Oleksandr

Does beings with multiple attacks (and dual wielding humans) capable to split attacks as normal? P.S. Here are that article. Interestingly, it seems Lances was formalised only in 13thc, although, something similar undoubtedly existed for some time. As for army sizes and compositions, that's good example of why it such big discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1190) funnily, out of all provided numbers, smallest one are from oldest (and closest to event) sources. And even 10000... that's in same range of numbers as battles of Hundred years war, when population was significantly larger. Also notable that, as most sources of this era, there no detailed description of armies and battle (although interestingly, Seljuk didn't notice presence of infantry..) As was said earlier, historical analysis of this events started when armies reached impressive sizes, and only later some start to realise that armies of such sizes was demographically and economically unsustainable (in fact, in some of the known battlefields armies of stated sizes wouldn't fit physically 😃), and this problem still linger. Furthermore, early historians often used contemporary (and ones from relatively recent past) militaries for extrapolation, and it was an era of fascination with greco-roman history, and often disdain for middle ages. This was era when majority of soldiers was from poor classes, which generated persistent stereotype that medieval armies mostly consisted from press ganged peasants. This was, in fact, the case in huge bureaucratic empires, like Byzantine and China, but there serious doubts as for feudal realms (*)- "The persistent old belief that peasants and small farmers gathered to form a national army or fyrd is a strange delusion dreamt up by antiquarians in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries to justify universal military conscription". Evidence seem to support such doubts. In Battle of Bouvines that you mentioned, call for militia was explicitly such emergency. And that's militia here played only minor role, and wasn't all that useful even for that... If you think that was stupid, you should read about hussite wars. Armies of exclusively knights mindlessly charging (multiple times even) at enemy armed to the teeth with firearms, artillery, two-handed flails, mobile fortresses...

Another stupid idea i had was a group/clan of gewissi for players to rival with - with Cymri stats, Angles culture (using rules for hybrids), wotanistic version of "Odinism: Aegir", and probably living in Cornwall, working as mercenaries there. Probably sound too cartoony, yet, sadly, not unrealistic.

Yes, i know that 😀. What i wanted to point out was abbesses at all almost absent from KAP, much less as liege ladies. When discussing status of women in medieval society that's quite important.

BTW, i wonder, how in real play PK interact with their children, and families in general? Is that important part of game?🤔

Another interesting example, Brabançons mercenary company was said to have some women among their ranks. It wouldn't be any remarcable If they was just cooks or nurses. It was said that in battle of Malemort " 2,000 Brabançon men and women were killed", so this women didn't stay in camp. On the other hand, this mercenaries was notorious in their brutality... On more positive note "Although Wilton Abbey was a Benedictine nunnery, it held its lands from the king by knight service. The Abbess' knights were her tenants, who in turn held land from the Abbey by knight service. Usually the abbess fulfilled her duty to the king by scutage. But she had knights with King Henry III on his 1223 Welsh campaign, and at the Siege of Bedford Castle the following year. Between 1277 and 1327 she offered knight service at least four times"

Here one unusual castle i wanted to show👇 Total hight, from river/moat to spires, was about 60m, walls up to 40m high*. That was it's 14-17th centuries incarnation (original, wooden, castle was established in 10thc). And that's it's modern (post 18th century) looks 👇 *interestingly, it seems it's impossible to make castle like this by KAP rules😅

Rereading BoS, i actually started to wonder about this... In 466 there is separate modifiers for Non-Berroc Loyalist and Berroc Loyalist (which imply there are not loyal ones too, there at least 3 chances for them to turn neutral, however small...), and later +15 ensure result "Skirmished with Saxons as they tried to flee across your territory", instead of fighting against Aurelius. In 467 Berrocs has -10, which means, IIUK, they have 8 out of 20 chanse to get "Saw little or no combat. Stayed Neutral and at home". And if they won't fight Aurelius in this year, they wouldn't in 468 ("Loyalist who was not at Carlion last year -10"). And earlier, they don't have separate modifiers abow standard Loyalist, and only in 1 of 2 battles against Vortimer this modifier is enough to ensure 100% participation. And even earlier, in 450 "Even the Berroc Saxons can trade worried glances, but they will honor their oaths and remain Loyalists". It seems they wasn't all that happy with Vortigern style of kingship...

BTW, returning to this point, look at this: Here, in the middle, you can see camp of early 17th century army (mind you, army that rushed to battle without finishing muster!), and in red circle you can see what just 3 centuries ago was considered ohmygoditshuge castle, which by this point could hold just tiny fraction of the army😀. And in the left you can see camp of much larger ottoman army😱... It's very nearly to scale...

