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 »

Finally to confirm, have gone through Sanskrit texts for references to mail armor.

Yuktikalpataru, 11th century text from possbily the Malwa state (Central India) refers to coat of mail being used, but mostly only by the minority, while the rest wore hardened quitled cotton armor.

Manasollasa, 12th century text from Karnataka (South India) mentions soldiers being equipped with mail armor called sannahah, the horse armor is called turunga sunnahah.

Aparajitaprccha, another 12th century text, but this time from Gujarat, mentions Kavach (metal armor/cuirass) and also Tanutrana (quilted cotton armor).

All in all, I think this read with my earlier posts citing Persian texts, it should settle the issue of armor. Please do let me know as to your views on this matter.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

The early Rajput list already has "Superior Indian Lancers" with "Some Armour", which in this case is half-way between Protected and Armoured and represents 50% of the men having mail shirts.

We don't have two suitable models or distinguishing textures between Superior units with differing armour levels, so all of the Superior lancers in each of the Rajput army lists should have the same armour rating - which is obviously going to be an average.

We are not going to split the list dates up further, so the early list has to be plausible for the whole period from 1050-1339. This may entail some compromise.

So we could either:

a) Leave them as they are.
b) Increase their Armour percent from 50% to 66% or 75% - which would still be reported as "Some Armour" but the extra armour would take effect in game.
c) Make then 100% armoured. (But then there would be no progression from Early to Later Rajputs, and I think it would be too much armour for the earlier part of the period).

I think you are over-estimating the significance of armour in the game. Quality is far more important. The difference between Armoured (armour rating 100) and Some Armour (armour rating 75) cavalry is 13 POA in Melee only - Armour is not taken into account at impact. (The difference between Superior and Average is 50 POA in both Impact and Melee - which is obviously far more significant).

The difference in shooting casualties received against ghilman horse archers is just over 8%.

The current classification at 50 points is probably at least as cost-effective as Armoured lancers at 56 points. So the early Rajputs don't really need more armour to make them more of a match for the Muslims.

Thus any change should be based only on the actual likely proportion of armoured men among the better quality troops, averaged out over the period from 1050-1339 AD.

That is what I thought I had already done in the current version of the list. It is a compromise, because it is impossible to make it completely accurate for the whole period from 1050-1339, if the proportion of armoured men increased during that time period. Are you proposing that it didn't?
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

I am happy to add some Best-Equipped Cavalry to the Muslim lists.

Should this apply to all 3 of the Indian Muslim lists?
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 »

The Ghazvanids and the Ghurids need Best Equipped Cavalry to be added in their roster, no more than 4 units strictly though. The Indian Muslim Army list till 1339 has them, so that's enough, the later Indian Muslim Army lists don't need it since the Sultanate began fragmenting with rebellions across the country, and they began to relax many standards to recruit more and more soldiers.

As for the Armour question, I would say give the Early Rajputs Armored Indian Lancers, but limit it to 6 units. Reason being that the texts, Manasollasa for example, clearly prescribe that entire companies, depending on their grade and position on the field of battle should be equipped with the best armor. So while only the elite minority wear coats of mail, those elite soldiers are organized, as it would seem from the available text, in their own special companies rather than having mixed companies of armored and less armored soldiers. Manasollasa, a south Indian text, gives very good details in this regard, it says that the Mukha (Front) should have the best elephants and horses and armored soldiers, in the Kaksha (Wing) 1000-500 well protected (armored) soldiers should be placed, and and the Prapakshas (Rear part of the Wings) should have elite horsemen. These seem to indicate that though most soldiers did not have mail armor, the ones who did, were organized in their own seperate companies.

This seems to corroborate with the grades of soldiers described in the Indian texts from Arthashastra to the Manasollasa, the Maula soldiers (Hereditary soldiers with lands) who would all have good mail armour, while the Bhrita soldiers (Paid soldiers or mercenaries) and Sreni soldiers (armed groups and guild troops raised in the times of war or other need) would probably not all have mail armor, or have simpler mail armor at the most.

As for the dating, from 4th to 7th century onwards we see the recurring mention of mail, for example Lohajala (Literally means Iron-net) was supposed to be Mail with coif, and Lohajalika was 'smaller' mail without coif as described in the Mahabharata versions written during this period, anachronistically giving the mythic warriors mail armor. The Amarakosha also talk about body armor called varavana, a coat which reached the heels, and a lighter mail armor called pattah that lacked arm protection. This matches well with the mention of soldiers wearing coat of mail in Kitab i Yamini, written in the early 11th century, around 1020's.

