Slitherine

khurasan_miniatures:
Note that the list wasn't written as it is in order to "get the right effect", but solely because “it was based on fairly limited sources in rather a short time due to deadline pressure”, as the author put it.

So, as it is, those guys will hardly fight as they did. They were soldiers who favoured close-combat, usually charged their enemies but were also good shots.

Hazelbark:
Unlike the Portuguese, the Dutch are a plain Pike&Shot army, thus surely making them a competitive force on their own.

The Portuguese, as they are, not only are unhistorical but, on their own, they're not competitive. In order to be so they would need allies....

But please note that I don't care if a certain list is competitive or not. Supposedly, every list should be competitive, depending on how you use it and, of course, your luck.
What I really do care is if a list is accurate or not. As far as I know, the Mughal, the Japanese, the Colonial Dutch, etc., are pretty accurate lists; the Colonial Portuguese is not.
Therefore, IMHO, it should be corrected.

pippohispano wrote:Note that the list wasn't written as it is in order to "get the right effect", but solely because “it was based on fairly limited sources in rather a short time due to deadline pressure”, as the author put it.

Did Nik actually say that the list was written as it is solely due to having limited resources? The authors know the game, so they know how the armies will fight -- perhaps a few games with the list as written will provide some pleasant surprises! Dan Hazelwood seems to find it a good list as this book goes.

khurasan_miniatures wrote: Did Nik actually say that the list was written as it is solely due to having limited resources? The authors know the game, so they know how the armies will fight

Indeed. Although I will happily accept that trying to get the right effect from limited sources will probably give a different result than if fuller sources had been available to the writer.

@ Nick: Again, I must stress that the Portuguese are the ones to blame. They should divulge their translated History much more than they do.

Anyway, since you don't have the sources but I do (I read Portuguese, etc.), I'll try to correct the Colonial Portuguese list in order to give it the right feeling. I would gladly welcome your support in this task.

@ khurasan: Dan Hazelwood and I obviously disagree on this subject!
But like I said in the opening statements, it's not about the question of the list being "good" or not, but it's about the fact that it has too many mistakes, many errors that should be corrected. Maybe Dan missed this point...

pippohispano wrote:Maybe Dan missed this point...

Wouldnt be the first time and I am sure not the last.

pippohispano wrote:@ Nick: Again, I must stress that the Portuguese are the ones to blame. They should divulge their translated History much more than they do.

Anyway, since you don't have the sources but I do (I read Portuguese, etc.), I'll try to correct the Colonial Portuguese list in order to give it the right feeling. I would gladly welcome your support in this task.

Feel free to drop me an email about this - although I don't have time to do anything until May.

nikgaukroger wrote: Feel free to drop me an email about this - although I don't have time to do anything until May.

No worries. We need time to work this out, anyway. Thanks!

Delbruck wrote:Giving soldiers impact, melee, AND shooting ability seems to go against the grain of the FoG philosophy. The idea being that troops could not be skilled at everything. The best you get in FoGAM is bow*, lance (or impact foot), sword.

Russian Streltsy in 'Clash of Empires' have Arquebus (or Musket), Heavy weapon, Heavy weapon.

Weapon classification aside I still question the number of superior troops (up to half) in the list proposed above. Were they superior to the usual Europeans or is it their opponents who should have more poor troops and fewer average? Something like the Ming Chinese, Vietnamese, or, as a European example, Scots Covenanter.

Also what about the other colonial powers - the Dutch, French, English etc. They all had success against various 'native' armies so should they have half superior troops? I'm not sure being half way across the world and, with apologies to Blackadder, blasting away at pygmy women armed with sharpened mangoes necessarily qualifies.

Walter

waldo wrote:

Delbruck wrote:Giving soldiers impact, melee, AND shooting ability seems to go against the grain of the FoG philosophy. The idea being that troops could not be skilled at everything. The best you get in FoGAM is bow*, lance (or impact foot), sword.

Russian Streltsy in 'Clash of Empires' have Arquebus (or Musket), Heavy weapon, Heavy weapon.

Weapon classification aside I still question the number of superior troops (up to half) in the list proposed above.

