Which faction are slavic people in upcoming Bannerlord?

Hello fellow warriors,




According to which these nations are made in the game, and in which of them, as described, most fit the nations of Western Slavs. With 100% certainty we can eliminate Aserai, vladians, kuzaits and maybe even battanians because I have read that they have been inspired by the Celtic nations of the past and they have more sources for taxes, Irish and scots.
Therefore, I am left with only sturgians and since history we know that the general Slavic nations have roots from the Ukrainian and Russian nations that moved west and south (according to them, the creators of the game also inspired) - for me they seem very Russian and so tipical viking but on the other hand, there is an empire and since geographically the maps of preliminary imagery of the game maps are relatively in the middle and western Slavs now the present nations are also at the heart of Europe, but the creators describe the empire as somewhat closer to the nations of nowadays Romans and Greeks.

So what is your opinion, are they sturgians despite being very pro-Russian or empire despite Roman roots? Probably more inclined to sturgians I guess 

Thanks 

You should probably take this discussion to the Bannerlord board. This doesn't really have anything to do with the beta.

Piconi said:

Noudelle said:

You should probably take this discussion to the Bannerlord board. This doesn't really have anything to do with the beta.

Click to expand...

Um...this IS the Bannerlord bard-Citadel, and not the Beta 

Click to expand...

Only because it was moved here from the beta board by a mod.

TERR1K said:

my question is purely out of curiosity, because I am from Slovakia and I would like to know from a historical point of view that which faction are western slavic people in upcoming Bannerlord?

Click to expand...

I am from Slovakia myself and answer to your question is none. Western Slavic people are not represented in Bannerlord by any faction.

TERR1K said:

and since history we know that the general Slavic nations have roots from the Ukrainian and Russian nations that moved west and south

Click to expand...

Slavic nations don't have roots from the Ukrainian and Russian nations and they can't. Because all Slavic nations have roots in common Slavic ancestors.

TERR1K said:

that moved west and south

Click to expand...

East and North. Russia -as in what it today Western Russian Federation and was historically known as Greater Russia is not territory that was originally inhabited by Slavic people. Large part of this territory was settled by Slavs relatively late. Later then territory of Slovakia was for example. In fact Slavs came to the area of future Novgorod -first Russian capital, not long before Scandinavians.

Similarly most of the territory of current Ukraine wasn't settled by Slavs till 18th ct (almost whole southern and eastern Ukraine).

The "homeland" of Slavic people seems to lie somewhere between current Slovakia, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine. It's exact location is unknown. In fact there is possibility that Slavs originally came from Danube. Which is accidentally also what old chronicles claim, including Russian ones.

TERR1K said:

So what is your opinion, are they sturgians despite being very pro-Russian or empire despite Roman roots? Probably more inclined to sturgians I guess 

Click to expand...

Neither.

TERR1K said:

Before any more arguments or problems. Bannerlord factions and their implications in the game have very big holes ... celts (battanians) 1000 - 1500 after Christ and sturgians faction I suppose based on elements from photos about 600 - 800 after Christ so, hardly anything at all to deal with in the Tale Worlds have chaos obviously and they're throwing nations like pokemons. I know its fiction and game but like... has to me something historical in it when you do a medieval game man...   

Click to expand...

Bannerlord factions are only loosely inspired by real historical people. But they are not their actual representations. Nor did TW ever intended them to be.

I think you'll find different opinions on the different pages of these three threads:

Why nobody likes Sturgia
Culture of Sturgia
Sturgia - Make up your mind about this faction.

I think that, in general, people are tired of always talking about the same thing. 

hruza said:

Slavic nations don't have roots from the Ukrainian and Russian nations and they can't. Because all Slavic nations have roots in common Slavic ancestors.

Click to expand...

but only eastern slavs had different armor,  weapon and warfare experience.  no sense to clone bavarian infantry to picture bohemian.

....*cough* Sturgia *cough*

*skitters away from the ensuing firestorm*

Ahhhh, the eternal struggle of delusional forumites talking about history.....sad thing is,they actually think other people are taking their alternate history seriously, and the saddest thing is they themselves believe what they imagined . . .

ratschbumm said:

but only eastern slavs had different armor,  weapon and warfare experience.  no sense to clone bavarian infantry to picture bohemian.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? Eastern Slavs didn't had any "different" armor, weapons and warfare. They first of all didn't have much armor and weapons at all. They lacked sources of quality iron ore and they were relatively poor economically. As a result ALL  metallic armor and specialized weapons like swords were exclusively imported. Either from Frankish Empire or from the Iraq and Persia.

That wasn't case just with Eastern Slavic people. During early medieval period it was the case with most people. There are for example no "Viking" swords or armors either. They too were importing (including theft) everything from more advanced societies. What popular culture calls "Viking" equipment -for example notorious "Viking" helmets are in reality helmets from Frankish empire or much more rarely from Anglo-Saxon Britain.

