10 Historically Bonkers AoE2 Units

While Age of Empires has many great historical references hidden throughout, sometimes it sacrifices a bit of historical accuracy for the sake of fun gameplay.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

[@marialapis]

Spirit : Literal Medieval Tank? 4/10 a bit unusual I guess Also Spirit : Scotsman but BLUE? 9/10 absolute bonkers

[@roostangarar]

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

[@CallofDutyBlackOps28]

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.

[@annaairahala9462]

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

[@Jyanys_Maera]

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

[@voiceofreason2674]

I like the woad raider he doesn't LOOK historically accurate but he does play historically accurate

[@kylethomas9130]

Can confirm, the dev's were movie fans. Scorpion King preceded Age of Mythology, and inspired a unit based on Dwayne Johnson's character.

[@DinnerForkTongue]

In the same vein, their depiction of the siege tower is straight out of LOTR Return Of The King.

[@Doodmeister0]

Who ?

[@ze3934]

So basically i have dwayne johnson in my age of mythology gameplay?

[@AntonioZL]

I KNEW IT! As a kid I always thought that the similarities were too big for it to be a coincidence.

[@CBRN-115]

​@@Doodmeister0scorpion man

[@Max-ej4oh]

"Now next unit is the Cobra Car, this unit is 10.5 in the Ritcher scale, presumably used by the swagger Persian empire"

[@R3stor]

Since Cobra car is not on this list, its historically accurate the way it is.

[@AnthonyAvon]

"You call that a pike?! This is a pike!"

[@Snowthree]

"That's not a pike. It's a battleaxe."

[@gmwdim]

All right, all right. You win. I see you've played pikey-axey before.

[@inductivegrunt94]

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.

[@namebrandmason]

I like the image of a dude dragging a bag full of battle axes behind him as he charges into battle

[@Israelyguy14]

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.

[@AlphaSections]

Where do they find people willing to commit suicide? What hiring/conscripting process is this?

[@meneldal]

@@AlphaSections If things go well they don't collapse the tunnels while being inside.

[@annaairahala9462]

@@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.

[@jussi3378]

@@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

[@annaairahala9462]

@@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.

[@coxandrewj]

>It whips all the way up to 8 Ney Neys out of 10 Bravo

[@cian2741]

couldn't help but shamelessly snort out my nose lmfao

[@kickgreven3921]

It landed after 3 seconds for me But great one

[@neatwing2285]

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.

[@TomsLife9]

hell yeah, those were the days! you got them in the last Genghis Khan mission as well

[@anttisinivuori5259]

Saboteurs were absolutely bonkers against buildings - only 6 needed to make contact with a castle to bring it down.

[@richeybaumann1755]

They're also available by using the same cheat code that has worked since Conquerors.

[@ShadowOfCicero]

I think in the editor they were in the hero tab.

[@WayanMajere]

They are still called saboteurs in the German Version If I remember correctly

[@sgtpepper8581]

In the spanish version, genitors are named as "zenata skirmisher", and "jinete" is literally "knight" in the spanish version too 1111

[@CallofDutyBlackOps28]

not wrong, being a mounted skirmisher, I figured to just call them mounted skirmishers then anything.

[@annaairahala9462]

Yeah they are historically accurate in that case

[@Zelta08]

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

[@navynahibel873]

In French, they're called Jinete. So a bit better than the english, but not quite there yet ^^

[@raizan5946]

@@navynahibel873 Jinete is terrible... is the equivalent of calling them Rider.

[@Ellebeeby]

The Dahomey Amazons also got wiped out by the French, managing to kill just six Frenchmen in that battle.

[@danielsales442]

Yeah, "or even more effective than their male counterparts" is just wrong

[@Steven9567]

@@danielsales442 definally a 10 of 10

[@bewawolf19]

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.

[@Naelhinn]

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

[@zaleost]

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.

[@ithadtobeaname7327]

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.

[@jomolhari]

@@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

[@ithadtobeaname7327]

@@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.

