"The Turks were commanded by Mehmed II who was a pretty good military commander while these guys are commanded by the Total war AI that is brain dead" I will be laughing with this for the whole day.
Great battle! I´m adding scene from sieging Lucca (Italian city) by french army, which after end of 100-year with England have plans to capture some Italian provinces ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-A2JJCeXW-zQ.html. This small and big canons and bombards would be exactly for you :-D :-D (smaller canons look too modern btw) and thanks for nice tips by your Western Roman campaign :-)
@mormegil231 Ottoman Super Cannon: The bombard that built an empire Guarding over the Dardanelles for about 400 years, the famed Ottoman super cannon is arguably one of the most important guns in history. Like Darth Vader’s Death Star, the Dardanelles gun imposed the overbearing, threatening presence that tacitly boasted of imperial grandeur of which pop-culture villains could only dream. This pass was assuredly Ottoman. Its predecessor would break down the walls to an empire that had continued since Augustus Caesar and it - itself - would deter another up-and-coming empire almost half a millennium later. The generic term Ottoman super cannon, when used by historians, confusingly refers to a few separate bombards that were used by the Ottoman Empire but dating from the same period. The first one was nicknamed Basilica and the last one - the fodder of pub trivia - is the Dardanelles Gun, or Şahi topu. The Dardanelles gun is a super cannon designed as a bombard for use in siege warfare. The gun weighs 16.8 tons and measures 17 feet in length with a diameter of just under 3.5 feet and it fired a massive marble shot at a range of one-and-a-half miles.
The AI in almost any 4X, grand strategy game, or any other sort of similar genre of game, is complete shit and has been for for quite some time. In fact, I would say that AI quality has actually gone down since the TW:M2 or TW:R1 era. Maybe its bias, but I felt that old school AI were somewhat competent (not great) at the battles and actually played the same game as you in the grand campaign map. They had to have trade, taxes, etc, in order to raise forces and fight you. Compare that to games now where the AI never builds eco buildings and yet runs around with 5-10 full stacks of elite troops on legendary difficulty. But while they have a ton of elite forces, the AI during battles completely flounders, very rarely pulling off successful flanks or collapsing inward on the main line of battle. They just run at you, or have an army only made up of skirmish cav that makes you want to pull out your hair.
Κontaratoi (Κονταράτοι): Spear-wielders Scoutatoi (Σκουτάτοι): Wielders of scutum (shield type) Anglovarangoi (Αγγλοβαράγγοι): Anglos - Varangians i.e Nordic mercenaries in service to the Byzantines. It's all greek to a Brit! The last emperor was Constantine XI Palaiologos and the actual ratio was 10:1 in favour of the Turks.
The reason why it's Anglo-Varangians is that the Varangian Guards started to become less Scandinavian and Nordic and more Anglo-Saxon and English in composition (Mostly due to the Norman Conquests and persisted into Byzantium's eventual downfall)
I know I'm a couple years late to the party, but if you add up his kills on the battle summary screen, it looks like the gate oil might have had a couple thousand kills. Probably less than because of friendly fire and tower kills, but it's in that ball park.
Correct Legend, the Byzantine Empire was a name given to the Eastern Roman Empire by the impostor Germans to make their "Kaiser" look more legitimate. Great show as always. - It's a mark of a good RU-vidr(and person in general) to pay some attention to what happened in history. - Keep it up. Roma Invicta. Edit: To clarify. Yes regarding general use of the term Byzantine Empire as is pointed out in the comment section was a later thing. However the first use of "Byzantium" was actually made by historians and poets at an earlier date. Hieronymus Wolf in 1557 comes to mind. Furthermore I will concede that I was unclear - As the way I stated it, it could look like I was stating the applied use of term was during the still existing empire - my apologies. However a term we know was used during the still existing empire was "Empire of the Greeks"- which was used by the Frankish court, as stated by Paul Fouracre in his book Late Merovingian France. History and hagiography, 640-720. p. 345.
Actually the first one to use the expression and to make it popular was Scottish historian George Finlay. Around 1850 he wrote a History of the Byzantine Empire that had some influence
You're wrong, the name "Byzantine empire" was used AFTER the actual empire had already fallen. It was used by historians to easier differentiate between the Western European "Roman empire" and the Eastern European + Middle eastern "Roman empire". Get your facts straight.
You have to admire Constantine and the city of Constantinople. Constantine XI Palaiologos was an absolute badass. When Mehmed II proposed terms of his surrender, his reply was "To surrender the city to you is beyond my authority or anyone else's who lives in it, for all of us, after taking the mutual decision, shall die of our own free will without trying to save our lives." They fought to the bitter end and when it was clear the city was to fall, Constantine remarked "The city is fallen and I am still alive." He then led his cavalry in one last suicidal charge out the city gates, donned in the armor of a standard calvary soldier so that the Turks could not distinguish his body from the others. What a legend.
