-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Which faction are slavic people in upcoming Bannerlord?
- Thread starter TERR1K
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
ratschbumm said:
My answer was clear.
ratschbumm said:
No, Romans not just "knew", they USED composite bows.
ratschbumm said:
Roman Empire was part of Medieval Europe.
ratschbumm said:
Romans always used composite bows. Roman bow WAS composite one. Btw.: early crossbows had composite bows, which shows that technology wasn't lost with the fall of Roman empire.
ratschbumm said:
Every province.
ratschbumm said:
I am not asking you what "saber" is. I am asking you what "heavy saber" is. And the reason why you can't answer is because there is no such thing as "heavy saber" and it certainly wasn't what Russian cavalry was using. You have simply invented the term yourself.
ratschbumm said:
I could use pictures without captions, but I did not. Read the captions.
ratschbumm said:
It matters very much, because it show that she is qualified to write about the subject.
ratschbumm said:
You mean that to write a book about eggs, you need to be an egg? Really?
ratschbumm said:
Childish is amount of ad-hominems you are using:
ratschbumm said:So far, you are vile liar and Murzilka Warrior. Do you learn those your tricks from Anglo-Saxon governments, you know, using question as an answer, or "we have all the proof about Asad but we never show it".
Touche...
It was not for me. Tell me, when your teacher (for example) ask you something to check what you do know, do you always tell him that you decide what is clear answer? Yes or no? What is really clear, that is you will want to answer me like “You are not my teacher”, as you always do. Or will just ignore, as you do every post.MurzilkaWarrior said:
Why are you so much (sometimes even stupidly) general in suggestions? Who are Romans that you are talking about? Are they Roman Militas, Roman Citizens, other provincial people who just lived here and there, foederati, client states auxilliaries? Where they were from, Britannia or Egypt, Gibraltar or Cimmeria? When did they live? 600BC? 1400 Anno Domini? There are two millenniums of history! It is impossible to discuss in so much broad terms. Either you do it intentionally or not, nothing of this describes you as good opponent. Hence, don’t complain about someone’s attitude, It’s the only attitude you deserve.
Oh. No!! WTF? Historiography told us that Falling of Western Roman Empire was taken as a start point to timespan called Medieval. If previously I doubt that you read what you post, now on is not obvious that you read at all. Western, did you know this word?
All over again… Again answers to question what I does not ask. I asked who specifically were those Romans who used composite bows in warfare, when and where they lived. All your answer is “Romans always used composite bows”. Seems retarded, to be honest.
Let me tell you why you are moving around like an eel. Of course you already hastily googled and reread general info about archers in Roman army. But, unfortunately for you, even in as very general source of knowledge as Wikipedia, stated about Sagittarii:
So not always, right? You are lier.
What is auxiliary?
Not from core of Roman Empire. You are lier.
Mercenaries? Lier?
But the worst for your position in argue was this:
If you were answering to all I ask without ducking, this will be the final irresistible question, why you say that east slavs had no horse archer despite the fact that they the whole history lived side-by-side with mass bow-armed cavalry, if Romans had had it when faced with new type of warfare? Also, it is complete proof of this fact that warfare will force to adopt weapons and tactics from most prominent enemy.
Precisely because of above, on the picture you are waving as a flag, most western of eastern slavs are drawned. They were bordering with the West, Teutonic Order and other stuff like that. Of course they adopted somewhat. More of it, Halych-Volin principality sought West recognition, and their prince was anointed by Pope. That is why you are refusing to say what is on the picture. Then, you are lier again.
You invented the whole history of medieval weaponry and warfare, as it seems. Of course, all what doesn’t fit to your universe is someone’s fantasy. I could explain you… If you ask politely.
Qualified by who, this is what really matters. Claw me, and I will claw thee.
Cheap trick. No doubt, an egg knows better how to be an egg, way better than you. And if the eggs could write books about being an egg, it were a lot more trustful source of eggs live than book of D. Smith who wrote that egg shell… is from shellfish. Russians can write about Russia, so...
Only in your imagination. IRL I just adapted to your blabbermouth type of warfare.
NUQAR'S Kentucky "Nuqar" James XXL said:
You put it perfectly. Although i don't think Taleworlds is to blame for any of that bs, neither do i think their factions are too ambiguous. "Based on Kievan Rus, so a mixture of slavic, nordic and various other influences" is not that hard to understand. It's just a question of interpretation and how large a proportion of the faction is given to influence a over influence b, for example slavic vs. viking inspiration in the sturgia case. So far, all i heard was plenty of people whining "where ma slav masta race at?", because, as you accurately said, people don't know which faction to project their nationalism onto. Really pathetic.
