In the forthcoming Magna lists, these will become 4s,  for the reasons you point out.  Throughout the lists, quite a few 0-4 options in Maximus will remain 0-4 options in Magna.

Richard

Great news.  Thanks for the update.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 16, 2020, 10:18:01 AM
Okay - as it happens I have just started work on the Crusader lists for 2021.  All the list sets for 2021 will include Magna and Pacto lists as well as the Maximus lists.  As you might imagine, this has been a big undertaking, particularly as the list sets will show the points values as well.  Fortunately there are relatively few list changes for 2021.

The Later Crusader list for Magna will allow 2 TuGs of 4 mixed knights and sergeants.  It will allow 1 TuG of 4 separate sergeants. In the Military Order contingent it will allow 1 TuG of 4 mixed knights and sergeants.  It will separately allow a TuG of 2 brother knights who will have a special rule exempting them from the requirement to be 2 elements wide.

p.s. TuGs of 6 in Magna are normally only available for TuGs that can have 9s in Maximus.

Richard

Just checking through the Magna Crusades list and, as you say above, it does allow for 2 TUGs of 4 mixed Knights / Sergeants (excluding Military Orders), however, unless I'm reading it wrong, the 'second' mixed TUG of 4 can only be taken if taking a 3rd Crusade list, allowing you to take the Superior Knights / Sergeants from that section, otherwise it looks like you are limited to a single mixed TUG of 4.  That restriction seems somewhat artificial. 

Could / should there not be a note that the min / max for 'Outremer & Crusader' Average Knights / Sergeants is 2 / 4 for each line but ONLY if not taking the 3rd Crusade Superior Knights?  This would thus allow the Magna list outside of the 3rd Crusade to still take the two mixed TUGs of 4 Crusader / Outremer knights as opposed to the requirement to use the 3rd Crusade list if you wish to do so currently, while still limiting the Magna list to max two mixed TUGs of 4 non-Order knights

With such a footnote the below, which you indicated above would be a legal list for Magna would be legal, currently it's only legal if taking the 3rd Crusade Superiors:

TUG 1
Crusader Knights 2 / Sergeants 2

TUG 2
Crusader Knights 2 / Sergeants 2

TUG 3
Military Order (Contingent 1) Knights 2 / Sergeants 2

TUG 4
Military Order (Contingent 2) Knights 2 / Sergeants 2

Quote from: Plantagenet on May 06, 2021, 02:53:33 AM
Could / should there not be a note that the min / max for 'Outremer & Crusader' Average Knights / Sergeants is 2 / 4 for each line but ONLY if not taking the 3rd Crusade Superior Knights?  This would thus allow the Magna list outside of the 3rd Crusade to still take the two mixed TUGs of 4 Crusader / Outremer knights as opposed to the requirement to use the 3rd Crusade list if you wish to do so currently, while still limiting the Magna list to max two mixed TUGs of 4 non-Order knights

Absolutely not.  If you want that many knights, take a 3rd Crusade army.  You are trying to alter the list.

Richard

With all due respect, I am not trying to alter the lists at all!  In the posts above YOU said that the the Magna list would changed to allow 2 mixed TUGS of Crusader Knights and Sergeants.  Furthermore, when I posted a specific list make up with regard to that change, asking if it would be legal YOU replied that it would.  Finally, in response to that specific question, you made zero mention of the fact that it would be legal ONLY for the 3rd Crusade list with 1 TUG of Superior knights.  So perhaps before we start flinging statements around like 'You are trying to change the lists', maybe reflect on what you posted and / or maybe make it clearer next time.  It's called a discussion!!  "That many knights?", in a Crusader list? 

Seems beyond bizarre to me that a list to represent a Later Crusader army, some of which may not have even had Military Orders present at all, is effectively limited to just one TUG of knights.  I'd be very grateful for any indicating as to where the rationale for that comes from?  Or is it just some arbitrary list ruling without any foundation in history?

As it stands, for Later Crusaders in Magna players can select just one TUG of knights if not taking Military Orders?  Not a particularly Crusader like list.  Or two TUGs of Knights in the 3rd Crusade.  Indeed, for a later Crusader list outside of the 3rd Crusade, unless taking Military Orders, essential to even get the lists up into a viable state, it the four states of Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa and Tripoli between them can muster just one TUG?

From what I have read of the crusader states in Outremer is that following Hattin they were continually very short of knights and could only really field respectable numbers with the participation of the military orders who were the mainstay of the forces available for the last century of these states. The 3rd and 5th crusades provided some additional manpower for short periods.

I studied the Crusades over a period of 3 years in the UK along with 9 months in Jordan and a very intensive 3 month stint in Syria (obviously well before ISIS appeared on the scene!), this included learning Latin (which I had studied before as part of wider research) which I mention only because it allows access to and understanding of primary Muslim sources along with Western, some of which are still undergoing translation.  Happy to compare notes at any time as it's a period I'm very fond of.

While the battle of Hattin did cause a reduction in knights overall it has to be borne in mind that some were replenished over time and the Crusader states along with Oultrejordain still maintained sizeable contingents, especially when forces were combined between one or two of the states, although these 'knights' were not all knights of the Frankish type, they were quipped and fought in the same manner.  Also the Military Orders almost inevitably contributed troops to the set piece battles but not so much in the minor battles between Crusader states and Ayyubid forces, and latterly Mamluk; more often than not they stayed out of it altogether in the disputes between the Crusader states themselves.

