10 Historically Bonkers AoE2 Units
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- While Age of Empires has many great historical references hidden throughout, sometimes it sacrifices a bit of historical accuracy for the sake of fun gameplay. In this video we'll talk about 10 notable examples.
_____________________________
Patreon: / spiritofthelaw
Background music from Epidemic Sound: www.epidemicsound.com
Game: Age of Empires II Definitive Edition - Ігри
Can confirm, the dev's were movie fans. Scorpion King preceded Age of Mythology, and inspired a unit based on Dwayne Johnson's character.
In the same vein, their depiction of the siege tower is straight out of LOTR Return Of The King.
Who ?
So basically i have dwayne johnson in my age of mythology gameplay?
I KNEW IT! As a kid I always thought that the similarities were too big for it to be a coincidence.
@@Doodmeister0scorpion man
Spirit : Literal Medieval Tank? 4/10 a bit unusual I guess
Also Spirit : Scotsman but BLUE? 9/10 absolute bonkers
To follow the spirit of nit-picking, Woad Raiders would be Picts, the people that the Scots supplanted. Like how the Native Americans got supplanted by European settlers
i think it's more of the sense that a celt/scot looking at their own like this, would be laughed at considerably. being that these raiders, fit more for the new DLC mission Vertigern, then actually any celt mission.
I mean, the issue with the hussite wagon isn't that it's historically inaccurate, it is a legitimate thing and in the right time frame, the issue is only how it is played being used as a hit and run unit more than a stationary unit used for protection. It even has the less damage by units behind it mechanic that has the correct vision behind.
What's more surprising to me is that units like the Mameluke and War Wagon have lower ratings than the Woad Raider despite having more questionable aspects to them than the common misconception about Celt warriors. Even Gbeto, which he said is a similar issue to the Woad Raider, only got a 7
I feel it makes sense. Basically everything is wrong about the Woad Raiders - time period, equipment, name, that weird blue tattoo thing, [...].
The Hussite Wagon at least is somewhat correct - it's a wagon that can block/reduce damage to other units while firing ranged projectiles, similar to the real life version. The only thing wrong is the mobility issue :D
I like the woad raider he doesn't LOOK historically accurate but he does play historically accurate
"Now next unit is the Cobra Car, this unit is 10.5 in the Ritcher scale, presumably used by the swagger Persian empire"
"You call that a pike?! This is a pike!"
"That's not a pike. It's a battleaxe."
All right, all right. You win. I see you've played pikey-axey before.
In the spanish version, genitors are named as "zenata skirmisher", and "jinete" is literally "knight" in the spanish version too 1111
not wrong, being a mounted skirmisher, I figured to just call them mounted skirmishers then anything.
Yeah they are historically accurate in that case
I'm Spanish, play the game in English settings, and my brain has been blown twice by now. So fun to learn about this things :D
In French, they're called Jinete. So a bit better than the english, but not quite there yet ^^
@@navynahibel873 Jinete is terrible... is the equivalent of calling them Rider.
Petards are probably a reference to a degree to sappers. Medieval castles were often undermined by groups of men digging a tunnel to their foundations, and then collapsing the tunnel. Occasionally, fires and explosives were used as well. This one is actually universal, being used even in ancient times.
Where do they find people willing to commit suicide?
What hiring/conscripting process is this?
@@AlphaSections If things go well they don't collapse the tunnels while being inside.
@@AlphaSections not that sappers had to commit suicide, but finding people willing to commit suicide for a nation was probably not that difficult. Lots of cultures considered dying for the people to be the best way one could go, and even if there were no volunteers they could probably force someone to do so.
@@annaairahala9462 Admittedly I'm not a historian, but during feudalism, dying for some dubious nation probably wasn't high on people's list. Dying for religion or your lord I can see, but suicide was extremely frowned upon in Christianity. There's a difference between little chance of survival vs. guaranteed death. I don't really even consider petards actually dying even if they do in the game. Would make more sense they'd just leave the explosives and light a fuse from a distance (and hence they don't deal that much damage to units). Ordering people to commit suicide doesn't do great for morale either
@@jussi3378 There's a difference between personal suicide and institutional death or intentional actions that result in death. The catholic church mainly condemned personal suicide, which is completely different from this sort of suicide, other forms of suicide being condemned is a more recent thing than AoE2 timeframe and varies by region.
As far as I'm aware, there weren't any roles like kamikaze planes in WW2 where death was ensured, but people would absolutely take up extremely dangerous roles for various reasons. For many, they had nothing to lose with this sort of life gamble, so even the smallest reason would suffice.
Fun fact: Petards were added to the game in the Conquerors expansion. In the base game, their character model was used for the cheat code unit called "Saboteur."
Those cheat units could flatten whole groups of units but did so-so damage to buildings. I think they're still available in the scenario editor.
hell yeah, those were the days! you got them in the last Genghis Khan mission as well
Saboteurs were absolutely bonkers against buildings - only 6 needed to make contact with a castle to bring it down.
They're also available by using the same cheat code that has worked since Conquerors.
I think in the editor they were in the hero tab.
They are still called saboteurs in the German Version If I remember correctly
Throwing Axemen have to be the most bonkers for how it's one guy who can consistently hurl giant double-bit battleaxes like it's nothing, even after running for some time.
I like the image of a dude dragging a bag full of battle axes behind him as he charges into battle
This isnt even battleaxe, they too heavy even for melee. Battleaxes are much smaller and lighter, this dude throws one woodcutter axe after another
>It whips all the way up to 8 Ney Neys out of 10
Bravo
couldn't help but shamelessly snort out my nose lmfao
It landed after 3 seconds for me But great one
Since Cobra car is not on this list, its historically accurate the way it is.