It's a fictional setting, with heavy influences from real world history. That said: each one of these factions is not an exact equivalent of any real historical kingdom, but a mixture and interpretation. It does not have to be a 1:1-translation. As far as we know there will not be a "100% slavic" faction. Get the **** used to it.
even "mixture" single word is hard to understand, it seems. Is sandwich a mixture? As for me, no. Ragout is a mixture. Sturgia is a sandwich, that's why it is like sore thumb.triptrap said:
Scandinavians and their role in the Russian Medieval armies:
Exhibit one:
Olaf Tryggvason was born as fugitive grandson of Norveigian konung Olaf Haraldsson. His father was killed by his enemies during wars for Norveigian throne. His mother had to flee Norway as a result. Olaf came to Russia as a young boy and over time gained fame for himself while fighting for Russian grand prince Vladimir I. Probably bit too much fame for his employer Vladimir I. He was politely notified that his welcome at the court has expired and he should leave.
Which he did along with his followers and a nice viking "retirement" fund. On the way out he managed to marry daughter of Wendish king Burislav (Wends were Slavs of the Baltic coast) and heading to Norway kicked butt of his father's enemies and took Norwegian throne for himself. After which he was killed in the naval battle been lead in to ambush by Jomsvikings (Skolderbrotva) that he just hired. Unknown to him, Jomsvikings were hired also by his enemies at the same time. Mercenary honor: why got paid once if you can get payed twice for the same contact?
Exhibit two:
Vladimir I (mentioned above) was son of Russian grand prince (Russian ruler) Sviatoslav. After death of Sviatoslav, oldest of his 3 sons Yaropolk arranged for untimely death of the youngest son Oleg, upon which Vladimir, who was the middle son correctly assumed that he will be next and fled to relatives in Scandinavia. There he made himself name serving Scandinavian jarls and konungs doing viking stuff and returned to Russia accompanied by Scandinavian warriors and a nice viking "retirement" fund.
Upon landing he headed to Kiev, on the way marrying daughter of the ruler of Polotsk by sacking Polotsk and killing the ruler himself (he refused to marry his daughter to Vladimir). Coming to Kiev he captured it and killed his brother Yaropolk, thus taking throne of Russia for himself.
And now comes the interesting part. After taking of Kiev his Scandinavian friends demanded looting of the city which Vladimir promptly refused to grant saying that city belongs to him now. Disappointed his Scandinavian friends asked if they can at last go raid neighboring Greeks (Byzantines) instead. Vladimir kindly agreed to that, but told them he himself is too busy right now and will not be able to take part. At the same time he send note to the Greeks telling them that they should expect "guests". And please to make sure those guests don't return back from their visit. Ever.
Exhibit three:
The same Vladimir I later in his life concluded alliance with Byzantine emperor Basil II to help him take down Byzantine revolt. In return Basil II agreed to marry his sister to Vladimir. Vladimir arrived with army that included number of warriors hired by Vladimir in Scandinavia and besieged Cherson, large rebel held Byzantine city in Crimea. After lengthy siege that took about a year, Vladimir took the city with the little help from a traitor -Scandinavian warrior working for Greeks inside the city.
After receiving Christian baptism and Byzantine princess as promised, Vladimir told to Basil thank you and please have my entire army as a gift, I don't want them anymore. And went home to Kiev. His army then became known as Varangian Guard.
Moral of the story:
1. Scandinavian warriors were the most effective part of the early Russian armies, often to the extend that they became decisive factor in the inter-dynastic struggles inside the Russia. One could take a Russian throne with a handful of them. Why were they so effective? Scandinavians were effective everywhere. This is the Viking age and much richer and more advanced countries then Russia had problems dealing with Scandinavians. Scandinavians were also unusually mobile for this historical period. They were superb sailors -and ancient Russia was basically large trading company that controlled trade routs between West and East based on large Russian rivers (like Dnieper). Also they were not tied to the land and agricultural circles. One could used them on a year long campaign without need to return them for plowing fields or collecting harvest. That wasn't possible with local Slavic tribal militias.
2. Number of Scandinavians living in Russia itself was too small to raise significant military contingents out of them. One had to go and hire them in Scandinavia.
