Author Topic: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports  (Read 26519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Prince Of Persia

  • Regular
  • *
  • (Prisoner King Arthur)
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2008, 02:31:43 PM »
Peter il just hope u fix the RLG  unable to find mesh item error in the upcoming version ,or u cold make bugfix 3rd.Collection all bugs in the game ppl have writen
Blade in your throat?

Sir Timothi

  • Guest
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2008, 03:37:15 PM »
I believe there is a fix to that error if you look in the main download page.

Prince Of Persia

  • Regular
  • *
  • (Prisoner King Arthur)
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2008, 12:50:15 PM »
I believe there is a fix to that error if you look in the main download page.
I dont think :( so
Blade in your throat?

Sir Timothi

  • Guest

Yigit

  • Sergeant at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • WBVC
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2009, 11:49:33 AM »
I've been playing this mod for several days and think I can provide some feedback now. First of all, I must say I like the mod (otherwise I wouldn't post anything here  :wink:) and hope it gets even better. Apart from inaccuracies already mentioned by other members, I'd like to point out some others I've noticed so far. Of course, I'm no expert on Britain of that period and much of the info comes from readings on that subject, so anyone better informed may feel free to correct.

- highland archers are armed with nomad bows of the native while AFAIK Scots used longbows, though didn't have longbomen in sufficient numbers. Moreover, their archery skill in the game seems far too high as compared to other archers of the same level

* The bowmen in general are too heavily armed, at least for the period

* The black spangenhelm IMO would be too ancient for the time

* Scottish lords should wear armor of better quality than most do, especially heraldic surcoats and contemporary helmets.

* The overall weather conditions could also be redone to more characterisitc of the region

I'll post more if I spot. I also have some suggestions which I'll post in the related topic.

Cheers  :wink:

eragoen

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #35 on: March 08, 2009, 08:49:17 PM »
About the spangenhelm Im sure people still crafted them in small numbers, just because it was used a few hundred years back doesn't mean it cant be used then :) also, weapons/armor where passed down generations due to the high cost + technology (weapons/armor) didn't advance as fast as it does nowadays so it would still provide good head protection.

Yigit

  • Sergeant at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • WBVC
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2009, 11:24:58 PM »
I meant that Dark Ages black helmet. It would be way outdated by the period. Moreover, it probably belonged to some chieftain and hardly could have been so widespread. As for spangenhelms in general, yes, they could have continued to be used (at least, they figure in some reconstructions).

But, again, in small numbers and certainly not by knights, as in the mod. Another outdated helmet there is the open-faced flat-topped helm. These had long ago evolved into great helms. Of the latter, IMO, more models could be implemented. Also, the claymores are believed to have appeared around the late 15th century, earliest (!)

Aethelred

  • Sergeant Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2009, 03:22:07 AM »
The flat-top helm isn't that innapropriate. It was an outdated style, but only by a century or so, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that lower level knights would use it.

About the great helms, definitely they're the best type of helm for use by knights in this period. Couched's knight mod has a few different styles that would fit the bill. I might have a bash at making some great helms, I'm considering trying to make a historically accurate Wars of Independence mod.

Mabons

  • Guest
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2009, 06:23:47 PM »
If you have medieval 2, have a look at the scottish troops there. Generally, Strong Pikemen, Shock infantry, and poor archers and almost non-existant cavalry.

I live 10 miles from aviemore and dalwhinnie in the map. I know that Aviemore didn't exist then and Dalwhinnie is barely the size of my thumbnail. Infact none of the towns around where I live existed at that time. I would leave that as a blank area. Also, where are the Cairngorms? These mighty hills are a big open plain! The only tundra area left in Britain and it's non-existing.


- highland archers are armed with nomad bows of the native while AFAIK Scots used longbows, though didn't have longbomen in sufficient numbers. Moreover, their archery skill in the game seems far too high as compared to other archers of the same level

The Scots who used Longbows where under service as mercenaries to France. Only a small elite though. Scottish Archers are poor, and should get no better than ShortBows. But this is all Peter's choice.

