Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Field of Glory II: Medieval

Moderator: rbodleyscott

newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

Thank you, the later Indian Muslim armies look perfect! I can't wait to play them. I think all the elements, the Jandars (Guard Cavalry), Jagirdars (Landed Chiefs), Silahdars (Salaried Cavalymen) and Jamadars (Foreign Mercenaries), Paiks (Infantry) etc are perfectly represented.

As for the Rajput roster, the later one is perfect. The early Rajput Army is dated from 1050 onwards, by this time the Turco-Persian Ghazvanids were already settled in Punjab for over half a century, and as such I would think that the armor of the elite Rajputs, especially from the Western and North Western areas would have adopted to some Persian influences. It should be noted that coat of mail was almost certainly widespread enough from the 13th century since we do not find any account pointing to any superiority or inferiority in armor between the two groups, unlike the Bow and Sword discourses in the texts that I cited earlier.

PS: Also it should be mentioned that Western Rajputs (and the 'Proto-Rajputs') had been fighting and later trading extensively with the Arabs and later the Islamicate State of Sindh since the 8th century, hence again, that combined with the absence of any comments on disparity between armors by the Sultanate sources, may indicate early adaptation by at least the Western Rajputs.

So I'm uncertain whether 1050-1339 Rajput should have Armored Indian Lancers or Superior Indian Lancers (with lesser armor). One compromise could be that the cap of Armored Indian Lancers be limited to 8 or 6 for the 1050 Rajput Army, with Indian Lancer cap being around 12 or 14 (12 if Armored Indian Lancer is 8, 14 if it is 6) to show the early stages of armor adaptation.

I will leave this to your call, either way all the Indian Army Lists look excellent right now.
Last edited by newbiesoldat on Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

Ok, just went through the available units in the game and I think that a Purabiya Rajput unit may be created with the Muslim Spearmen, lesser in quality than the Veteran Muslim Spearmen representing the Sultan's elite Paik regiments, but more numerous and cheaper. The later Indian Muslims (1340 and 1470) should have them at a cap of around 8, while the Rajputs should have them at a cap of 4, and finally Indian North (Hindu) should have around 8.

Now I haven't gone any primary texts regarding them, but there are accounts of some Western Rajput regional groups, such as the Jodhpur and Umarkot Rajputs, who lacked good horses at the time, often dismounted and fought as spearmen. Muntakhab ul Tawarikh, written by Badauni in the reign of Mughal Emperor Akbar (1556-1606), states that the Jodhpur Rathores at the Battle of Sammel (1540s I think), being hopelessly outnumbered due to desertions and defections, and having failed to make a night attack on the Sur Army (Indo-Afghans), dismounted the next day, arranged themselves in a compact shield wall (using circular Dhal shields) with their Barchha spears protruding. They had also tied themselves together with their sashes, making a very compact body. This may, in the absence of any contradicting primary source, provide us with a model of infantry combat amongst groups such as Purabiyas who did not have adequate horses and thus served as infantrymen.

Let me know what you think, and if this is at all feasible.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27979
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

newbiesoldat wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:29 am As for the Rajput roster, the later one is perfect.

................It should be noted that coat of mail was almost certainly widespread enough from the 13th century since we do not find any account pointing to any superiority or inferiority in armor between the two groups, unlike the Bow and Sword discourses in the texts that I cited earlier.

.................

So I'm uncertain whether 1050-1339 Rajput should have Armored Indian Lancers or Superior Indian Lancers (with lesser armor). One compromise could be that the cap of Armored Indian Lancers be limited to 8 or 6 for the 1050 Rajput Army, with Indian Lancer cap being around 12 or 14 (12 if Armored Indian Lancer is 8, 14 if it is 6) to show the early stages of armor adaptation.
It is a tough call, but the 13th century is half-way through the period covered by the list.

As a new player, I think you are over-estimating the importance of Armour under the rules. In reality Quality is much more important.

The difference between the armour of Armoured Indian Lancers and Superior Indian Lancers is +13 POA in Melee only. (Armour does not affect Impact). The difference in shooting casualties between Armour and Some Armour won't be huge either.

The difference between Superior and Average is +50 POA at Impact and in Melee.

So switching the early Rajputs to Armoured Indian Lancers, but reducing their numbers, would make the army significantly worse.

