I am confused about the Serbs now . . .

[stockwellpete]

My revamped "new model" Ottoman army is doing much better against its historical European rivals now (I have given the Ottoman horse "light lances" and the Janissaries body "armour"), but the second and third medieval Serbian armies (1345-79 and 1380-1459) are still too strong. Actually it is like trying to stop an army of tanks with bows and arrows.

I know that the Serbian army was very powerful in the 14thC and Serbian Empire reached its zenith around 1350, but did they field such a high proportion of heavily armoured mounted knights in their armies? And how could the social structure of even a thriving medieval state sustain such an army?

If you look at the earliest Serbian list in "Eternal Empire", which is for the period 1300-1344 you will find there are no knights on offer at all, but you can choose upto 17 "superior", "armoured" cavalry (with lances).

Then for the middle army (1345-79) the choice suddenly jumps to up to 14 "superior" , "heavily armoured" knights (with lances) plus up to 2 "average", "heavily armoured" western mercenary knights - so a total of 16 knights altogether is possible

The same is true for the later list (1380-1459).

Now I understand that the Serbian horse did become more heavily armoured through the 14th and 15th C's and they ended up wearing full plate armour like their western European counterparts, but were there quite so many of them? Wasn't it more likely that a lot of the mounted Serbians were the equivalent of western sergeants who might be classified in the same way as the Bosnian knights in the lists ("superior", "armoured" knights) or maybe even classified separately as a mixture of "average", armoured" knights and "average", "armoured" cavalry. Otherwise, the Serbs will just be able to steamroller the Ottoman Turks every time by driving off their horse and then encircling their fortifications?

I have found this and the word "cavalry" is used. Not decisive, I know - and the Serbians definitely had plenty of knights in their army, but did they also have ordinary cavalry as well?

“Serbian armies were composed of lance-armed light and heavy cavalry, plus infantry (armed with spears, axes, and above all bows and, later, crossbows) and a baggage-train (komora) manned by shepherds and cattlemen referred to as Vlachs, probably indicating that they were Pindus Vlachs and Albanians, and perhaps Wallachians too.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Serbian_army

[stockwellpete]

I have found this now . . .

Serbian Empire Army
The core of the army consisted of noble cavalry (Vlastela) armed with lance and bow in the Byzantine syle. These were increasingly supplemented by western style knights. Mostly Germans in Dushan’s reign. Light horse were provided by Hungarian, Cuman or even Tartar mercenaries. Later in the period Serbian lance armed Gusars took over this role. The infantry still included lightly armed javelin troops although the bow and crossbow became the most important infantry weapon in the 14th century. A western style charge by the armoured cavalry and knights was the main tactic with the infantry used to follow up.

http://www.balkanhistory.com/medieval.htm

NB: Dusan was Emperor of Serbia from 1346 to 1355

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Empire

[stockwellpete]

Further issues and queries . . .

i) Early Serbian DAG army 1300-1344

a) the mounted Serbian noble cavalry (Vlastela) should have bows as well as lances. Then as 14thC proceeded these bows were replaced with crossbows so maybe a choice should be offered in the DAG?

b) apparently the Serbian light horse were known as "gusars" right across the period of the three Serbian lists in the DAG.

c) might not more than two mercenary knight units be allowed in the three lists? The medieval Serbian had very lucrative mining operations in its territory - silver and gold included so maybe 0-4 would be more appropriate than 0-2? And why would these knights only be rated "average"?

ii) Middle Serbian DAG army 1345-1379

a) on what basis can the Byzantines legitimately be called allies in this period? Although Serbia did offer to send some troops to aid the Byzantines in the early 1340s, the main thrust of Stefan Dusan's campaigns after 1345 (to his death in 1355) was against the Byzantine Empire. He was planning to attack Constantinople when he died suddenly.

b) it might be better to remove the Bosnian nobles from the main part of the DAG list and classify them as allies of Serbia. Bosnia was never incorporated into Serbian territory as far as I know and it existed as an independent state between 1377 and 1463. They did send troops to aid Serbia after 1355 and were present in very large numbers at the Battle of Kosovo 1389.

c) when were Tatars present in Serbian armies in this period? The main mercenaries seemed to have come from Germany, Hungary, Aragon and other parts of the Iberian peninsula.

d) shouldn't Serbian crossbowmen start to make an appearance in this list?

iii) Later Serbian army 1380-1459

ditto questions b), c) and d) from middle army.

[batesmotel]

If you have general questions about the army lists, you're better off asking them in the TT army list forum than here. In general Keith just translated the TT lists for the PC versions with a few simplifications to reduce some complicated list restrictions or options for the PC version.

Chris

[stockwellpete]

If you have general questions about the army lists, you're better off asking them in the TT army list forum than here. In general Keith just translated the TT lists for the PC versions with a few simplifications to reduce some complicated list restrictions or options for the PC version.

Chris

Yes, Chris. I understand that. I just ask here first before I do what you suggest in case there are FOG PC players who know a bit about these armies. Basically, I am just asking a series of questions - I'm not really sure of the answers as I am still finding out about the period and the armies covered by "Eternal Empire".