How about a Renaissance modification for 0ad?

I have found that there are many games, with varying levels of historical accuracy, that cover warfare and civilization from classical times (aprox. 1000 BC to 500 AD) to the medieval (1000 AD to 1300 AD). There are also some games based on the Napoleonic and colonial eras (aprox. 1700 to 1820). However there seems to be a lack of games that focus on the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance (aprox. 1350 to 1600), even though this is the period that witnessed immense change throughout all aspects of Western civilization.

The unique style of warfare during this period offers some interesting gameplay. Armies will still be built around late medieval-style heavy infantry, yet players will also have access to primitive gunpowder units. Fortifications will still play an important part, with gunmen defending the walls alongside archers and crossbowmen against an array of powerful siege machinery and cannon. Complimenting the heavy cavalry of the middle ages will be a variety of light cavalry units, early types of lancers and hussars.

Players will be able to choose from a new selection of factions, like the Italian cities, the Holy Roman Empire, England, France, the Papal States, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, ect.

Any interest?

Problem being is: What role do gun powder units fill that archers cannot? That's why I think the Renaissance is generally skipped.

Gunners could do something archers couldn't. Kill enemy soldiers.

Despite effectiveness of arbalests, archery started to be not very effective against newest types of armours.

In fact, it was gunpowder, which made armour redundant (except for cuirassiers, but even those wore armour significantly lighter than gothic knights). Later armies ceased to use it because it slowed them down and didn't provide protection against gunpowder shooters.

During Reneisance were guns developed quite well.

Also, it isn't just about gunpowder. Lets not forget that significant events happened during Reneisance. And army, yet differing little from those medieval in equipment, was absolutelly different in training and discipline.

Close order drill made pikemen, with guns support, backbone of the army, chivalry was in decline.

But, AFAIK there is already mod which would try to cover this period.

Yes, but the Honor and Glory mod is still primarily medieval, so even if we did get a glimpse of the Renaissance at the end of the tech trees the gameplay and the map and even the building sets will reflect an earlier time period.

It is true that in the Renaissance period gunmen functioned mostly as skirmishers, but, as Belisarivs pointed out, they brought about great changes in the style of European warfare. While an archer or a crossbowman would have had greater range, accuracy and less reload time, they were practically useless against heavily armoured cavalry. Firearms made this armour a weakness, and togather with a dense formation of pikemen ended the age of decisive cavalry charges. Warfare now centered around infantry tactics, heavy cavalry went into steep decline in favor of lighter lancers and hussars.

I am frankly surprised that the Renaissance is often forgotten. This was an era of great change, and great change brings about great conflict- The French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Sack of Rome, the Ottoman-Hapsburg Wars, the War of the Roses, the Turkish-Venetian Wars, the War of Dutch Independance, the early European conquests in North and South America, and the list could go on.

Not so sure archers were becoming obsolete against armoured men. Look at the Battle of Agincourt. Thereafter, the French thought English longbows dangerous enough to cut off the index and middle finger of any longbowman captured, giving rise to the English 'V' hand gesture for " 'F' you."

I think it's funny that the game isn't out and people are already planning their mods..

But keep in mind, that victories of English ended pretty quickly when French introduced Gunpowder.

Also development of armour from 1415 till Renaissance progressed.

Caesar, For Honour and Glory doesn't cover Renaissance period. Colonial AD does. But it is quiet here for quite a time.

error

I think AoE3 does it.

If I'm correct it dates to times between Middle ages and American revolutionary war which IMHO is Renaissance period.

AoE3 is much more of a colonial-era game, not a renaissance game. There is a differance.

I <3 The Renaissance

I'm not such a fan. Empirical Era FTW!

I keep coming back to this, I know, but I do think the Renaissance has a lot to offer an rts game.

Unfortunately I am far more of a historian then I am a graphic designer. I have drawn up a couple plans for such a mod, but I do not possess the talent to do anything with them.

I'd help but the offer lives on the same terms as the Honor and Glory mod: roughly 21 weeks to go.

If I can find anyone else interested in this, I'll take you up on that offer.

What are your ideas Caesar?

I think Mythos is right here. Early gunpowder was hardly reliable or effective, even up to the period of the English civil war. Different sources talk about how it was easier to become skillful with a firearm than a bow/crossbow, and firearms pierced armor better, etc. These, while they probably have a tiny bit of truth to them, are largely older misconceptions that have carried on from past generations of historians. The most widely accepted reason nowadays with historians has nothing to do with any of this better than bows or easier to use stuff. It was much more likely that they were adopted in mass simply because guns were in style.

Well, if YOU were a monarch in Europe at the time, and your rival decides to shed his crossbows for a bunch of guns that scare the hell outta your men and make loud noises while their bearers marching around in new stylish uniforms holding their shiny-iron gonnes at their shoulder, wouldn't YOU want a piece of that for your army of guys holding old-fashioned and boring crossbows? Of course you would! People don't always choose the best possible option. In fact, humankind has a record of choosing the worst of possible options available.

