Historically wrong

Users who are viewing this thread

A group of Norwegian Vikings attacked me. On the battlefield, they used tactics. In real life, norwegian vikings used rarely tactics. They just ran into the enemy. They stood in position and waited until me and my troops came. Vikings were also very good at running. They should have better athletic skills.

Everyhing of Laithlind was conquered by Norway (Northvegr), but not in this dlc.
 
Erling01 said:
Everyhing of Laithlind was conquered by Norway (Northvegr), but not in this dlc.

And if you pay attention to the Laithlind faction members you'll notice they're norse.
 
Erling01 said:
I know but they should be a part of Northvegr, instead of Laithlind.

At the time the DLC is set the Norse settlers of the regions corresponding to in-game Laithlind had not yet been integrated into the Kingdom of Norway (though I'm not sure they were united as a single entity either).
 
Erling01 said:
A group of Norwegian Vikings attacked me. On the battlefield, they used tactics. In real life, norwegian vikings used rarely tactics. They just ran into the enemy. They stood in position and waited until me and my troops came. Vikings were also very good at running. They should have better athletic skills.

Everyhing of Laithlind was conquered by Norway (Northvegr), but not in this dlc.

Charges were actually not common in warfare between the Norse and Saxons. The default formation would have been a shieldwall in which both lines would slowly advance towards one another, most people in modern times (including myself) do not understand how scary and intimidating the prospect of potential death would be. A shieldwall would rarely charge, except from the last few feet to gain momentum, as it would break the formation. Sometimes they used a wedge to attempt to break through the line of defense but chaotic charges and the statement that they rarely used tactics is so far from the truth. Think about Norse warriors, they believed that to gain entry into Valhalla, they would have to die fighting with a sword in their hands- a religion that encourages battle would lead to a lot of skill in warfare, which is one reason why they steam-rolled Northern England. A charge would be more common from native Britons/Celts which followed beliefs in Druidism and this religion would have been very scarce during the age of the Viking invasions.
 
Erling01 said:
A group of Norwegian Vikings attacked me. On the battlefield, they used tactics. In real life, Norwegian Vikings used rarely tactics.
Yes, they did. We even have credible descriptions of battles against Vikings.
The tactics are to represent how battles were fought at that time.

The Laithlin might not have been part of Norway, but ruled by independent chiefs.
It's not even certain that Norway was a unified kingdom at this time. We made it one kingdom because it's easier.
Harald Fairhair is by legend the one unifying Norway.
 
Maybe the dev team needs to put up a sticky that nobody ought to be trying to correct the history without sources. It seems like a lot of people are jumping in here with 'historical knowledge' that is gleaned from strange sources. The development team of this mod has clearly done a lot of research and I think the community ought to respect that enough to give the benefit of the doubt unless a conflicting source can be easily located.
 
I remember writing a piece 4 years ago on the TWCenter section on this this topic, based on Torolf Rein's work. I covered the use of circular schiltrons, wedge formation and how to counter flanks, mobile anti-cavalry formations and a horse shoe type -formation. (SNL.NO, 2005-2007)

"
Fylking (Shield wall) was the a series of tactical combat forces used by the infantry. A line of at least 5 men, usually 10, but sometimes even 20 ranks deep. In the front line were the warriors armed with shields and swords or axes. Then those with spears. Behind those were the men armed with bows, crossbows, javelins or slings.

Svinefylking (wedge): Approx. 400men. A wedged shieldwall. It's intend was to pierce, and therefor break the enemies physical frontline or the moral of their men. It consisted of 20 men deep, and the tip towards the enemy. To counter flanks, their formation added 2 baseline wings. Each of these consisting of 10 X 10 men. Ergo, the entire Svinefylking consisted of approx. 600 (400 + 2 X 100) men.

Anti-cavalry: Incase of charging cavalry, they usually orderd 2 Svinefylkings in a diamondesque shape. One with it's tip forward, and another with the tip backwards, with the same baseline. The entire Anti cavalry Svinefylking consisted of approx. 1000 (2 X 400 + 2 X 100) men.

Gaffelen ("the fork"): Approx. 1400 men with 2 wings with it's angle forward like an open horseshoe pointing towards the enemy, almost encircling. It was less common, but was specially used when having a superiority in strength. One such example would be in 1066, when Harald Hardraada fought on the Humber River in England.

Kretsen/Fylkingkrans ("Circut"/"Shieldwall-Wreath"): Approx. 1400 men in a ring or shiltron. They were not always completely round, but more like a series of straight curved front-lines in the form of a wreath. Primarily used when in risk of attack from multiply areas, specially when the enemy was supirior (in cavalry). (Harald Hardraada, on the Stamford Bridge, 1066.)
"

@KPJFormat
No. People should off course be allowed to object to what they find historically inaccurate. Not because they have some sort of "right" to do so, but because it exposes a question or shakes a belief in the community as a whole. If one man asks a question, then there is bound to be many others thinking the same thing.
As an example: In the other thread I just learned the history of the axe during the viking age, complimented with sources to back it up. What you are trying to do would "protect" people from learning something they are curious about, and that in itself is a very dangerous idea.
 