So any army Rajput army around 1050 should have Indian Armored Lancers, in lesser numbers of units, say around 6, but they should be there. The number limit of Indian Lancers should be increased to around 14 while armored Lancers should be around 6. I know this may weaken the army overall, but I think this is the most accurate we can get to the historical period.

I don't want to make Early Rajputs a match for Ghazvanids or Ghurids, the smaller and feudal Rajput kingdoms of this time period could not cost effectively raise large armored cavalry contingents, but those that they did raise were well armored. The armored contingent mostly consited of feudal landholders raising their armored reitnues and reporting as the hererditary soldiers (Maula). This was in contrast to the transferable Iqta military estates of the Sultanates or their Ghulam corps that were under central command structure. Of course the later Rajputs adapted to this, and hence their number of armored lancers is greater. At this period, their victories over the Turks were down to using harsh desert or hilly terrain, sudden massed charges, and even ambushes rather than extended battles. While their defeats were because the Sultanate could bring to bear greater numbers of armored cavalry to bear in extended battles.

When playing as early Rajputs, one should use Armored Lancers frugally only for decisive moments considering their low numbers, and depend more on the Indian Lancers and Light Cavalry.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

newbiesoldat wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:29 pm So any army Rajput army around 1050 should have Indian Armored Lancers, in lesser numbers of units, say around 6, but they should be there. The number limit of Indian Lancers should be increased to around 14 while armored Lancers should be around 6. I know this may weaken the army overall, but I think this is the most accurate we can get to the historical period.
Rather than doing this, we do in fact have two different texture sets for the armoured lancer model. In Arab armies these are used for the Superior and Average versions, with the Average textures having duller colours.

It goes against our normal design policy to use the duller textures for Superior units, but we could use them in this special case to allow Armoured Superior lancers (brighter) and Superior 50% Armoured lancers (duller) in the Earlier Rajput list.

We could then have (in 1200 points):

Up to 6 Armoured Superiors
Up to 6 Some Armour Superiors
Up to 10 Protected Average
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 »

I think this would make the Early Rajputs too powerful with the possibility of bringing so many armored (or some armored) lancers.

How about we have 3 Armoured Superiors, 5 Some Armour Superiors and 12 Protected Average?

Besides also increase the number of Indian Light Cavalry from 8 to 10.

12 Armored Lancers (including 6 Some Armored ones) would be ahistorical considering that none of the feudal states had this much capacity, especially since they would then have the possibility of outnumbering the armoured lancers in Muslim armies of this period.

The sanskrit texts I mentioned seem to indicate clearly that armoured companies were few and were deployed carefully at key positions.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

newbiesoldat wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:23 am I think this would make the Early Rajputs too powerful with the possibility of bringing so many armored (or some armored) lancers.

How about we have 3 Armoured Superiors, 5 Some Armour Superiors and 12 Protected Average?

Besides also increase the number of Indian Light Cavalry from 8 to 10.

12 Armored Lancers (including 6 Some Armored ones) would be ahistorical considering that none of the feudal states had this much capacity, especially since they would then have the possibility of outnumbering the armoured lancers in Muslim armies of this period.

The sanskrit texts I mentioned seem to indicate clearly that armoured companies were few and were deployed carefully at key positions.
Fair enough. I will do this.
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 »

I think the game will depict the Indo-Islamic and Rajput medieval militaries far better than most of the recent 'history' books, considering that we have almost exclusively used the contemporary medieval texts and inscriptions, I look forward to trying the new army lists.

Thank you for your patience and commitment to this.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

Here is the revised Earlier Rajput army list:

I increased the Average lancers a bit more than you suggested, to allow an entirely cavalry army.

Rajput 1050-1339.jpg
Rajput 1050-1339.jpg (136.12 KiB) Viewed 247 times
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

And the later Rajput list:


Rajput 1340 - 1500.jpg
Rajput 1340 - 1500.jpg (135.6 KiB) Viewed 244 times
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

Ghaznavid:


Ghaznavid.jpg
Ghaznavid.jpg (164.52 KiB) Viewed 243 times
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

Ghurid:


Ghurid.jpg
Ghurid.jpg (140.9 KiB) Viewed 242 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 »

All except the Ghazvanid list seem fine.

I can suggest the following changes for the Ghazvanids:

1. No Bedouin Cavalry or Light Horse, I don't think they had any Arabic or Bedouin troops. At least I haven't come across any source talking about it, let me know if there is any source or reading pointing to there being Arab or Bedouin troops under the Ghazvanids.