Another potential honorable mention is the Warrior Priest. It's actually highly accurate to the warriors of Khevsur in Georgia, with the right attire and weaponry, and the unit's tankiness is also accurate, since Khevsurs were basically Vikings of the Caucasus, eating, drinking, and being merry when off-duty, but fighting hardily when their villages were in danger.
This is outside the timeline of AoE2, but in 1837, 50 Khevsurs were able to successfully defend the village of Shatili against 5000 Chechen and Dagestani soldiers, so that shows just how tough they were. They even showed up to battle in the mid-1900s wielding broadswords.
So yeah, they would be a perfect 10/10 in the historical accuracy scale, aside from the name...if they were a Georgian unit. Unfortunately, the Armenians have absolutely no connection to any of this, so them receiving the unit instead of the Georgians is hugely ahistorical.
The only potential justification I can think of for the unit being available to the Armenians, aside from gameplay considerations of course, is that there's this misconception that Khevsurs are descended from Crusaders. Since the Armenians have a connection to Crusaders, maybe the devs thought this would be appropriate, but unfortunately for them, Khevsurs are thoroughly Georgian.
Warrior priest's helmets and weapons are stupid.
@@7dayspking They're historically accurate.
Paladins are a fun one too, as the name stems from a french poem (The Matter of France) about the twelve heroic knights of the court of Charlemagne. So quite far from the units you'd recruit by the entire companies.
If the name wasn't already so popular and so widely spread in AOE2, and if the french were a new civ, it could have made for a cool unique unit/unique knight upgrade
I suppose in that case they were mostly just trying to come up with different and distinct things to call the later two units in the knight line. As really they and the Cavalier are basically just knights from the mid to late medieval period.
There is an UU that is called "Franconian Paladin"...or "Frankish Paladin"...same word in German so might be either
And i belive it was supposed to be the Franks UU until they decided they dont need more Cav and gave them the Axeman instead.
But i agree considering the Persians have their own "Paladins", its time for the OG Paladins to get their own model too.
@@ithadtobeaname7327 it's time for a franks rework. It was just an umbrella term back then, but now with normans (sicilians) and burgundians in the picture, a lot gets mixed easily. Celts and britons could be modified a little too.
The same with byzantines, now that italians and romans are in the game
@@jomolhari Same for Teutons, I suppose that will never happen so same with "Slavs" because AoE2 would need 20+ factions and at that point the bonusus are going to get really ridicilous.
I wish we could split the Franks, Teutons and Britions into ~3 Factions each but....highly doubt it.
And the Celts need a reworkd overall. Like do they want to be Scottland? Why call them Celts and pretend they are some savages. If they are Celts....why make them a siege Civ? Why give them Paladin? Especially since Celt Paladin is sort of an meme. Also Celts would fit in the time frame of Romans but...Celts alongside Franks, Teutons and Bohemians??
AoE2 covers too much at this point i am afraid.
If at least they had healing spells and could smite evil (like the French, which would make it actually ironic, as I am typing this lame joke)
2:10 Same with Medieval 2 total war. Half of scotland's early game units look like savages with their faces painted blue.
I've read that woad would be mixed with animal fat and used on skin. Not sure the accuracy of that though
@@grumpywizard323im pretty sure woad is caustic to skin
i always found that a bit annoying. medieval 2 is probably my favorite title in the franchise, but in terms of visuals every kingdom looks the same cept for colors. A spanish peasant looks the same as a viking raider etc.
but meanwhile scotland has an entire roster of william wallace wannabes.
Rome was even worse. Egyptians straight out of old testament, roman ninja warriors, brits that throw decapitated heads,...
That's English bias for you. CA is from West Sussex after all.
The Throwing Axeman should have made this list. Yes, there were real throwing axes, but they were small, light, single-bit, single-handed weapons from the early Medieval period, not ridiculously oversized, double-bit weapons thrown with two hands. Even the two-handed Dane axe was smaller and lighter than the throwing axes shown in-game, and it wasn't double-bladed.
I'm surprised it didn't. It's usually mentioned in the same line as the Saracen Mameluke as an inaccurate unit
Throwing axes shown in the game seem to be kind of based on modern sport throwing axes, which are usually double bladed and thrown from behind the back exactly as shown in the game. They spin and are almost guaranteed to hit with on of the blades,.
Obviously very anachronistic from what we know, but at least somehow physically feasible, while lobbing sabers is not very viable.
They made accurate throwing axemen in Age of Mythology, I guess they learned from their mistakes 😂
The obuch hammer is grossly oversized also.
@@xotl2780 During development they scaled all weapons up significantly, just like they had to for AoE4, so that units were easy to recognize at a glance. This has made all weapons comically oversized, although yes a lot of the single handed weapons have been turned into two handed monsters for effect and other goofy things. The Urumi Swordsmen looks like he's whipping a plate of aluminum house siding around its so large.
Mr spirit, you missed that the mameluke camels are bactrian camels instead of maghrebi camels
Camel Fact popups when?
Man-at-Arms applies to both mounted and dismounted units. English man-at-arms were famous for being armoured and fighting on foot. Also knight can be mounted and dismounted, as a knight is a social status closely intertwined with a military status, military nobility. Knight and man-at-arms can have absolutely the same equipment and the thing differentiating them is their social status, lords, barons, and even a king could all be knights as well and usually were. So it's a bit more complicated than it seems.