That's what I'm determining right now. Up to half may be excessive, perhaps up to 1/3, and so far, without cavalry, the army is not as good as it looks.

waldo wrote:Were they superior to the usual Europeans or is it their opponents who should have more poor troops and fewer average? Something like the Ming Chinese, Vietnamese, or, as a European example, Scots Covenanter.

That's a side question. I'm not comparing the CP with the "usual Europeans", against which they didn't fought, but solely against their natural enemies (Indians, Malayans, etc.). Perhaps your right when you say that these should have more poor troops and fewer average, but since that was not the FOG Team's option, the CP should be changed accordingly.

waldo wrote:Also what about the other colonial powers - the Dutch, French, English etc. They all had success against various 'native' armies so should they have half superior troops? I'm not sure being half way across the world and, with apologies to Blackadder, blasting away at pygmy women armed with sharpened mangoes necessarily qualifies.

Walter

Let me see... the French and English in Asia and Africa…
In the second half of the 17th century the English were offered Tangiers (by the Portuguese), which they were forced to abandon due to constant Moroccan pressure (the Portuguese held on in Morocco from 1415 to 1758); and were offered Bombay (again, by the Portuguese), but it would take them a long time before they started to conquer vast stretches of land in India.

The French were expelled from South America by the Portuguese.

The Dutch had a modern army, even by Portuguese standards, and it was due to this “modern” efficiency, vast human resources, a better navy and most of all, the sinews of war, that they were able to defeat the Portuguese Empire in the East.

So, should these armies have half superior troops? That's something you should ask The FOG Team, not me.
But again, the Colonial Portuguese, as they are, not only are historically wrong but have no “plus” vs their enemies, which makes me question “how did they defeat so many enemies and built an Empire half way across the world if their troops were just as good and their enemie’s?”

waldo wrote:

Delbruck wrote:Giving soldiers impact, melee, AND shooting ability seems to go against the grain of the FoG philosophy. The idea being that troops could not be skilled at everything. The best you get in FoGAM is bow*, lance (or impact foot), sword.

Russian Streltsy in 'Clash of Empires' have Arquebus (or Musket), Heavy weapon, Heavy weapon.

Weapon classification aside I still question the number of superior troops (up to half) in the list proposed above. Were they superior to the usual Europeans or is it their opponents who should have more poor troops and fewer average? Something like the Ming Chinese, Vietnamese, or, as a European example, Scots Covenanter.

Also what about the other colonial powers - the Dutch, French, English etc. They all had success against various 'native' armies so should they have half superior troops? I'm not sure being half way across the world and, with apologies to Blackadder, blasting away at pygmy women armed with sharpened mangoes necessarily qualifies.

Walter

We should not underestimate the native peoples just because they were not so advanced technologically, if my history is not that bad, much later, with a much larger technology gap. Native armies still could cause serious problems to "civilised" armies.....Zulu wars for example.

pippohispano wrote:
Let me see... the French and English in Asia and Africa…
In the second half of the 17th century the English were offered Tangiers (by the Portuguese), which they were forced to abandon due to constant Moroccan pressure (the Portuguese held on in Morocco from 1415 to 1758)

Let me see...those same Moroccans that utterly destroyed the Portuguese army at the battle of Ksar El Kebir? I think you are twisting facts to accomodate your theory. As I said in a previous post, we only have portuguese sources for those colonial campaigns, so naturally the number of the enemies were greatly exagerated. Portuguese colonial armies were nothing extraordinary and for sure they would be easily beaten by a professional European army of the period in open battle. The advantage Portuguese had in East Asia was naval superiority that gave them superior strategic mobility, and the modern building technics of fortification that allowed them to defend the fortresses their empire.

Aryaman wrote:

pippohispano wrote: Let me see...those same Moroccans that utterly destroyed the Portuguese army at the battle of Ksar El Kebir? I think you are twisting facts to accomodate your theory.

Yes, those same Moroccans. They utterly destroyed a Portuguese army, whose last units to stand groud were, by the way, Portuguese (the Spanish and German contingets didn't last so long), but took a bit longer to evict the Portuguese from their land. On the other hand, it took the Moroccans a few years to expell the English from Tangiers (a well built fortress, by the way).

