Few Questions
- Thread starter Ep!c
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Kolba
1) In the battle check keys "N" or "M".
2) Your honor must be between 0 and 20.
2) Your honor must be between 0 and 20.
Jean de Mentz
Recruit
When does the shield-bash is more better to be done? I mean when it's shield-bash is more succesfull.....? And from what it depends? your shield ability value? your strength value? power strike? ...... as you see i am a shield-bash fan 
It's a great modification well done, well done!!!
It's a great modification well done, well done!!!Kolba
Yes, more power strike - more damage of Shield Bash!
1) I dont get the usage of the Key T...it shows the morale but also sometimes made the battlecry and other stuffs...
2) Also I haven't the list of all the keys about the formation I found only H J and K
3) where I can hire the Banner Bearers? I only got them by released prisoners. have they some influence above morale or formations?
4) I never used the whistle for horse...which is the key? Will it call my horse and make it come in my position? seems very usefull....
2) Also I haven't the list of all the keys about the formation I found only H J and K
3) where I can hire the Banner Bearers? I only got them by released prisoners. have they some influence above morale or formations?
4) I never used the whistle for horse...which is the key? Will it call my horse and make it come in my position? seems very usefull....
Kolba
1) Umm it seems to be a bug. Already fixed.
2) You can put your units in formations (wedge, line, ranks) by using keys H, J and K.
3) They cannot be hired, as they are special Beornice troops. And yes, they are increasing morale a bit.
4) I don't remember, it's on the numerical keyboard (it's 2 or 3).
2) You can put your units in formations (wedge, line, ranks) by using keys H, J and K.
3) They cannot be hired, as they are special Beornice troops. And yes, they are increasing morale a bit.
4) I don't remember, it's on the numerical keyboard (it's 2 or 3).
Kolba
Wait for the next version, because the current one is full of bugs and unfinished things.
Frisicus
Squire
First: Great mod Kolba!
Second a few questions:
1. Bernicia resembles I suppose the linguistic Anglo-Frisian faction in the mod, why are the Bernician place names in Welsh and not in Old-English or ancestral Anglo-Frisian?
2. Do you intend to make a noble troop tree line (like as those whom one can only recruit in burhs/hill forts), or will they (your household troops) just be represented by companions?
3. The Ceorl Gesith is the top unit of Bernicia, but he's only level 25. Whereas the topunits of the Picts, Aumue Boi and Marchoc Bran, are resp. level 28 and 30, or the Briton Teulo of level 30. Where are the core Germanic champion fighters like the Cynocephali/ulfhednar (Anglo-Frisian would be something in the trent of Wulfheodnar/Wulfheothnar)?
4. The seaxes in the game, whether lang- or scrama-, all have a length of '60'?
Second a few questions:
1. Bernicia resembles I suppose the linguistic Anglo-Frisian faction in the mod, why are the Bernician place names in Welsh and not in Old-English or ancestral Anglo-Frisian?
2. Do you intend to make a noble troop tree line (like as those whom one can only recruit in burhs/hill forts), or will they (your household troops) just be represented by companions?
3. The Ceorl Gesith is the top unit of Bernicia, but he's only level 25. Whereas the topunits of the Picts, Aumue Boi and Marchoc Bran, are resp. level 28 and 30, or the Briton Teulo of level 30. Where are the core Germanic champion fighters like the Cynocephali/ulfhednar (Anglo-Frisian would be something in the trent of Wulfheodnar/Wulfheothnar)?
Though the Lombards used it here to boast and bluff, such tales have a deeper ground. As you (probably) know as-beast-acting warriors did exist, and had a special position within Germanic warfare. The Alamans used Hound/Wolf Warriors (Gutenstein bracteate) and Scandinavians used ulfhednar and Berserkers as elite troops while Anglo-Norman England used the term Wulfshead to designate those who stood outside the law.
4. The seaxes in the game, whether lang- or scrama-, all have a length of '60'?
Kolba
1. For Bernicia we are using for now both Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon names. Homever, we are going to change them in the upcoming version 1.5.
2. Yes, we are going to have several "warrior orders", their members as regular soldiers (very strong) will be recruitable only in special places. In addition, the player will be able to join nobles houses and recruit high-tier units (minor nobles or special troops).