That the numbers of knights were reduced significantly post Hattin is beyond doubt, the Orders in particular took a very long time to recover and by then had started losing territory.  What I would be interested in is the source material that indicates that the knight contingents in the Crusader states were so low that only one TUG is possible in a Crusader list such that they would represent only 5 - 7% or so of a Crusader force of the period.

Quote from: Plantagenet on May 06, 2021, 01:54:57 PM
I studied the Crusades over a period of 3 years in the UK along with 9 months in Jordan and a very intensive 3 month stint in Syria (obviously well before ISIS appeared on the scene!), this included learning Latin (which I had studied before as part of wider research) which I mention only because it allows access to and understanding of primary Muslim sources along with Western, some of which are still undergoing translation.  Happy to compare notes at any time as it's a period I'm very fond of.

Sounds to me that you are well placed to make good specific proposals as to how the lists may be improved - I'd encourage you to do just that and pop the info in the List Queries sub-forum. Whilst the usual cycle for significant updates as opposed to errata means that there wouldn't be an immediate change, I know that Richard stores these things for due consideration as the changes made in previous updates show 

Sure I can do that.  I studied 'Classical and Medieval warfare focussing on the Republican Roman army and the Crusades' and the time in the Middle East was exclusively on the latter, indeed I feel very fortunate to have been able to visit pretty much all of the known Crusader sites, including those in Jerusalem (even with the passport juggling act).  It was a fascinating period of my life, awe inspiring to stand in such sites as Krak de Chevalier, Kerak and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

My preferred approach would be a PDF file which we can work out a way to get to you, probably by direct message or something.  I have been meaning to get round to putting something together for a few years (indeed I planned at one stage to write a book!).  An abridged version of it can then be posted in the List forum.  I would not suggest any sweeping wholesale changes but there are a few issues which, in light of evidence discovered in the the last 20 years, would be worthy of a look IMO.  Evidence, both written and artefact, was being, and still will be (post bloody covid!!), discovered at significant rate, particularly in the Muslim world as different sites were unearthed. The written sources alone are significant, so much so that I continue to ponder a return visit to the region for 6-12 months though Syria will be much more problematic, even post Covid, than it was when I was there in 2009.

Luckily I am still in contact with pretty much all of the people I had the fortune to work with in the region so am not completely out of touch.  The sheer amount of that evidence is such that it calls into question quite a few of the assumptions made about Crusading warfare alone, all of this of course post dates the still very useful WRG 'Armies and Enemies' publication and the others, such as the excellent Runciman 'The Crusades', biased more as a result of the evidence available at the time than by design.

Such a document will not be an overnight affair though, we're talking weeks if not months, not at all helped by the fact that I have three packing cases of my books on the Crusades stranded in one country waiting to cross a land border when it opens to come to where I live now, having made the final transition over the last couple of years.

I am actually in favour of adding more knights to the list.  It needs to be done as a proper list change.  Would welcome any contributions.

Richard

Had a bit of a quick dig around for numbers at La Forbie last night, it being a set piece battle of the type MeG represents (and I knew where some info was) - maybe unsurprisingly there are various numbers out there from about 1000 cavalry in the Crusader army to about 2000, the more recent ones tended to higher numbers though. At the 2000 end the military orders provide about 1400 cavalry and the secular cavalry number about 600 which included troops from Cyprus as well as the Outremer states.

As an aside on La Forbie on the Muslim side the army is said to be about 5000 Ayyubid troops from Egypt and 10000 Khwarazmians which in sheer numbers would suggest representation by a Khwarazmian with Ayyubid allies not the other way around in an ordinary MeG game (although the Ayyubid commander does appear to have been the C-in-C).

Yes the biggest problem with Crusader battles is accurately trying to assess force sizes.  In some cases there are sources numbering in the 20s with figures varying wildly between them by 100 up to 600%!  As to set battles IMO MeG can represent whatever the players chose to represent with the figure / RL ratios varying accordingly, along of course with the 'what if's' that probably count for the vast majority of encounters.  Set piece battles like Hattin and La Forbie are few and far between. 

Even less well documented are the disputes between the states and various spin off short term allegiances leading to further conflict with the interests of the Templars and Hospitallers rarely aligned and those interests often in conflict with one or more of the states and / or Oultrejordain.  While the presence of the Military Orders was often essential to make up the numbers in the largest battles it was primarily their numbers and combat prowess that were welcomed, for all that their presence was also resented as they followed their own policies and strategies and were not subject to command by the King, heads of state or anyone else.  The rivalry between the two Orders merely exacerbated the problems.  The extensive use of 'paid' 'local' heavy cavalry (read knight) by the Crusader states and Oultrejordain muddies the waters a lot with, often Christian, chroniclers taking into account only Latin speaking Catholic forces and often failing to take into account infantry at all, the knights of the time being the only troops worthy of mention (in their eyes).  I'll refrain from expanding on the multiple issues here as it will be in danger of becoming very lengthy, it's better left to the PDF which will summarise everything in a more logical and complete manner with regard to both Christian and Muslim forces.