Another question, LoG claim that chivalry is inherent property of KAP world, and that anybody with appropriate traits would benefit from chivalry bonus, even if they never heard about such concept. Thus i wonder, to whom it would apply - only knight and equivalents (tegns/tanes and the like), all professional combatants, or militia too? (one of the point of aforementioned culture/religion/region combo was that their starting modifiers make everybody in community chivalrous, minus personal deviations...😊😅)

I think you are treating this discussion way too seriously... I would say it ease for you to pick sides😉. I am partly Ukrainian, Romanian, Moldovan, Polish and German. Everybody in this list fought each other at least half a dozen times...😱😅 The thing is, i didn't actually looked for such battles. Most of this i found by randomly clicking on lists of medieval battles. Except in few regions (such as Scotland, Spain (Almogavars)...) in examples when infantry was described actively fighting in melee, it was usually specifically mentioned to be militia, not part of feudal retinues, and this was pretty desperate situations. So what was norm and what was outlier?🧐 Just like Agincourt and Crecy. Point is, just like at Falkirk, they was sure that cavalry was all that they needed. Think about it, would it be the case if it wouldn't be mostly reliable tactics?😉 First it required archers, javeliners and slingers. Only when formation was already almost broken infantry AND cavalry attacked. Well, wording suggest that 'forced back' and 'dispersed' was both done by cavalry. Not sure more detailed description could be found.🤔 So far i only used two examples from outside medieval era, both by force which continued to use medieval military doctrine. Information from this period generally more reliable, and better researched, therefore useful for extrapolation.

And another question about Berroc, in BoS it stated they are stayed loyal to Vortigern until his defeat. But what if berocc grandfather get 19-20 in 451 (shifting to neutral) and then 19 in 453, turning dissident? And, is it possibly, when exodus to Brittany start, for grandfather to sent his family (including PK father) there, and stay behind, supporting Vortimer rebelion?

Point is, at first they attacked with cavalry only, not waiting for rest of the army to arrive. Only when schiltrons proved to be unexpectedly formidable, they decided to soften them up with missiles. Supposedly. As i said, numbers in such sources are unreliable. More importantly, description of the battle itself has no mention of english foot soldiers. Only cavalry and archers, while scottish infantry are prominently mentioned. Em, date are in the link 🤨 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wilton "Stephen attempted to break out from the siege, but his army was forced back and dispersed by a cavalry charge from Earl Robert's army" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alnwick_(1093) " and catching the Scottish army by surprise, the English knights attacked them before the ramparts of Alnwick" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alnwick_(1174) only cavalry on english side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baugé reverse Agincourt?😀 That what i found over few minutes, there probably more. That's definitely not correct. For starters, there is no such thing as pre-Mongol russia (i was specifically referring to chronicles from actual russia), there was Ruthenia/Rus'. Princes/boyars with retinues was mentioned even in oldest chronicles as part of an ancient tradition, of course with some support from militia (it should be mentioned that at least Novgorod militia had company of heavy cavalry, formed from citi patricians). While the northern Rus' for a long time relied mostly on scandinavian stile of combat, southerners quickly adopted the way of their nomadic adversaries (contrary to popular belief steppe nomads used more lancers then mounted archers).

BTW, i wanted to ask, are Berrocs are exclusively literally saxon, or can they have subtypes from "saxons!" book?🧐 aforementioned jutes as example.

1) Britain on KAP is a mix of english and french cultures, with centuries of history pressed into decades. And french very much used a lot of cavalry. 2) Agincourt and Crecy are in LMA, earlier english clearly used cavalry charges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lincoln_(1141) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn ("This was because the woodland gave Bruce and his foot soldiers an advantage since the English were very adept at cavalry"😉) For saxons (and scandinavians) it wasn't a choice, they had no training in mounted combat. It simply wasn't part of their culture. Interestingly, art in medieval russian chronicles almost never depict field armies any other way as cavalry. Few examples of soldiers on foot is during sieges/city fights, like crews of mongolian stone throwers.

That's my idea, when twins turn 7 they recieve minor random directed trait toward each other - + to Love (family), Honest, and maybe Trusting - around 1d6-2 or 1d6/2-1, with a minimum of 0.

Thing is, there are cities with residents having roman culture, both in new edition (several generation after fall of empire) and older one (another generation later)*. Yet, according to BoK&L, they too affected by Logres modifier. *There are examples of such things in real history too, like Sorbs in Germany. While they certainly was influenced by their germanic surrounding, they maintained their identity, language and traditions for over a millennium (not hyperbole).

🤨👇 Saxons are supposed to be more archaic, in fact, they was. During norman conquest even those who arrived on horses dismounted before battle. There was similar tendency with scandinavians - given that in viking age they primarily engaged in coastal raids and boarding (+generally more rough terrain) it understandable, although, there was curious episode in one saga, when viking returning from France after many years started fighting mounted, to everybody surprise 😅. More importantly, as demonstrated above, such cavalry heavy armies certainly was a thing, even after it has repeatedly demonstrated that good infantry can be useful.