3. Like I said, the champions and berserkers will be present in warrior orders and they will sometimes aid lord armies.
Summa summarum, I made a quick description of new "guilds" for Bernicia:
- Wudewasa. They are made of exiled members of Bernician society, brigands or wildmen. Wudewasa are perfect hunters and ambushers. Survivng the centuries undetected by history these people left their mark on the middle ages when they re-emerge in the ilk of Robin Hood and other woodland guerillas fighting the post-Norman attempts to civilise the forest.
- Wulfbyrnas. They are worshippers of Woden, a Nordic god. Wulfbyrnas are often members of king's bodyguard, as they are mighty swordsmen and berserkers.
- Hraefnhelmingas. Another type of berserkers, though more wild and savage than Wulfbyrnas. They are fighting naked.
4. To be fixed.
2. Yes, we are going to have several "warrior orders", their members as regular soldiers (very strong) will be recruitable only in special places. In addition, the player will be able to join nobles houses and recruit high-tier units (minor nobles or special troops).
3. Like I said, the champions and berserkers will be present in warrior orders and they will sometimes aid lord armies.
Summa summarum, I made a quick description of new "guilds" for Bernicia:
- Wudewasa. They are made of exiled members of Bernician society, brigands or wildmen. Wudewasa are perfect hunters and ambushers. Survivng the centuries undetected by history these people left their mark on the middle ages when they re-emerge in the ilk of Robin Hood and other woodland guerillas fighting the post-Norman attempts to civilise the forest.
- Wulfbyrnas. They are worshippers of Woden, a Nordic god. Wulfbyrnas are often members of king's bodyguard, as they are mighty swordsmen and berserkers.
- Hraefnhelmingas. Another type of berserkers, though more wild and savage than Wulfbyrnas. They are fighting naked.
4. To be fixed.
Spongly
Knight
You shouldn't change all the Bernician place names - there is absolute 100% evidence that even much later than this mod, the Northumbrians were still using Brythonic place names - several royal palaces, most importantly Gefrin and Maelmin, have Brythonic names even in Bede's time. These people are a mixed culture, and not by any stretch of the imagination purely "Anglo-Saxon" - it isn't really until the late 7th , early 8th century that Northumbria is brought into the mainstream of English culture. Before that they are very much a cultural mix of "Anglo-Saxon" and "Celtic" cultures.
Also, the Gesiths might be a relatively low level, but they have excellent weapons and are pretty much the best foot combatants I've encountered in this mod.
Also, the Gesiths might be a relatively low level, but they have excellent weapons and are pretty much the best foot combatants I've encountered in this mod.
Frisicus
Squire
Ahem, Celtic culture means La Tène culture. Though it is common usage in popular and nationalist writings to use the term 'Celtic', The British Isles academically only fit the linguistic label of 'Celtic' (and even that is questionable, as it rather descends from Proto-Celtic and Insular Celtic might be a better name). No contemporary source ever connected the Celtae with the Britons, though there might have been a Belgian La Tène elite in (southern) Britain in pre-Roman times (according to Caesar). However even on that historical. archaeological and genetical researches are divided.Spongly said:
So one could make a case that the Pre-Roman Britons were 'Celtic' on the linguistic level and perhaps on the field of religion, since they shared the druidic ritual element with western Gaul and Belgium. However Briton houses were round, Gaulish houses had a mix of forms though square was most common, the handmade pottery was different and they were qua genetic ancestry and ethnic feeling unrelated. To be blunt if you would call a Pre-Roman Briton Celtae he would be insulted.
And I wonder how 'Celtic' the Post-Roman Britons were. Most likely the average post-Roman Briton peasant did not knew a thing about 'Celtic', his highest perception was that of being connected to his tribe and Christian faith. While the Briton elite saw themself as Christians cut off from Rome in constant competition with other Briton elites, while being surrounded by pagan peoples (Irish, Pictish and Germanic).
The term 'Anglo-Saxon' is an in many ways similar modern construction as 'Celtic'. However there is a direct ancestral link between the Sais and the Germanic peoples living east of the North sea, as there is the connection in handmade pottery, weapon usage, ethnic feeling, pagan rituals and most important: language.
Of course the Sais did took over certain material elements of the native population and they did marry women from the native population but they did not became Christian overnight and when they did they became Roman Catholic, not the Briton/Irish church. Neither does Old-English contains much more 'Celtic' substrate than the continental Germanic languages. So a mixed culture on the plane of material usage perhaps, but not on the plane of equality. Wherever these Sais took over the language and society became Germanic.