[@voxdraconia4035]

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)

[@gosbanyat7571]

Mr spirit, you missed that the mameluke camels are bactrian camels instead of maghrebi camels

[@Dhomden]

Camel Fact popups when?

[@SvanTowerMan]

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.

[@7dayspking]

Warrior priest's helmets and weapons are stupid.

[@SvanTowerMan]

@@7dayspking They're historically accurate.

[@Artuditu123]

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.

[@micahbush5397]

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.

[@annaairahala9462]

I'm surprised it didn't. It's usually mentioned in the same line as the Saracen Mameluke as an inaccurate unit

[@lscibor]

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.

[@voidgods]

They made accurate throwing axemen in Age of Mythology, I guess they learned from their mistakes 😂

[@xotl2780]

The obuch hammer is grossly oversized also.

[@JohnCarver-ns9yr]

@@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.

[@tisucitisin1]

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.

[@holyhandgrenadeofantioch2234]

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]

[@krankarvolund7771]

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

[@tisucitisin1]

@@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.

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@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 ^^

[@Bulgarian021]

I also think Spirit should know that man-at-arms can be foot soldiers too

[@IndependentObserver]

2:10 Same with Medieval 2 total war. Half of scotland's early game units look like savages with their faces painted blue.

[@grumpywizard323]

I've read that woad would be mixed with animal fat and used on skin. Not sure the accuracy of that though

[@imperatorg5208]

@@grumpywizard323im pretty sure woad is caustic to skin

[@boarfaceswinejaw4516]

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.

[@tzeentch7118]

Rome was even worse. Egyptians straight out of old testament, roman ninja warriors, brits that throw decapitated heads,...

[@stalhandske9649]

That's English bias for you. CA is from West Sussex after all.

[@nnhoffingg]

Spirit when he makes the "10 historically unbonkers aoe2 units" Perfectly balanced as all things should be

[@CptManboobs]

"Top 10 most historically accurate AoE2 units."

[@nnhoffingg]

@@CptManboobs Unbonkers sounds funnier then Accurate

[@DinnerForkTongue]

Well, guess what. Nice prediction of the future.

[@haramaschabrasir8662]

An unpack mechanic to the Hussite Wagon sounds awesome tbh

[@hernanreipp3321]

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.

[@lscibor]

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

[@ruukinen]

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.

[@informitas0117]

Flaming Pig unit when?

[@TheHeavyshadow]

Brb, gonna look for a mod that changes the petard's powderkeg to a fat little piggy that wobbles around while walking.

[@rat_thrower5604]

They did not throw LIVE pigs into the fire. Live animals are very difficult to set on fire.

[@rumpelpumpel7687]

@@rat_thrower5604and they might run in the wrong direction setting your own camp ablaze instead of the tunnel you just dug ;D

[@cappantwan2978]

The name Woad Raider makes me think of Elmer Fudd pillaging trade routes.

[@CallofDutyBlackOps28]

ah no; the Saladin mission's in my head again.

[@cdcdrr]

@@CallofDutyBlackOps28 Be vewy vewy qwuiet. I'm hunting sawacens!

[@jarradwilder]

Well that's something I can't unhear now

[@michaelandreipalon359]

​@@CallofDutyBlackOps28*"Reynald is attacking our caravan!"*

[@clamsquid8606]

woad waider

[@A.Martinez152]

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

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

Throwing axemen. While the Franks did use throwing axes, their axes were light hatchets, not some dwarven double battleaxes.

[@Vasskera]

and they used to throw only one axe (called francisca) right before engaging hand-to-hand combat

[@lscibor]

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.

[@aleksandarjankovic39]

But any cav use lance/spear once.

[@holyhandgrenadeofantioch2234]

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.

[@DinnerForkTongue]

Even funnier when you remember the Scout, ealiest cavalry unit in AoE1, only used spears.

[@marcelo8405]

Spear throwing Skirmishers in general being one of the main units used in Imperial Age is kind of bonkers.

[@lscibor]

And having same range and as fast a projectile as arbalests and guns. :D

[@Eye_Exist]

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.