I am therefore inclined to leave the earlier list alone.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27979
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

newbiesoldat wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:07 am Ok, just went through the available units in the game and I think that a Purabiya Rajput unit may be created with the Muslim Spearmen, lesser in quality than the Veteran Muslim Spearmen representing the Sultan's elite Paik regiments, but more numerous and cheaper. The later Indian Muslims (1340 and 1470) should have them at a cap of around 8, while the Rajputs should have them at a cap of 4, and finally Indian North (Hindu) should have around 8.
OK, but there is currently no Indian (North Hindu) list after 1300. (Because, with my limited sources, I was unable to find evidence of subtantial Hindu states existing in North India after 1300). What states would such a list represent?
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27979
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

Here is what I currently have for the later lists:


Muslim2.jpg
Muslim2.jpg (164.33 KiB) Viewed 821 times

Muslim3.jpg
Muslim3.jpg (162.16 KiB) Viewed 821 times


Rajput2.jpg
Rajput2.jpg (135.61 KiB) Viewed 821 times
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

rbodleyscott wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 5:56 am
newbiesoldat wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:29 am As for the Rajput roster, the later one is perfect.

................It should be noted that coat of mail was almost certainly widespread enough from the 13th century since we do not find any account pointing to any superiority or inferiority in armor between the two groups, unlike the Bow and Sword discourses in the texts that I cited earlier.

.................

So I'm uncertain whether 1050-1339 Rajput should have Armored Indian Lancers or Superior Indian Lancers (with lesser armor). One compromise could be that the cap of Armored Indian Lancers be limited to 8 or 6 for the 1050 Rajput Army, with Indian Lancer cap being around 12 or 14 (12 if Armored Indian Lancer is 8, 14 if it is 6) to show the early stages of armor adaptation.
It is a tough call, but the 13th century is half-way through the period covered by the list.

As a new player, I think you are over-estimating the importance of Armour under the rules. In reality Quality is much more important.

The difference between the armour of Armoured Indian Lancers and Superior Indian Lancers is +13 POA in Melee only. (Armour does not affect Impact). The difference in shooting casualties between Armour and Some Armour won't be huge either.

The difference between Superior and Average is +50 POA at Impact and in Melee.

So switching the early Rajputs to Armoured Indian Lancers, but reducing their numbers, would make the army significantly worse.

I am therefore inclined to leave the earlier list alone.

Your call of course.

Though I would still say that Western Rajputs, bordering the Ghazvanids and the Sindh, should have Armored Indian Lancers. The Persian sources that I cited when discussing the battle of Tarain in 1192 and the later battles between the Turks and Indians (Rajput states), do not mention any armor disparity, and it is to be noted that the Chauhans of Ajmer had been actively fighting the Ghazvanids, another Turco-Persian group, prior to the Ghurid take over of the area. That is why I think any Western Rajput Army post Mahmud Ghaznavi (d. 1030), should have more armor.

Also following up on that, maybe the rest of Indian Hindu Armies of the North should have Superior Indian Lancers, while the Rajputs should have Armored Indian Lancers, since the latter are representing the Western States and principalities in more active military, economic and cultural contact with the Persianate world. Also while the rest of India is more humid, discouraging more armor, the arid zones of the west are more akin to the Persianate areas. I think this will better reflect the variations between various Indian armies of the period.

The Sultanate sources when encountering new enemies often mention their peculiarities, like against the South Indians, I think Amir Khusrau, or one of the other writers, I don't remember for sure, mentions how their horsemen only used lance and sword, which probably was a peculiarity for the Sultanate observers, just as they mention the inferiority of the Indian bow used by North Indian Cavalry. Therefore, any appreciable differences in armor would've been mentions by these sources if we keep to the pattern in these accounts.

I think that Armoured Indian Lancers would be a safer bet for the Rajput especially as the list starts from 1050, with a cap of 6 or 8.

I'm a bit of a historical purist, and if in case the Rajput army of 1050 does gets weaker due lower capped with Armoured Indian Lancers than High Capped and Cheaper Superior Indian Lancers, then I think that would still be fine, since that would also be reflective of history where only a few Rajput States were able give a solid resistance to the Sultanate till 1350, which also crumbled at the beginning of the early 14th century. The new emerging Rajput states, starting from 1337 onwards were without any doubt stronger and far more militaristic in nature compared to their predecessors. The sheer increase in the number of pitched battles, and offensive conquests and annexations by the Rajputs from 1350 onwards show ability to marshal larger military resources and manpower.