3. While Russian princes themselves were Scandinavian in origin and had direct relatives in Scandinavia, they didn't trust these Scandinavian warriors. They were too dangerous to have them around for too long. If somebody can put you on the throne, he can also take you down.
Now this is true only for the early period of Russian state, while Bannerlord depicts much larger historical period condensed. Russian armies in this period fought exclusively on foot. No cavalry. It's not that Scandinavians or Slavs did not know how to ride horses, it's that to use them in battle as a cavalry, you need to have decent number of them. Russian price and his closest retinue on horses in a battle against Khazars is not cavalry, it's a suicide squad. Just like Scandinavians in the West, Russians fought on foot. When they used horses, they only used them as a transport to and from the battle.
However as Russia begun to feudalize, that changed. And Russian armies that met Mongols 200-300 years later were exclusively made of heavy cavalry (with some nomadic horse archers as allies or mercenaries). There was no infantry in Russian armies anymore. Infantry was used only in defense of fortifications. Field armies did not had infantry other than armed servants that were with the baggage train and could defend the camp, but did not take part in the battles themselves. At this point Russians did not hire warriors in Scandinavia anymore. Viking age was over and similar feudalization there had changed also Scandinavian society.
Therefore when TW puts Berserker in to Sturgian army along with "Druzhina" heavy knight, you need to understand that the two are from completely different eras and newer stood on the same battleground alongside each other in reality.
Exhibit one:
Olaf Tryggvason was born as fugitive grandson of Norveigian konung Olaf Haraldsson. His father was killed by his enemies during wars for Norveigian throne. His mother had to flee Norway as a result. Olaf came to Russia as a young boy and over time gained fame for himself while fighting for Russian grand prince Vladimir I. Probably bit too much fame for his employer Vladimir I. He was politely notified that his welcome at the court has expired and he should leave.
Which he did along with his followers and a nice viking "retirement" fund. On the way out he managed to marry daughter of Wendish king Burislav (Wends were Slavs of the Baltic coast) and heading to Norway kicked butt of his father's enemies and took Norwegian throne for himself. After which he was killed in the naval battle been lead in to ambush by Jomsvikings (Skolderbrotva) that he just hired. Unknown to him, Jomsvikings were hired also by his enemies at the same time. Mercenary honor: why got paid once if you can get payed twice for the same contact?
Exhibit two:
Vladimir I (mentioned above) was son of Russian grand prince (Russian ruler) Sviatoslav. After death of Sviatoslav, oldest of his 3 sons Yaropolk arranged for untimely death of the youngest son Oleg, upon which Vladimir, who was the middle son correctly assumed that he will be next and fled to relatives in Scandinavia. There he made himself name serving Scandinavian jarls and konungs doing viking stuff and returned to Russia accompanied by Scandinavian warriors and a nice viking "retirement" fund.
Upon landing he headed to Kiev, on the way marrying daughter of the ruler of Polotsk by sacking Polotsk and killing the ruler himself (he refused to marry his daughter to Vladimir). Coming to Kiev he captured it and killed his brother Yaropolk, thus taking throne of Russia for himself.
And now comes the interesting part. After taking of Kiev his Scandinavian friends demanded looting of the city which Vladimir promptly refused to grant saying that city belongs to him now. Disappointed his Scandinavian friends asked if they can at last go raid neighboring Greeks (Byzantines) instead. Vladimir kindly agreed to that, but told them he himself is too busy right now and will not be able to take part. At the same time he send note to the Greeks telling them that they should expect "guests". And please to make sure those guests don't return back from their visit. Ever.
Exhibit three:
The same Vladimir I later in his life concluded alliance with Byzantine emperor Basil II to help him take down Byzantine revolt. In return Basil II agreed to marry his sister to Vladimir. Vladimir arrived with army that included number of warriors hired by Vladimir in Scandinavia and besieged Cherson, large rebel held Byzantine city in Crimea. After lengthy siege that took about a year, Vladimir took the city with the little help from a traitor -Scandinavian warrior working for Greeks inside the city.
After receiving Christian baptism and Byzantine princess as promised, Vladimir told to Basil thank you and please have my entire army as a gift, I don't want them anymore. And went home to Kiev. His army then became known as Varangian Guard.
