Research Thread 2.3

Do not look here said:

Cèsar de Quart said:

Quote removed to avoid quotocalypsa

Click to expand...

O...kay. So maybe make it only "Konny kusznik" as light cavalry and then make:
Man-at-arms -> Rycerz
                    -> Pancerny

Cause if you are already talking bout historical names, you've got to remember that szlachta is term made to describe the feudals since late XVI century, that later came into use while referring to medieval times.
I would like to leave Pancerni in the mod, cause they were not only heavy cavalry. To fully understand term Pancerny you have to go way back into history of my country and check up the FIRST professional army called "Drużyna" that was made of two types of soldiers (Yes, soldiers. Drużynnik haven't got any other things to do, he was professional armyman then):
Tarczownicy - foot soldiers that was garrisoned in every settlement. The most powerful infantry these times.
Pancerni - heavy and versatile cavalry, that could be used either as a powerful chargers and mounted skirmishers. These was our equivalent of whole feudal Europe heavy cavalrymen.
Drużyna were able to crush most of enemies, that's why these times Poland was quite strong and kicked all neighbouring asses.

But it didn't last long. Actually it lasted only till death (1025) of our first king, Bolesław Chrobry. Unfortunately, Drużynnicy saw the western Knights and demanded money and lands from next king. He gave them what they asked and that's how feudalism begun here. And that's it. Instead of fully professional, good equipped, brave etc. soldiers, we had standard "Maybe I'll fight or maybe I won't" feudals.

Click to expand...

Isn't that wonderful? I love feudalism. That's what this game is about.

Feudalism was last at the list of "Good things that can happen to Poland in XI century".

It changed powerful and great army into feudal lazy *****es, that won't fight if you won't pay them. And that's how the Great Polish Ass Kicking begun.

Thats generally how it worked, if you look at the history all post-colonial bad-ass dudes have been non feudal. Romans, Vikings, Mongols etc. are perfect examples.

Cèsar de Quart said:

IbnKhaldun said:

Add documentation with unit lists in the package of the mod that also describes the unit? Would also help to be bring an education to the players. On a selfish note it might explain to me where you got the names Huffaz and Rumi from.

Or, if it all possible, have separate entries when you upgrade the unit and the unit when it's actually in your party. Have the ugly, not-truly-descriptive-but-gets-the-point-across generic names in the upgrade choices (That's the only major time when it's important I believe) and have the native names when your army forms. That is assuming that you CAN separate upgrade and army names.

Click to expand...

Huffaz and Rumi...

The first one I found as the name given to Bereber young noblemen in the book "The Islamic West", from the Osprey library, and they are mentioned to be part of the Almohad invading army.

Rumi, as far as I know, is the Arabian for Roman, which in some contexts meant "Christian". I know that in the Middle East it meant Byzantine or Greek (it still does in some parts, I think. At least, the last time I was in Istanbul they told me that Greeks living there were called Rum, while the Greeks in Greece were Yunan, from the Greek form for Ionian). They represent Christian horsemen made slaves. Sort of Western Mamluks, actually, but they were not forced to convert to Islam.

Take care!

Click to expand...

Huffaz (And all of its related spelling) also means one who has memorized the Qur'an, or in traditional times, at least 100,000 hadiths. It can also mean guardian, which is probably what the use is here. At the moment, I'm having trouble finding a reference to huffaz, though. It is ultimately a small thing considering the alternate meaning of the word.  As far as Rumi goes, I note in the Osprey book that it's mentioned in the 1100s that there was a leader that did recruit Christian Rumis in North Africa (And let them have their own bishop!) so it would not be out of place to have the term Rumis in Almohad Al-Andalus territory in 1200. I was confused though- I had thought Rumi as referring exclusively to Byzantine territory. Well, I learn something every day.