Doesn't it feel great to know that guns came into use via the same fashion as Pokemon cards and hula-hoops? Oh yeah baby.

But we were discussing Renaissance period. Not middle ages.

And no, I wouldn't buy new expensive weapons if those I already have can equal them or are even better.

I'd invest into economy, training and better weapons, not nicer or hype.

Few defeats would anybody teach a lesson.

Firearms were effective, if not, why would knights decline from domination? Knights could defeat pikemen easily.

Why would all armies throw away precious armour?

No, as I said, firearms were effective and didn't come up with stylish uniforms.

It was also evolution. You had to make your units easily recognizable to prevent confusion. Soldiers finally received proper training, learned how to use formations etc. and for this were new uniforms perfectly suited.

Was it during the Renaissance were Poland was taken over by Germany or was that before/after?

Well, one could say the Renaissance begins in 1341 with Petrarch, but the whole nature of the Renaissance was that it was a gradual phenomenon that slowly developed and spread across Europe. Hints of the coming Renaissance can be seen in earlier (pre-1300s) art. The Renaissance gained momentum in Italy during the 1300s and 1400s, eventually spreading to other parts of Europe, thanks (in part) to the printing press, during the 1500s (generally the late 1500s) and 1600s, for many northern European 'nations'. Of course, like many things, it was a gradual process, so I would not be surprised if evidence could be presented of a 'renaissance presence' in upper Europe before the 1500s.



It was my impression that the Renaissance represented a transition from the medieval era* to the modern era, and thus had great overlap. Even so, if you consider the birth of the Renaissance as an end to the medieval way of life, you still must acknowledge that for some time, the Renaissance was more or less confined to Italy, and that the rest of Europe was still very medieval in culture. Just because Italy experienced it, doesn't mean the rest of Europe 'advanced' into the Renaissance era. If you follow that logic, then Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Australia also entered into the 'Renaissance era'.**



That depends on what partition you are speaking of, I suppose. The first partition of Poland occurred in 1772, with the last being in 1795. That said, the partition was between Prussia (Germany), Austria, and Russia. I'm not sure that's what you're talking about though. I naturally assume you weren't speaking of the Nazi/Soviet takeover of Poland in 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Guns and Knights.



Use of gunpowder fairly early, first record shows 1247. Gained wider adoption (again, rather slowly) throughout Europe during the 1400s and 1500s. Longbows (arguably the most effective ranged weapon at the time), didn't finally kick the dust until the early 1600s. One source says 1644 at the Battle of Marston Moor (English Civil War). Perhaps more importantly, Crossbows were all the rage in the 1400s, but were largely discarded by 1600.

A few think points:
The Battle of Agincourt was in 1415, absolutely murdered the French Knights with the longbow.
Early 1500s saw many English laws attempting to ban crossbows.
The Battle of Flodden in 1513 saw the last battle won 'because' of longbow support.
The year 1521 saw Cortez conquer the Aztecs with an army of mostly crossbows and a few firearms. (the few he had weren't used for long, as powder often got wet and was hard to come by.)
Don Quixote, a satire of knighthood***, was published in 1604

Now, judging from above, guns weren't used on a large scale until the late 1500s****, and knighthood was long considered moot by 1604, and that both crossbows and longbows didn't kick the dust until the late 1500s and early 1600s (not to mention still trying to be banned in the early 1500s), then what does that say to the historian? hmmm.

Okay, now that we've done some detective work, I think we can see the clearer picture:

1. Crossbows and Longbows brought the end to knighthood. Why now then, you ask? Because crossbow technology wasn't stagnant! It improved over time, just as gun technology had. Here, we still have England trying to ban crossbows in 1503!!!! Does that sound like an obsolete weapon? I shouldn't think so.

2. Besides, advancement in military technology wasn't the only thing that destroyed the knighthood. There was other social and economical reasons why knighthood and feudalism went down the tube in many parts of Europe.***** The Black Death, the rise of the city and artisan guilds, and other related phenomena really gave knighthood the boot. Feudalism and knighthood needed many land-tied peasants. Now there was a huge labor shortage, and peasants found themselves in the position of power. Cities also dragged people from their fields and from castles, looking for greater economic fortune.

3. Other military means finished knighthood. You say pikemen didn't finish them. Au contraire, they didn't finish off the knights alone, but certainly contributed to their downfall directly. Cavalry just wasn't as effective anymore against disciplined footmen. Also, the typical picture of the knight changed. Knights had to resort to wheel-lock pistols or small crossbows to combat the phalanx of pike and bow they were challenged with (rather than lances and swords). Also, the armor they typically wore proved to be not worth the effort against bolts (which pierced) and pikes (which brought down the horse, rendering an armored knight about as harmful as cabbage).

