.

    I know people get emotionally attached to specific factions, especially when they're their direct ancestors, and like them to be portrayed well in the campaigns. But I think we have to sacrifice some historical accuracy for an enjoyable game. Plus nothing's been released yet and I feel like this is a topic better dealt with when the developers are patching unit stats.
  • ShadowmaneShadowmane Senior Member Posts: 103Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    gage2617 wrote: »
    But that's the whole point of this thread. Whether the Huns were the best or not, so while it is arguing, it's also entirely relevant.

    Why does it matter ? the game will provide a challenge in that at some point masses of horse archer Huns will invade the map. Whether or not they were the best ever horse archers in the whole history of horse archers doesn't really have that much bearing on the game.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    So discusions on Hun, Sassanid, Sarmation, Massagetae heavy cavalry and horse archery is irrelevant? Strange, I thought these were important aspects of the game considering it's is called 'Total War Atilla'.

    @Belialxv All those links don't really prove Massagetae/Sarmation had the best heavy cavalry, so it's still open.

    We wont be able to prouve that onje of the other was better than the other since we have no record of them facing each other...

    CA and balance will probably have the last word :p
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    darthfanta wrote: »
    Introducing professionalism and organization does not equal superior tactical leadership.If anything,nomads actually had better leadership most of the time because an incompetent commander will generally find himself shortlived. He will generally be killed and replaced by a more competent male relative if he showed weakness.
    Some of the most respected and famous military leaders known to mankind had professional armies eg: Caesar, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the great, Heraclius and so on. Are these men not worthy?
    darthfanta wrote: »
    Another thing is that professionalism doesn't actually mean better soldiery until much latter on.
    By later on you mean 1500 BC? 200 BC? 300 AD? Egyptian, Hittites, Assyrian, Persian, Spartan, Romans etc these all had professional armies and their soldiers did quite well.
    darthfanta wrote: »
    The ERE for example,probably had one of the most professional armies in the world from the Dark Ages till the fall of Constantinople during the fourth Crusade. It didn't stop them from being defeated again and again by nomadic armies despite having horse archers of their own.
    Byzantines weren't exactly the most adept against nomadic incursion due to lack of them meeting one another and neither did they have a heritage of horse archery to effectively repel them. Their horse archery was average at best.
    darthfanta wrote: »
    What motivates a soldier to fight better during this period is PLUNDER.Soldiers are extremely reluctant to fight defensive wars in areas they are not from because there isn't any plunder for them.
    This only applies to mercenaries or slave soldiers, regardless of the era. Local troops is a different story, not to mention ideologies etc.
    darthfanta wrote: »
    Nomadic armies on the other hand is well motivated because they are often on the offensive and get plunder.
    So according to your logic only plunder motivates a soldier....right.
    darthfanta wrote: »
    Finally,it's been shown from time to time that organization can only compensate so much when you fielding soldiers who were trained as a adult against soldiers who were trained since childhood. Again,just look at how the professional East Roman Army got whipped by feudal and nomadic armies consistently.
    This is a bad example as Byzantines increasingly became more and more reliant on mercenaries. Like their other half this made them weak.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • AlJabberwockAlJabberwock Moderator USAPosts: 7,729Moderators, Tech Moderators, Knights
    edited December 2014
    If I recall, the subject of this thread is the archery of the 'Hun's Descendants'. Whilst I am aware of just how veiled and vague that phrasing is, and the equally ephemeral quality of useful and comparatively scientific data that might be expected from ancient sources with no concept of Historiography, let us do keep the topic on whatever dubious foundation that phrase places us.

    Avoid nonsense about nationalistic subjects and modern peoples and any personally oriented comments. That way chaos and a quick trip to the Time Out Room lie. :) Let us try to end the calendar year for some of us with as much panache as we can manage, ay? ~Al
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Every so often things happen that can’t be rationalized in a conventional way. People wanna know their government has a response. I am that response.”
    ― Kent Mansley (in "Iron Giant")

    For most general problems, for which you have no idea of the culprit, your first port of call should be:
    https://support.sega.co.uk/hc/en-us/categories/200307381-Total-War-Support

    If you are aware of a bug or a specific issue for which you know the cause, post in the support section for the specific title on our forums. ~Al

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    If I recall, the subject of this thread is the archery of the 'Hun's Descendants'. Whilst I am aware of just how veiled and vague that phrasing is, and the equally ephemeral quality of useful and comparatively scientific data that might be expected from ancient sources with no concept of Historiography, let us do keep the topic on whatever dubious foundation that phrase places us.

    Avoid nonsense about nationalistic subjects and modern peoples and any personally oriented comments. That way chaos and a quick trip to the Time Out Room lie. :) Let us try to end the calendar year for some of us with as much panache as we can manage, ay? ~Al

    Ah why not lets call it truce, whatever CA decides I guess...
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
This discussion has been closed.