Boiling oil stronk. Also Brain-Dead AI yes....all he needed to do was to make 2-3 separate breaches and it was game over. Game also needs a realistic wall of corpses to plug that gate after 5000 got turned into the equivalent of KFC chicken there.
Mediaval 2 total war is the best . But it is attila in mediaval period it is the best attila mod in my opinion .this mod will have campaign available again because they doing upgrades right now
This is a pointless note, but in this this time period, the correct pronunciation of "oi" would already be "ee". So "Kontaratoi" is pronounced "Kontaratee" (or "Ko(n)daratee"), and so on. Generally in this time period, you have: ei = "ee" eu = "ev" ai = "eh" (like in "den") au = "av" oi = "ee" ou = "oo" Also, I'm sure you can pronounce "Anglo", and you can pronounce "Varangian", so why not "Anglo-Varangoi"? :P
@@vicentgalvan70 I don't exactly understand what you mean. If you're talking about how "Varangoi" would be pronounced, then yeah (though it's a hard "g", like in "egg", not like in "German"). If you're talking about how I spelled "Anglo-Varangoi", instead of "Anglo-Varangee", then I was only trying to point out how it's not a complicated word at all. I wasn't spelling out the pronunciation, I just think Legend didn't realise what it's components are.
Apparently Mehmet II was only 21 years old when he conquered Constantinople, and upon victory he immediately ordered that no sacred sites or religious buildings were to be sacked. So Mehmet II was much more chivalrous than any other Turk / Ottoman. This is what I heard from Turkish people, not sure if there might be some propaganda mixed in there or not!
The city was his new capital, would be a shame to destroy it. They probably did less damage then the crusaders did in the 4th crusade, where the intention was to sack and loot to punish. It was pretty common for muslims and christians to turn religious site into their own in conquered lands instead of destroying them. e.g turn the mosques into church and vice versa.
He ordered troops to sack the city for 3 days and when he saw the sacking he cried. This is what I heard but it might be true and there is a saying that when he came close to city he said Constantinople either you take me or I take you there are lots of sayings etc
Samuel Hall he said the haggia Sophia and the various artworks in it is his property by sword. Any looting there would be punished. Yes the city was sacked for 3 days but i don't think he really wanted it. There would be mutiny among his soldiers. After sacking was over he entered the city and burst into tears and said " what a city we have given to looting and plunder"
Okay history time! Mehmed II obsessed over Constantinople in a way where he saw great future for the city (in hindsight it does seem a good call but back in his day it was ill advised since the city was nothing but a city that "used to be" great, a bit depopulated and sacked before him.) his goal was to take the city unharmed but he also had to act within the Islamic law of war. Which meant surrender means the city would go untouched and 3 times the army leader can ask for surrender of the city, (Some parts of Constantinople did surrender interesting tid bit and also those parts were by law left untouched with its residents after the city was taken.) We can interpret from few myths and the events that Mehmed II really didn't want to bring down the walls or attack the city at all knowing that it would mean he would have to allow the sacking of the city for 3 days. Though when Byzantinians sent back the 3rd request it also meant he had no choice. I would assume he could bend the laws of Islam even had he been at the height of his legend as a Sultan but he was way too young and everyone saw his idea of a Constantinople conquest that led it to be a city that prospered as a kid who was trying to chase adventure with his new army. They were wrong though after taking the city he gave himself the title of Ceaser and went about to reform the Ottoman around the an Islamic and Ottoman(those don't go hand in hand) interpretation of the Roman laws. It is very important that foreign policy of Ottoman within its conqured states has always been very close to Roman law(As far as i have been able to read up on Balkans). He had to put in place many laws that failed before making Constantinople(Now Istanbul!) into the prosperous city that he believed it could be and that it once was much much before he brought down its walls.
I am from Greece and I am really (pocitively) surprised about the historical education Legend has. Yes, they concidered themselves as Romans (Easter Roman Empire was the official name...we call them Byzantines today...but if we called them Byzantines back at their time, they would not understand that term). Yes, Greek was the most dominant culture at the empire (in many areas but not all the areas) but not the only one. There were also Armenians and other ethnicities as well. Not all the emperors were Greek. It was not a Greek empire. They were Greeks, Armenians and other ethnicities united under the same banner and concidered themselves as Romans. Because they did not hate each other and because one ethnic group did not concider it self greater than an other ethnic group inside the empire, the empire was united and lasted for so long. The one thing that was common for everyone was the religion. Ps. Sorry for my bad English.