Aryaman wrote:

pippohispano wrote: As I said in a previous post, we only have portuguese sources for those colonial campaigns, so naturally the number of the enemies were greatly exagerated.

Really?!? Are you that sure? Do you have any contemporay data that we should know of?

Aryaman wrote:

Interesting. So, the Portuguese had superior building technics ... and how exactly this this allowed them to conquer foreign lands such as Goa, Muscat, Malacca, Oman, Ormuz, etc.? Naval superiority alone is not enough, you need a better army.
So, you say that the Colonial Portuguese could be easily beaten by a professional European army. That's interesting because the Dutch WIC, whose armies were both modern and professional, were beatten in two separate field battles and later evicted from Brazil.
Perhaps you wanted to say a "professional European army" such as the Gustavian Swedish. That, I'm afraid, is just speculation. I do prefer facts. And the fact is that the Portuguese were superior, even in land confrontation, to most of their natural foes. Were not for that and they wouldn't have built an Empire.

pippohispano wrote:
Yes, those same Moroccans. They utterly destroyed a Portuguese army, whose last units to stand groud were, by the way, Portuguese (the Spanish and German contingets didn't last so long), but took a bit longer to evict the Portuguese from their land. On the other hand, it took the Moroccans a few years to expell the English from Tangiers (a well built fortress, by the way).

So, the Portuguese were beaten by that "inferior" Moroccan army, that is what I mean. Mind also that while Tangiers was not worth the cost of keeping it for the English, so they didn´t commit enough resources.

pippohispano wrote: Really?!? Are you that sure? Do you have any contemporay data that we should know of?

It is just common sense, plus lot of historical examples.

pippohispano wrote: So, you say that the Colonial Portuguese could be easily beaten by a professional European army. That's interesting because the Dutch WIC, whose armies were both modern and professional, were beatten in two separate field battles and later evicted from Brazil.
Perhaps you wanted to say a "professional European army" such as the Gustavian Swedish. That, I'm afraid, is just speculation. I do prefer facts. And the fact is that the Portuguese were superior, even in land confrontation, to most of their natural foes. Were not for that and they wouldn't have built an Empire.

I think that would be battles against colonial Dutch armies, not European armies as they were fielded in the battlefields of Europe.

Aryaman wrote: So, the Portuguese were beaten by that "inferior" Moroccan army, that is what I mean.

Yes, 9000 men were beaten by at least 40.000. All sources agree on that. Unless, of course, you can present us with diferent data.
By the way, I missed the part where you comment the fact that the Spanish and German contingents (professional Europeans!) were beaten by the "inferior" Moroccans...

Aryaman wrote:

pippohispano wrote: Really?!? Are you that sure? Do you have any contemporay data that we should know of?

It is just common sense, plus lot of historical examples.

A lot of historical examples?
Common sense?
Sorry but you have to work harder that that.
Diogo do Couto and João de Barros even took care to confront the views of the Portuguese and native participants in the event they reported in their "Décadas". João Ribeiro accurately described Dutch formations, who coincide with what we know about contemporary military ORBAT. Etc. etc.
And by the way, regarding numbers, that’s something Portugal never had. Read C. R. Boxer who talks about how many men the Portuguese had in the East (and I’m sure he read much more about this subject than both of us did!)

pippohispano wrote: So, you say that the Colonial Portuguese could be easily beaten by a professional European army. That's interesting because the Dutch WIC, whose armies were both modern and professional, were beatten in two separate field battles and later evicted from Brazil.
Perhaps you wanted to say a "professional European army" such as the Gustavian Swedish. That, I'm afraid, is just speculation. I do prefer facts. And the fact is that the Portuguese were superior, even in land confrontation, to most of their natural foes. Were not for that and they wouldn't have built an Empire.

I think that would be battles against colonial Dutch armies, not European armies as they were fielded in the battlefields of Europe.[/quote]

For your information, the "colonial Dutch" armies were modeled exactly in the same pattern as the European Dutch army, pike&shot included (plus Javanese, Sinhalese or American Indians). The only thing they didn't have was cavalry.
So, if you want to talk about History, about what really happened, what we can be sure of, then we may talk ONLY about the Dutch, who had a “professional European army”, and defeated - and were defeated by - the Portuguese: the VOC won in Asia, the WIC lost in Brazil and Africa.
The major land battles and confrontations involving these Companies vs the Portuguese took place in Ceylon (I’ve already posted the description of at least two of these battles) and the well known battles of the Guararapes.
This is the only real, historical data on this subject (“professional European armies” vs Colonial Portuguese).
All the rest is nothing more than SciFi.