So again a weaker 1050 Rajput Army List would not be an issue in my opinion.

I think with this I will conclude these discussions, the rest is up to you since you must also take into consideration the questions of playability as well though consider the possible variation we can have by using Armoured Indian Lancers as an exclusive for Rajputs and Indian Muslims, with Superior Indian Lancers for the rest of Indian Hindu North. I must thank you again for devoting so much time and effort to my posts, I'm truly appreciative of it.
Last edited by newbiesoldat on Fri Jun 23, 2023 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

rbodleyscott wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 6:35 am
newbiesoldat wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:07 am Ok, just went through the available units in the game and I think that a Purabiya Rajput unit may be created with the Muslim Spearmen, lesser in quality than the Veteran Muslim Spearmen representing the Sultan's elite Paik regiments, but more numerous and cheaper. The later Indian Muslims (1340 and 1470) should have them at a cap of around 8, while the Rajputs should have them at a cap of 4, and finally Indian North (Hindu) should have around 8.
OK, but there is currently no Indian (North Hindu) list after 1300. (Because, with my limited sources, I was unable to find evidence of subtantial Hindu states existing in North India after 1300). What states would such a list represent?

Well, you had states such as Kangra State, Tomaras of Gwalior, Bundelas of Bundelkhand and the Garha Manda state and some more, but yes I don't think an entire list can be made on them, besides they all had different military systems.
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

rbodleyscott wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 6:37 am Here is what I currently have for the later lists:



Muslim2.jpg



Muslim3.jpg




Rajput2.jpg

These lists are absolutely perfect, I couldn't ask for more! I can't wait to try them out!
fogman
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1773
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by fogman »

"Though I would still say that Western Rajputs, bordering the Ghazvanids and the Sindh, should have Armored Indian Lancers. The Persian sources that I cited when discussing the battle of Tarain in 1192 and the later battles between the Turks and Indians (Rajput states),"

I have an interest in that battle. What are the Persian sources you are referring to? Are there any accessible Indian sources also?
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

fogman wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 1:39 pm "Though I would still say that Western Rajputs, bordering the Ghazvanids and the Sindh, should have Armored Indian Lancers. The Persian sources that I cited when discussing the battle of Tarain in 1192 and the later battles between the Turks and Indians (Rajput states),"

I have an interest in that battle. What are the Persian sources you are referring to? Are there any accessible Indian sources also?
So the most important source is Tabaqat i Nasiri by Minhaj ul Siraj, a near contemporary source, some later sources like Tarikh i Ferishta also add some details. Though Fakhr i Mudabbir's account is the earliest and also discusses the weaponry, stating that Indian bows (Kaman i Hind) had lesser range than the Turkic bows, his work Adabul Harb also talks about the weakness of feudal levy system in comparison with professional armies.

So as per these sources, Mohammad of Ghor had made an elaborate plan to avenge his earlier defeat in the first battle of Tarain. He divided his army into 5 divisions, 4 of light horse archers, and a reserve division of around 12000 heavy Ghulam lancers. Prithviraj Chauhan, the King of the Chauhan Rajput Kingdom of Ajmer, was apparently lulled into complacency by peace negotiations and overconfidence on account of his earlier victory over the Ghurids, as per these sources. The Ghurids then made a sudden attack at dawn, catching the Rajputs completely unaware, with several casualties before even the Ghurid attack was pushed back. The Rajput forces came out of their camp, disoriented. Minhaj tells us that Mohammad of Ghor carefully instructed his 4 light horse divisions to keep the Rajputs in play by peppering them with archery and attack them from multiple sides, and soon as they pursued one division, they would turn and attack, and each division would in turns attack from different directions. Thus, the Rajputs had allowed themselves to be encircled by the Turkic Cavalry, which would prove a huge disaster for them. The Turkic Light Cavalry kept the Rajputs engaged in desultory warfare, then as both sides began to tired, the Turkic light cavalry attacked the Rajputs. During all this time, Mohammad had kept his elite Ghulams in reserve, and these fresh troops were now sent, as the demoralized and fatigued Rajputs, having been surprised and then surrounded, were finally charged and broken by these heavy cavalrymen. The numbers for the battle given in all medieval sources are wild and unrealistic, with the most common figure being that Rapjuts had 300000 Cavalry and over 500 or 1000 elephants, and the Ghurids having some 120000-150000 cavalry.
Last edited by newbiesoldat on Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