Moral of the story:
1. Scandinavian warriors were the most effective part of the early Russian armies, often to the extend that they became decisive factor in the inter-dynastic struggles inside the Russia. One could take a Russian throne with a handful of them. Why were they so effective? Scandinavians were effective everywhere. This is the Viking age and much richer and more advanced countries then Russia had problems dealing with Scandinavians. Scandinavians were also unusually mobile for this historical period. They were superb sailors -and ancient Russia was basically large trading company that controlled trade routs between West and East based on large Russian rivers (like Dnieper). Also they were not tied to the land and agricultural circles. One could used them on a year long campaign without need to return them for plowing fields or collecting harvest. That wasn't possible with local Slavic tribal militias.
2. Number of Scandinavians living in Russia itself was too small to raise significant military contingents out of them. One had to go and hire them in Scandinavia.
3. While Russian princes themselves were Scandinavian in origin and had direct relatives in Scandinavia, they didn't trust these Scandinavian warriors. They were too dangerous to have them around for too long. If somebody can put you on the throne, he can also take you down.
Now this is true only for the early period of Russian state, while Bannerlord depicts much larger historical period condensed. Russian armies in this period fought exclusively on foot. No cavalry. It's not that Scandinavians or Slavs did not know how to ride horses, it's that to use them in battle as a cavalry, you need to have decent number of them. Russian price and his closest retinue on horses in a battle against Khazars is not cavalry, it's a suicide squad. Just like Scandinavians in the West, Russians fought on foot. When they used horses, they only used them as a transport to and from the battle.
However as Russia begun to feudalize, that changed. And Russian armies that met Mongols 200-300 years later were exclusively made of heavy cavalry (with some nomadic horse archers as allies or mercenaries). There was no infantry in Russian armies anymore. Infantry was used only in defense of fortifications. Field armies did not had infantry other than armed servants that were with the baggage train and could defend the camp, but did not take part in the battles themselves. At this point Russians did not hire warriors in Scandinavia anymore. Viking age was over and similar feudalization there had changed also Scandinavian society.
Therefore when TW puts Berserker in to Sturgian army along with "Druzhina" heavy knight, you need to understand that the two are from completely different eras and newer stood on the same battleground alongside each other in reality.
mAtAtA
Oh, brother . . .
Piconi said:Well, not far at all. Balkans are the place where Celts, Dacians and Illyrians all influenced each other, even making mixed tribes, the most famous of all being Triballi, a dacian tribe that was assimilated into surrounding celts, in the end bearing both dacian and celtic traditions, customs, looks and warfare for centuries to come ( falx included, but not rhomphaia tho).Svarogorije said:[...]TERR1K said:Hello fellow warriors,
(first I wanna say sorry if this topic is in wrong discussion if it so, thanks for moving it, not deleting it)
soo ... 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?
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
Now that i said that,I remember a discussion where people mentioned how the Battanians don't make sense having the Falxmen,even though they are supposed to be based of ancient Celtic people.Falx was used by Dacians,far away from Celts.But as you can see they made more of a mish-mash so i would maybe say Battanians are based slightly of Celts but also have elements of other people of antiquity,in this case Dacians with the Falx warriors.
[...]
Celts were present and inhabited territories from Ibearan peninsula, brittish isles, balkans, all the way to Asia minor.
So that being said, the issue is not wheather it belongs to the celts exclusively or wheather the celts used such weapons and armor, because just saying "Celts" is a very broad term, the issue is the TaleWorlds' official historical inspiration for Battania, which they said is "Celtic tribes of western Europe, particularly the Picts, Irish and Welsh of the early medieval era" and Battanian king Caladog is partially inspired by the welsh king Gruffydd ap Llywellyn from 11th century.
Those particular Celtic tribes are in no way represented in the Battanian troop tree, with the honorable exceptions of Fianns and Oathbounds, both of which look somewhat acceptable for the given inspirational context.
As for Sturgia, that is a whole other level of misinterpeting historical inspiration, and trying to please the "viking enthusiasts" at the same time, which gave as a result a totaly confused faction which doesent know its place .
Yeah that is true,celtic people were there in the balkans close enough to the dacians,so yeah i suppose you are right,the celts in the region close to the dacians used those kinds of weapons.
As for sturgians,i completely agree,it's a completely confused faction.
Respect Knight
Recruit
So easy,Exactly Sturgia
Geheena
Recruit
Ok...I've read so many wrong things that made my eyes bleed on this topic that I've went out from read only mode...
How did you jump to this conclusion?
First, a thing that will shock all vikings fanboys - vikings were never good warriors. It's a common pop culture myth to have them pictured as ubermen in horned helms, but indeed what is a viking?