[@calebbarnhouse496]

​@@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.

[@Eye_Exist]

@@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?

[@calebbarnhouse496]

@@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

[@CallofDutyBlackOps28]

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.

[@GBlockbreaker]

which makes it a bit of a missed opportunity to not have the HRE there were a LOT of germanic mercenaries during that time

[@Rynewulf]

@@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)

[@patricklml5811]

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.

[@CallofDutyBlackOps28]

yeah; because Genitour is an english referred name.

[@gaspardpiet4275]

In french, the konnik is the "bulgarian horseman"

[@SuperGiantNinjaYeti]

@@gaspardpiet4275 Is the dismounted konnik called "bulgarian man" then?

[@AntonioZL]

@@SuperGiantNinjaYeti bulgarian dude

[@youmukonpaku3168]

@@SuperGiantNinjaYeti Bulgarian Unhorseman?

[@FireHic]

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.

[@Allskil88]

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.

[@flomparolic]

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.

[@squirrel_killer-]

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.

[@sietsejohannes]

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.

[@voidgods]

They made accurate throwing axemen in Age of Mythology, I guess they learned from their mistakes 😂

[@wyverngaming3468]

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.

[@holyhandgrenadeofantioch2234]

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.

[@xXTheKingEmothXx]

​@@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.

[@jussi3378]

@@xXTheKingEmothXx Maybe just a longer delay to their attack might suffice if one goes that route

[@josephdedrick9337]

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.

[@JalesNaves]

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.

[@Dhomden]

It costs 400.000 bezants to throw these weapons for 12 seconds...!

[@lurchipuschel176]

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.

[@miguelangelgutierrezflorez2574]

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.

[@Kopyrda]

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.

[@josephdedrick9337]

our early depicitions of hussars first appear in the beginning of the 16th century for what thats worth.

[@JazzJackrabbit]

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.

[@Bulgarian021]

true

[@SuspishFish]

Also, most siege units are autonomous machines that require no people to operate, which is pretty bonkers.

[@DinnerForkTongue]

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.

[@annaairahala9462]

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

[@DinnerForkTongue]

​@@annaairahala9462 Between using the towers as a wall bypass and deploying them as a freakin' APC, I don't know which is more creative 🤣

[@boarfaceswinejaw4516]

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.

[@yahyazekeriyya2560]

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.

[@sietsejohannes]

Aside from being historically bonkers petard explosions also hardly damage units which is just generally bonkers

[@holyhandgrenadeofantioch2234]

Aloha Snackbar intensifies...

[@gerardoleon6064]

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!

[@YossarianVanDriver]

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.

[@jamesinciardi5099]

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.

[@ash12181987]

I'm somewhat surprised the Xototl warrior wasn't on here.

[@bootyspoon4675]

Natives did utilize captured horses tho.

[@derigel7662]

Mapuche would like a word with you

[@DinnerForkTongue]

Check his new upload and marvel at it!

[@LegioXDivum]

Great video, always enjoy your forays into the historical influences of the game. Looking forward to the follow up video

[@injest1928]

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.

[@ktvindicare]

Yea it always bugged me a bit that Fire Ships weren't a unique naval unit for the Byzantines.

[@OwnedbyBazooka]

love the content as always. Thanks Spirit.

[@youcanthandlethetruth5433]

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

[@TanitAkavirius]

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.

[@davidpaul8647]

Haha, love this! The entry at the end reminded me of Armchair Saurus's video about Historical Nonsense in AOE2 techs

[@cam6406]

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

[@injest1928]

My thoughts exactly 😂

[@Dhomden]

A self-driving hit and run tank is a solid 4/20 I mean 10

[@johnroscoe2406]

And he completely bought in to the devs' lies and nonsense about the Thirisadai, a completely made up thing from a fabricated wiki.

