Tbh it feels like a warband mod. Still 5 factions, most are just really close to the Warbands already existant... It looks like a graphical mod with few improvements yet only a couple of texture, renaming and modeling and poof, here you have new factions. I am pretty sure the camel is based on the horse hit box and I even wasn't expecting it to do camel sounds.
-
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:
Go yourself.
ratschbumm said:
No, you have missed:
ratschbumm said:
ratschbumm said:
First of all, гридень is "griden" not "hriden" and not "greeden".
г=g, р=r, и=i, д=d, е=e, н=n, ь=soft sign.
Second, I wasn't asking what griden is, I was asking what "Hridni system" is.
Which you can't answer because there is no such thing as "Hridni" and much less whole system of it.
ratschbumm said:
Well you have just provided evidence that indeed Russia was conquered by vikings. Because unbeknown to you, гридень (griden) is name used in Novgorodian chronicles (Novgorod was where Rus begun their expansion in to what is toady Russia) to describe "Druzhina". And surprise, surprise, it's Old Norse in origin:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гридь
In other words, Russian princes called their knights with Scandinavian name. So thanks for confirming my point.
Why I must? I am not the one who butthurting about ambiguous spelling.hruza said:
First of all, don’t teach fish to swim. What is your native language? It is not Russian, of course. Otherwise, you’d understand reasons laying in such differences in spelling and not be troubled to recognize the word. It is unlikely English. Please tell me, what does make you think you have an ability to do such conclusions, besides arrogance?
Second, same as above. Obviously, you never heard this word before, please, do not wiggle. This is already enough to firm what I said, with a "system" or without it. But if you still deny that greedens were a part of a particular political/military system, clearly distinct from later systems, I cannot help you.
ratschbumm said:
Another binary logic rubbish. So, you say that Magyars conquered everything because of ‘sabre’ and ‘hussar’ words. What I want to say, a few loan words mean nothing if we use the word "conquest". Things that are much more significant are changes in toponymics, in language and so on. E. g. what we see in Great Britain and Ireland. Hundreds of loan words even now. Renamed and newly named in Danish manner towns, villages, rivers, significant changes of grammatical structure. Sacked regions, scorched earth. A drastic shift of types of excavated artifacts. This is how real scientists explore the history, right? And I assure you, I knew this word when USSR was in place, and of course I knew its etymology before you tried to "enlight" me. In return, I strongly suggest you to use something like Britannica to check the meaning of words, such as conquest, knight, to use it properly.
So, nothing of this on East. Scandinavian settlers were more or less peaceful there. Peaceful in early medieval definition, of course, but they for sure coexisted with the local population there, perhaps because of trading. I have no problem with Norman Theory, as you could think, I do not see anything bad with an invited ruler, but I strongly against dull generalizations and biased conclusions. Five tribes, three of which were Finno-Ugric, ask some war chief to rule. He even was so lucky that he started a dynasty, which named children with Slavonic names after a generation. What was certainly not a typical Viking story, even if Vikings still were used as mercenaries in the later wars. Then these tribes continued to establish control on the trade routes. I say tribes because the norman nobility became part of these tribes. You know, there were thousands and thousands of native americans with Cortez's conquistadors, it is very unlikely that any of these two parts defeated Montezuma without another. Same was here, with little nuance, Cortez never could even think about to consider himself as part of those poor natives, while Varangian nobility evidently did.
If you understand Russian, as you claimed somewhere, I could tell you some anecdote about "In general" and "nuances". Maybe it could help you understand why your manner to dump sheet of text with general knowledge (paired with your "Except it's..." about something when ignoring other 95%) is not a discussion. Klim Zhukov (tss, it's a secret, but I know him personally) fond of it, maybe he even told it in those videos you spamming around. So, mate, do you want?
Religion does not need confirmation, but you are welcome.
Here we go...
Reading other topics I got some sensation that you have some split on personality, no offense.
See what I mean:
In fact, there I did confirm your words that none of the western Slavic Nations is represented in the game and said why. Because their warriors had a look virtually indistinguishable from neighbor western kingdoms, there is no sense to do second Vlandia. East, due to bridge position, was much, much more eclectic in weapons and armor, and therefore looked different enough to distinct their appearance from western counterparts. Note, I never state that their weaponry, armor, and warfare were unique. Only. A different. Look. From. Westerners. Thus I said later:ratschbumm said:
And you has disagreed.ratschbumm said:
Again disagreed.ratschbumm said:
In the same time, in another Sturgian topic you said:
hruza said:
hruza said:
I lost your point from there.
Geheena
Recruit
Because they didn't. Rollo was given the duchy of Normandy by Charles the Simple, Rurik was invited to reign in Novgorod by Gostomisl. Vikings never had a permanent presence in Low Countries either, only raiding bases (Dorestaad). The only real conquest you named were against weak and fragmented Irish and Scottish realms in the isles (Dublin, Man) and York/Jorvik during a period of civil strife in Northumbria.hruza said:
hruza said:
First you cannot really compare the discipline, martial training or equipment of Scandinavian nobles of these times with their Carolingian or byzantine counterparts. They were at best on the same level then Saxons and Rus.