fogman wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 1:39 pm "Though I would still say that Western Rajputs, bordering the Ghazvanids and the Sindh, should have Armored Indian Lancers. The Persian sources that I cited when discussing the battle of Tarain in 1192 and the later battles between the Turks and Indians (Rajput states),"

I have an interest in that battle. What are the Persian sources you are referring to? Are there any accessible Indian sources also?
I think you can find the English translations for Tabaqat i Nasiri and Tarikh i Ferishta on the internet.
SimonLancaster
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by SimonLancaster »

newbiesoldat wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:33 pm
fogman wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 1:39 pm "Though I would still say that Western Rajputs, bordering the Ghazvanids and the Sindh, should have Armored Indian Lancers. The Persian sources that I cited when discussing the battle of Tarain in 1192 and the later battles between the Turks and Indians (Rajput states),"

I have an interest in that battle. What are the Persian sources you are referring to? Are there any accessible Indian sources also?
So the most important source is Tabaqat i Nasiri by Minhaj ul Siraj, a near contemporary source, some later sources like Tarikh i Ferishta also add some details. Though Fakhr i Mudabbir's account is the earliest and also discusses the weaponry, stating that Indian bows (Kaman i Hind) had lesser range than the Turkic bows, his work Adabul Harb also talks about the weakness of feudal levy system in comparison with professional armies.

So as per these sources, Mohammad of Ghor had made an elaborate plan to avenge his earlier defeat in the first battle of Tarain. He divided his army into 5 divisions, 4 of light horse archers, and a reserve division of around 12000 heavy Ghulam lancers. Prithviraj Chauhan, the King of the Chauhan Rajput Kingdom of Ajmer, was apparently lulled into complacency by peace negotiations and overconfidence on account of his earlier victory over the Ghurids, as per these sources. The Ghurids then made a sudden attack at dawn, catching the Rajputs completely unaware, with several casualties before even the Ghurid attack was pushed back. The Rajput forces came out of their camp, disoriented. Minhaj tells us that Mohammad of Ghor carefully instructed his 4 light horse divisions to keep the Rajputs in play by peppering them with archery and attack them from multiple sides, and soon as they pursued one division, they would turn and attack, and each division would in turns attack from different directions. Thus, the Rajputs had allowed themselves to be encircled by the Turkic Cavalry, which would prove a huge disaster for them. The Turkic Light Cavalry kept the Rajputs engaged in desultory warfare, then as both sides began to tired, the Turkic light cavalry attacked the Rajputs. During all this time, Mohammad had kept his elite Ghulams in reserve, and these fresh troops were now sent, as the demoralized and fatigued Rajputs, having been surprised and then surrounded, were finally charged and broken by these heavy cavalrymen. The numbers for the battle given in all medieval sources are wild and unrealistic, with the most common figure being that Rapjuts had 300000 Cavalry and over 500 or 1000 elephants, and the Ghurids having some 120000-150000 cavalry.
I don’t know much about this period. But, are you seriously saying that the Rajputs had 300,000 cavalry and 1,000 elephants on the battlefield? That seems like huge numbers!
YouTube channel for Field of Glory 2: Ancients and Medieval.

https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

SimonLancaster wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:23 pm
newbiesoldat wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:33 pm
fogman wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 1:39 pm "Though I would still say that Western Rajputs, bordering the Ghazvanids and the Sindh, should have Armored Indian Lancers. The Persian sources that I cited when discussing the battle of Tarain in 1192 and the later battles between the Turks and Indians (Rajput states),"

I have an interest in that battle. What are the Persian sources you are referring to? Are there any accessible Indian sources also?
So the most important source is Tabaqat i Nasiri by Minhaj ul Siraj, a near contemporary source, some later sources like Tarikh i Ferishta also add some details. Though Fakhr i Mudabbir's account is the earliest and also discusses the weaponry, stating that Indian bows (Kaman i Hind) had lesser range than the Turkic bows, his work Adabul Harb also talks about the weakness of feudal levy system in comparison with professional armies.

