Inanch-Bilge said:
Yes, I have a number of sites of primary & some secondary sources I have collected.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers
Seljuq Sultanate of Rum
- Thread starter KnightPeter
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Yes, I have a number of sites of primary & some secondary sources I have collected.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers
Inanch-Bilge
Collected from where ? internet or are you some kind of scholar ? if its appreciate to ask where are you from ?
Inanch-Bilge said:
Does it matter where is he from? The work and images seem very solid.
Given the quality and size of the images, they seem to be taken from either scans, quality primary source sites, university project sites...
Inanch-Bilge said:
Inanch-Bilge,
I am from Australia.
Some are from books, others from the net in academic works (including pdfs that don't show in standard searches), from museum collections, a few photographs of monuments uploaded by people who have visited them, some are collected together from bits and pieces from all sorts of sites. For example see the sources listed on the large image pages for the Kitab al-Aghani above.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers
Inanch-Bilge
You're making a huge contribution to modding areas of m&b and tw, thank you.
I have added several pics and a small info for the banners to previous post of mine, sorry it will up to imagination of you guys, there is not much info.
I have added several pics and a small info for the banners to previous post of mine, sorry it will up to imagination of you guys, there is not much info.
Inanch-Bilge
I highly doubt, we have realities, what we need more than that ? And quote please, I don't have time to read.
In brief:
1) The really good bows that made the difference in battle were difficult to find fabricated by few expert artisans.
2) only good trained for life soldiers could use them. Among other thinks because otherwise the rate of fire (it was important) was too slow and hi rates difficult to achieve.
3) On horse archery was even harder and unless one was continually trained could loose his skill . In the Byzantine army one year was not thought enough to train horse archers using hunnic bows
4) if one wasn't trained to use superior bows he was more effective using simple ones .
1) The really good bows that made the difference in battle were difficult to find fabricated by few expert artisans.
2) only good trained for life soldiers could use them. Among other thinks because otherwise the rate of fire (it was important) was too slow and hi rates difficult to achieve.
3) On horse archery was even harder and unless one was continually trained could loose his skill . In the Byzantine army one year was not thought enough to train horse archers using hunnic bows
4) if one wasn't trained to use superior bows he was more effective using simple ones .
Inanch-Bilge
1) Difficult to find where ? Byzantine Empire ? also nobody mentioned really high quality bows.
2) Nonsense, I already said even levies and irregulars used composite bows, but completely mastering it as I said is a different issue.
3) We're not talking about men who just took the bow to hand, feudal forces who were kinda familiar with it were perfectly fine with mounted archery, rapid steppe style is a different issue.
4)Didn't get that one.
2) Nonsense, I already said even levies and irregulars used composite bows, but completely mastering it as I said is a different issue.
3) We're not talking about men who just took the bow to hand, feudal forces who were kinda familiar with it were perfectly fine with mounted archery, rapid steppe style is a different issue.
4)Didn't get that one.
Inanch-Bilge
1) Repeating again, from levies to irregulars and feudals, composite bow is used, if it was so hard to find were they sh.tting bows ?
4) Still didn't get, either something wrong in sentence structure or my English is not enough.
4) Still didn't get, either something wrong in sentence structure or my English is not enough.
I have to agree with Inanch-Bilge again - while composite reflex bows were generally harder to manufacture (making such a bow could last from a few weeks to a year, or even more if it's a particularly super-made one), that doesn't mean that they were rare. With the very, very big note: They weren't rare *in Eastern Europe and further East*. In the West and especially in the North, they were very rare, but that's because of the damper and colder climate, which wasn't suitable for them (weakening the glue holding the composites). So, from a Western European point of view - sure, they were very, very rare. But from an Anatolian point of view (not to mention a steppe one) - they were quite a common sight. Of course, simple self-bows were also in use in the East, probably by the poorest of people, but composites were common nonetheless. Especially in the societies which still had a more tribal organization and, respectively, a warrior culture.