When I say they all were united under the same religion I mean Christianity. There were not big groups of people of a different religion. Of course, that does not mean that there were not any problems inside the same religion. Many Armenians for example became Μonophysites. And yes, some Byzantine emperors were against it, causing other problems. You are right about that, but personally I am not fully aware of the religious historical facts.
the empire after 600 ad was a both hellenic and roman yes they thought they were the descents of romans BUT most of them spoke hellenic,hellenic was the official language,the emperors were Hellenes at Constantines XI speach he said that they were the descents both romans and hellenes , the empire of nikoia(also a hellenic name) was called by the emperors and the local people as hellenic kratos?state etc. :)
Considering the Greeks had been part of the Roman Empire for nearly 1500 years by this point, it would be surprising if they thought of themselves as Greeks rather than Romans just because the Eternal City had fallen.
Patrick Ellis they called themselves romans (Rhomaioi) till 19th century; but with nationalism movements they have started calling themselves as greeks.
A shame it wasn't more accurate. The Byzantines had armed citizens in the fight. What is amazing was the battle was lost when people saw an ottoman flag above a tower, causing a mass rout, even though the city gates were not breached/opened at the time.
Hey Legend, Thrones of Britannia got a big update today and they overhauled the estates system. It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter if you can stomach playing it again
Okay history time! Mehmed II obsessed over Constantinople in a way where he saw great future for the city (in hindsight it does seem a good call but back in his day it was ill advised since the city was nothing but a city that "used to be" great, a bit depopulated and sacked before him.) his goal was to take the city unharmed but he also had to act within the Islamic law of war. Which meant surrender means the city would go untouched and 3 times the army leader can ask for surrender of the city, (Some parts of Constantinople did surrender interesting tid bit and also those parts were by law left untouched with its residents after the city was taken.) We can interpret from few myths and the events that Mehmed II really didn't want to bring down the walls or attack the city at all knowing that it would mean he would have to allow the sacking of the city for 3 days. Though when Byzantinians sent back the 3rd request it also meant he had no choice. I would assume he could bend the laws of Islam even had he been at the height of his legend as a Sultan but he was way too young and everyone saw his idea of a Constantinople conquest that led it to be a city that prospered as a kid who was trying to chase adventure with his new army. They were wrong though after taking the city he gave himself the title of Ceaser and went about to reform the Ottoman around the an Islamic and Ottoman(those don't go hand in hand) interpretation of the Roman laws. It is very important that foreign policy of Ottoman within its conqured states has always been very close to Roman law(As far as i have been able to read up on Balkans). He had to put in place many laws that failed before making Constantinople(Now Istanbul! ^^) into the prosperous city that he believed it could be and that it once was much much before he brought down its walls.
I still feel, like the missile units should get signifficantly amplified ammo, while defending against a siege... I mean, they have an entire city, to make arrows, cannonballs etc. Just imagine those Genovese having 4 times as much ammunition. They could just win the battle byy themselves :D
The Ottomans were smart, they conquered lands surrounding the city first and built fortresses so that when they sieged Const. they didn't have to worry about their rears.
@@Normacly they built all of them but still venice was able to sent ships to help its not about preperation 😂 they conqured its surrounding first because they werent able to take it for a long time
Once campaign for 1212 ad comes out would you consider to start making some videos on it? Whether it be SYDC, Last Stand or maybe even your own campaign?
Hello, I was wondering if there is any experienced modder in here. I have been trying to find the descr_settlement_mechanics.xml file, but I can't seem to find it within patch 1.52. I can hardly believe they would remove that file, so I'm probably doing something wrong. Since all the info I can find on forums is based on 2012 or before and usually concerns patch 1.2 I can't seem to find what I am actually doing wrong. Anyone that can help me out finding this file? I wan't to try and play around with the corruption and public order modifiers for settlements. :)
They were 100-150.000 attackers muslims(no only turks) and the defenders were only 7000(5000 greeks,1500 italians and 500 others).No one can win so big army.
that's the point, it's not fun watching the AI stupidly zerg through 1 tunnel. A dire to and fro struggle and last stand against a multi-pronged human attack would be far more suspenful and entertaining. @Joe Plummer
with all the respect for legend, the total war Attila AI performance was so unrealistic and boring that legend's soldiers even could go for a lunch break and get back while some were holding the gate. :D
1453 was a sad year, but if the Ottomans didn't take Constantinople, the portuguese wouldn't be forced to search a route to India around Africa, and Spain wouldn't be forced to search a route to India around the world. In other words, the Age of Discovery would be severely delayed. I mean, no one knows if the world would be a better place or not, but I'll stick to a strong and thicc yes, even though I'm portuguese and the Age of Discovery was the portuguese Golden Age, because turks wouldn't exist