So as per these sources, Mohammad of Ghor had made an elaborate plan to avenge his earlier defeat in the first battle of Tarain. He divided his army into 5 divisions, 4 of light horse archers, and a reserve division of around 12000 heavy Ghulam lancers. Prithviraj Chauhan, the King of the Chauhan Rajput Kingdom of Ajmer, was apparently lulled into complacency by peace negotiations and overconfidence on account of his earlier victory over the Ghurids, as per these sources. The Ghurids then made a sudden attack at dawn, catching the Rajputs completely unaware, with several casualties before even the Ghurid attack was pushed back. The Rajput forces came out of their camp, disoriented. Minhaj tells us that Mohammad of Ghor carefully instructed his 4 light horse divisions to keep the Rajputs in play by peppering them with archery and attack them from multiple sides, and soon as they pursued one division, they would turn and attack, and each division would in turns attack from different directions. Thus, the Rajputs had allowed themselves to be encircled by the Turkic Cavalry, which would prove a huge disaster for them. The Turkic Light Cavalry kept the Rajputs engaged in desultory warfare, then as both sides began to tired, the Turkic light cavalry attacked the Rajputs. During all this time, Mohammad had kept his elite Ghulams in reserve, and these fresh troops were now sent, as the demoralized and fatigued Rajputs, having been surprised and then surrounded, were finally charged and broken by these heavy cavalrymen. The numbers for the battle given in all medieval sources are wild and unrealistic, with the most common figure being that Rapjuts had 300000 Cavalry and over 500 or 1000 elephants, and the Ghurids having some 120000-150000 cavalry.
I don’t know much about this period. But, are you seriously saying that the Rajputs had 300,000 cavalry and 1,000 elephants on the battlefield? That seems like huge numbers!
Not at all!!

In fact I have specifically mentioned this as an example of exaggerations that we must be careful about in my previous post. As mentioned in this comment also, I've said that the numbers given are 'wild and unrealistic'. Modern estimates put the Ghurid army at around 50000, and Prithviaj' Chauhan's army around 50000-100000, but the cavalry element of his army cannot have exceeded 50000 at maximum.
SimonLancaster
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by SimonLancaster »

Makes sense. I read the “most common” phrase as being the commonly agreed figure after taking into account the exaggeration.
YouTube channel for Field of Glory 2: Ancients and Medieval.

https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
fogman
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1773
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by fogman »

newbiesoldat wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:58 pm
fogman wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 1:39 pm "Though I would still say that Western Rajputs, bordering the Ghazvanids and the Sindh, should have Armored Indian Lancers. The Persian sources that I cited when discussing the battle of Tarain in 1192 and the later battles between the Turks and Indians (Rajput states),"

I have an interest in that battle. What are the Persian sources you are referring to? Are there any accessible Indian sources also?
I think you can find the English translations for Tabaqat i Nasiri and Tarikh i Ferishta on the internet.
Yes they are. Thanks. Poking around further, I also found Nizamuddin Ahmad and Mirza Muhammad Haidar.
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

I have just tried the new 5.12 patch, and I would like to add some minor points regarding the new armies.

Firstly, both Indian Muslim and Western Rajput armies should not have compulsory infantry (or foot archers). They should always be optional. The regular infantry formed a small part of the armies, and often no infantry was taken for raids and field battles. The infantry was almost an ancilliary part of the army for most North Indian armies save for some exceptions. I cannot emphasize enough as to how much of the campaigns were really grand raids during this period. Only the largest pitched battles or defensive battles involved much infantry, and even then most were required to garrison the forts.


Secondly, Indian Archer model should be replaced with Muslim Light Archers model. But this is mainly for visual experience, since the both Trbial Indian Archers and Indian Archers look very similar, a different model for Indian Archers would better show the difference between the two units.


