• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Can we do something about the khuzaits?

Users who are viewing this thread

The "templers" were not defeated, the first crusades result was nothing short of absolute dominance over armies many times their own size. Denying that mail+aketon had a huge deal to do with that is a rare display of ignorance.

Most of the armies the crusaders faced in the first crusade were equipped almost identically to west european armies but with contingents of horse archers. Their lancers were mailed, and the spear infantry that made up the core of their armies wore padded mail. If anything, from the start of the crusades to about 1200 the muslims had access to better armour.

Also the crusades in general are a long string of defeats where the various muslim states just didn't have the impetus or motivation to finish them off by sieging their castles.
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
1st crusade and templars? What?
Territories on coast, whaaaat?
You know that biggest crusader castles are in modern day Syria, right? You know that Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted almost 200 years? And you know that they were outnumbered in every battle they fought?

You have great historical evidence in this thread not only about crusades but also about mongols and you choose to ignore it. Go read something about it. even on wiki you will find enough to understand why crusades failed and why mongols were succesfull (spoiler: Horse archers dont go brrrrrrrrrt like in Bannerlord)
Outnumbered in every battle they fought doesn't change the fact that they lost and I'm sure they fought some battles where they outnumbered the enemies. And yes, the crusader states were tiny possessions that were mostly located on the coast, I literally just googled crusader states and they were tiny. No matter how hard you are trying to convince me the success of the crusades, the crusade was a failure on every front, in holy land, in north europe, and in spain. And yes, horse archers kicked ass in real life and they are not even that strong in bannerlord. I don't have to go read a thick book to know that crusade was a military failure. Cheers
 
Last edited:

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
Most of the armies the crusaders faced in the first crusade were equipped almost identically to west european armies but with contingents of horse archers. Their lancers were mailed, and the spear infantry that made up the core of their armies wore padded mail. If anything, from the start of the crusades to about 1200 the muslims had access to better armour.

Also the crusades in general are a long string of defeats where the various muslim states just didn't have the impetus or motivation to finish them off by sieging their castles.
that's absolutely correct, the success of the 1st crusade wasn't due to the templars being better-equipped, but the over-confidence of turks and the fact that there were many infightings among islamic factions. Turks were an invading force from central asia as well.
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
"Yeah, that is just like your opinion, man"
Jeffus Dudeus II, King of Strawman Argumentia.

And its pretty worthless,sorry. I know we live in an age when everybody is convinced that their opinion matters, but yours does not as you lack competence.

I am calm as a breeze going through the arrow holes in my chainmail. Also, calling crusader states "tiny possesions" made my day, cheers :smile: you are 100% right, similar how the Roman Empire is no longer with us so it definitely means it was a failure. still heartily recommend reading before posting.
what is my opinon? the failure of crusade? sorry sir that is not an opinion but a fact. Go ask any historian and he will tell you the crusade failed miserably. And crusader states were quite tiny, I don't know why it made your day. It is rather funny to me that they swarmed into the holy land but only managed to capture that little area.
 

VanHoven

Veteran
"The Crusaders, therefore, attained their goal three long years after they had set out. Against the odds this struggling, fractious, and naive enterprise had made its way from western Europe to the Middle East and conquered two of the best-defended cities of the time. From a modern perspective, the improbability of the First Crusade’s success is staggering. For medieval men and women, though, the agent of victory was God himself, who worked miracle after miracle for his faithful knights. It was this firm belief that would sustain centuries of Crusading. " source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades/The-siege-of-Jerusalem

maybe some reading wouldnt be that bad. The _first_ crusade was considered a success. they stayed in the holy land until saladin united the moslem states to finally kick the christians out 200 years later
 

FreezeZ

Recruit
Outnumbered in every battle they fought doesn't change the fact that they lost and I'm sure they fought some battles where they outnumbered the enemies. And yes, the crusader states were tiny possessions, I literally just googled crusader states and they were tiny. No matter how hard you are trying to convince me the success of crusade, the crusade was a failure on every front, in holy land, in north europe, and in spain. And yes, horse archers kicked ass in real life and they are not even that strong in bannerlord. I don't have to go read a thick book to know that crusade was a military failure. Cheers
Ignorance is a bliss. You just want to stay ignorant without any knowledge and understanding of historical events. If look only at results than yes they were failure. From that prespective Mongol Empire was failure because it lasted less than that. Crusaders have done what they could with little resources they had.

