Suggests about adjust the Teutonic Knights in the current Imperial&Hungary army lists

[Dux Limitis]

First about the Hungary,they were being expelled from Hungary in 1225 AD by king Andrew II,so I think the High Medieval Hungary lists should split into 1200-1225 AD(Which have Teutonic Knights,although they first entered Hungary in 1211 AD,if you wanna be extremely accurate then need to split another list) and 1226-1319 AD(Which don't have Teutonic Knights),instead of a 1200-1319 AD list currently used.

About the Empire,although the Gold Bull of Rimini in 1226 AD granted the privilege of territory conquest for the Teutonic Knights in Prussia,but their status was the Emperor's vassal or not is still doubtful(Also,the Pietati Proximum in 1234 AD revealed that their territories were not fiefs of any other ecclesiastical and secular powers),and I've never read that they provided Knights for Emperor's campaigns.So I think a more conservative way is remove them from the current Imperial 1200-1319 AD list.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks. We will consider this.

[Dux Limitis]

Thanks. We will consider this.

Thanks mister.

[rbodleyscott]

About the Empire,although the Gold Bull of Rimini in 1226 AD granted the privilege of territory conquest for the Teutonic Knights in Prussia,but their status was the Emperor's vassal or not is still doubtful(Also,the Pietati Proximum in 1234 AD revealed that their territories were not fiefs of any other ecclesiastical and secular powers),and I've never read that they provided Knights for Emperor's campaigns.So I think a more conservative way is remove them from the current Imperial 1200-1319 AD list.

The tabletop army list on which the Imperial German list is based was researched by a German contributor, whose research is usually very detailed. He may have had access to evidence which we have not seen. I am loathe to remove them. Even if they weren't vassals, they had good reason to keep the Emperor sweet. They did apparently fight for the Empire later against the Hussites. There were also some at the Battle of Nicopolis.

[Dux Limitis]

About the Empire,although the Gold Bull of Rimini in 1226 AD granted the privilege of territory conquest for the Teutonic Knights in Prussia,but their status was the Emperor's vassal or not is still doubtful(Also,the Pietati Proximum in 1234 AD revealed that their territories were not fiefs of any other ecclesiastical and secular powers),and I've never read that they provided Knights for Emperor's campaigns.So I think a more conservative way is remove them from the current Imperial 1200-1319 AD list.

The tabletop army list on which the Imperial German list is based was researched by a German contributor, whose research is usually very detailed. He may have had access to evidence which we have not seen. I am loathe to remove them. Even if they weren't vassals, they had good reason to keep the Emperor sweet. They did apparently fight for the Empire later against the Hussites. There were also some at the Battle of Nicopolis.

I think it's a bit vague because no clearly evidences proved this(Or could he provide those evidences about this?Though I guess more like assume like"Have some reasons to keep the Emperor sweet"but I think not include provide knights for him,instead of some monetary&political supports).

And I think the Hussites War is a special factor because it's a Crusade against the heretics declared by the Pope Martin V in 1420 AD so the Teutonic Knights need to respond for it.Nicopolis is also a Crusade against the Ottomans but the Emperor not involved in it.

[rbodleyscott]

About the Empire,although the Gold Bull of Rimini in 1226 AD granted the privilege of territory conquest for the Teutonic Knights in Prussia,but their status was the Emperor's vassal or not is still doubtful(Also,the Pietati Proximum in 1234 AD revealed that their territories were not fiefs of any other ecclesiastical and secular powers),and I've never read that they provided Knights for Emperor's campaigns.So I think a more conservative way is remove them from the current Imperial 1200-1319 AD list.

The tabletop army list on which the Imperial German list is based was researched by a German contributor, whose research is usually very detailed. He may have had access to evidence which we have not seen. I am loathe to remove them. Even if they weren't vassals, they had good reason to keep the Emperor sweet. They did apparently fight for the Empire later against the Hussites.

I think it's a bit vague because no clearly evidences proved this(Or could he provide those evidence about this?Though I guess more like assume like"Have some reason to keep the Emperor sweet"but I think not include provide knights for him,instead of some monetary&political supports).

And I think the Hussites War is a special factor because it's a Crusade against the heretics declared by the Pope Martin V in 1420 AD so the Teutonic Knights need to respond for it.

You may be right. But for the present I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[Dux Limitis]

About the Empire,although the Gold Bull of Rimini in 1226 AD granted the privilege of territory conquest for the Teutonic Knights in Prussia,but their status was the Emperor's vassal or not is still doubtful(Also,the Pietati Proximum in 1234 AD revealed that their territories were not fiefs of any other ecclesiastical and secular powers),and I've never read that they provided Knights for Emperor's campaigns.So I think a more conservative way is remove them from the current Imperial 1200-1319 AD list.

The tabletop army list on which the Imperial German list is based was researched by a German contributor, whose research is usually very detailed. He may have had access to evidence which we have not seen.

