Combining History with M&B

[Madf11]

Any ideas on doing combinations and actually playing them out can be posted on this forum:
http://msgwb.freeforums.org

We are making a group that will try to recreate medieval battles to perfection as much as M&B engine allows it. That's why we need YOUR help in providing historical data about formations, weapons, heraldics, military ranks etc.
You will need to login to post and get the ball rolling.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

Or you could use google, it will have many many sites that tell you all about it.

 

[Madf11]

The point is to provide usable information and become a member of the project to start making realistic battles. We do not seek merely historical data but data that can be relevant to M&B. Googling is easy but finding quality material can be hard, so if anyone wants to offer help feel free to do so.

Thanks

 

[Bohemond Chesne]

While the idea is an appealing one I am afraid in most cases where you throw your doors open to anyone to provide historical information you tend to get a lot of fellows who present semi-passable information wrapped up in masses  of misinformation, rumours and urban myths.
For a start a lot of people don’t seem to understand how much things change with the passage of time, or even geographical/ cultural divides.
Even published “historians” are not immune to this; indeed while I was at university I was even recommended a text which in one chapter tried to justify the lack of longbow men at the battle of Hastings.
To be honest the best approach to a project like this would, imho, be to start with the well documented major battles (Crecy, Agincourt, Hastings).
The majority of “knowledge” of medieval and ancient, warfare is taken from a small number of historical sources and a long web of interpretation and counter interpretation. We can all look at Victorian images and texts, which frequently talk of the ridiculous weight and immobility of knights, and the heavily RP influenced images from 1980s light history books, and laugh. But many of these things were academically viewed as fact at the time.
... Never mind went off on a tangent.
Good luck.
Have fun.
Beware of Katana-Plonkers

 

[FrisianDude]

What were they saying about longbowmen at Hastings, then?

 

[Hugo de Montfort]

While the idea is an appealing one I am afraid in most cases where you throw your doors open to anyone to provide historical information you tend to get a lot of fellows who present semi-passable information wrapped up in masses  of misinformation, rumours and urban myths.
For a start a lot of people don’t seem to understand how much things change with the passage of time, or even geographical/ cultural divides.
Even published “historians” are not immune to this; indeed while I was at university I was even recommended a text which in one chapter tried to justify the lack of longbow men at the battle of Hastings.
To be honest the best approach to a project like this would, imho, be to start with the well documented major battles (Crecy, Agincourt, Hastings).
The majority of “knowledge” of medieval and ancient, warfare is taken from a small number of historical sources and a long web of interpretation and counter interpretation. We can all look at Victorian images and texts, which frequently talk of the ridiculous weight and immobility of knights, and the heavily RP influenced images from 1980s light history books, and laugh. But many of these things were academically viewed as fact at the time.

...and even battles like Agincourt, which is one of the best documented battles of medieval times, are actually impossible to reconstruct due to lack of important information. All our sources either disagree completely about the deployment or are so horribly unprecise that it could mean 10 different things. It is possible to reconstruct the English army there to some point but even that would vary by plus minus 2000 soldiers, while we have no reliable numbers for the French at all. Those numbers (only the reasonable ones) would vary between a 2 to 3 ratio to 3times the number of the English army...so between 8000 and 30000 French.

 

[Bohemond Chesne]

What were they saying about longbowmen at Hastings, then?

According to the text the Anglo Saxon longbow men were not in attendance due to losses at Stamford, and rain.
I have no idea where this idea came from, and the chapter lacked any referencing what-so-ever. Regardless this chapter was part of a published history (the name and author of which escapes me at the moment) and could quite feasibly be taken as writ, the Anglo-Saxons had longbow men. Like those used during the 100years war.

....

I agree, however they are more documented. The battle of Tinchbrai for instance, which was a fairly major battle with large numbers on both sides, is only documented in a couple of accounts. And pretty much all these say is the circumstances leading up to the battle, a few of the commanders and that the English cavalry dismounted to meet a charge. Though this is vastly more than say the Battle of Mirebeau (which had serious political ramifications for the Angevin Empire and Anglo-French relations..
More to my point is the fact that because this was specifically mentioned many historians now argue that this was a rare tactic, despite the fact there are numerous other mentions of knights dismounting and even "snapping their lances in half" (to paraphrase one account).

I did not mean to suggest that these battles were fully documented, just that there are more primary and contemporary secondary sources making it easier to understand, and meaning that most of the histories written about the battle are at least based on evidence rather than “an applied understanding”. Obviously nothing is perfect; I was merely offering a suggestion to avoid a lot of rumour and hearsay.

 

[Madf11]

The point of my invitation was to provide useful intel which can be used as a recreation. Although real medieval history cannot be recreated, a 1980 light history book would do the trick. All I need is some information of some actual formations from 1000-1500. Naming them would be a progress

 

[Urlik]

the problem isn't in the sources but the implementation into M&B.

you could (if you have a good enough PC) have the correct number of men, all with the right arms and armour, for any battle of the middle ages.
the problem is that they don't hold formation once they are given orders to attack.

attempting to control a large number of units in M&B is a nightmare and not a task that the engine is very good at.

the Battle of Blanchetaque is one of the few that would lend itself to M&B (defenders set up on one side of a river covering a ford and the attackers charging with almost no actual tactics or strategy, just a **** or bust charge across the river).

for full scale historical battles you want a game like M:TW which has better control of units.

 

[Madf11]

You might want to recreate just a part of the battle, for instance a cavalry charge etc. Then you would switch to another part.

 

[Gabeed]

As has been hinted at already in other posts, M&B is not quite a medieval battle simulator, as much as it is a medieval skirmish or combat simulator.  Most of the grand, important battles of history have had thousands of troops on either side, and thus much larger maps than the ones used in Warband.

 

[Madf11]

Ye I know, but if you look at the other games on the market this one it is as close as it gets. In sense of FPS. A mod fix and you can get pretty acurate in sense of mechanics.