It was the same then as today. Only coupe of most advanced countries produce high end weapon tech. Everybody else mostly imports them or produces clones. Heavy horseman and his equipment was equivalent of modern tank. Both in technology required to "produce" him and the cost in resources.

As for "warfare experience" -again, nothing unique. Slavs were settled people and that determined their warfare -no horse archers. Moreover since they were relatively poor society economically -thanks to harsh environment, no horsemen at all. They simply could not afford to breed horses, much less war horses. They too had to be imported (Russians for centuries imported horses from nomadic Nogays). Cavalry appeared among East Slavs only as a result of increased feudalization and concentration of resources.

hruza said:

What do you mean by that? Eastern Slavs didn't had any "different" armor, weapons and warfare. They first of all didn't have much armor and weapons at all. They lacked sources of quality iron ore and they were relatively poor economically. As a result ALL  metallic armor and specialized weapons like swords were exclusively imported. Either from Frankish Empire or from the Iraq and Persia.

Click to expand...

where did you learn history, mate? Of course eastern had distinct armor and weaponry, if comparing to westerners, and of course this happened due another type of warfare. Great Steppe, did you hear about it? Horse archers, sabres, kuyak-type armor, and so on. Of course eastern slavs adopted more or less of all this just to be on par. what was the source of iron is completely irrelevant.

That wasn't case just with Eastern Slavic people. During early medieval period it was the case with most people. There are for example no "Viking" swords or armors either. They too were importing (including theft) everything from more advanced societies. What popular culture calls "Viking" equipment -for example notorious "Viking" helmets are in reality helmets from Frankish empire or much more rarely from Anglo-Saxon Britain.

Click to expand...

IDK why are you writing this, to say another time that Rus was somewhat retarded? No problem, mate, it was as it was, but there is wrong word from you, frankish society was not "advanced", it was "developed". Developed by Roman society, which was advanced. And these "advanced" societies you said were only dwarves who were higher only because they stayed on the corpse of the giant. Face it. 

As for "warfare experience" -again, nothing unique. Slavs were settled people and that determined their warfare -no horse archers. Moreover since they were relatively poor society economically -thanks to harsh environment, no horsemen at all. They simply could not afford to breed horses, much less war horses. They too had to be imported (Russians for centuries imported horses from nomadic Nogays). Cavalry appeared among East Slavs only as a result of increased feudalization and concentration of resources.

Click to expand...

did you ever see that picture?

https://geomap.com.ua/images/wh8a/r_6/4.jpg

sorry have no idea why it don't want to be embedded

this is 16th century, of course, but did you think they appeared suddenly? No. Of course there were some traditions, not so strong, but good enough. Or give to us an idea how"settled" and "horseless" people survived in "harsh conditions" if all their enemies were nomadic horsemen with bows?

ratschbumm said:

where did you learn history, mate?

Click to expand...

From historians. I highly recommend you to do the same.
If you understand Russian language, which I suppose you do, then you can start here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIyLQ6cL0eWj1jT6oyy148w/videos

ratschbumm said:

Of course eastern had distinct armor and weaponry,

Click to expand...

They did not. They had only imported armor and weaponry. they were not producing metallic armors and advanced weaponry at all. Russian (and Slavic in general) word for sword is Germanic in origin.

ratschbumm said:

if comparing to westerners, and of course this happened due another type of warfare.

Click to expand...

First of all, they had the same equipment as westerners. Because they were importing equipment from Western Europe. But in addition there was also equipment imported from the Middle East and Asia due to the proximity. If they were rich enough to afford it. Which most of them were not. And so they fought without metallic armor with spear, shield, few javelins and if lucky, war axe.

ratschbumm said:

did you ever see that picture?

https://geomap.com.ua/images/wh8a/r_6/4.jpg

Click to expand...

That's period of Ivan the Terrible and his new "pomestie" horsemen. That's early modern era.

ratschbumm said:

this is 16th century, of course, but did you think they appeared suddenly? No.

Click to expand...

Yes. They have appeared "suddenly" as a result of military reforms.

ratschbumm said:

Or give to us an idea how"settled" and "horseless" people survived in "harsh conditions" if all their enemies were nomadic horsemen with bows?

Click to expand...

hruza said:

ratschbumm said:

where did you learn history, mate?

Click to expand...

From historians. I highly recommend you to do the same.
If you understand Russian language, which I suppose you do, then you can start here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIyLQ6cL0eWj1jT6oyy148w/videos

ratschbumm said:

Of course eastern had distinct armor and weaponry,

Click to expand...