And no horse archers werent dominant force on the battlefield. They werent killing everything on sight. Most of the killing was done in melee by lancers or cataphracts. And thats the truth when we are talking about ancient times and medieval. read something more than battle outcome and you will understand that. Most common tactic used agains european forces by mongols or muslims was baiting pre-mature charge of knights and counter charging them when they were disorganised. You would know that if you ever opened book. Horse archers were tool for harrasing, wearing down and restricting movement but not destroying enemy forces.
 
Last edited:

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
Ignorance is a bliss. You just want to stay ignorant without any knowledge and understanding of historical events. If look only at results than yes they were failure. From that prespective Mongol Empire was failure because it lasted less than that. Crusaders have done what they could with little resources they had.

And no horse archers werent dominant force on the battlefield. They werent killing everything on sight. Most of the killing was done in melee by lancers or cataphracts. And thats the truth when we are talking about ancient times and medieval. read something more than battle outcome and you will understand that. Most common tactic used agains european forces by mongols or muslims was baiting pre-mature charge of knight and counter charging them when they were disorganised. You would know that if you ever opened book. Horse archers were tool for harrasing, wearing down and restricting movement but not destroying enemy forces
ok keep calling me ignorant, im not and I think you are. I have great understanding in many historical events, maybe not as much as in crusades, but i do know that they lost. The result is all that matters. And don't compare the crusader states to mongolian empire, the lattar occupied almost 10 million square miles of areas, while the crusader states struggled to keep a city. And don't put words into my mouth, I never said horse archers alone was enough, shock cav was used extensively as well. Horse archers were quite dominant or else mongolian army wouldn't be so successful.
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
"The Crusaders, therefore, attained their goal three long years after they had set out. Against the odds this struggling, fractious, and naive enterprise had made its way from western Europe to the Middle East and conquered two of the best-defended cities of the time. From a modern perspective, the improbability of the First Crusade’s success is staggering. For medieval men and women, though, the agent of victory was God himself, who worked miracle after miracle for his faithful knights. It was this firm belief that would sustain centuries of Crusading. " source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades/The-siege-of-Jerusalem

maybe some reading wouldnt be that bad. The _first_ crusade was considered a success. they stayed in the holy land until saladin united the moslem states to finally kick the christians out 200 years later
you keep bringing up the 1st crusade, but that is only a part of the entire crusade. And it wasn't impressive at all, the enemies were unprepared and underestimating them.
 

FreezeZ

Recruit
ok keep calling me ignorant, im not and I think you are. I have great understanding in many historical events, maybe not as much as in crusades, but i do know that they lost. The result is all that matters. And don't compare the crusader states to mongolian empire, the lattar occupied almost 10 million square miles of areas, while the crusader states struggled to keep a city. And don't put words into my mouth, I never said horse archers alone was enough, shock cav was used extensively as well. Horse archers were quite dominant or else mongolian army wouldn't be so successful.
If the result is all that matters than they both failed. Result is the same. Easy to compare.

Okay so what does it mean that they were dominant? Because maybe we just understand this world differently.
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
If the result is all that matters than they both failed. Result is the same. Easy to compare.

Okay so what does it mean that they were dominant? Because maybe we just understand this world differently.
First of all, crusades had a goal, to recapture the birth of jesus christ or whatever. They did hold that area for you said 200 years, ok..... but eventually that place was conquered by arabs I believe. So they failed their objective. Similarly, many campaign of mongolian empire ended in failure too, such as their attempt to conquer japan or southeast asia. I hope that helps:smile:.

Horse archers maybe did not score the most kills, but they certainly played a huge role on battlefield, and that's why they were dominating.
 