[@shino4242]

Great video. Can't wait for the follow up of surprisingly accurate stuff

[@Mojenn__]

I agree, a video about surprisingly historically accurate units would be great ! :)

[@pikilic4481]

Organ guns are a good contender too, it saw existence in Italy notably but apparently never in Portugal

[@midosch7639]

And even AoE3 does the same mistake

[@pikilic4481]

@@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

[@midosch7639]

@@pikilic4481 Yeah you are right, it totally makes no sense :D

[@xarin42]

I'm really looking forward to the follow up video you mentioned.

[@JNCressey]

The "surprisingly hisorically accurate" follow-up sounds exciting. Looking forward to it!

[@kirk7528]

Love these types of videos that bring in history

[@PPolycephalum]

Looking forward to the complimentary video of surprisingly historically accurate units!

[@LarryCroft111]

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.

[@resurgam_b7]

I love these super random, creative videos :)

[@Kriegerdammerung]

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

[@cdakak]

He also did some units in his History behind every AoE2 Unique Unit, a must watch series!

[@Rosielx]

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.

[@dembro27]

At least there's one real Pikeman in the game.

[@0super]

another fantastic video!!!

[@alias6944]

love it! more history stuff please!

[@alexgedrose]

Love these vids!!

[@Poetologist]

love the grading scales, need more of them :D

[@dimitriskontrafuris5523]

I really love your historycal videos ❤️

[@IceSpoon]

"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".

[@werbearjack]

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.

[@Bog_Wizard]

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.

[@waylandertheslayer3259]

Looking forward to the follow up vid!

[@furioni333]

Spirit of the law is one of my favorite content creators. God tier. He's an S + rank unit in my content creator chart, for real.

[@willyvereb]

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.

[@colbunkmust]

Small nitpick, "men at arms" could be on foot, the nomenclature just refers to a professional soldier and vassal who may or more likely, may not have been knighted. They usually fought in field battles on horseback but not exclusively especially depending on the geographic area and time period. For example, the English men at arms from the mid 14th to mid 15th centuries usually preferred to fight on foot in order to protect the longbowmen in the army better, most notably at Crecy and Poitiers. In 1415 at Agincourt the majority of both the English and French men at arms in their armies fought dismounted in the center of the field. On the other hand, Italian men at arms from the same period almost exclusively fought on horseback if they were able to.

[@sceurpien3593]

Hi Spirit! I actually have a similar idea to a video, mostly about the wonders. For me one of the largest bonkers is that the Teuton wonder is a church from the Rhineland, and not something like the fortified churches of Tartlau, or at least a church having resemblance to like the Reszel castle+Church. (Also, I would argue that Teutons getting the fortified churches from the Armenian/Georgian expension would be a must) There are other "bonker" wonders, but this one is the bonkest :)

[@TomDallison-lh5xf]

Great video 👍🏼

[@Sirmenonottwo]

The Genitour was actually a militia unit that threw a spear in the orginal AOE found only in the scenario editor.

[@Gui101do]

Looking forward to the historically accurate units!

[@JBarG22]

I believe there's enough content for a part 2 of this

[@pokefuranku]

Spanish speaker here. The correct pronunciation for "Jinete" is "JinEte" not "JinetE", you almost did it perfect. Nice video, love it :D

[@Gusanoman]

Funny thing, Genitours are actually called "Escaramuzador Zenete" in the Spanish version of the game. Wich, more or less, would translate as "Zenata Skirmisher".

[@danielmunsaka2051]

Can't wait for follow up video for this

[@TheSnow16]

Man i love the vids that compare AoE and history. On that note i wonder which is the most old civ in AoE 2 and the most modern. Pretty sure you have a video on that that i haven’t found yet. I wonder if a match between said civs would and in a win for modern civilization in the math arena of the game

[@banana360]

11:40 On the subject of our kings, and James II specifically, he loved his cannons SO much he would stand next to them when they fired. Given in those days, a gunpowder weapons was as likely to blow up in your face as it was to hit your target, it should come as no surprise this was how he was killed in a battle where he was laying siege to a castle.

[@alexanderkopaneff3551]

You can actually use Husite wagons as intended by gathering a bunch of them in a square formation, and then ordering stand ground. If you put some infantry in a centre of that square, you’ll get a pretty sturdy mobile fortification.