Lastly, in case you want to flesh out the Indian experience further, I will be presenting some ideas for a few fresh army lists, since there were many regional variations;

(This is soley for some fun trying to bring greater variety in the Indian gameplay, you may ignore this if it is too much of an issue at this time)

1. Indian Muslim (Eastern 1350-1500): Essentially the Later Indian Muslim army, but with inferior and less cavalry, having no access to horse archers and very limited number of Indian Lancers (around four) and Armored Indian Lancers (two). These will be representing the Sultanates of Jaunpur and Bengal, situated in the humid and forested areas that were not conducive to horse breeding and also cut off from the Central Asian horse markets. Instead these armies should have greater numbers of Elephants (eight) and more infantry as this was the hub of the Purabiyas (Indian Spearmen) and Afghans (Veteran Muslim Spearman). The Persian sources mention eastern India to have the best elephants and large number of Paiks (infantry). These Eastern Sultanates usually fared badly against Delhi based Sultanates that had access to the Centra Asian horse markets and the horse breeding centres of North Western and Western India.

2. Indian Muslim (Deccan 1350-1500): Based on the Bahamani and later splinter Deccan Sultanates. The Bahamanis broke away from the Delhi Sultanate in the mid 14th century. Their armies will be determined by their south-central location, having to adapt to the locally available manpower. As such the army will be light cavalry and infantry oriented, with less heavy cavalry and even lesser horse arches. having a limited number of Armored Indian Lancers (not more than four) and Expert Armored Horse Archers (not more than four) representing the limited armored cavalry and foreign mercenaries. The bulk of the cavalry will be made of Indian Lancers (ten) and Indian Light Cavalry (ten), representing the Deccani hit and run tactics that they became famous for, using local Maratha light horsemen. The infantry will be large and varied consisting of the the Indian Close Fighter, Veteran Muslim Spearmen and Indian Spearmen, Crossbows etc, showing their versatility. The Bahamani Sultanate was usually able to get an advantage in battles against the Vijayanagar Empire during the late 14th and all of the 15th century on account of their superior cavalry, both foreign and local.

3. Mewar Rajput (1350-1500): The premier Rajput state, the Mewaris successfully expelled the Delhi Sultanate rule from their lands by the mid 14th century, and by the late 14th century were a rising power, becoming one of the most powerful polities in north India by the time of the Mughal invasion, dominating Delhi, Gujarat and Malwa Sultanates prior to losing to the guns of the Mughal conqueror Babur. However, their rise owed much to their location in the hills of the Aravalis and the hardy tribal population that they could access. As such Mewar will have access to large number of Indian Tribal Archers (not more than eight) representing the Bhil militias, though not a compulsory component since they often butted heads witht their tribal subjetcs. They will also have greater access to Indian Spearmen (not more than eight) as they bordered Malwa and recruited Purabiya mercenaries, again not as compulsory. They will still be cavalry reliant with Armored Indian Lancers (around ten) and Indian Lancers (around ten) forming the bulk of their army along with the Indian Light Cavalry (around eight). Mewar will represent a mixture of Rajput and tribal military.

Note: In case this army list is made, the roster of the orginal Rajput army list will have to be changed by reducing the Tribal Indian Archers to just Two at the most, and reducing the Indian Spearman also to just Two. Since Western Rajputs other than Mewar did not have much access to these groups.

4. The current later Indian Muslim is perfect to represent Delhi, Malwa and Gujarat, so won't need any changes.

5. Gwalior Rajput (1400-1500): While not a very powerful state, it was based around the formidable fortress of Gwalior, and defended itself ably till it was conquered by the Lodi Sultanate. Gwalior is based in Central India, and this army list would represent a more Infantry based Rajput army compared to their western counterparts. Limited Armored Indian Lancers (not more than Four) and some Indian Lancer numbers (not more than Six). They would instead have a good number (Ten each) of Indian Spearmen and Indian Archers.
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

A final point about the armor, as to whether the Early Rajputs should have Superior Indian Lancers or Armored Indian Lancers. I've been going through some accounts of the conflicts between Chahmana Rajputs and the Ghaznavids and later the Ghurids to see if armor is mentioned.

So Arnoraja Chahmana mentions in his Ajmer inscription and is credited with in the Prithivraja Vijaya of defeating the Turks, with many of the Turks dying in their retreat across the desert due to their heavy armor.

The other is the account of the battle of Tarain from Tabaqat i Nasiri and Tarikh i Ferishta where a fifth reserve of armored cavalry was kept in reserve by the Ghurids to attack after the Rajputs once they were tired and fully engaged in dealing with the horse archers.