Aethelred

  • Sergeant Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2009, 09:59:08 PM »
Eh... William Wallace is an entirely French name for a start. And 'tartan' isn't thousands of years old - patterns similar to it are, but they're not much like the modern tartans people think of. The 'tartans' you reference are just checkered cloth, there's nothing special about them, and there's no historical evidence for proper tartan as we understand it until the late 16th century. The law that got rid of the 'old kilt' was in the 18th century. There's nothing to suggest highlanders wore anything identifiable as a kilt before the 16th century at the latest. Proper 'Highland dress' before this time would probably have been the Irish style léine and brat - many sources attest to this. Try reading these two links:
https://www.reconstructinghistory.com/scottish.php?s=&c=8&d=117&e=&f=&g=&a=135&w=2
https://www.reconstructinghistory.com/scottish.php?s=&c=8&d=117&e=&f=&g=&a=134&w=2

Aethelred

  • Sergeant Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #40 on: March 27, 2009, 05:04:40 AM »
Well, if the attitude of their supporters is anything to go by, archaelogists and 'scientists' argue more savagely than any historian. It's a wonder they've not all killed each other.

So archaelogy is an exact science? Yes, you can scientifically date an object, but... that's about it, and that doesn't always get you very far. It's not even 100% accurate, although it's normally good enough. Everything else is quite obviously down to interpretation. Let's say I found the Sutton Hoo helmet; scientifically I can date it, and then I can decree that because this helmet exists and I've found it, and dated it to the 7th century, that means everyone in England at that time was wearing helmets like this, because that's all I might have to go on. I also claim that English people were wearing this kind of helmet 1000 years later, since I can also prove with DNA that the basic genetic makeup of the population wasn't that different. Of course, everyone will accept this because archaelogists never argue and everyone agrees this is the only scientifically valid conclusion. Right? It's not down to subjective interpretation at all, right?

Yeah.

Or maybe they'd realise I was an idiot, because they know from the huge amount of other sources that they and historians have analysed that my conclusions are bullshit. Nobody ever mentioned or depicted anyone wearing this kind of helmet at any time, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest anything like it persisted in England. Of course, the Sutton Hoo helmet is clearly ceremonial and doesn't look like it was ever intended to be worn, but it's just an example. Archaelogical finds mean very little unless you can contextualise them, and you can't do that properly unless you have some of the kind of things historians use, such as written and pictorial records.

Now, as for what you're saying about tartan and kilts... Here's  an image of this Galician 'tartan kilt' from no less than 2400 years ago. For one thing, it looks more like a mini-skirt than a kilt - I guess the mini-skirt was invented in the 20th century by someone with Galician ancestry, then. If anything it reminds me more of the kind of short skirt you see on many images of Greek and Roman warriors. It's a practical garment for a Southern European climate. For another thing, it doesn't bear much resemblance to tartan as we understand it. It's just a multi-coloured fabric. I've a woolen blanket knitted by my gran that has a pattern like that, the only difference is it doesn't have those diagonal black lines. There's another statue picture, again with wide alternating colour diagonal stripes. Slightly more like tartan, but more like generic multi-coloured fabric, assuming the colours aren't actually put there by the artist to give contrast. I can't find any pictures of the actual statues.

Look at this though. That's from mummies buried along the silk route in Tarim Basin about 1500 BC. Also this, from the Austrian alps around 1200 BC. True enough, these are both much more like modern style tartans than I thought existed at this time. At least the second one has its origins in a Celtic culture, although the Celtic connections of the Tarim mummies are fairly questionable. Genetic evidence, which you seem to like so much, only points to various ethnic origins which are predominatly 'Indo-European' like most European peoples. Some of the stuff around the grave is supposedly vaguely Celtic in appearance, but that's not conclusive. Some of the other 'tartans' don't seem much like tartan in appearance (and yes, I'm aware that tartan is strictly speaking a word for a type of weave rather than a pattern, but I stick with the modern definition). There is actual archaeolgocial evidence of a Scottish 'tartan' from the 3rd/4th century AD, which is just a simple chequered design creating by using different types of wool. That's about it for pre-16th century evidence in Scotland. Check this article for a summary of Scottish medieval textiles (starts about p. 17), none of them have any tartan pattern.

There is some evidence linking 'tartan' style cloth to Celtic culture, but it's far from solid, especially since tartan styles can be seen all over the world even in Africa and East Asia.