And that is just the basic thorn in the academic debate how English are the English. Cause frankly even I would feel more for the "Briton elite becomes replaced by small Anglo-Saxon elite" while the remaining large part of the native population is in fact still untouched. I mean that is what happened in Gaul when the Franks and Burgundians invaded or in North-Italy where the Lombards invaded or Spain where the Visigoths invaded. The elite got replaced by newcomers, however those newcomers were a minority, the local peasantry stayed mostly unmoved resulting in continuity of language, religion and culture. For some reason this didn't happen in the (large) part of Britain what eventually would become England.
Spongly
Knight
That's why I put the terms "Anglo-Saxon" and "Celtic" in inverted commas... Really by "Celtic" I meant the cultures of what is now the Celtic fringe, where Celtic languages were spoken - Scotland, Cumbria and Wales, as well as Ireland.
Also, some linguists are positing that Old English has a strong influence from the Brythonic language in the matter of it's grammar, construction and so on. I really don't know much about this, as I'm a historian and archaeologist rather than a linguist, but it is something I've been told by university linguists. I make no claim to it's accuracy.
Also, as a historian and archaeologist I strongly believe Northumbria should be divorced from the rest of England as far as the Anglo-Saxon settlement goes - there is really very little material evidence to suggest large (or even small) scale Anglo-Saxon settlement, and almost no identifiably "early Anglo-Saxon" burials. This, along with a stronger tradition of continuity both in terms of linguistics (the use of native names for the constituent kingdoms for example) and land usage (Iron Age hillfort sites re-occupied by "Anglo-Saxons") suggests something quite different going on. I would go so far as to suggest that the idea of it being just another "English" kingdom is an invention of Bede's - his interest in promoting the Roman church led him to associate Northumbria with the southern English mainstream culture, rather than aligning Northumbria with Ireland, Dal Riada and Pictland, which it had much closer cultural links to beforehand.
Really by "Celtic" I meant the cultures of what is now the Celtic fringe, where Celtic languages were spoken - Scotland, Cumbria and Wales, as well as Ireland.Also, some linguists are positing that Old English has a strong influence from the Brythonic language in the matter of it's grammar, construction and so on. I really don't know much about this, as I'm a historian and archaeologist rather than a linguist, but it is something I've been told by university linguists. I make no claim to it's accuracy.
Also, as a historian and archaeologist I strongly believe Northumbria should be divorced from the rest of England as far as the Anglo-Saxon settlement goes - there is really very little material evidence to suggest large (or even small) scale Anglo-Saxon settlement, and almost no identifiably "early Anglo-Saxon" burials. This, along with a stronger tradition of continuity both in terms of linguistics (the use of native names for the constituent kingdoms for example) and land usage (Iron Age hillfort sites re-occupied by "Anglo-Saxons") suggests something quite different going on. I would go so far as to suggest that the idea of it being just another "English" kingdom is an invention of Bede's - his interest in promoting the Roman church led him to associate Northumbria with the southern English mainstream culture, rather than aligning Northumbria with Ireland, Dal Riada and Pictland, which it had much closer cultural links to beforehand.
Morcant
Sergeant at Arms
I think both Spongly and Frisicus are right on the subject
I share Spongly's point of view about Northumbria beeing a really mixed 'Anglo-British' kingdom.
And of course, words like 'Celt' or 'Anglo-saxon' apply only from a modern point of view as a convention. The fellow who lived in the 6th century probably never heard of those. To avoid confusion I tend to use either Brittonic or Gaelic for the British or Irish 'Celts'.
I also agree here, this is the kind of idea promotted by recent scholarship such as Ken Dark's work. The fact that roman provincial culture didn't survive aswell in Britain as in the continent has probably to do with a way more progressive conquest. The Wisigoths, Burgonds or Franks, were authorised to settle in parts of Gaul as federates, on quite wide territories and when the western roman empire vanished, they had to cope with both the folk and the gallic aristocracy, who was still very strong through the church. Roman administration was also still working better than in Britain who faced a major crisis in the 5th century, before any Saxon tried to rebel. I really like the theories of Stuart Laycock of a 'Bosnian end to roman Britain', with the civitates (part of them evolving into the petty kingdoms) warring against each other, and some hiring germanic warriors as extra-muscle.