@Cèsar: As far as I remember You did the great french Banners or maybe ALL Banners. I guess You already have Your sources. But maybe this could be interesting - it's a big collection of the 'Zurich Roll'. It's one of the biggest collection from the middle age. It's datet around 1330. It has mostly Banners from the HRE as far as I can see, but there are some more. Maybe this could be a good source for new Banners that the Player can choose and which are not already in use.
Look here:
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ZurichRoll/

Cheers

quapitty said:

@Cèsar: As far as I remember You did the great french Banners or maybe ALL Banners. I guess You already have Your sources. But maybe this could be interesting - it's a big collection of the 'Zurich Roll'. It's one of the biggest collection from the middle age. It's datet around 1330. It has mostly Banners from the HRE as far as I can see, but there are some more. Maybe this could be a good source for new Banners that the Player can choose and which are not already in use.
Look here:
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ZurichRoll/

Cheers

Click to expand...

I know the roll, but unfortunately, it's not very reliable. Just look at Castille's or Scotland's arms, they got it all wrong. I mean: those mistakes prove that it's not very reliable, but it still can take us out of trouble.

It's from 1340, more or less, and in 1200 heraldry followed sightly different patterns. There are other rolls, like the Armorial de Guelre, very accurate. But most of them are quite late, from the 1400-1500. There are some from the 1250-1300, though: the Roll of Vermandois (1280), the Bigot Roll (1250) and the Wijnbergen Roll (1260-1270).

But I can surely use it to make more player banners.

First of all, I would like to say that this is a great mod!

But I noticed some problems mainly with the names in the transylvanian territory. First of all, I think that Belograd should be Kolozsvár, at least according to this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluj-Napoca . I was a little surprised not seeing Kolozsvár, as it was at the time the center of Transylvania. Belograd is sure sitting in the place where Kolozsvár should be.

Secondly, I noticed some of the villages names are in Romanian. I took the liberty and translated the names into Hungarian:
Ardud - Erdőd (was mentioned first time in 1215 on the name of "Herdeud" - possibly latin)
Oradea - Nagyvárad
Brasov - Brassó
Zalau - Zilah
Buzau - Bodzavásár or Oláhbodza
Hunedoara - Vajdahunyad
Here are some links to prove I'm not making these things up  :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%C5%9Fov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zal%C4%83u
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunedoara

krazyk9 said:

First of all, I would like to say that this is a great mod!

But I noticed some problems mainly with the names in the transylvanian territory. First of all, I think that Belograd should be Kolozsvár, at least according to this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluj-Napoca . I was a little surprised not seeing Kolozsvár, as it was at the time the center of Transylvania. Belograd is sure sitting in the place where Kolozsvár should be.

Secondly, I noticed some of the villages names are in Romanian. I took the liberty and translated the names into Hungarian:
Ardud - Erdőd (was mentioned first time in 1215 on the name of "Herdeud" - possibly latin)
Oradea - Nagyvárad
Brasov - Brassó
Zalau - Zilah
Buzau - Bodzavásár or Oláhbodza
Hunedoara - Vajdahunyad
Here are some links to prove I'm not making these things up  :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%C5%9Fov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zal%C4%83u
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunedoara

Click to expand...

Thanks for your effort, but we prefer to keep the native names. What language was spoken there back then? I'm sure it wasn't Hungarian, since the Magyars had conquered that land during the period 1050-1250, and the vlach population spoke a form of old Romanian. It wasn't enough time to convert the population's culture and language.

About Belograd or Balgrad, it was the capital of vlach leader Gelu. And, besides, the source you used says: The settlement's first reliable mention dates to 1275, in a document of King Ladislaus IV of Hungary, when the village (Villa Kulusvar) was granted to the Bishop of Transylvania, while Belograd already appears in documentation as early as the IXth Century, built on the ground of Roman Alba Iulia.

By the way, our Hungary is lacking on settlements. The most populated areas were the Croatian shore, the Danube valley and some parts of the Alföld, but there's a huge void in Transylvania, so if you can help us a little bit, providing to us one or two more castles for Transylvania, with their lord if possible (that's the hardest part, I know).