2. They had a contingent of Indian cavalry actually, with one of the chroniclers stating that different racial contingents help to keep each other in check. So maybe give them 4 Indian Lancers.

3. Increase the number of Turcoman Light Horse and Armoured Muslim Lancers to 6 each.

4. Reduce the number of Ghilman/Mamluks to 8.
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 »

Last 2 points

1. I would recommend raising the number of Indian Light Horse rather than Indian Lancers in the Early Rajput List.


2. And consequently increase the number of Indian Lancers from 10 to 12 and Indian Light Horse from 8 to 10 in the Later Rajput Army List. The Later Rajputs should always have more cavalry compared to the Early Rajputs.

That's all
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

newbiesoldat wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2023 6:36 pm Last 2 points

1. I would recommend raising the number of Indian Light Horse rather than Indian Lancers in the Early Rajput List.
The problem with doing this is that the AI tends to pick more LH than is useful. So we often have to keep the maxima of LH in lists down proportionately to prevent this.
2. And consequently increase the number of Indian Lancers from 10 to 12 and Indian Light Horse from 8 to 10 in the Later Rajput Army List. The Later Rajputs should always have more cavalry compared to the Early Rajputs.
OK for the lancers. Not for the LH, for the same reason as above.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

newbiesoldat wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2023 4:14 pm All except the Ghazvanid list seem fine.

I can suggest the following changes for the Ghazvanids:

1. No Bedouin Cavalry or Light Horse, I don't think they had any Arabic or Bedouin troops. At least I haven't come across any source talking about it, let me know if there is any source or reading pointing to there being Arab or Bedouin troops under the Ghazvanids.
I don't know who did the original research for the (DBM/FOG tabletop) Ghaznavid army list, and I don't have a list of their sources, but the Ghaznavid empire stretched as far as Rayy, south of the Caspian sea. So it was reasonable to include some Arab cavalry in the 962-1040 Ghaznavid list (FOG2 Ancients and Time Warp). (The DBM list calls then "auxiliaries" or "ghazis", the FOG tabletop list calls them "Arab volunteer cavalry").

However, following the battle of Dandanaqan in 1040, all the Ghaznavid lands in Persia were lost to the Seljuks.

So I agree it is reasonable to remove the Arab cavalry from the 1041-1187 list.
2. They had a contingent of Indian cavalry actually, with one of the chroniclers stating that different racial contingents help to keep each other in check. So maybe give them 4 Indian Lancers.
OK
3. Increase the number of Turcoman Light Horse and Armoured Muslim Lancers to 6 each.
OK
4. Reduce the number of Ghilman/Mamluks to 8.
OK
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 »

So in the case of the Rajputs, I would just ask to ensure that Early Rajputs should have lower cavalry numbers than the Late Rajputs.

Btw would a list of some good Delhi Sultanate, Rajput and Indian battles be useful in case of any plans for some South Asian battles/campaigns or in case someone just wants to prepare a scenario?

The works on Indian military history, both scholarly and wargaming wise, are very poor, and even the recent books completely ignore the primary texts and the military campaigns described therein.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

newbiesoldat wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2023 3:59 pm So in the case of the Rajputs, I would just ask to ensure that Early Rajputs should have lower cavalry numbers than the Late Rajputs.
The lists scale to available points.

Absolute numbers in a list don't matter, the proportions are what matters.

Unless I misunderstood something, both lists have to allow for completely cavalry armies, so the Early Rajputs have to have enough for that. That does not mean that the Late Rajputs need to have significantly more, because absolute numbers in a list do not matter if you can't buy them all with the available points anyway. So if you can't spend all the points anyway, it makes no difference to anything if the Late Rajputs don't have a lot more cavalry in their list than the Early ones.

Unless I misunderstood, and the Early Rajputs should go back to having some compulsory infantry.
Btw would a list of some good Delhi Sultanate, Rajput and Indian battles be useful in case of any plans for some South Asian battles/campaigns or in case someone just wants to prepare a scenario?
Sure, but there is nothing to stop you from making those scenarios yourself, which we can then add to the community content.

Even if you can't cope with writing AI, you can still make MP scenarios - which is what some other content writers do.
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 »

Understood about the Rajput point, with the current patch, with the Later Rajput Army, with 2 compulsory Archer units and Close Fighter units each, I can bring some 26 cavalry units at maximum out of the total 30 cavalry units. Since the new patch will not have compulsory Archers and Close Fighters, and having additional 2 Indian Lancer units should be perfect to make a proper 15th century Cavalry army.