The 'Saxon conquest' of Britain was a much more progressive process than the Frankish takeover in Northern Gaul. It was really significant in the second part of the 6th century and in the 7th century with the emergence of the major kingdoms. Before that, a good part of the germanic tribes settled in Britain were still probably fighting for their British lords. That long process also implies a more prolonged contact between the newcomers and the population, for ideas to beeing exchanged and adopted locally. If the "Anglo-saxons" had conquered the biggest part of the island in a few decades, just as the Normans did, their culture may have not passed to the local population in the same way.
I share Spongly's point of view about Northumbria beeing a really mixed 'Anglo-British' kingdom.
And of course, words like 'Celt' or 'Anglo-saxon' apply only from a modern point of view as a convention. The fellow who lived in the 6th century probably never heard of those. To avoid confusion I tend to use either Brittonic or Gaelic for the British or Irish 'Celts'.
I also agree here, this is the kind of idea promotted by recent scholarship such as Ken Dark's work. The fact that roman provincial culture didn't survive aswell in Britain as in the continent has probably to do with a way more progressive conquest. The Wisigoths, Burgonds or Franks, were authorised to settle in parts of Gaul as federates, on quite wide territories and when the western roman empire vanished, they had to cope with both the folk and the gallic aristocracy, who was still very strong through the church. Roman administration was also still working better than in Britain who faced a major crisis in the 5th century, before any Saxon tried to rebel. I really like the theories of Stuart Laycock of a 'Bosnian end to roman Britain', with the civitates (part of them evolving into the petty kingdoms) warring against each other, and some hiring germanic warriors as extra-muscle.
The 'Saxon conquest' of Britain was a much more progressive process than the Frankish takeover in Northern Gaul. It was really significant in the second part of the 6th century and in the 7th century with the emergence of the major kingdoms. Before that, a good part of the germanic tribes settled in Britain were still probably fighting for their British lords. That long process also implies a more prolonged contact between the newcomers and the population, for ideas to beeing exchanged and adopted locally. If the "Anglo-saxons" had conquered the biggest part of the island in a few decades, just as the Normans did, their culture may have not passed to the local population in the same way.
Spongly
Knight
Another possibility to bear in mind is the idea that Britain was much less Romanised than Gaul, and that Roman culture had never fully supplanted native culture in quite the same way, leading to a fairly rapid and complete collapse in Britain. Francis Pryor has some interesting ideas about this, and while I'm far from agreeing with him on every point, he's worth considering. One of the most pressing points in favour of this is the fact that the language of post-Roman Britain is not a Romance language, but a Brythonic one, albeit with significant Latin influence.
If this is the case, it's also worth considering the idea (which I personally favour) that contact across the north sea is constant throughout the Roman period and leads to a gradual "germanisation" on the east coast as Roman authority starts to erode, which leads to trade turning primarily from Roman avenues through Gaul to avenues of traditional contact across the North Sea. We know, for instance, that whole Germanic warbands (like the Numerus Hnaufridius) were recruited relatively early on, and without effective border patrols or coastguards I don't see that it would be possible ot stop these warriors families from coming with them. Low scale immigration would probably have continued throughout the Roman period just as it does now, with small family groups crossing the sea and seeking new lives in Britain. Migration doesn't have to be restricted to the traditiopnal view of whole populations on the move.
The language change is the most interesting factor, but the experiences of the Scots Gaelic language in the 20th century show just how rapid language change can be once a language is viewed as outdated: in 1800 over 18% of the Scottish population spoke only Gaelic. 100 years later in 1900 only 4% spoke the language at all, and no one was a monoglot speaker.
If this is the case, it's also worth considering the idea (which I personally favour) that contact across the north sea is constant throughout the Roman period and leads to a gradual "germanisation" on the east coast as Roman authority starts to erode, which leads to trade turning primarily from Roman avenues through Gaul to avenues of traditional contact across the North Sea. We know, for instance, that whole Germanic warbands (like the Numerus Hnaufridius) were recruited relatively early on, and without effective border patrols or coastguards I don't see that it would be possible ot stop these warriors families from coming with them. Low scale immigration would probably have continued throughout the Roman period just as it does now, with small family groups crossing the sea and seeking new lives in Britain. Migration doesn't have to be restricted to the traditiopnal view of whole populations on the move.
The language change is the most interesting factor, but the experiences of the Scots Gaelic language in the 20th century show just how rapid language change can be once a language is viewed as outdated: in 1800 over 18% of the Scottish population spoke only Gaelic. 100 years later in 1900 only 4% spoke the language at all, and no one was a monoglot speaker.