Exactly. It just means someone well armed but not a knight. Probably given the equipment rather than using their own funds.
As a kid, I always liked the look of the unit (classy teardrop shield) and hated having to upgrade to the longsword , looking very late medieval-ish. Similar dilemma with the two handed swordsman having cooler animations than the champion x]
Men-at-arms were primarily mounted fighters, when the English men-at-arms fought on foot, they used their cavalry lances to fight, clearly they were not designed with fighting on foot in mind, and the sources at the time talk about "dismounted men-at-arms", you don't talk about "dismounted longbowmen" if they were not on horses XD
Plus, English men-at-arms were still able to fight as a cavalry unit, the White Company for example won some battles with cavalry charges, and of course when the enemy fed, it was time to mount on a horse and pursue him ˆˆ
If anything, the men at arms should be a mixed unit, able to fight or move on a horse, but who would dismount an gain defensive bonus or somethin like that XD
But it's true that during the early modern period, with cavalry losing its efficiency, more and more compagnies of men-at-arms were formed as infantry. But they should probably be a late unit, the men-at-arms are a late medieval, early modern unit, not a high medieval like they look like with their kite shield ˆˆ
As for their equipment, I don't think it was given to them, they were either mercenaries, or feudal levies, the main difference with the other units o the armies being that they were aways mustered, and so were paid all year. So they could afford a better equipment (like a horse, a french gendarme would have to invest six months of salary to get a good horse), but apart from some measures taken to refund horses fallen into battle (because it was the most expensive ad most fragile part of their equipment XD), there don't seem to have been anything that the King did to give them equipment ˆˆ
@@krankarvolund7771 Thank you for continuing this conversation. There are a few things I disagree with, based on books, and info I have.
- English archers were mounted and they would dismount before a fight. To allow greater mobility of the English army. Not always though as we are talking about a very long time period.
- English man-at-arms didn't use lances dismounted, as lance is a very ineffective in the hands of someone on foot as lance needs to be couched. They would use halberds, maces, war hammers, and other types of weapons for opening armour.
- I agree with you that men-at-arms were able to mount and dismount proving my points above.
- Man-at-arms is a term encompassing any infantry/cavalry that are not nobility, so it is not necessarily only a late medieval, early Renaissance term
- The English had a preference for cavalry after the Norman invasion, then they switch to infantry/archer tactics after losing at Loudon Hill and Bannockburn, but in the late 15th century they started preferring cavalry again.
- You have 'order forms' surviving where English kings and nobility are ordering equipment, so-called munition grade armour from Germany and Italy to equip and give to their soldiers.
- Why I am talking mainly about English? As man-at-arms is their term, and naming conventions are different in other countries and their standing/levied armies would be different in organisation and tactics.
@@tisucitisin1 "English archers were mounted"
Yeah, and? That was the chevauchée tactic, a small but mobile army that devasted french countryside with raids, because their mobility meant they were able to avoid french armies for a long time ^^
But archers were not trained to fight mounted, the men at arms were. When the archers are mounted, it's specified (one source talks about Equibus sagitarii, horse archers, being sent to the flank), when the men at arms are dismounted, it's specified, clearly the norm is archers fighting dismounted, men-at-arms fighting mounted ^^
"English man-at-arms didn't use lances dismounted, as lance is a very ineffective in the hands of someone on foot as lance needs to be couched"
The White Company, an english mercenary company composed mostly of Years Wars veterans was described by sources of the time as fighting in close ranks, two men holding the same cavalry lance, advancing slowly while shouting to protect the longbowmen firing behind them.
At Agincourt, the men at arms are described as cutting the shaft of their lance to be able to use it on foot.
A lance, is just a very long spear, it's more efficient to use on horse, as you can benefit from the speed and strength of the horse. But if you're on foot, and thrust your spear in the gut of a french, the spear will still pierce that gut and kill the french, it's still a weapon ^^
"They would use halberds, maces, war hammers, and other types of weapons for opening armour."
That developped later when they became primarily infantry and that the plate armour became more prevalent.
I was talking specifically about the transformation of mounted men at arms into dismounted men at arms in the end of the Hundred Years War ^^
"Why I am talking mainly about English? As man-at-arms is their term"
French used "Hommes d'armes" or "Gens d'Armes" literally "Men of Arms" or "Gentry of Arms", it's not really taht dissimilar. But french and english were basically the same nobility between 1066 to the XVth century so it's not a surprise ^^
Spain and Italy didn't used the same terminology exactly, but it was still pretty close, Man-at-Arms designate a military function, the fully armoured cavalryman. In the early middle-ages, that function was called a knight. But as Knight became a social status, and some fully armoured cavalry were not knights, the french invented the term of "Hommes d'Armes", which the English used too. Other countries did not took the french word, but used a generic term for all fully armoured cavalry, nobles or not ^^
I also think Spirit should know that man-at-arms can be foot soldiers too
For me, polish Obuch is super bonkers. It's model (executioner) is based on allegorical representation of justice from famous painting (Bitwa pod Grunwaldem by Jan Matejko), not any type of historical infantrymen, and he wields popular sidearm among nobility in early modern age (obuch, it is a type of warhammer/horseman's pick) but enlarged into this huge maul, when obuch was relatively light weapon, sometimes even used as a walking cane.
The Dahomey Amazons also got wiped out by the French, managing to kill just six Frenchmen in that battle.
Yeah, "or even more effective than their male counterparts" is just wrong
@@danielsales442 definally a 10 of 10
Wasn't their purpose more so as a police force than military anyhow? As they were the king's women and anyone laying a hand on one of the king's women would be executed, meaning that resisting any arrest by them was a legal death sentence? I can't remember for sure.