As for the battles, yes I'm a bit inexperienced with the editor and have no experience with the AI, and some battles have some very interesting details that I may not be able to depict, so hopefully I'll just post here, and maybe it might generate some interest. Problem with Indian history is that very few battles are discussed in the mainstream, and what are discussed are not done properly. The primary sources are hardly referred to properly.

This leads to many wargamers and military history enthusiasts to either assume South Asia was some exotic otherworldy region that isolated from the larger military developments, or on the other extreme assume that South Asian militaries acted similar to their counterparts in the Islamic world or Europe, with very little actual information to understand the realities of South Asian warfare. It doesn't help that Indian history is highly politicised these days.

I'll post two battles between Ghurids and the Rajputs that took place in the same place here as a sample to just depict how primary sources contradict the prevailing myths about the South Asian military culture.

Battle of Kashrada, 1178

Muhammad of Ghor attacked Western India, passing through the desert between Sindh and Southern Rajasthan, and sacking the city of Nadol. He planned to attack Gujarat, then under the Chaulukya dynasty. The young Chaulukya ruler, Mularaja, with the help of the capable Queen Mother, organized a conferderation of his feudatories to stop the Ghurid advance. The Chaulukyas were joined by the Chahamanas of Nadol and Jalore, and the Paramaras of Abu. The Persian sources simply state that the Ghurid army, exhausted by a desert march, was defeated by the Gujarati forces that had elephants and great number of other troops. The contemporary Rajput inscriptions don't give the any detail save for the result of the battle, but a later 13th century play Hammir mada mardana and an ealry 14th century Jain chronicle, Prabhanda Kosha, give us the details. The Paramara lord, Dharavarsha, planned to defeat the Ghurid army in the mountain pass near the town of Abu. He allowed the Ghurids to enter the pass, and then closed the retreat behind them once they had gone further. While at the other mouth of the pass, the Chaulukya and Chahamana forces waited to attack the disorganized Ghurid forces that would be emerging from the pass. As the Ghurids came out from the pass, disorganized, the Chaulukyas and the Chahamanas attacked, with the former's elephants in the van. The Ghurids retreated, only for the Paramara forces to fall upon them. Muhammad of Ghor barely escaped, and though his losses were crippling, he rebuilt his army and then later tried from the Punjab frontier against Prithviraja in 1191.

Note: Here the claims of Rajputs being 'honorable warriors' and followers of ritual warfare based on the reading of the normative Sanskrit texts are utterly unfounded, as they were certainly not above using ambushes and guile to achieve their aims in war. This entire notion of feudal Rajputs being honor bound warrior, as if some Indian version of the stereotypical knight is very much a modern idea imposed on the medieval period.

2nd Battle of Kashrada, 1196

Muhammad of Ghor's leading General, Qutubudin Aibek led an expedition against the rebels in the Nagor region in modern day state Rajasthan, though suffered a defeat when an army from Gujarat came to the rebels' rescue. He fortified himself in the fort of Nagor, and then advanced again when the Ghurid reinforcements joined him. The Gujarati army, again consisting of the Chaulukya forces with their Chahamana and Paramara allies, took up a strong position near the mouth of the same mountain pass. The Ghurid General, knowing the earlier encounter at the same place hesitated from attacking, and later retreated some distance. The Gujarat army descended from their position, and encamped near the town of Abu. Both the armies faced each other, but later retired. Next dawn the Ghurids rapidly advanced to the Gujarati camp and attacked it. The battle lasted till midday, when finally the Gujarat army was routed. The Ghurids advanced into Gujarat and sacked Patan, the capital. However, they could not occupy Gujarat and most of Rajasthan due to rebellions, and Chaulukyas and their feudatories regained the control of their territories.

Note: History books will cite Taj ul Maasir and state that the Rajputs lost because they left their mountain position, and the 'superior mobility' of the Turkish cavalry in the open field. However, if you read Taj u Maasir, the text states nothing like this, rather it simply states that at night the Ghurids advanced, and reached the Rajput positions at morning, after which the battle lasted from dawn till midday. The account seems to describe a surprise attack through a stealthy night advance rather than any complex cavalry movements. This is one of the prime problems with relying on secondary sources in Indian military history, these interpolations confuse the actual nature of the battles and armies.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 27975
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Need for greater historical accuracy for Indian Army Lists

Post by rbodleyscott »

Very interesting, thanks.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II: Medieval”