They did not. They had only imported armor and weaponry. they were not producing metallic armors and advanced weaponry at all. Russian (and Slavic in general) word for sword is Germanic in origin.

ratschbumm said:

if comparing to westerners, and of course this happened due another type of warfare.

Click to expand...

First of all, they had the same equipment as westerners. Because they were importing equipment from Western Europe. But in addition there was also equipment imported from the Middle East and Asia due to the proximity. If they were rich enough to afford it. Which most of them were not. And so they fought without metallic armor with spear, shield, few javelins and if lucky, war axe.

ratschbumm said:

did you ever see that picture?

https://geomap.com.ua/images/wh8a/r_6/4.jpg

Click to expand...

That's period of Ivan the Terrible and his new "pomestie" horsemen. That's early modern era.

ratschbumm said:

this is 16th century, of course, but did you think they appeared suddenly? No.

Click to expand...

Yes. They have appeared "suddenly" as a result of military reforms.

ratschbumm said:

Or give to us an idea how"settled" and "horseless" people survived in "harsh conditions" if all their enemies were nomadic horsemen with bows?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Six words for you: MIGRATION OF TRIBES TO WHOLE EUROPE (or otherwise the emergence of Western Slavs)

I quote the migration theory:

Migration Theory (Theory of Truth) says that the Slavs came to their territory today from some area. According to archaeological findings, it was located north of the Carpathians between the Oder, Vistula and central Dnepr, and the Slavs spread from it in the 5th century. The theory was originally developed by Czech ethnographer Lubor Niederle (1865-1944). This theory is ultimately based on (a) the finding by the Polish botanist and cultural scientist Rostafinski (1850-192 that the Slavic area had to be a territory without beech, larch and yew, because in all Slavic languages ​​the names of these trees are taken from foreign languages; b) the finding of AL Pogodin (1901) that the areas with the oldest Slavic names of the rivers are Podolie (now South-Ukrainian territory in Dnestro) and Volyn (between Bug and Dnipro). Niederle only specified the location of this area based on the results of archaeological excavations. According to Niederle Slavs, they left this territory because of climate change in the 2nd to 3rd century. century AD. In the Soviet Union, during World War II, it was predominantly held that the area of ​​the Slavs lay between the Elbe and the Aegean Sea - the Baltic Sea - Okou and Volga. After intensive excavations in the 1950s, however, Soviet archaeologists also reduced this territory to various defined territories roughly in today's Ukraine and Poland.



Do not forget the Ruthenian minority in the east of our beautiful Slovakia.

Short info.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SDH8Y9eHp4

I have read a number of books from the scientific library in Prešov regarding Slavic cultures, which unequivocally confirm at least 50% of the connection between Russia and the area of today's Russia, whether in terms of objects, armor, myths, lifestyle and the like. Of course, after migration, this has changed over time, and the Slavs have adapted many things (such as deities, scripture, etc.). So there is no doubt that we have Russian roots. That the Turks swept here, tatars. And they occupied the territory of avari and then the mother****ers of the Hungarians ... it has been reflected in our appearance and facial features. Oh my God is already in our coat of arms double cross does it tell you nothing?
I'm not saying we're 100% Russian, but don't deny our blood.



For all if you just put in google images: Western Slavic armor. Or something similar and burrow in the pictures you will find a bunch of the same features on the armor as they were presented in Bannerlord. (Strugians faction pictures, screemshots)



And I don't think the sturgians have Nordic features. They can't even have it! Bannerlord storyline takes place long before the Nordes fell into the territory of the Vaegris ... sturgians. So no. After all, there were Vikings in Russia, and it was slowly spreading to all Slavs, helmets, swift styles and similar fun.

I have seen many pictures of the game, and there were many similar features of buildings, armor, helmets, weapons, and others that are to the eye similar to those of Western Slavic finds and reconstructions of clothing and armor.

Little video for inspiration of facts that Sturgians have nothing to do with nords in Bannerlord:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fn-Cfotc7c

Western Slavs are the ancestors of the Russians and the Ukrainians, I cannot abandon this theory. I am sorry. There are too many similarities, features and cultural identity. Also take the Easter egg and its decorations ... where did it come from? Yet from Russia and our mothers still paint Easter eggs for Easter  .

So my question is still unanswered. Which faction in Bannerlord are we closest to (western slavics)?
My personal opinion is that strugians (just south of the territory). Empire is very "Roman".
Again CLOSEST not 100% same in everything.

Piconi said:

I strongly suggest you read couple of devblogs, starting with this Sturgia and for all other factions.
Also there is the Gamescom 2019 thread pinned with all the info.

All that before questions like this, let alone a topic about a question like that.

Cheers !

Click to expand...

I have nothing more to say. I told what I wanted and thats all and nothing else from me.
And by the way, I read it on every faction so pointless but thanks I think ? 

*unlocked* sorry...