Take care!

But Belgrad/Belograd is its Bulgarian name (we've had at least 5 such towns, mostly near the borders). The Hungarian name is Gyulafehérvár and the Latin is Alba Iulia. I don't think we have a Vlach name of it, but the Latin one should be close enough.

NikeBG said:

But Belgrad/Belograd is its Bulgarian name (we've had at least 5 such towns, mostly near the borders). The Hungarian name is Gyulafehérvár and the Latin is Alba Iulia. I don't think we have a Vlach name of it, but the Latin one should be close enough.

Click to expand...

Although I have to rely on Wikipedia, which says that it was mentioned in the IXth century as Belograd, I also feel it not right, if vlach prince Geula made it its capital it surely had a Vlach/Romanian name. The Latin original name was Apulum, The hungarian name of Gyulafehérvár reflects the Vlach inheritance, but it's not Vlach. And the Turkish name is Belgradi, so I think that it should stay Belograd, unless someone shows convincing evidence.

Btw, Gyula was not a Vlach, but a Magyar ruler of Zsombor, who converted in 953 and took the name of Gyula. So if we go by the name the ruling elite gave it, it should be the Magyar name, while the possible Vlach name could possibly be if we go by its population (though taking the population itself as being Vlach would be speculative).

@ Cèsar de Quart: You are right, it refers to Gyulafehérvár, not Kolozsvár. My mistake. But there is a misunderstanding, as Belgrad(in Hungarian Nándorfehérvár), the capital of current Serbia is different from Belograd(Gyulafehérvár or Alba Iulia), a transylvanian city/castle. Unfortunatly, both of them are on the map.

I would like to specify that the Gesta Hungarorum, written around the late 12th - early 13th century, mentions almost every location by its Hungarian name, even tho it is written in latin. We cannot talk about written Romanian language until around the 17th century.

About the castels and its lords of the period, I could propose Kozár, with the lord of Losonczy Dénes, who received it form King Endre II(1205–1235), King Imre's successor, around the start of the 13th century. At the time it was only a motte-and-bailey built in the 9th century, rebuilt and fortified. It was destroyed by the Mongol Invasion, then rebuilt as a stone castel in 1249 by its lord. From this time it was known as Kozárvár. Historically it is a little off, but I think it still fits in. Hope it helps!

krazyk9 said:

But there is a misunderstanding, as Belgrad(in Hungarian Nándorfehérvár), the capital of current Serbia is different from Belograd(Gyulafehérvár or Alba Iulia), a transylvanian city/castle. Unfortunatly, both of them are on the map.

Click to expand...

That's why we call the Belgrade in Serbia as Belgrad and the Belgrade in Romania as Belograd, although they were all mostly called Belgrad (Бѣлградъ to be more precise), along with the other Belgrads. So it's not so unfortunate - they're still differentiable enough (though I think Gyulafehérvár or Alba Iulia would be better than the Bulgarian name for "Belograd").

krazyk9 said:

@ Cèsar de Quart: You are right, it refers to Gyulafehérvár, not Kolozsvár. My mistake. But there is a misunderstanding, as Belgrad(in Hungarian Nándorfehérvár), the capital of current Serbia is different from Belograd(Gyulafehérvár or Alba Iulia), a transylvanian city/castle. Unfortunatly, both of them are on the map.

I would like to specify that the Gesta Hungarorum, written around the late 12th - early 13th century, mentions almost every location by its Hungarian name, even tho it is written in latin. We cannot talk about written Romanian language until around the 17th century.

About the castels and its lords of the period, I could propose Kozár, with the lord of Losonczy Dénes, who received it form King Endre II(1205–1235), King Imre's successor, around the start of the 13th century. At the time it was only a motte-and-bailey built in the 9th century, rebuilt and fortified. It was destroyed by the Mongol Invasion, then rebuilt as a stone castel in 1249 by its lord. From this time it was known as Kozárvár. Historically it is a little off, but I think it still fits in. Hope it helps!