I saw the tabletop army list which let the Imperial army use Teutonic Knights from the 1226 AD,I think it's clearly because of the Gold Bull of Rimini in the same year.But,as we already talked about on above,they're not vassal of the Emperor.And even the Bull granted the privilege of territory conquest for the Teutonic Knights in Prussia,but not asked their military services for the Emperor in return.One of the evidences(And it's representive)was the clash between the Rudolf I of Habsburg and Ottokar II of Bohemia.Both of them claimed themselves the legitimate heirs of the Empire.Finally they fought an open battle at Marchfeld,1278 AD,but neither of them had Teutonic Knights.

Hope they'll be removed in the future in a more conservative way,or you will see them against the Frenches,Bohemians,Italians,usurpers etc. in the Emperor's army.

[Horde]

I think the list should keep a unit with that stats, even if renamed, because I think it makes sense to have a small amounts of elite knights; it makes sense that, if you have six battle agregations of men-at-arms, one is better,represeting perhaps the household knight of the Emperor, a group that has fought some battles together, etcetera. It´s true that this can be representend with generals, but they can change units, so it´s not the same.

[Dux Limitis]

I think the list should keep a unit with that stats, even if renamed, because I think it makes sense to have a small amounts of elite knights; it makes sense that, if you have six battle agregations of men-at-arms, one is better,represeting perhaps the household knight of the Emperor, a group that has fought some battles together, etcetera. It´s true that this can be representend with generals, but they can change units, so it´s not the same.

Historical accurate should be placed at first,evidences prior to assumes.Did the household knights really more superior and fight more resilient than other feudal knights?More importantly is they're usually in really small amount.For example,the English.Henry III of the England had 30 or more knights receiving fees from the exchequer,which can treat as households.A muster list for the military household from 1225-1226 AD reveals a total force of 97 knights(And not all household members were knights,it was about 200 when their own retainers were include),plus,their qualities compared to the normal feudal knights are uncertain.

Also I guess most of the players who use the Medieval Germany won't purchase that much of mounted knights,as the large amounts of dismounted knights are their main advantage to the others(In the army list).

[Horde]

Historical accurate should be placed at first,evidences prior to assumes.Did the household knights really more superior and fight more resilient than other feudal knights?More importantly is they're usually in really small amount.For example,the English.Henry III of the England had 30 or more knights receiving fees from the exchequer,which can treat as households.A muster list for the military household from 1225-1226 AD reveals a total force of 97 knights(And not all household members were knights,it was about 200 when their own retainers were include),plus,their qualities compared to the normal feudal knights are uncertain.

Also I guess most of the players who use the Medieval Germany won't purchase that much of mounted knights,as the large amounts of dismounted knights are their main advantage to the others(In the army list).

Well, you have a point, but, FOG Medieval is also a video game, and there should be some concessions to gameplay and guesses. Do we have evidence that Teutonic Knigts fought better than other heavy cavalry german troops of the time? Or that "city knights" were worse than other knights? I don´t hink that you can give me a contemporary quote saying that (but I would be delighted to stand corrected). See, I can point some sources that makes differences between levy knights and more professional one, for instance, for instance, the knight of burgundian arriere ban of Philip the Bold are said to be so green that they couldn´t use lances effectively, but at the end of the day we have some anecdotal evidence here and there and we have to make inferences, I think.

[Dux Limitis]

Historical accurate should be placed at first,evidences prior to assumes.Did the household knights really more superior and fight more resilient than other feudal knights?More importantly is they're usually in really small amount.For example,the English.Henry III of the England had 30 or more knights receiving fees from the exchequer,which can treat as households.A muster list for the military household from 1225-1226 AD reveals a total force of 97 knights(And not all household members were knights,it was about 200 when their own retainers were include),plus,their qualities compared to the normal feudal knights are uncertain.

Also I guess most of the players who use the Medieval Germany won't purchase that much of mounted knights,as the large amounts of dismounted knights are their main advantage to the others(In the army list).

Well, you have a point, but, FOG Medieval is also a video game, and there should be some concessions to gameplay and guesses. Do we have evidence that Teutonic Knigts fought better than other heavy cavalry german troops of the time? Or that "city knights" were worse than other knights? I don´t hink that you can give me a contemporary quote saying that (but I would be delighted to stand corrected). See, I can point some sources that makes differences between levy knights and more professional one, for instance, for instance, the knight of burgundian arriere ban of Philip the Bold are said to be so green that they couldn´t use lances effectively, but at the end of the day we have some anecdotal evidence here and there and we have to make inferences, I think.

No clearly evidences about they fought better than other German knights at that time,but military order knights been granted highly superior quality in game because they trained more in normal time than the feudal knights,and they don't have "secular" life since they get into the order.City knights worse than feudal knights was due to their lack of training,relatively.Some of them were not even the real knights,as in German cities many burghers/rich merchants whose wealth was equal to the knightly class and able to armed themselves like knights,but lack of training,experiences,and morale.For the last point,indeed,that's why we can see some of the late MAAs in some nations' army lists only have average and poor qualities(Tabletop).