[@HoussemLarif]

I think camel riders are bonkers too, since camels were rarely used in combat and definitely not as a melee unit. The animal is better suited to travel and goods transportation and is completely unreliable as a charging unit since it tends to get down on its knees and refuse to move when afraid. It was mostly used by medieval arabs in combat as a mount for mobile infantry and rarely as a platform for shooting arrows or rifles.

[@Medrin]

can't wait for the follow-up video, I'm gonna try to guess what will make it

[@Dutch_is_a_Weird_Language]

Speaking of Genitours and aoE 3, they got it *really* mixed in that game until they changed in the summer of 2023: before the revamp of all royal guard units, the *Portuguese* (not Spanish) Dragoon line adapted the name 'Jinete' with their age 4 upgrade, and had a range-increasing upgrade card called 'Genitours' (they are now renamed to 'Legionaros' and 'Order of Aviz' respectively) The game also features a Zenata Rider mercenary, which is a Berber light cavalry unit armed with a shield and javelins

[@joshuabyers262]

Looking forward to the follow-up video on accurate units!

[@gwenchadwick780]

for the Urumi swordsman i like to think that the upgrade teaches them to look for the areas that are not armored, as most soldiers did not have full plate, especially in the subcontinent, and to aim for those areas with the flexible sword, thus avoiding the enemy armor. As for the Petard, i see it as a stand in for the practice of undermining and tunnel warfare in general. You basically dig under the walls, using wooden supports to hold the tunnel open, then add more wood and ignite it burning the supports and causing the area to collapse into a sinkhole.

[@offroadturkey]

Good stuff!

[@elephantt2077]

Thank you for mentioning _Hwacha_ . I knew I wasn't the only one disappointed with it not being the Korea's unique unit

[@KaitoN25]

Hey Spirit of the Law, guys here.

[@sheiruto1058]

Niga enough with this comment

[@bigbroarivus]

Hey hey spirit, law here

[@SIGNOR-G]

Noga ​@@sheiruto1058

[@Calebgoblin]

Law hey, people of law the here.

[@edspace.]

One thing I think would have been fun (albeit whether the original engine could handle it is another matter) would be "castle ships". This general concept being based on the practice in naval warfare prior to the Industrial Age of often trying to capture rather than sink enemy ships as ships were study and few weapons existed that could destroy them cost-effectively prior to the development of navel guns and so there would be soldiers trained in fighting on ships known as Marines who would defend their ships and board enemy ships who might also raid enemy shores to take ports in order to assist a landing party. Which might even boost civilizations with either weak or no cannon galleon lines since they could land marines instead, with a special ability of Marines that when a building gets to less than 25% health they capture it (and for some added historical flare you can also have them plunder a chunk of the building's resource cost when they capture).

[@ComfortingColourlessLight]

Loved the Urumi bit.

[@lazthegreat10]

The thirisidai is a total work of fiction

[@Flavourius]

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.

[@AntonioZL]

I remember reading about that episode a few years ago. The history of Texas around 2000 B.C.E is indeed incredible.

[@llSuperSnivyll]

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.

[@guilhermecesar9185]

I think you should make a part 2 video because there is so much bonker units in the game that could make it, or at leat a reason for that. Also, the Genitour looks like a french word and could be the way the french call the "Jinetes" and maybe the berber version of them whem they fight in the early middle age.

[@samm5111]

Man, having Hussite wagons be essentially movable, deployable walls that have a low volume of fire would make things SO much more interesting on the open battlefield.

[@aniruddhbhatkal1834]

Maybe they could've just called Petards "sappers" and given the tech by the same name a different label.

[@kartiksaraf4676]

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

[@aniruddhbhatkal1834]

@@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?

[@emjay9688]

On Greek fire - it's a common misconception that the formula itself was a secret - while we don't have an exact recipe, there are several proposed formulations that would have worked well and wouldn't have been too difficult to develop. The main difficulty with effective use on water was the delivery mechanism - getting the pumps and piping to be powerful and reliable enough to work without setting its own ship on fire!