Spoiler

Click to expand...

For now it can be used, thank you!

The problem with Eastern Europe is severe, actually. Our lack of sources is concerning. I thought to begin the investigation for the Cumans, because they would be a nice faction to add sometime, to put some pressure onto Kiev and, at some point, to Georgia and the deminished Khazars, if we ever add those factions. And researching the Cumans/Kypchaks, I found out... that I can't even find theyr leader, khan or whatever. A good start, I'd say. Damn those peoples that don't registrate their history!

NikeBG said:

Btw, Gyula was not a Vlach, but a Magyar ruler of Zsombor, who converted in 953 and took the name of Gyula. So if we go by the name the ruling elite gave it, it should be the Magyar name, while the possible Vlach name could possibly be if we go by its population (though taking the population itself as being Vlach would be speculative).

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out, but I have to correct some things about your statemant. 'Gyula' was primarily a rank in teh hungarian tribal organization (the absolute warlord, second in rank to the 'kende'). The name derrived from that, and became very popular among the hungarian nobility in Transylvania (and it's a popular name today as well) So the Gyula mentioned in those sources might have been a person with that specific title, or that name. The title was still in use after the hungarians settled down.

And PLEASE DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA AS HISTORIC SOURCE. Anyone can edit it. I already provided you with a map and list of settlements that should be included for Hungary (it was in the previous research thread, before the current release)

About vlachs in Transylvania - they only came to Transylvania (in larger numbers) after the mongol invasion of 1241. Calling medieval Nagyvarad as 'Oradea' is like naming medieval Constantinople as 'Istanbul'.

English Wikipedia has strict revision, and anyway, you can trust information with quotes and references. As long as you know about the issue, enough not to be fooled, it's ok to consult Wikipedia for additional sources.

Sorry about the map, I didn't remember the info you gave us. I'll check it out now.

Take care!

EDIT: I can't find the old thread. I think that Cruger saved the info.

Cèsar de Quart said:

And researching the Cumans/Kypchaks, I found out... that I can't even find theyr leader, khan or whatever. A good start, I'd say. Damn those peoples that don't registrate their history!

Click to expand...

And damn those people who have destroyed already registered history too...
Anyway, while I was doing my Bulgarian research, I had stumbled on the names of a couple of clan leaders who had taken part in Bulgarian politics of the time. They're not leaders of all Kipchaks obviously (I'm not even sure if they were unified enough to have a constant common leader), but I can recheck my books and try to find them again, if you want...

Edit: Ah, just found a quote that might confirm my belief:
"In the land of Kidar (Cumania) they don't eat bread - instead, they eat rice and millet boiled in milk, and also milk and cheese. They also put pieces of meat under the horse's saddle when they ride and then they race him until the horse sweats. The meat gets warm and they eat it... The Cumans have no common master, but only princes and noble families. They live in tents, are extremely far-sighted, as they don't eat salt and use some specific plants. They are excellent bowmen and can kill a bird as it flies. They notice and examine all things within more than a day's distance...", by the Jewish traveller Rabbi Petahia (sp?), who travelled from Regensburg to Asia around 1179