VanHoven

Veteran
you keep bringing up the 1st crusade, but that is only a part of the entire crusade. And it wasn't impressive at all, the enemies were unprepared and underestimating them.
Well thats because you are talking about "the crusade" which isnt a thing, like there isnt "the jihad". there were multiple crusades, and the first of them happened to be a militaric and strategic success. Yes, ofc they wouldnt have succeeded against united moslems, after all the muslimic states where quite superior to their european counterparts in that period of time, both militarily and culturally. Still, conqering 2 of the best defended cities at that time and defeating the enemys that managed to conquer most of byzantines holdings is not a small feat.
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
Well thats because you are talking about "the crusade" which isnt a thing, like there isnt "the jihad". there were multiple crusades, and the first of them happened to be a militaric and strategic success. Yes, ofc they wouldnt have succeeded against united moslems, after all the muslimic states where quite superior to their european counterparts in that period of time, both militarily and culturally. Still, conqering 2 of the best defended cities at that time and defeating the enemys that managed to conquer most of byzantines holdings is not a small feat.
the crusade definitely was a thing. The 1st crusade was only part of the bigger crusade(hence the name 1st crusade), like during ww2 nazis successfully invaded poland, but they were later defeated and driven out, so you can't call ww2 a nazi victory. The crusade had a goal and the goal was not achived at the end, they might have won some battles, but that doesn't change the result.
 

Bigamo

Banned
Let's say an archer could shoot 10 arrows per minute, and the army had 500 archers. That would be 5000 arrows per minute, let's say the battle lasted 2 hours. And the archers were focusing fire on your formation of men. It was not ridiculous at all that over the course of battle, hundreds of arrows directly hit on your armor especially if you are standing in the front. Well yes a man can only carry so many arrows with him, but there were wagons and horses that could carry many more arrows, a horse archer army could bring wagons of arrows with them, encircle your men, dismount and start shooting. When they run out of arrows, just grab more. I said that it only took one out of five hundred arrows to seriously injure you, didn't mean that it actually took that many to break the armor. If you are unlikely the first arrow could end your life. I never said that armor was not effective, I am just telling you that arrows were quite effective as well. They were not just some weapon only useful against naked peasants.

If the arrows are actually like bullets in this game, most battles would last under a minute. Every arrow would be one shot kill, you won't need anything else, just archers. It took how many arrows for you to kill a ulfhednar? I played many hours of this game, and some archer units can be op, but not to that extent. What I would recommend is a better morale system and a weight system. Being shot at will decrease the morale of your troops, and more arrows stuck on your shield and armor, the slower you move. Decreased morale would increase the chance of being mortally wounded, and your troops might flee during the battle as well. Without these features, bows should deal more damage or they wouldn't be useful.

Actually you don't need anything else. Just arrows. Make a 100+ Archer party and see everything else melt without ever touching you.
 

Bigamo

Banned
Well thats because you are talking about "the crusade" which isnt a thing, like there isnt "the jihad". there were multiple crusades, and the first of them happened to be a militaric and strategic success. Yes, ofc they wouldnt have succeeded against united moslems, after all the muslimic states where quite superior to their european counterparts in that period of time, both militarily and culturally. Still, conqering 2 of the best defended cities at that time and defeating the enemys that managed to conquer most of byzantines holdings is not a small feat.

Superior? LOL
 

VanHoven

Veteran
the crusade definitely was a thing. The 1st crusade was only part of the bigger crusade(hence the name 1st crusade), like during ww2 nazis successfully invaded poland, but they were later defeated and driven out, so you can't call ww2 a nazi victory. The crusade had a goal and the goal was not achived at the end, they might have won some battles, but that doesn't change the result.
Uhmn... no. The first crusade was the first crusade. the second the second. the third the third. there was no "bigger crusade". But to be fair, yes, their was an overarching goal of all crusades, which was "to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories " (https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades) and that failed in the end, at least until the end of the first world war. That doesnt mean that some of them acchieved what they wanted.
 

pygc1

Sergeant at Arms
Actually you don't need anything else. Just arrows. Make a 100+ Archer party and see everything else melt without ever touching you.
depends on the enemy composition. if they only have infantry this tactic might work. But if they have cav, archers aren't going to be enogh.
 

Bigamo

Banned
what is my opinon? the failure of crusade? sorry sir that is not an opinion but a fact. Go ask any historian and he will tell you the crusade failed miserably. And crusader states were quite tiny, I don't know why it made your day. It is rather funny to me that they swarmed into the holy land but only managed to capture that little area.

I am an historian, and you are simply a really not smart person. Over 200 years, pilgrims could visit Jerusalem, for over 500 years Constantinople endured and for almost 600 years people in Europe could live their lives without a big Muslim invasion.
 

VanHoven

Veteran
Superior? LOL
Yes. Around 1000 militarily they fielded bigger and more advanced armies, they were tolerant against other religions, education was more wide spread and easier to obtain, medicine was way more sophisticated. In europe they were mostly busy waging war against each other and being good christiabs
 
Top Bottom