@@bewawolf19damn no wonder brothers are so scared of the police
An unpack mechanic to the Hussite Wagon sounds awesome tbh
Not only that. I was recommend than along with the unpack mechanical a garrison effect.
What I saying is the Hussite Wagon should be empty when created and packed. When unpacked still is empty, but you can put ranged units and infantry inside that will attack/defend.
For example is You put an ranged units with arrows the Wagon will shot like the Viking Dragon boat and if you put gunpowder units they will attack like the portuguese Organ gun.
Also if you put melee infantry inside, the melee enemies will take damage when attacking them. Like the WC3 Orcs buildings.
That could be great.
Spirit when he makes the "10 historically unbonkers aoe2 units"
Perfectly balanced as all things should be
"Top 10 most historically accurate AoE2 units."
@@CptManboobs Unbonkers sounds funnier then Accurate
Well, guess what. Nice prediction of the future.
9:25 As far as petards go, supposedly during the siege of Rochester in 1215, attackers dug a tunnel leading under the walls, planted great fire there, and then thrown 40 very fat pigs into the tunnel.
The fat burned so violently, that apparently the stones themselves cracked due to sudden blast of heat.
So kind of a petard even before the gunpowder came about. :D
That's called sapping. Which was done as long as there have been stone walls to get through. It's not usually an explosive endeavour, and it most certainly isn't fast.
Flaming Pig unit when?
Brb, gonna look for a mod that changes the petard's powderkeg to a fat little piggy that wobbles around while walking.
They did not throw LIVE pigs into the fire. Live animals are very difficult to set on fire.
@@rat_thrower5604and they might run in the wrong direction setting your own camp ablaze instead of the tunnel you just dug ;D
funny how Genitours in Spanish are called "escaramuzador zenete", and back in the 2000, the knight was called jinete to avoid confusion with the cavallier, because both translate as "caballero". Now in DE they are both caballero
4:41 Apparently, if we talk about names, it makes a big difference to have the version of the game in each language, such as in Spanish, than if it is called Escaramuzador Zenete and not Genitour.
yeah; because Genitour is an english referred name.
In french, the konnik is the "bulgarian horseman"
@@gaspardpiet4275 Is the dismounted konnik called "bulgarian man" then?
@@SuperGiantNinjaYeti bulgarian dude
@@SuperGiantNinjaYeti Bulgarian Unhorseman?
The name Woad Raider makes me think of Elmer Fudd pillaging trade routes.
ah no; the Saladin mission's in my head again.
@@CallofDutyBlackOps28 Be vewy vewy qwuiet. I'm hunting sawacens!
Well that's something I can't unhear now
@@CallofDutyBlackOps28*"Reynald is attacking our caravan!"*
woad waider
Spear throwing Skirmishers in general being one of the main units used in Imperial Age is kind of bonkers.
And having same range and as fast a projectile as arbalests and guns. :D
I must generally doubt the concept of spear/javelin throwing in combat, despite of historical records claiming it to be a thing. they are well suited for primitive hunting but on combat you are just dispersing heavy weapons for your enemies. entering the combat both poorly armored and heavy with short and inaccurate range and low ammunition should stand out a stupid idea for anyone ever planning to join a battle.
my rule of thumb would be never to throw a bladed weapon at your enemy because he can dodge it and use it back against you.
@@Eye_Existyea bro, formation warfare is well known for it's abylity to dodge projectiles, next, spears and javelin were thrown against charges, where you can't keep your shield up AND have speed, charge with shields down? You get a spear to the chest, charge with shields up? You get an ineffective charge.
@@calebbarnhouse496 but why wouldn't you choose bow and arrow for that? more range and better accuracy with more versatile weapon. why use throwing spears instead?
@@Eye_Exist many reasons, most importantly, skill, a throwing spear is a lot easier to use, it's also usable in melee, beyond that, a bow is much more expensive, while the ammo is only a little bit more expensive for a javelin, simple because most the cost is in the metal used, the javelin is also way more mobile of a weapon, you can throw it in a charge, nevermind the fact that javelins have a much larger Mass so when they impact they hit way harder then an arrow, and finally as for the enemy using them against you, they are an enemy army, they are all armed, no one is going to stop a formation to pick up some javelin while a second volley is being prepared to be thrown at them, so the only way you'd ever gain a weapon out of the javelin being thrown is if you get disarmed and retreat, in which case you just chase that enemy formation, or then attack a flank, the downside is laughably irrelevant, and the upsides are really good
i like the idea of the others being able to use Genitours and condottieros, one being "the use of own tactics against them" and the other; being simple mercenaries for hire.
which makes it a bit of a missed opportunity to not have the HRE there were a LOT of germanic mercenaries during that time
@@GBlockbreakerby the games standards HRE is Teutons, just as France is Franks, England is Britons, Scotland is Celts, Arabs are Saracens.
Its all very silly and weirdly out of time, like if China was Qin, Japan was Yamato, Mongols was Xiongnu, Berbers were Numidians etc etc (most factions in the original game use ancient Roman era tribal names even though early Dark Ages scenarios didnt come in until the expansions)
9:05 Generally the fact that you had to wait till 2013 and the Magyar Hussars to actually see some cavalry using damn spears is funny enough as far as historical bonkery goes.
But any cav use lance/spear once.
Well... there was that one hero unit wielding an oddly short jousting lance, with the bulky horse rearing up for every hit.
Looked very beta and stifly animated, similar to jeanne d'arcs mounted model.