Edit2: I checked a bit more and found that the best source would be a Russian historian (or at least someone having access to the Russian sources), since the main Bulgarian research which I have that covers the topic (specifically the chapter about the Cumans, Alans and Tatars as generals and allies of the SBE) mentions just a couple of them from Hungarian chronicles, but then explains their names as given in the Russian chronicles, which seem to have a much better information about them. Anyway:
- In the 1202-1203 Hungarian-Bulgarian war, the Cuman forces (allied to Tsar Kaloyan) were led by some chief called Guban (as given by a Hungarian chronicle) or Koban Urosobich (from the Russian chronicles), meaning "Koban, of the Urosoba clan", which was subjogated by the Dniepr dynasty of Burdjogli (the main dynastic clans in this area are given as: Olberli, Kay, Terteroba, Burdjogli, Itogli; Burdjogli and Itogli were near the Dniepr river and Tsar Kaloyan's wife was probably from one of those two clans).
- In 1205 Niketas Choniates mentions some "Kocha" as leader of the 14 000 Cumans allies at Adrianople. That is probably the so-called Begbars Kochaevich (in Russian) meaning "Bebgars, of the Kochoba clan" (which was also subjugated to the Bordjogli dynasty) and he was mentioned in the Russian chronicles in 1190.
- In 1213 broke out a rebellion in Bdin, which was supported by three Cuman khans. A Hungarian chronicle (the Hungarians were called by Tsar Boril to help quell the rebellion and in exchange were given Belgrad and Branichevo) mentions one of those khans as Karach.
- The next Cuman mentioned in this chapter is khan Tegak, but he's from 1256 and vassal to the Tatars.

Hi. Just downloaded and played the mod (ver. 2.32). It's awesome, but there are till some bugs. Anyway, I noticed few, just little mistakes in Polish troop tree:

1. Noble cavalry- There's something like that: Rycerz--->Szlachta. First mistake is second unit's name. Szlachta in Polish means "nobility" (as status). Single noble means "Szlachcic". And, being a noble doesn't make knight of anyone so fast. So szlachcic must be BEFORE knight (rycerz). You can also change it into "giermek" (squire).
2. Horse archers/Crossbowmen- I'll start with archers. They're called "pancerni". SIngle soldier should be called "pancerny". And the kettle hat just dosn't fit to them, the spiked helmet will be much better. And cossbowmen: they're called single "strzelec", multiple "strzelcy". Strzelec means "shooter" (just someone, who shoots with something). Much better will be calling them single "konny kusznik", multiple "konni kusznicy".
3. Spearman upgrade- when you upgrade "polish spearman", you have unit called "wartownik", which means "watchman". You should change that, I can always help you with language things.

And there's one more thing. In most of units with Polish-languaged names (like "rycerz") multiple names are wrong. Those are usually used only for after-battle casualties report, and it's really strange for Pole. I'll write, how should it be:
single: rycerz multiple rycerzy
szlachcic-szlachciców
giermek-giermków
pancerny-pancernych
strzelec-strzelców
wartownik-wartowników
łucznik (archer)-łuczników
kusznik (crossbowman)-kuszników

If I'll find other bugs, I'll write.

NikeBG said:

They also put pieces of meat under the horse's saddle when they ride and then they race him until the horse sweats. The meat gets warm and they eat it...

Click to expand...

I've heard that before. But it's a misinterpretation on behalf of foreign historians. The hungarians did the same thing (put the meet under the horse's saddle), but didn't eat it. That would be unhealthy. When the horse's back became injured from the saddle, the rider would put a piece of raw meet under the saddle for 2 reasons: 1. it heals the open wound; 2. it makes the horse usefull again (no need to swap to another horse) because the meet absorbs some of the pressure, so the wound doesn't hurt when the rider rides the horse

As for cuman leaders - I can search some of the hungarian sources. I know of one cuman leader - Kötöny (killed before the mongol invasion of 1241). I'll see if I can find more.

nizyn said:

And, being a noble doesn't make knight of anyone so fast. So szlachcic must be BEFORE knight (rycerz). You can also change it into "giermek" (squire).
2. Horse archers/Crossbowmen- I'll start with archers. They're called "pancerni". SIngle soldier should be called "pancerny".

Click to expand...

Thanks, but we're getting contradictorial informations about Poland. Pancerni were not mailed riders, sometimes carrying bows?

And, as far as I know, a rycerz was an adaptation of the Western, especially German-fashion, knights, which were not totally nobles, but a mixture between old druzhina and Feudal knights.

Take care!