[Horde]

Yes, I get it, but what I mean is that there are no hard data that says that there was a better performance in those cases. Look to the Teutonic Knights: you read their ruleset and they don´t speak about training with arms and discipline, not about dedicating hours to warfare and formations, but about monastic vows, when to fast and how to collect alms (https://the-orb.arlima.net/encyclop/rel ... _rule.html). Many of them dedicated their time to administrative tasks that didn´t have anything to do with war, as other aristocrats; many of them didn´t even live in the frontier, but were bailifs and representatives in the order in places surrounded by Christians. So, 150 members of the order did punch harder that 150 German lay knights? I suppose so, but it´s a guess.

It´s the same with "city knights". I know less about the HRE, but in Castille the "city knights" were the heavy cavalry that came from the city communalities that occupied most of the territory that makes what is nowdays Castilla y León under the direct soverignity of the King, while there were other parts of the country that were governed by laical or clerical seigneurs, let´s say the Lord of Vizcaya or the archbishop of Santiago. But they could be also gentlemen with legal privileges (hidalgos), the cities had vast stretches of countryside, and it was in the cities were horsemanship and fighting sports were practised. And if you look at the Lordship of Vizcaya, it was also organised in smaller communal villages, so, why the guys who come from a place that is governed by a group of patricies would be less useful in war that the ones who come from a place that is governed by a prince? Why is a gentlemen who lives in Cordoba better for war that one who comes from a rural village in Galicia? As far as I know, it was not the case in the Reconquista. The men who guarded the frontier with the Moors were semi-professional forces.

And if you look later, in the War of the Conquest of Granada (XV century), we have an exact composition of the Castilian army. In this time it was conformed by the the Guards of Castile (a permanent army of 2.000 men at arms with heavy armour and 500 light cavalrymen, which was a recent innovation with this name, but which derived with older, even if not so numerous, gardes de corps of the King). Then you have cavalrymen who were pensionados (they got a small pay in peacetime), from villages and cities and pensionados which were aristocrats, but I don´t know if there was a real difference in performane, or even if they were set apart. And then, milicias. Some of them from cities, some from the rural countryside, some from the rural countryside governed from a city. So, in total there were thousands of horsemen, and I found natural that if they are divided in groups of a couple hundred men some will be better than others; but I´m not convinced that the worst should be "city ones".

And an afterthought, it´s a pleasure to debate this kind of things. Cheers!

[Dux Limitis]

Yes, I get it, but what I mean is that there are no hard data that says that there was a better performance in those cases. Look to the Teutonic Knights: you read their ruleset and they don´t speak about training with arms and discipline, not about dedicating hours to warfare and formations, but about monastic vows, when to fast and how to collect alms (https://the-orb.arlima.net/encyclop/rel ... _rule.html). Many of them dedicated their time to administrative tasks that didn´t have anything to do with war, as other aristocrats; many of them didn´t even live in the frontier, but were bailifs and representatives in the order in places surrounded by Christians. So, 150 members of the order did punch harder that 150 German lay knights? I suppose so, but it´s a guess.

It´s the same with "city knights". I know less about the HRE, but in Castille the "city knights" were the heavy cavalry that came from the city communalities that occupied most of the territory that makes what is nowdays Castilla y León under the direct soverignity of the King, while there were other parts of the country that were governed by laical or clerical seigneurs, let´s say the Lord of Vizcaya or the archbishop of Santiago. But they could be also gentlemen with legal privileges (hidalgos), the cities had vast stretches of countryside, and it was in the cities were horsemanship and fighting sports were practised. And if you look at the Lordship of Vizcaya, it was also organised in smaller communal villages, so, why the guys who come from a place that is governed by a group of patricies would be less useful in war that the ones who come from a place that is governed by a prince? Why is a gentlemen who lives in Cordoba better for war that one who comes from a rural village in Galicia? As far as I know, it was not the case in the Reconquista. The men who guarded the frontier with the Moors were semi-professional forces.

And if you look later, in the War of the Conquest of Granada (XV century), we have an exact composition of the Castilian army. In this time it was conformed by the the Guards of Castile (a permanent army of 2.000 men at arms with heavy armour and 500 light cavalrymen, which was a recent innovation with this name, but which derived with older, even if not so numerous, gardes de corps of the King). Then you have cavalrymen who were pensionados (they got a small pay in peacetime), from villages and cities and pensionados which were aristocrats, but I don´t know if there was a real difference in performane, or even if they were set apart. And then, milicias. Some of them from cities, some from the rural countryside, some from the rural countryside governed from a city. So, in total there were thousands of horsemen, and I found natural that if they are divided in groups of a couple hundred men some will be better than others; but I´m not convinced that the worst should be "city ones".

And an afterthought, it´s a pleasure to debate this kind of things. Cheers!

As the same of Teutonic Knights,the Rule of Templars didn't mention the military training too.But they got a lot of spare time in a day(6am-12am&3pm-before the dusk),presumably they were supposed to fit their military training into any parts of their spare time,as it was not usual the High Middle Ages European commanders to oversaw the training of their soldiers,same as the military orders.

For those "city knights" in Iberia,I think those who owned large countryside territories but dwelling in the city were "de facto"feudal knights.

If you talk about the later ones(Like the Guards of Castile),they were in the standing army,just like the later Ordonnance France,those MAAs were drilled professional soldiers,not either the city or feudal ones.