There are ones which are far worse.. It's look quite different from outside West 😉. We have proverb out there "i wish i would have your problems".

Yup, i just checked it, regional modifiers are directly after cultural/religius, and wording are as Hzark10 said. (beside, modifiers for aforementioned cultures and regions aren't identical. In fact, aquitanian's partly cancel each other out😃 )

Dismounted cavalry is not infantry. Just like mounted infantry is not cavalry. Importantly, knight are supposed to be universal soldier. In KAP standard composition is 1/3 cavalry at most.

I talked quite a lot with people from similar culture. Curiously, many of them couldn't understand way anybody would even want to be represented - "government know better". For them it easier to adjust their needs to whims of ruling elite then vice versa. In fact, most of them believed that representative democracy is a scam. Of course, most historical cultures wasn't as extreme as modern autocracies... It's important to distinguish nominal power and actual one. As biggest example, largest muslim empire in history for more than a century was ruled by succession of women - mothers, wives, concubines (and one sister) of puppet "sultans". Not only they had no oficial status, legally many of them was slaves. As i said earlier, things like that happened in medieval Europe too. P.s. i noticed qurious trend... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_rulers_by_century

Not shure about that. I can't check book right now, but there are regional modifiers for Ireland, Aquitaine, and North, yet there separate cultural modifiers for irish, aquitanians and picts... 😑

1) i said "almost" purely cavalry. Don't forget that missile troops couldn't shoot in to melee, therefore played more supportive role for significant % of battle time; 2)That was 17th century battle, long after what historian call "military revolution" (radical increase of infantry importance), which affected even extremely conservative PLC. There other example frome same time, Battle of Klushino, where PLC force had at least 80% heavy cavalry (+some light cavalry). More relevant to the era was Battle of Brémule, which had only knights on both sides. Old=/=outdated. He was first person to analyse armies from the point of socio-economic sustainability, approach which many modern historians support. As my friend point out, when medieval sources list separate units, with points of origin and commander names, typically stated sizes match Delbrück calculations much closely then more broad descriptions from chronicles. So he say Delbrück is good starting point. My friend also gave example of Battle of Visby, when infantry force - militia from entire island, who had combat experience (baltic...) - was wiped out by cavalry based feudal army.

It understandable, and, in fact, interesting addition to the game. What made me worried was thought, if such changes was made for Cymri modifier, how legal would be cultural variations from other old books? Specific example i had in mind, community of loyalist jutes living in Logres and having wotanism version of "odinism: Tyr", combining cultural, religious and regional modifiers. (this combo seems interesting from both roleplaying and min-maxing standpoint 😃)

Well, in some realms this was the case, knight + mounted sergeant + squire, or knight + older (fighting) squire + younger squire (trainee/servant). (then again, there was variations with 4+ soldier/horseman...😅). That is interesting opinion i think. Aforementioned Battle of Kircholm (while out of medieval era, PLC was wery old fashioned - they used quazy medieval military structure until 18thc...). 2600 cavalryman (2100 heavy cavalry), 1000 infantry (played mostly supportive role). More appropriate example, again, Agincourt - while numbers are probably exaggerated, it stated that there was at least 5 times more Man-at-arms (i.e. knights and mounted sergeants [*], in this case mostly dismounted) than archers/crossbowmen. + armed servants who didn't participate in battle. Battle of Poitiers, in french side 2/3-3/4 Man-at-arms, on english 50%, almost all dismounted. In battles of Patay and of Formigny french seemingly had only Man-at-arms. French too seem to be quite old fashioned...😀 In fact, reading about a lot of medieval battles, i noticed that, while common infantry often mentioned, in description of action they rarely described doing anything (like in Battle of Crécy). It would be easy to assume that they was ignored by chronist in favor of aristocrats, yet it clearly not the case, for equally commoner archers/crossbowmen are mentioned regularly, and commoner infantry are described as decisive force occasionally (flemish and swiss militia, scottish schiltron infantry, longbowmen fighting in melee...). Similarly, Bayeux Tapestry depict norman army consisting of only cavalry and archers, while anglo-saxon as heaving mostly heavy infantry (and depicting as formidable opponents). It was made nearly century after depicted events, so probably represent newer style of combat. I again discussed aforementioned discrepancy with my historan friend, he recommended to read Hans Delbrück, and said that in many medieval battles infantry played more support role, like guarding camp/baggage train and the like. With some notable exceptions, mentioned above. He also said that perception of medieval warfare heavily warped by memory of 18th century, were conscripted peasant became basis of militaries, as opposed to middle and upper classes as it was earlier.