Even funnier when you remember the Scout, ealiest cavalry unit in AoE1, only used spears.
so are not gonna talk about the frenchman yeeting TWO HANDED FUCKING AXES on a regular basis?
To be frank, i wasn’t expecting the master yeeters to be historically accurate. The more you know.
The Franks *were* known for hurling axes, called "Franciskas" or "Franziskas" (From which their name the Franks was derived), of varying length - from sidearm hatchets to main battle axes before another weapon was drawn for the actual close-quarters.
Other way around. The Franziska or Franciska (or many other spell variations) was named because it was used by the Franks. The name Frank comes from the germanic tribe which lucked its way into regional dominance of parts of northern modern-day France called the Francii. They were known for their brutal honesty, hence the concept of "being frank". However, yes, they were amusingly known for their throwing axes.
The Franks became the French. The French are very violent against the French historically, in fact they basically get a racial bonus against themselves. It's a common joke to say "the French can't beat anyone, except the French". I could see them throwing such large axes against eachother.
Worth an honorable mention for inaccurate design, but at least throwing axes exist, unlike throwing scimitars, and the Franks were wellknown for using (small one-handed) throwing axes in the early middle ages and even had a type of throwing axe (the 'francisca') named after them.
They made accurate throwing axemen in Age of Mythology, I guess they learned from their mistakes 😂
Throwing axemen. While the Franks did use throwing axes, their axes were light hatchets, not some dwarven double battleaxes.
and they used to throw only one axe (called francisca) right before engaging hand-to-hand combat
I was expecting a full calculation on how much would it actually cost for a Mameluke to defeat a Teutonic Knight in terms of actual gold spent.
It costs 400.000 bezants to throw these weapons for 12 seconds...!
A fun list of some fun discrepancies.
Just a minor counter-nitpick on the Hussite wagon point. Although it was indisputably a product of the dire straits the Hussites were facing, it was quite a bit more purpose built than prior or later uses of war wagons, both with the protective walls, plus the use of horses as the draft animal, which allowed them to reposition quicker than traditionally ox-drawn wagons. They also did use them as a sort of mobile proto-tank at a few engagements such as at Kutna Hora, even if the wagon fort was the much more prominent and common usage.
It honestly would have worked fine with an aura effect buffing nearby infantry while shooting a mix of shot and arrows. Add a mode to set up for more armor and maybe firepower (like adding those cannon shots) and you're done. Closer to the historical ones, less annoying.
Oh and add some damn horses drawing the things... leave the lazy self propelled animations to siege and Aoe 4 :P
They instead overengineered it into a medieval drive-by tank joke unit with an unpredictable defense mechanic.
@@holyhandgrenadeofantioch2234 Adding horses to a model that uses its flank to fire is inane and makes it end up looking like the War Wagon.
An unpack/pack would be cool, but remember back when these things were slow, slow-firing tanks that were meant to defend archers behind them, they were awful. Changing them in a big way to make them pack/unpack weapon platforms is historically accurate and cool, but in gameplay, have fun losing all of them the moment you get routed and have to reposition. Or get outranged by bombards, trebs and onagers and be sitting ducks. It wouldnt be fun.
@@xXTheKingEmothXx Maybe just a longer delay to their attack might suffice if one goes that route
they used similar wagon/tactics in area further east(think the russian steppes) past the early 1500s which the wagenforts in central and further west in Europe had been obsoleted by the advent of field artillery.
Havent played AoE2 since my childhood (15years ago). Somehow i ended up in this channel, somehow I always end up watching SotL and love every data-driven second of it.
How about Samurai? They prefered fighting at range most of the time and Sandy said they even wanted to implement switching between bow and sword for them. Same thing we have now for Ratha.
What made me scratch my head were hussars and wings they had. Hussars were a light cavalry, but AFAIK they weren't exactly all that common in middle ages. As for the wings - they were supposedly typical only for the famous Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars, but this type of cavalry was introduced at the end of XVI century, and it was heavy cavalry, not light one.
our early depicitions of hussars first appear in the beginning of the 16th century for what thats worth.
I have another honorable mention in the siege tower. Yes, it existed, but it was _rarely_ used to hop onto or over walls like - most famously - Lord of the Rings depicted them, that's what ladders were for. Siege towers were, as the name implies, _towers,_ perches for archers to lay down fire from a higher elevation, in their case higher than the walltops of the structure under siege. Plus, like rams, they had to be pushed or pulled, so they were *_slooooow_* to move, and being so much bigger than rams means they were far heavier and slower and garrisoning troops (to help push) wouldn't help much. For the sake of accuracy they should have let you garrison archers and give them a range bonus, like a bunker in Command & Conquer, and given them even slower movement than a mangonel as well as vulnerability to Heated Shot since most siege towers were taken out by being set aflame.
If anything, the Egyptians in Age of Mythology depicted siege towers a little bit more accurately in function (they have a ram at the base but fire arrows at units), if not in civilization applicability. Although that game is fantasy, so it gets more of a pass.
That is how the current meta is using them lol, at least not from within the tower oddly enough but rather hopping in and out of it which is odd to say the least
@@annaairahala9462 Between using the towers as a wall bypass and deploying them as a freakin' APC, I don't know which is more creative 🤣
aye. as a kid i always wondered how bonkers someone had to be to climb a siegeladder without support.
turns out, they had a ton of support from allied towers.