KPJFormat said:
Maybe the dev team needs to put up a sticky that nobody ought to be trying to correct the history without sources. It seems like a lot of people are jumping in here with 'historical knowledge' that is gleaned from strange sources. The development team of this mod has clearly done a lot of research and I think the community ought to respect that enough to give the benefit of the doubt unless a conflicting source can be easily located.

Well, from what most are saying, I presume it to be general historical knowledge if you are interested and asking questions about it. If someone wanted to question certain parts of what I said then I would be happy to find some sources to back it up, but most of the time that's unnecessary effort though, I wouldn't provide sources unless someone had a perspective different from my own and wanted to question them (not in negative way, more as a common interest to share knowledge). A large part of my knowledge comes from fictional writings based on none-fictional events. What I would also to Kjeresvein- that is a really good post for the thread :smile:
 
KPJFormat said:
Maybe the dev team needs to put up a sticky that nobody ought to be trying to correct the history without sources. It seems like a lot of people are jumping in here with 'historical knowledge' that is gleaned from strange sources. The development team of this mod has clearly done a lot of research and I think the community ought to respect that enough to give the benefit of the doubt unless a conflicting source can be easily located.

100% agree.
 
wouldn't it be cool to have something like "subkingdoms" so northymbre and friese are like independant nations but still kind of under controll of danmark? that would make the story a lot better, and norway could have hordaland and rogaland as semi independant states like bavaria is to germany?
 
I have found one thing which is incorrect:
Northhumbria is ruled by Halfdan Ragnarsson, while in the story you're told about how they placed the puppet Cyning(King) Egbert to control the locals. Shouldn't Egbert then be the ruler of the Kingdom (At least officially - in practise the Jarls ruled)
 
If Egbert were flagged as faction owner then he'd have complete power over the Danish jarls, which is not reflective of the actual political climate of Northumbria at this time. Egbert has the title, but not the power.
 
Redleg said:
KPJFormat said:
Maybe the dev team needs to put up a sticky that nobody ought to be trying to correct the history without sources. It seems like a lot of people are jumping in here with 'historical knowledge' that is gleaned from strange sources. The development team of this mod has clearly done a lot of research and I think the community ought to respect that enough to give the benefit of the doubt unless a conflicting source can be easily located.

100% agree.


Could not agree more. And, remember even when you do find something looking 'non-historic' there are balance, game play, and other issues in play. I.E. there are serious problems with combining characters, kingdoms and time periods. But, how are they to fix that? Thee are limits on the engine for  the time involved and how you can present things.

For my two cents, developers did a wonderful job making the game historical and playable.


I am not even going to mention the problems with the 'Sagas' vs historical sources. For instance we are pretty darn sure the 'sons' of Ragnar did not include Ivar, as historically we know who his father was. But what is the fun in agreeing with historians that the most likely Ragnar was the leader of the 845 attack on Paris who dies of dysentery shortly thereafter? If you are playing VIKING CONQUEST the SAGAS must be your primary source, history needs to take a back seat.
 
The petty kingdoms of the Norwegians, Irish, and Welsh were a challenge to portray. At this time, Harald Fairhair, still a teen, had not yet completed his vow to unify Norway before combing his hair, so technically he was called "Tanglehair" at this point. This is why there is another king, King Eirik, in Norway (the same whom Harald would kill to marry his daughter, Gyda). We talked about building in some internal strife in that "faction," but never got that far. At any rate, this was decades before Norway had even the pretense of control over the island pirate kingdoms.

If by Ivar, you mean Olaf the White, we decided just to pick one of the conflicting sources and chose the contemporary Irish version, although I'm pretty sure the Irish were a little foggy on many details. I personally found it hard to believe this was the same Ivar called "the boneless."
 
motomataru said:
The petty kingdoms of the Norwegians, Irish, and Welsh were a challenge to portray. At this time, Harald Fairhair, still a teen, had not yet completed his vow to unify Norway before combing his hair, so technically he was called "Tanglehair" at this point. This is why there is another king, King Eirik, in Norway (the same whom Harald would kill to marry his daughter, Gyda). We talked about building in some internal strife in that "faction," but never got that far. At any rate, this was decades before Norway had even the pretense of control over the island pirate kingdoms.

If by Ivar, you mean Olaf the White, we decided just to pick one of the conflicting sources and chose the contemporary Irish version, although I'm pretty sure the Irish were a little foggy on many details. I personally found it hard to believe this was the same Ivar called "the boneless."

I was actually thinking of the Uí Ímair Dynasty, but like you say there are so many possible interpretations of who is who, and whom is real or myth, or combination. If you want to make a story you just have to pick the best you can and stick with it. Since there has been no consensus all you can do is your best while making it interesting, and you all certainly did that.
 
Back
Top Bottom