Now, point by point:
2) You're either thinking about longbows (which indeed require a long time of training just to be able to use it *normally*) or you're thinking about *expert* usage. Both points are irrelevant to this discussion - there's a difference between the skills of elite units and common ones (which is portrayed in the game as well). Otherwise, the higher rate of fire is exactly what sets the composite reflex bows apart from the simple self-bows (not to mention the longbow).
3) First, there's a huge difference between "a lifetime" (which itself is an absurd term, since if training requires a whole lifetime before being able to use that skill, then that skill would be able to be used only when you're on your dying bed) and "more than a year". Second, there's a difference between "horse archery" (steppe style, Parthian shots etc) and "mounted archery" (archer mounted on a horse, who rides to a location, then stops and fires, which is what most of the native-Byzantines did (and which is why they prefered to hire "foreign" troops to serve that role)). Third, just because something's harder doesn't mean it wasn't used - there are many factors which influence to what degree a certain type of society would be used to this. Generally, nomadic tribal warrior societies (like the steppe tribes - Cumans, Mongols etc) were the best in this and practically almost every man in those societies was an accomplished horse archer (note: HA, not MA), because that's a part of their culture and lifestyle. The neighbouring societies, the former nomads etc, often only reached the level of "mounted archery" - the Hungarians, Balkan Slavs (maybe southern Russians as well), Byzantines and, I presume, the settled Seljuks (though I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the Seljuks, living in the plains, preserved their mastery in "horse archery").
4) If one wasn't trained using a sword, he was more effective with a stick - that's true as well. Yet there were people quite trained with the sword. And, again, here comes not only the social stratification in the feudal societies, but also the cultural difference between a fully feudal society, a semi-feudal society (or a centralised, imperial one) and a tribal society, whereas the latter relied quite often on war and raiding to make a living (not to mention the nomadic lifestyle, which further developed some of those skills even during the simple things like herding) and thus mostly developed a warrior culture, where most men were more or less trained to fight - quite different from centralism, where fewer men were trained to fight, and feudalism, where only a rather few people were trained.
Now, point by point:
1) I already addressed it. Plus, if we're talking about the *really, really good bows* (i.e. masterwork bow, in M&B terms) - then that's true about absolutely every other weapon, armament etc., anywhere. We're not talking about masterwork composites here, but about common ones.Jason L. said:
2) You're either thinking about longbows (which indeed require a long time of training just to be able to use it *normally*) or you're thinking about *expert* usage. Both points are irrelevant to this discussion - there's a difference between the skills of elite units and common ones (which is portrayed in the game as well). Otherwise, the higher rate of fire is exactly what sets the composite reflex bows apart from the simple self-bows (not to mention the longbow).
3) First, there's a huge difference between "a lifetime" (which itself is an absurd term, since if training requires a whole lifetime before being able to use that skill, then that skill would be able to be used only when you're on your dying bed) and "more than a year". Second, there's a difference between "horse archery" (steppe style, Parthian shots etc) and "mounted archery" (archer mounted on a horse, who rides to a location, then stops and fires, which is what most of the native-Byzantines did (and which is why they prefered to hire "foreign" troops to serve that role)). Third, just because something's harder doesn't mean it wasn't used - there are many factors which influence to what degree a certain type of society would be used to this. Generally, nomadic tribal warrior societies (like the steppe tribes - Cumans, Mongols etc) were the best in this and practically almost every man in those societies was an accomplished horse archer (note: HA, not MA), because that's a part of their culture and lifestyle. The neighbouring societies, the former nomads etc, often only reached the level of "mounted archery" - the Hungarians, Balkan Slavs (maybe southern Russians as well), Byzantines and, I presume, the settled Seljuks (though I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the Seljuks, living in the plains, preserved their mastery in "horse archery").
4) If one wasn't trained using a sword, he was more effective with a stick - that's true as well. Yet there were people quite trained with the sword. And, again, here comes not only the social stratification in the feudal societies, but also the cultural difference between a fully feudal society, a semi-feudal society (or a centralised, imperial one) and a tribal society, whereas the latter relied quite often on war and raiding to make a living (not to mention the nomadic lifestyle, which further developed some of those skills even during the simple things like herding) and thus mostly developed a warrior culture, where most men were more or less trained to fight - quite different from centralism, where fewer men were trained to fight, and feudalism, where only a rather few people were trained.