Usually it's a Bodhi/Carl (freemen) that lives from his (quite poor) land. And he decides to try his luck somewhere else - some quit their lands forever, as Normans in France, Norse-Gaels in Islands or Rus in Russia. These part usually mixed with the local population and disappeared in several generations lifetime. The second part were those who hoped to bring some wealth and slaves back to their home farm. In both cases vikings were never professional warriors, with a training and discipline comparable in any way to feudal nobles from the rest of Europe.
Obviously they were good sailors and masters of ambushes, and had a good looting stat for raiding defenseless monasteries and villages. However without any real training, most of their meetings with a feudal army ended as one sided butchery. Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder and Athelstan defeated several times various vikings forces in England. Harold Haradra was defeated at Stamford bridge, despite having his best housecarls with him. Louis VI defeated them in France after an failed attempt to take Paris. Brian Boru defeated them in Ireland. And I could continue that list quite far, but you get my point - Vikings, weren't in any way a reliable force.
So, about them playing a major role in Kievan military you are confusing two things - the vikings (varangian) foreign mercenaries, and the local Rus, living permanently here.
For the first one there is no way the could play any important role in the Kiev politics, there is quite few documented use of them, and in most of them they were hired as sailors, not as warriors (by Sviatoslav , Vladimir's son for his expedition on Constantinople, Ieroslav the wise hired 600 variag mercenaries during the civil war which was documented in both Kievan sources and the scandinavian Eymundar þáttr hrings and that's about all you can find about it). But as you noticed it - it's not a good idea to keep a big group of armed and foreign men at peace time, so they went sent back as soon as they did they job.
The second part, the Rus that came in the 8-9th centuries are already slavized at Vladimir time (he was himself from a Rus lineage), and didn't had a distinct identity or different ways to make war from slavic nobility.
Which brings me to the point of using mercenaries instead of local militia - At this period the Hridni system is already developed (basically whet will be called Druzina later), and those Hridni are the hearth of kievan military (to be fait, these system existed even before Kievan Rus, but it's ill documented). And indeed they are all mounted. I really don't know where you could read that thing about Kievan nobility fighting on foot - as they mostly fought against steppe tribes that would be quite a suicide.
Here is a byzantine miniature representing they victory over Kievans
Siege of korsun
(crap, can't post external links, both of them are on the wiki page Kievan Rus military)
So that's is IMHO the biggest problem with Stugia, it is loosely based on a very short time period of syncretic culture between Slavs and Rus which is actually quite unknown by most of people, and very badly documented even for those who have an interest in it. It's just don't ring a bell.
hruza said:
How did you jump to this conclusion?
First, a thing that will shock all vikings fanboys - vikings were never good warriors. It's a common pop culture myth to have them pictured as ubermen in horned helms, but indeed what is a viking?
Usually it's a Bodhi/Carl (freemen) that lives from his (quite poor) land. And he decides to try his luck somewhere else - some quit their lands forever, as Normans in France, Norse-Gaels in Islands or Rus in Russia. These part usually mixed with the local population and disappeared in several generations lifetime. The second part were those who hoped to bring some wealth and slaves back to their home farm. In both cases vikings were never professional warriors, with a training and discipline comparable in any way to feudal nobles from the rest of Europe.
Obviously they were good sailors and masters of ambushes, and had a good looting stat for raiding defenseless monasteries and villages. However without any real training, most of their meetings with a feudal army ended as one sided butchery. Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder and Athelstan defeated several times various vikings forces in England. Harold Haradra was defeated at Stamford bridge, despite having his best housecarls with him. Louis VI defeated them in France after an failed attempt to take Paris. Brian Boru defeated them in Ireland. And I could continue that list quite far, but you get my point - Vikings, weren't in any way a reliable force.
So, about them playing a major role in Kievan military you are confusing two things - the vikings (varangian) foreign mercenaries, and the local Rus, living permanently here.
For the first one there is no way the could play any important role in the Kiev politics, there is quite few documented use of them, and in most of them they were hired as sailors, not as warriors (by Sviatoslav , Vladimir's son for his expedition on Constantinople, Ieroslav the wise hired 600 variag mercenaries during the civil war which was documented in both Kievan sources and the scandinavian Eymundar þáttr hrings and that's about all you can find about it). But as you noticed it - it's not a good idea to keep a big group of armed and foreign men at peace time, so they went sent back as soon as they did they job.