The point – and again I must stress this because it seems that you want to take this discussion into another direction – is to compare the Portuguese vs their historical foes.
The Portuguese confronted native Americans, Angolans, Arabs, Indians, Malayans, “Chinese” pirates and there’s even a record of a confrontation between Portuguese and Japanese in 1610 (it took 3 days for the Japanese to storm a trading ship - Madre de Deus - blocked in Nagasaki).
Many of these actions were naval battles; many were also sieges (the Portuguese being the besieged); and many were also field battles and land attacks against fortresses and cities performed by the Portuguese. They didn’t always won. But for the most part, they did.
If the Portuguese were nothing special, they wouldn’t have been able to build and secure an Empire.
Naval superiority alone is not enough to achieve this. Unless you also have population, technological or human superiority, one can hardly support his conquests.
Regarding population surplus, read Boxer.
In terms of technology, the Portuguese had better ships (useless in land battles) and guns, but not arquebuses. In fact, the Indian matchlocks were so good that many Goese weaponsmiths were sent to Lisbon to lend their services to the Lisbon’s Arsenal. And as for the Turkish weapons the Portuguese often faced, they were simply better.

So much for naval, technological and numerical superiority.

So, what else did the Portuguese had that allowed them to defeat all those “native” enemies? And is that “something” reflected in the list? I don’t think so.

Can you give us a solution?

Our discussion is getting very complicated beacuse we are addressing several issues at the time, so I will try to clarify my position.
1) You say that Portuguese faced larger enemy armies and defeat them regularly, so that feature should be in the game. My answer is that the sources for those enemies are only Protuguese, and so biased. There are many historical examples of that, for instance Christian sources put the Ottoman army at the siege of Buda as 300.000 strong, while Ottoman documental records showed just 11.000. Unfortunately we don´t have those sources for the enemies of the Portuguese.

2) A solution in game terms is like the one was already taken for the Persian armies of Darius III. If Greek sources (the only available) were taken to the letter, they had to be enormously large and of very poor rate to face the Macedonians, in fact the list include a good number of superior units.The armies are accordingly only marginally larger than Macedonians in numbers, which is for sure much more accurate.
The solution is, you have to forget those tales of "winning against all odds", the side that wins a battle usually have good odds.

Aryaman wrote:Our discussion is getting very complicated beacuse we are addressing several issues at the time, so I will try to clarify my position.
1) You say that Portuguese faced larger enemy armies and defeat them regularly, so that feature should be in the game. My answer is that the sources for those enemies are only Protuguese, and so biased. There are many historical examples of that, for instance Christian sources put the Ottoman army at the siege of Buda as 300.000 strong, while Ottoman documental records showed just 11.000. Unfortunately we don´t have those sources for the enemies of the Portuguese.

2) A solution in game terms is like the one was already taken for the Persian armies of Darius III. If Greek sources (the only available) were taken to the letter, they had to be enormously large and of very poor rate to face the Macedonians, in fact the list include a good number of superior units.The armies are accordingly only marginally larger than Macedonians in numbers, which is for sure much more accurate.
The solution is, you have to forget those tales of "winning against all odds", the side that wins a battle usually have good odds.

1) Following your theory Barbarians could also be superior to Romans, as there are no Barbarian sources. The same apply for most of the armies included in FOG AM and many in FOG R.
2) Tell me the sources that justify native armies like Hawaian being so superior. What battles did they fought?

Your position of "I don't believe in original sources" leads us to a position of, what are we doing simulating ancient battles? If our sources are so useless, we would be better off playing fantasy wargames!

Sorry but I take historical sources to be more valuable (at least their public or someone had to think they were believeble) then some unfounded speculations without any sources at all.