I'm a great fan of step horse archers and I 'm looking forward to have them in "1200" . This being said I think we have to check things behind the historical myths that survive in the minds of amateur historians as well as in the mind of simple people. If you have been in the army you should know that you don't give heavy weapons to poorly trained soldiers because they get killed faster. You think that a bow fabricated in months of experts work was given to poorly trained militias ? you are welcome... when I say lifetime I mean that if you stop training you loose effectiveness in using arms and techniques you've been already trained to ... What is so strange? every modern army continually trains... tribal warriors except some very few examples were able to deal with disorganized poorly trained troops not real professional armies... the exceptions just confirm the rule...
Inanch-Bilge
There are varying qualities for bow, and those poor guys "did" used them, thats a fact, whats there to discuiss more than that ?
It sounds a lot better in terms of being historically correct. The composite reflex bow is to be threaten with great respect , to my opinion, because is one of the most important weapons for centuries and it may changed the way of fighting battles or even the course of history...Inanch-Bilge said:
Kral Furkan
Regular
thanks for helping the team with their research but the banner is not the best seljuk banner around and the names are more arabian like(forgive me i only know ottomans since both are turks must have some familiar namesKnightPeter said:Seljuq Sultanate of Rum
NAME:
Sultanate of Rum
AT WAR WITH:
Georgia, Byzantine Empire
RELIGION:
Islam
LORDS:
Sultan Suleiman Shah II
-Lord of Konya
Prince Izz al-din Kilij Arslan III
-Lord of Kayseri
Saif ud-din Abu'l Muzaffar Shahenshah
-Lord of Divriği
Mugis ad-din Toghrilshah
-Lord of Elbistan
Mubariz ud-din Ertokush
-Lord of Uluborlu
Muh ud-din Masud
-Lord of Ankara
Husam ad-din Choban
-Lord of Tokat
Mubariz ud-din Chavli
-Lord of Akşehir
Saif ud-din Ay-Aba
Lord of Sivas
Nasr ad-din Hasan
Lord of Larende
Saif ud-din Kizil
Lord of Amasya
MAP(S):
Map with some settlements
Towns:
Konya
Kayseri
Sivas
Ankara
Castles:
Amasya
Larende
Tokat
Akşehir
Divriği
Elbistan
Uluborlu
Villages:
Will be add later.
HERALDRY & BANNER:
Symbol itself be white color, and that the background be blue (i am not sure if dark or light).
ARMY & ROSTER:
Castle Recruitment 1;
I
Ghulam Recruit(light horseman equipped with mace or sword)
/ \
Junior Ghulam Lancers Junior Ghulam Horse Archers
/ \
Senior Ghulam Lancers Senior Ghulam Horse Archers
Plus Royal Ghulam Lancers and Royal Ghulam Footguard(archers with armour) only spawns in the Sultan's army.
Castle Recruitment 2;
I
Askari Retinue(Light lancers)
I
Askari Sergeant(slightly better armoured horse archer)
I
Askari Lancers(lancer but also have bow as secondary)
City Recruitment;
Ayyaran(Irregulars joins the army for loot)
I
Mutawwia(religious fanatics)
I
Fityan(brave young citizens joins the forces to defend their cities, armed by bows)
Village Recruitment(will be change from region to region)
Turkoman Tribesmen
I
Turkoman Raider
I
Turkoman Veteran Raider
I
Turkoman Frontiersmen
I
Turkoman Veteran Frontiersmen
i dont know if they are thinking to make the best horse archers for seljuks because ottomans were known by their horse archers (must have experienced before)Kral Furkan
Regular
i never saw a real history of turks all of them have something wrong about us turks i dont know why all this confusion when it comes to Turk its probably because we dont stay in one placeCèsar de Quart said:
