Is there any reason why the following Infantry in the lists are classified as 'dismountable'?
Voynuks, archers, rustici and curteni? As far as I know none would have had horses

Probably based on Ian Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume 2 where he says that virtually the whole army could be mounted, but that many were just mounted infantry.

In my uncompleted book manuscript on Renaissance Turks, I have Voynuks described as:

Slav Christian heavy armoured infantry, 1450 at least one per 5 households in Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, and Greece, plus one per 10 households in Hercegovina. Therefore numerous.
Extant as semi-settled garrisons on Austrian border in 1590s.

A quick google search also shows that in peace time they raised horses for the Turks. Presumably as such they were able to ride.

Mark

Check the discountable characteristic as it applies to infantry and it portably does fit that.

Si

Or dismountable...

I certainly would not discount the dismountable or should that be dismount the discountable.

If they have horses and are dismountable then surely they should be classified as 'cavalry' and then with the dismountable characteristic. If they never fought on horses then the 'dismountable' characteristic is irrelevant, non-sensical and misleading.
I assume there is no unit as 'mounted infantry' which then might have a cavalry movement rate and then dismounted to fight; but there seems to be nothing in the rules to say this?
As it stands the units are classified as 'Infantry' and no mention of horses. Hence the classification of 'dismountable' is nonsensical, as they are already dismounted and cannot be mounted becuase they are infantry.

Read point 4 & 5 in the dismountable characteristic

Quote from: RocketSix on December 25, 2019, 08:34:52 PM
Read point 4 & 5 in the dismountable characteristic

Optimist 

ok now seen the rule about 'infantry' with the 'dismountable' charateristic.