As far as I can tell, it depends on your interpretation of the units, in my opinion, Armored Muslim Lancers are not supposed to be fully armored, from head to toe, heavy cavalry, that would suffer inordinately in the desert. I think that kind of armor should come under 'Well Armored', not just 'Armored'.

So if the early Rajputs get Armored Indian Lancers, then the Ghazvanids and the Ghurids should get the Best Equipped Cavalry (not more than Five) representing the more heavily armored cavalry that they had. I would recommend giving the Hindu North and the later Vijayanagar army lists the Superior Indian Lancers rather than Armored Indian Lancers, which I think should only be limited to the Rajputs.

Of course things can also stay as they are depending on how one views Armored Muslim Lancers unit.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27979
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

newbiesoldat wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 12:38 am I have just tried the new 5.12 patch, and I would like to add some minor points regarding the new armies.

Firstly, both Indian Muslim and Western Rajput armies should not have compulsory infantry (or foot archers).
The Indian Muslim lists don't have any compulsory infantry at present do they?

I can remove the compulsory infantry from the Rajput lists.
Secondly, Indian Archer model should be replaced with Muslim Light Archers model. But this is mainly for visual experience, since the both Trbial Indian Archers and Indian Archers look very similar, a different model for Indian Archers would better show the difference between the two units.
In the Indian Muslim list? Or in other Indian lists too? If so, which ones? And from what date?
Lastly, in case you want to flesh out the Indian experience further, I will be presenting some ideas for a few fresh army lists, since there were many regional variations;

(This is soley for some fun trying to bring greater variety in the Indian gameplay, you may ignore this if it is too much of an issue at this time)
Perhaps at some time in the future.
A final point about the armor, as to whether the Early Rajputs should have Superior Indian Lancers or Armored Indian Lancers. I've been going through some accounts of the conflicts between Chahmana Rajputs and the Ghaznavids and later the Ghurids to see if armor is mentioned.
I have been dragged away to work on something else, so will look at this properly later.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

1. Rajputs also shouldn't need to have compulsory infantry since in many battles they didn't seem to bring any.

2. Actually, while again checking the archer models, I realised that Muslim Light Food Archer actually holds a composite bow, and the Indian archer specifically holds a bigger, non-composite bow, which is historically accurate. So I would like to withdraw this request. Average Indian soldier wouldn't have been able to afford to maintain a composite bow it was difficult to maintain it in India's heat.

So for now I only request you to remove the compulsory army from all Rajput armies (and Indian Muslim armies in case any do have it as compulsory), and just go through the armor point whenever you get the time. Thank you for your work and time.
newbiesoldat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:05 am

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by newbiesoldat »

Addition to the Armor point

Okay, so I believe that the early Rajputs (1050 to 1335) should get Armored Indian Lancers.

I recently read Kitab i Yamini where there is a passage about the Ghaznavi Sultan, crossing the Indus, and battling the 'infidels', on the fourth day, he apparently slew an enemy with his two handled scimitar even as that enemy was wearing a coat of mail. This is from the early 11th century.

Further, I was going through the Tabaqat i Nasiri (13th century), and in the camapaigns across India, some peculiarities for the various enemies and communities are noted in it. For example, going to the extreme east of India, into the modern state of Assam, which the author mistakes for Tibet, probably becuase of the Tibeto-Burmese and Austroasian population, he notes that the soldiers of this area wore armor made of bamboo materials overlapping on each other with raw silk sewn together. He also mentions that the soldiers of this land were equipped with bamboo spears mostly.

So the fact that the Persian accounts generally only point to the lack of good archery in the mainland India, and the lack of good horses in South India and East India, it gives us some insight as to the Indian military equipment and set up of the time. This added with the Indian texts' reference to mail, and the cited passing mention of the Ghaznavids facing an enemy east of the Indus with a coat of mail, makes a very good case to consider that as far as armour was concerned, there was a rough parity between the Indian and Turco-Persian armies, with just a few elite regiments of the Turkic armies being armored head to toe in elaborate heavy armor, represented by the Best Equipped Cavalry (Well Armored status) in the game. The regular armored troops would have been similar for both the Rajputs and the Turco-Persians.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II: Medieval”