Aryaman wrote:Our discussion is getting very complicated beacuse we are addressing several issues at the time, so I will try to clarify my position.
1) You say that Portuguese faced larger enemy armies and defeat them regularly, so that feature should be in the game. My answer is that the sources for those enemies are only Portuguese, and so [they are] biased. There are many historical examples of that, for instance Christian sources put the Ottoman army at the siege of Buda as 300.000 strong, while Ottoman documental records showed just 11.000. Unfortunately we don´t have those sources for the enemies of the Portuguese.

You are using other disparate examples to support your statement that Portuguese sources are wrong. However, like I said, the most important of those sources come from people who were interested in facts alone, not in fairytales. Diogo do Couto, for instance, was one of those historians who told the truth no matter what, and suffered accordingly.
Portuguese sources are biased? OK, so in that case, support your claims with accurate data, namely places and dates for particular events, exact (and not biased) figures, etc.. Oh, and don’t forget to tell us your sources.
And by the way, how do you know that Ottoman sources aren't biased as well?

Aryaman wrote:2) A solution in game terms is like the one was already taken for the Persian armies of Darius III. If Greek sources (the only available) were taken to the letter, they had to be enormously large and of very poor rate to face the Macedonians, in fact the list include a good number of superior units. The armies are accordingly only marginally larger than Macedonians in numbers, which is for sure much more accurate.
The solution is, you have to forget those tales of "winning against all odds", the side that wins a battle usually have good odds.

Very well. In that case, what are the odds for an army mustering Average, Arquebus, Impact Foot Warriors against:
Armoured, Superior, Bow, Swordsmen cavalry supported by Elephants and Average Swordsmen Warriors (Muslim Indians);
Average, Impact Foot, Swordsmen Warriors supported by either Average arquebusiers or archers (Malaccans);
Average, Impact Foot/Light Spear, Swordsmen supported by Superior, Light Lancers, Swordsmen cavalry (Horn of Africa),
Average, ½ Arquebus, ½ Impact Foot Swordsmen (Wokou pirates)?
Let me guess: their good odds come from the fact that they can shoot their arquebuses at 3 MU’s…

I am not discarding Portuguese sources specifically, i think they are excellent, on Portuguese troops. Just that in general sources on enemy troops are generally biased and even if they are balanced they lack adequate sources of info. Imagine how a Portuguese source, even from a eyewitness, can accurately know how many enemies they fought, counting enemies is not easy, it never was.
Regarding Ottoman sources, they are more credible because they are payrrolls, even so they are probably exagerated by the ghost soldier factor...

If course it never was easy to count enemies, but these descriptions are what you have and that’s what you can count with.
Like I said, the most relevant sources on this particular subject are the Décadas, written by two authors who did their best to check their sources, Portuguese or not.
It is also noteworthy that these Portuguese sources usually put enemy numbers bellow the 20.000, something that was easily attainable in India. They could have done like the Greeks and said that the armies of the Zamorin of Calicut, or Adilxa’s, or Muhammad Grang’s, numbered hundreds of thousands. They did not.
For instance, Coutinho refers to the armies of Coge Sofar (Khwaja Safar) in the first siege of Diu as numbering 4.000 men and the total enemy forces at around 20.000. It’s a lot of men, but not huge numbers. For a decent Decan Sultanate, 20.000 men would be piece of cake.
When Castanhoso describes the first battle of Jarte (4th April 1542), he puts the enemies’ figures at 1500 horses, 15.000 foot and 200 Turks. Even if he was exaggerating (as an eyewitness), even if he quadrupled (!) the figures, they would still be around 4000 Muslims while the Portuguese were mere 400…

So, in the end, even counting with supposed exaggerations, the Portuguese would still be outnumbered 1 to 2, 1 to 5, 1 to 10... and often won. What are the odds for this, presuming that they are all Average, Crossbow (Arquebus from 1525), Impact Foot (until 1626)?

An army of 20.000 for any Decan Sultanate was only available in literature. Any time we have documentary evidence, the Indian armies, like Ottoman armies, are quite smaller than literary sources suggest. Mind that even in Europe we have this kind of inbalance between literary and documentary sources, medieval European armies are consistently put in the ten of thousands, while documentary records show them to be a few thousands at most.