Addressing the Thumb Nail: Teutonic Knights historically preferred fighting on horseback. They were also not walking talks - at least, not more so than your average dismounted knight in plate armor was, anyway.
true
To pick up a bit on the genitour, while medieval Spanish kingdoms took inspiration from Zenatas to set up their jinetes, mounted skirmishing wasn’t brought to Hispanics by the Berbers. It had been part of the warfare in the Iberian peninsula since at least 1000 years ago. The Celtic tribes at the Atlantic coast were particularly adept at it, being one of the first users of the Cantabrian circle in Roman times for example.
Another argument against their historicity is that jinetes in particular were specialised in countering heavier cavalry instead of general army formations, so an anti-cav bonus would have been more relevant than anti-archer.
Aside from being historically bonkers petard explosions also hardly damage units which is just generally bonkers
Aloha Snackbar intensifies...
I'm somewhat surprised the Xototl warrior wasn't on here.
Natives did utilize captured horses tho.
Mapuche would like a word with you
Check his new upload and marvel at it!
Also, most siege units are autonomous machines that require no people to operate, which is pretty bonkers.
With regard to the Zenata to Jinetete to Genitour. You have to remember that the letters J and X in Spanish were pronounced as an SH sound in medieval Spanish. It's why Don Quixote is pronounced as "key-shote" in both French and Turkish to this day. They've maintained the old pronunciation of the letter.
Organ guns are a good contender too, it saw existence in Italy notably but apparently never in Portugal
And even AoE3 does the same mistake
@@midosch7639 yes what when wrong with Portuguese in Aoe3, also their dragoons are named "Jinete dragoons" and a card is named "Genitours" even thougj these are Spanish names for Berber cavaliers :S
@@pikilic4481 Yeah you are right, it totally makes no sense :D
Yea it always bugged me a bit that Fire Ships weren't a unique naval unit for the Byzantines.
Generic hussar for anyone but the Poles, Lith and Magyar is pretty inaccurate too. Pretty sure Khmer didn't have thousands of winged horsemen riding around the jungles of cambodia
And the hussar being a mix of the 17th century Polish heavy cavalry "winged hussar" and generic Napoleonic era light cavalry "hussar". And hussar just being the generic Germanic word for horseman.
Definitely interested in what you found basis for in the follow-up. Meanwhile I know they're kinda just "this would be fine with a better name", but the names for Paladin/Champion are kinda funny because by definition those are a group of 12 guys/1 guy rather than something you can compose a whole army out of.
Mameluke was the craziest for me, throwing its swords and riding a camel, but since they introduced a literal tank that has to take top spot.
The kamayuk is another fictional unit, it did not exist under than name although the soldier, clothes (similar to priests) and weapon is quite accurate. It makes sense since Inka's campaign is full of name inaccuracies.
At least there's one real Pikeman in the game.
"Jinete" is spanish for "horse rider". So anyone, from a knight in heavy cavalry, to a mounted archer, to a random farmboy riding his horse on his land, would be a "jinete". I had no clue about the historical connection with "jinete".
100% agree with you on the Urumi Swordsmen. That unit is totally bonkers. I really hate the idea of a big, badass Teutonic Knight with all this armor being beat down by a guy wearing a diaper.
Great video, always enjoy your forays into the historical influences of the game. Looking forward to the follow up video
Maybe they could've just called Petards "sappers" and given the tech by the same name a different label.
the rule of cool. Petards look cool. Especially their introduction in the battle of the conquerers in the Nobunaga mission. Memorable indeed. Sappers wouldn't achieve the same result
@@kartiksaraf4676 I just meant the name change. Calling them sappers instead of petards. Maybe upgrade to petards in Imp Age for some civs, with greater armor and siege damage, something like that, you know?
To nitpick the nitpicker: people didn't wear leather underneath armor. They wore gambason or other kind of fabric underneath armor. Leather armor is fantasy, cool fantasy, but still.
Not even cool
ice cold@@walleras
Heck, if anything _bone_ armor is more plausible than pure leather armor. No, not the bones as they were, but plates of them sewn together like in a brigandine.
Hardened leather lamellar was quite common in Asia, and rawhide scale was definitely in use in the Ancient world, though that's not what people usually show when they talk about "leather armor."
@@micahbush5397 Well, it makes sense in a _roundabout_ kinda way. People figured _some_ people needed armor to protect them while wading waist-deep into the fight, but others who relied on _avoiding_ the fight and skirmishing near the periphery protected themselves more by stealth than anything else.
So armor made of leather *should* be _perfectly_ suited to a more agile, stealthy combatant...
... given that leather is made out of _hide._
Trivia: In Aoe2 in spanish language, the unit "knight" is called "Jinete" which literally means "horseman". So, if u were a spanish speaker person, the Genitour trivia fact, was mindblowing. Maybe in the next patch of language, u can call the knigths, genitours, and it mean the same!
I agree, a video about surprisingly historically accurate units would be great ! :)
What do you mean? Mayans obviously had to resort to petards to siege the Great Wall of China because even they realized that obsidian colored arrows won't do Jack against buildings let alone walls.
Totally accurate, even the fact that the Mayans were sieging the Chinese in the first place, duh.
I remember reading about that episode a few years ago. The history of Texas around 2000 B.C.E is indeed incredible.
Besides the joke, there were fights (such as in 1582) between Spanish, their (mostly Tlaxcalan) native american allies and natives from the Phillipines, against Japanese pirates (presumably Ronin) in south-eastern Asia.
The thirisidai is a total work of fiction
Haha, love this! The entry at the end reminded me of Armchair Saurus's video about Historical Nonsense in AOE2 techs
love the content as always. Thanks Spirit.