Secondly, representing vikings as battle hardened warriors is a common mistake, even more popular nowadays because of pseudo historic TV shows. If you take the biography of most mid grade norse nobles or some renowned freemen - they usually have participated in one or two raids in their lives at best, and most of this raids didn't involve them in big sized military engagement. This is again very different from the life of a feudal noble in any of Francias or Asturia-Galicia for whom was was a way of life.
hruza said:
So much to say here that i even don't know where to start.
He didn't destroyed an army but mere a division of the already split army.
Charles--who was determined not to let the royal Abbey of Saint-Denis (near Paris) be destroyed[8]--assembled an army which he divided into two parts, one for each side of the river.[5] Ragnar attacked and defeated one of the divisions of the smaller Frankish army,
The main frankish forces were already fighting against Nomenoe and Erispoe rebellion in Bretagne, and another civil strife in Aquitaine. Charles as most of highest frankish nobles weren't even present in Paris.
Although Charles had been criticised severely for granting the large ransom payment to the Vikings, he had other more critical issues to deal with at the same time, including disputes with his brothers, regional revolts and disgruntled nobles, as well as pressure from abroad. Since he would have trouble trusting his own counts to assemble and lead troops to defeat Ragnar's large force militarily, paying them off instead would buy Charles time, and possibly peace from further Viking raids—at least in the near future
So I'm still eager to see vikings destroying feudal armies.
hruza said:
There is very few of them as i stated earlier.
For sacked cities - well Paris was sacked....the incredibly high amount of once in history (despite a lot of attempts). And it happened during a period of civil disorder while the Frankish kings have more important issues on the other side of the realm.
As for other big cities, hum, let's see...
Constantinople - zero times despite numerous attempts
Rome - zero times
Sevilla - once when the city was undefended. Still, the vikings got caught and slaughtered by the Sevillan army afterward.
Milan, Florencia, Genoa, Venice, Napoli, put your italian city state name except pisa here - zero times
Pisa- Once
An impressive score
Yep, sorry for the mistake.hruza said:
I'm curious of your sources. According to Gumilev, based on Sviatoslavich chronicle Vladimir went to Scandinavia in 977, then he get to Finland-Karelia and got back with a norse-finnish mercenary army in 978.hruza said:
Other already answered to this - yes basically Hridni were a protonobility system, that has hypothetically existed during early tribal times (military democracy). This is still only theories, I can link you an academic work on it in russian.hruza said:
For the know part, the Gridni were widespread and formed the bulk of armies since at least Igor's times, this is stated in the Primary Chronicle.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Persecution_of_Russ_by_the_Byzantine_army_John_Skylitzes.jpghruza said:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Radzivil_Vladimir_campaign_on_Korsun.jpg
hruza said:
Yes, and I'm quite happy to see the finnish element represented in a non-Russian game for the first time i guess.
However if you were right we wouldn't have this discussion, and they wont' be tenth topics in the forums "why no vaegir/nords".
I think Sturgia was a poor decision overall - it is based on a barely studied period (rurikan-Igorite Rus), that has little love from anyone. Even people unaware of Kievan Rus story would associate it with the byzantine-slavic later culture.
Just feel like they wanted Nord and Vaegir players happy at low cost.
Geheena said:
He was given duchy because Charles was unable to defeat him in battle.
Geheena said:
Gotomisl is fictional person and Norsemen were settled on the territory of contemporary Russia with local tribes subjugated already before Rurik. Primary Chronicle starts Russian history with local Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes been subjugated by Scandinavians.
Geheena said:
Dorestad was one of the largest cities in Europe at that time and important trading centere. Little bit more then just raiding base.
Geheena said:
No. They conquered half of the British Isles.
Geheena said:
Byzantine emperor did not hire Scandinavians as his bodyguards (Varangian guard) to protect him from Byzantine nobles trying to take his throne because Scandinavians were inferior to Byzantines. He hired them because they were superior.
Geheena said:
Mid grade nobles and freemen from that time did not leave any biographies. Norse, Frankish or other.
Geheena said:
Nope, pretty sure it was army: "Charles the Bald assembled an army"
https://www.ancient.eu/Viking_Raids_on_Paris
Geheena said:
Even your own source calls it an army:
Geheena said:
Geheena said:
Two attempts. That's 50% success rate. And the "failed" one ended with Frankish king buying himself off by giving Vikings Normandy. I count that as a success ...so 100%.
Geheena said:
Considering that Scandinavia is on the other side of the continent, that's pretty impressive, yes. That's the only time in entire history that Pisa was sacked by anybody from Scandinavia.
Geheena said:
Beyond the Northlands: Viking Voyages and the Old Norse Sagas, Oxford, Eleanor Rosamund Barraclough
Geheena said:
Many things can exist hypothetically. But let's stick to things that existed for real. As in we at last have sources for their existence.
What existed was "griden". And that was Russian-Scandinavian (of Scandinavian origin) word for druzhina as used in Novgorodian chronicles.
Geheena said:
That's illustration from late 11th century. From the chronicle by John Skylitzes.
Geheena said:
And that's illustration from 15th century Radzivill chronicle.
None of those pictures are authentic. At best they show Russian army from time of creation of those chronicles.
Geheena said:
You don't want to use existence of the dispute between computer game players as an historical argument backing your opinion in the very same dispute, do you?
Geheena said:
On contrary, it's one of the most studied periods of the Russian medieval history and decision is logical one given lore established in the previous titles of the MB series.
Geheena said:
Or may be they just wanted to be consistent with the lore and the history.
Similar threads