The second part, the Rus that came in the 8-9th centuries are already slavized at Vladimir time (he was himself from a Rus lineage), and didn't had a distinct identity or different ways to make war from slavic nobility.
Which brings me to the point of using mercenaries instead of local militia - At this period the Hridni system is already developed (basically whet will be called Druzina later), and those Hridni are the hearth of kievan military (to be fait, these system existed even before Kievan Rus, but it's ill documented). And indeed they are all mounted. I really don't know where you could read that thing about Kievan nobility fighting on foot - as they mostly fought against steppe tribes that would be quite a suicide.
Here is a byzantine miniature representing they victory over Kievans
Siege of korsun
(crap, can't post external links, both of them are on the wiki page Kievan Rus military)
So that's is IMHO the biggest problem with Stugia, it is loosely based on a very short time period of syncretic culture between Slavs and Rus which is actually quite unknown by most of people, and very badly documented even for those who have an interest in it. It's just don't ring a bell.
Geheena said:
They wouldn't conquer half the British isles, parts of France, Low Countries, Russia and successfully raided rest as far away as Mediterranean and Middle East, had they not been good warriors.
Geheena said:
Viking was Scandinavian raider.
Geheena said:
Viking could be anybody, regardless of his social status, wealth or even origin (strictly speaking, he didn't have to be even Scandinavian).
Geheena said:
Except Scandinavians had feudal nobles too. Feudal armies in the Early Medieval period still consisted by an large from freemen levies and thus their composition in Scandinavia, British Isles or European Mainland wasn't very different. The difference was, that average Scandinavian saw much more fighting in his life then average anybody else. Plus Scandinavian religion was oriented heavily on war and death and that was a significant factor. The most dangerous of the weapons of all times is ...human brain.
Geheena said:
And now try to list all the battles that your "feudal armies" have lost against Scandinavians of the Viking Era. Plus how many times was Paris and other cities in Europe raided and burned down by vikings.
In 845, force of Ragnar Lothbrok sailed up the Seine, looted city of Rouen, destroyed army of Frankish king Charles the Bald at the Saint Dennis Abbey and then captured Paris camping and looting there until Charles payed them 5,700 pounds of gold to leave. That's 2.5 tons of gold (and probably silver).
Geheena said:
Except viking sailor and viking warrior is the same thing.
Geheena said:
Except Sviatoslav was Vladimir's father, not son.
Geheena said:
Vladimir fled to Scandinavia to his relatives at young age and spend several years there in the service of Scandinavian nobles. His Scandinavian lineage was therefore all right. Because Rus were Scandinavians. You have it written in all Russian, Western European and Arabic historical sources.
It took several centuries until Rus and Slavic tribes assimilated in to national identity that took name from former and culture from later.
Geheena said:
What is "Hridni system"?
Geheena said:
Can you show us those documents?
Geheena said:
There is no wikipedia page about "Kievan Rus military". You can post external link in the plain text format.
Geheena said:
Slavs, Rus, Finnic and other people in Russia lived together for very long time. Russia was always multi-ethnic empire. Mixture of Slavic, Scandinavian and Finnic inspired elements represent historical period of Kievan Rus very well. One can debate the details but concept is correct.
Q. How to know if someone is an expert in Medieval Rus'?
A. He did not know who those Hridni were or thinks that shapka bumazhnaya could be manufactured from papier-mache.
A. He did not know who those Hridni were or thinks that shapka bumazhnaya could be manufactured from papier-mache.
there is no logic in his walls of text, only narrative, and very general in most of cases. my logic is, if somebody do not know who huskarls were, and what was their social status and position compared to latest feudal system - cannot teach others about vikings. Is that logic unacceptable for you?triptrap said:
Faustus said:
They never used to be. There was little resemblance to the nords until the last year or two.
ratschbumm said:
Except it's huscarls, not huskarls. You can't even pronounce it correctly. Not to mention we were not talking about huscarls, I was asking what "Hridni system" is. So much for your "logic".
ratschbumm said:
There is no logic in your post to accept. It's poor attempt to insult made of innuendos.
first, go teach TW about huskarlshruza said:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,387713.msg9179739/topicseen.html
second, they were húskarlar, so you missed again.
third, the joke is that greeden'/hriden'/гридень is roughly equivalent of huskarl, in terms of society, and the one, who never know it, obviously, not know much about early Rus' military organisation.
fourth, don't tell me about logic, while in your universe Russia was conquered by vikings.
Similar threads