No mention of the fact that Petards are suicide bombers in game?, it should be slightly higher on the bonkers scale just from that alone. lol
i think it's just for the sake of them dropping the payload and peacing out, so you don't have to see a random useless unit taking up pop space.
I think that it just represents some people planting mines and then the mine/petard is spent, not them actually dying in the blast.
Also, petards were notably unstable and could easily take the sapper along with the structure when they went off. Ever heard of "hoist by his own petard"?
The word "Petard" means "breaking wind," so it would be funny if someone made a mod that replaced all explosion sounds with fart noises.
Hold on-
Woad Raider is 9/10 because of body paint
But a Mamaluke using camels and giant, unlimited scimitars is 7/10?
Off to a rough start
My thoughts exactly 😂
A self-driving hit and run tank is a solid 4/20
I mean 10
And he completely bought in to the devs' lies and nonsense about the Thirisadai, a completely made up thing from a fabricated wiki.
The crazy thing is that the War Wagon madness continued into AoE3. Like, while you could argue Hussite Wagons were good against cavalry, equating them to Dragoons is a bit dodgy.
I'm really looking forward to the follow up video you mentioned.
Great video. Can't wait for the follow up of surprisingly accurate stuff
Hey Spirit of the Law, guys here.
Niga enough with this comment
Hey hey spirit, law here
Noga @@sheiruto1058
Law hey, people of law the here.
“8 Naenaes out of 10.”
I was not expecting to hear SoTL saying that when I woke up this morning.
Looking forward to the complimentary video of surprisingly historically accurate units!
Funny thing, Genitours are actually called "Escaramuzador Zenete" in the Spanish version of the game. Wich, more or less, would translate as "Zenata Skirmisher".
I do wish they'd just reskin the Woad Raider as Gallowglass. Keep all the mechanics, just update the unit name and model.
But then, I'd also like my unicorn to be blue. :p
I think this is a case of people's perception so extremely skewed that people would complain if the devs didn't keep that historical inaccuracy. Just like the Vikings horns. I think Sandy Peterson mentioned that they had to go with that even though they knew the Vikings horns were wrong just because they were expected to
Nah, it's fun
Hey Law, Spirit of the Guys here
Love these types of videos that bring in history
The "surprisingly hisorically accurate" follow-up sounds exciting. Looking forward to it!
My issue with Urumi is that it's not really a weapon of war.
No? It was historically used in battle. However, nowadays it's obviously just used for tradition or for fun
Backporting the thing from AOE3 The Asian Dynasties must have taken some work.
@@annaairahala9462 it was used in single combat. Whips and flails are not weapons of war.
As far as units that are more historically accurate than people might think, I would have to say the Ballista Elephant has to be a contender.
It is possibly the most meme'd unit and people suggest all kinds of unique elephant units with the rationale that the Ballista Elephant exists, so anything goes. However even a little bit of research shows that yes, the Ballista Elephant and Double Crossbow definitely existed during the time of the Khmer Empire, with evidence in statues and bas reliefs at Angkor Wat. The contentious bit is whether those were ceremonial or actually used in warfare, and if used in warfare if the elephants were merely used to move the ballistae around or if they were actually mobile artillery units.
That is insightful, thanks for sharing
A big shoutout to Armchair Saurus who covered a similar topic with unique techs that don't make sense. I remember his joke:
Unique Technology / Civilization / Unit affected
Santa Klauss, Vietnamese, Camel Rider xDDD
He also did some units in his History behind every AoE2 Unique Unit, a must watch series!
I believe there's enough content for a part 2 of this
**laughs in monk**
Perhaps it would be interesting to have a mod that renames the units to a more historically-accurate name.
I take the Mameluke goes on a camel to make it more obvious that it's anti-cavalry.
Just as a reference, in "Jinete", you stress out the second syllable. "Ji-NE-te".
I think the Hussite Wagon could make more sense if it got a damage, firerate and armor boost if it remains stationary for a period of time. Let it hit and run for gameplay, but keep the "it's a gunman wall" identity.
And I think the Petard is passable. The problem is that units are generic rather than regional. Like, you could give the Chinese Petards and it would be fine, but other civs would need a different kind of wall-breaker. Perhaps something that digs underneath the walls to make them crumble (perhaps turn the Sappers technology into a generic unit?).
I like that hussite wagon idea. Make it even tankier, but either make it immobile/pack and unpack or make it slower and buff it as it remains still
I love these super random, creative videos :)
love the grading scales, need more of them :D
the biggest inaccuracy here is associating Celts as Scots only while they were a tribe spread throughout Europe
Chu Ko Nu is very fucking bonker tho
The model you saw in game is indeed based on real Chu Ko Nu, which was used PURELY for hunting and self-defence, having almost no military usecases outside of desperate times. It can barely kill people, if you pair it with poison or some shit.
On the other hand, the military at the time used some heavy rapid firing crossbow too, it can be refered to as Chu Ko Nu or Yuan Rong Nu or just
Lian nu(Repeating Crossbow in Chinese), the naming is kinda weird.
which fires multiple arrows instead being semi-auto (On record this baby fires 10 arrows at a time). And it was so heavy it is only used in sieges to defend cities.
The latter one is more realistic and being used across the time frame of AOE2.
The Ancient Chinese People often attributes anything relating to Repeating Cross bow Zhu ge liang, a famous general from three kingdom era, so they just refered to any kind of Repeating Cross bow as Chu Ko Nu.
But the use of Repeating Crossbow on record(Both the hand-held and the siege version) even dates back to time before Zhu ge liang was even born... And the only way you'd see this on the battlefield is a stationary balista looking thing spitting out 10 arrows at a time.