4. Finally, when the gun was finally adopted in mass (late 1500s-early 1600s), we must ponder why:

i) Because it was more effective? That's arguable. Several technology innovations in the field vastly improved gun performance, making it a more reliable weapon. But since knights were pretty much obsolete at that period, why would such effectiveness matter? It wouldn't. Guns weren't as effective as crossbows, but by the time they were widely adopted, it didn't matter anyway. Why have a crossbow with incredible range, piercing power, and accuracy when your target wasn't an armored knight, but lightly armored and dense infantry formations? Accuracy and piercing power weren't needed. Here, we can see why guns appeared to be more effective than crossbows.******

ii) Because the nobility saw guns as the new thing? Definitely contributed. Surely, weapons like the crossbow weren't needed as much anymore, but crossbows were still better weapons. So why adopt the gun? Remember the Renaissance? (Yeah! Its at the top of this post!) What was happening in most of Europe during the 1500s? The spread of the Renaissance. Who in Europe used gunpowder on the larger scale the earliest? Does Ottoman empire ring a bell? How about the Italian states and Spain who fought them? And the Renaissance was the in thing in northern Europe? I hope you've followed me.


CONCLUSION: From everything I said in this DREADFULLY******* long post, we can arrive at this conclusion: Guns weren't adopted because they were better than crossbows and longbows. They were adopted because they were more efficient at doing the job they needed to do. Also, and perhaps just as importantly, the cultural phenomena that was the Renaissance was the rage of Europe! And what did the Renaissance bring with it to northern Europe? The widespread use of firearms!!! It's only natural that European rulers wanted to 'copy' Italy and Spain and the culture that was the Renaissance.

So, there you have it!

Just flexing my future-historian muscles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Or "Post-Classical Era." Historians don't like 'middle ages' anymore, because the accepted belief is that the medieval age had its own distinct culture that was not necessarily inferior to Rome's or the Renaissance's.

**That's what always bugged me about the 'ages' in rts games. Everyone didn't gain access to iron at one time! And some never did! So what's "Iron Age" mean? Not a universal era on a timeline...but the stage of development reached by a particular civilization/society and/or a unique culture that appeared with the technological revolution that was iron.

***Don Quixote was written as a satire aimed at the nobility, who still clung to knightly titles and such. Obviously, by the time of its publishing, knighthood was seen as obsolete by a majority of Europe.

****Interestingly, this coincides with several progressions in the area of gun-technology, including the hair trigger and rifled arms (1540), the spanish lock (1560), the snaphaunce lock (1580), and the soon-to-be standard flintlock (1630). All of this would make guns into really effective weapons that would ?outclass? the crossbow and longbow.

*****Not so in Eastern Europe. The Black Death's effects were minimal there.

******perhaps a better term is 'efficient'. Guns still weren't more 'effective', as they lacked the range, piercing power, and accuracy of crossbows.

*******Oh the horror!

I do know that WW2 was not in the Renaissance!
But either invasion (I mean the first one) were both in the Renaissance age. But when the mod for this comes out, will you have a campaign mode for those wars between Germany and Poland? I don't want to kill my own people

You mean partitioning of Poland?

It wasn't taken over by Germans. At least not only.

On 24 October 1795 their representatives signed a treaty, dividing the remaining territories of the Commonwealth between their three countries.

Actually I meant the one with the Holy Roman Empire and king Barbarossa.

I'm not finding much on this... The one of two sources containing medieval history that I keep here at college, The Encyclopedia of World History, says this:

Boleslav IV, an ineffectual ruler, during whose reign the Germans, under Albert the Bear and Henry the Lion, supported by Waldemar of Denmark, drove back the Poles from the entire territory along the Baltic and west of the Vistula (1147). Emperor Frederick Barbarossa intervened and forced the submission of Boleslav (1157).

The other source, Western Europe and the Middle Ages: 300-1475 by Brian Tierney has nothing whatsoever on the subject.

Wikipedia (a useful first-source, but hardly a reliable one), mentioned briefly that Frederick I Barbarossa 'extended imperial authority over Poland', amongst other regions. Whatever that means.


If this is the correct event, then it occurs long before the Renaissance. It wouldn't be included, then, in a mod on the Renaissance.

Poland was actually never taken over by Germany.

It was German vassal, but that was King of Bohemia, Hungary and France as well.

English King (from title Duke of Normandy) was vassal of French king for some time.

What about World War Two?

I think he means for any decent amount of time (ie. 20+ years).

1) Poland was conquered, not taken over.
2) It wasn't conquered by Germans themselves but with cooperation with Soviets.

huh? difference please?

Taken Over = Assimilated (.ie Carthage after the Punic Wars)
Conquered = Temporary Military Bases/Occupied (.ie Poland in WW2)