"... if you pair it with poison or some shit"
I feel compelled to point out here that this was, in all likelihood, _not_ meant as a figure of speech. By "Or some shit" I'm 99.9999% sure you're *literally* referring to the strategy of smearing feces on the business end of the arrow to inflict sepsis on struck opponents.
@@omargoodman2999 Few materials easily available in wartime are easier sources of sepsis (essentially biological poisoning) than excrement. Heck, even Vietnam put that on display.
I'm a little confused by this tbh, we have physical handheld repeating crossbows from before AoE2 timeframe that resemble the ones in game, not just written record. And while it was mainly used for self-defense as you mentioned there are records of it being used in battle as well. It having weak firing is true, which is why it was dipped in fast acting poison and aimed for unarmed portions of enemies at close range. It didn't have the power of a usual crossbow to pierce armor, but it could still kill vs unarmored targets.
So what exactly is inaccurate in game? Is it it's prominence as a primary weapon? Because that's inaccurate, but that could be said for nearly every unit in the game. Or maybe units it's used against? Since it's ironically more effective against armored units due to the 1 damage minimum aspect of aoe2, but it could be changed if the secondary bolts did full damage and it did lower damage each bolt making it much more effective against unarmored enemies
@@omargoodman2999 Of course, everyone used some shit, its the medival times you know
@@annaairahala9462 "but that could be said for nearly every unit in the game"
We are nit-picking here on this historical bonker video's comment section bruh, chill. AOE2 isn't a game to go serious on historical accuracy.
(But if some one actually nit picks every unit in the game, hell, Sprit of the law is already in the process of doing so. I would be very happy.)
What I want to add is:
if it wasn't to be historical bonker, the accurate repersentation of Chu ko nu would be it's heavier version being a tech for castle and ships or something with its historical siege status. Which would be a lot lamer to be honest. But accurate notheless.
The Genitour was actually a militia unit that threw a spear in the orginal AOE found only in the scenario editor.
Looking forward to the follow up vid!
Celts should become Scots/Scottish. Then an Irish/Gaelic civilisation should be made and while they're at it a Welsh one as well.
i'm sure we will eventually, being how with DE and so on we got the Cumans, so they can represented in the mongol campaign, the bohemians, and even poles as well.
They done it before by splitting up the Indian factions, if the game continues to be allowed to develop, I can see them doing the same for the more generic names groups like the Slavs, Celts, Chinese and so on.
That would surely be an awfully expensive expansion if people can play as Wales.
My criticism for vikings is the Beserkers look like standard fantasy viking, beserkers wore bear skins and were near if not totally naked with a dane axe. If you want to move a step forward you could replace champions with Ulfedinar which were the wolf shirts elite shock troops.
Love these more historical videos.
One thing you could take a look at is which of the civilisations in Age of EMPIRES 2 where, well, actual empires.
hey spirit , guys of the law here
Hey guys, spirit of the La Hire
And it wishes to kill something.
7:52
To be fair, there are at least two records of Ziska ordering the Hussite wagons to ride out while the occupants kept shooting out of them. They also added the damage reduction mechanics which really cements their status as mobile fortresses. RTS combat abbreviates a lot and depending on who you ask that lone soldier may represent a whole unit of warriors and movement across terrain may be a mix of tactical, strategic and even operational mobility.
Hussite wagons may feel weird but I think they are an example where they did fairly well to represent their historical role.
Looking forward to the historically accurate units!
Hey here, Spirit of the Law guys
Clearly the biggest Bonkers for the newest units are the Monaspa as nothing in the history books stated that they had the power of friendship nor does the game gives half of them their proper titles when selecting them.
Can't wait for follow up video for this
love it! more history stuff please!
Hey Spirit of the Guys, Law here.
One of the biggest inaccuracies is the Mongols having great siege. The mongols were TERRIBLE at sieges. They took a very long time to take their first sieges in China and then wizened up and hired some Chinese siegecraft mercenaries who were experts at it and impressing Chinese POW's and mercenaries into their ranks so they'd have better soldiers and not just pony trick riders. So, the Chinese did something the mongoloids got credit for.
The mongols were actually really bad at everything, they just happened to walk into China at the right time when everyone was already collapsing from a civil war, use those chinese to conquer the other chinese, and then take a massive army out to fight other people. Their armor and weapons? Made by the Chinese. Most of their soldiers? Chinese. They then beat up on smaller kingdoms or groups undergoing civil wars and as soon as they hit a competent, well-organized enemy they were stopped dead. Then they took over a vast expanse of empty land and everyone fawns over how "it was the biggest continuous land empire" because it covered the entire asian steppe with all 45 people who live there, and lasted like 15 minutes because of alcoholism and inbreeding making the mongolian "elite" as effective at ruling as they were at writing- which they couldnt do, its another thing they never developed and had to make someone Chinese do for them.
Their tech tree should just be blank unless allied with a Chinese teammate.
TL;DR- The Chinese accomplished a bunch of stuff and the mongols took the credit for it.
That would be interesting actually if you have a Civ with only generic units and maybe the first two techs of each thing... and a severe lack of advanced units, etc.
But then in Castle Age they can train their unique unit the Infiltrator who can steal everyone else's tech without having to research it? So if you send one into a Town Centre, you can get Wheelbarrow for free, then another gives you Hand Cart...
another fantastic video!!!
can't wait for the follow-up video, I'm gonna try to guess what will make it
Love these vids!!
I really love your historycal videos ❤️