There's even less evidence for a kilt in Scotland at any time before the 16th, or perhaps even the 17th, centuries. Try reading the links in my previous post instead of just dismissing them because you don't like them; another good page on this is here. Everything suggests that the Gaelic Scots were wearing a large shirt (léine) and a kind of mantle (a brat, later called a plaid in Scotland). This was the style in Gaelic Ireland at the time also. The only direct evidence we have for the 14th century is the Rogart shirt, which was uncovered in Sutherland (far north of Scotland). It's a fairly simple tunic thing, about 1.15m long when worn (on me that would reach down to knee level). Seems rather like a léine. It has some random horizontal stripes, but only on one side of the garment and they don't even stretch halfway around (check the article I linked above). The kilt seems to have evolved out of the 'brat' or 'plaid', the mantle worn over the shoulders, and the 'belted plaid', or early great kilt, seems to combine the functions of both the léine and the brat. It certainly wasn't some kind of a continuation from the Galician mini-skirt tribe. It's idiotic to think the Gaelic Scots of Wallace and Bruce's day were wearing anything like the kilts and **** they wear in Braveheart (I guess that's what you meant by 'the movie' - and by the way, the kilts in it look nothing like the Galician ones, they're meant to look vaguely like the 'belted plaid' kilts of the 17th century or thereabouts).

In summary, then, there's no argument to support the view that anyone in Scotland in the 14th century or earlier wore a kilt, and there's only the possibility that tartan patterns were present.

Some of your other claims are even more preposterous. This is the worst:
Quote
the clans like Bruce are traced back to  that norman nobility
the clans like Wallace are traced back to gaellic nobility
two completly different lines
What are you basing this on? You're using 'clans' for lowland Scotland, which is misleading, and you apparently have knowledge of Wallace's lineage, despite the fact that nobody else really does. The name Wallace is an Anglicised form of the French word for Welshman, and William is obviously a French forename. He wasn't even a highlander - he was most likely from Ayrshire in the lowlands (not actually that far from Robert the Bruce's family holdings in Annandale). As far as the evidence suggests, he was a member of an Anglo-Norman family just as much as Robert the Bruce and many of the other major landholders in Scotland. Gaellic nobility? Show some proof.

You're right that Scottish people of this period were split between the lowlanders and the highlanders, but you overlook the fact that the lowlanders' main influence was not French, but English. Why do you think they spoke a dialect of English? The French influence was strong also, as it was in England, but you can't ignore the importance of shared cultural ties with England, which predated the Norman invasion - lowland Scotland was influenced by Anglo-Saxon culture and settlers. You also speak as if the Norman-Scots aristocracy that began to dominate Scotland from the 12th century came straight from France. That's not true, many of them were significant landholders in England first, and even some of the Norman-Scots kings owned lands in England before the 14th century. It's likely they were virtually indistinguishable from Anglo-Norman lords, at least when first settling. The Wars of Independence are the time when the difference between Anglo-Norman and Scoto-Norman nobility becomes much sharper, as they were no longer allowed to own lands in both countries. As for the Gaelic Scots wearing less armour, it's probably true but I don't know what evidence there is of this for the ordinary soldiers. Tomb slab depictions of knights in the Western Isles and highlands almost always show them wearing an aketon in the 14th/15th centuries, possibly over a mail hauberk, and wearing a conical bascinet. If we assume it's just an aketon they're wearing, It's similar to how lower status lowland warriors are often represented in modern re-enactments, and not quite the gear you'd expect from high-status nobility in the high middle ages. There's some evidence from warriors shown on seals in the 13th and 14th centuries that lowlanders were at least familiar with knights wearing modern equipment of the day (there's even progression from flat-top helms with face masks in the 13th century and great helms in the 14th century - search the archives of the National Museum of Scotland website if you're interested). That tends to agree with the impression of a disparity in quality between lowland noble equipment and that of the highland nobility.

If you plan on replying, I hope you'll be more rational.

Aethelred

  • Sergeant Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2009, 09:16:28 PM »
Em... what? Did you even read my post? If you did, did you understand any of it? Apparently you didn't. Did you even look at any of the links I posted (I linked to the image of the Galician statue that you claimed I didn't) Haha, get a university degree? I already have one, thank you very much. Your last post was hilarious, but something tells me you're one of those many people who aren't worth discussing with; there's no point if you don't understand, or deliberately misinterpret so you can flex your e-muscles arguing against, everything I say. It's also ironic that you accuse me of being all the things that you are.

I am pretty interested in the subject. I'm Scottish myself, and I plan on making a mod based on this period.

EDIT: By the way, I haven't even read any of your posts on the 'Brittain at War' topic.

And I didn't post THAT picture because it's clearly an artist's interpretation based on a similar statue. What more does that show except the mini-skirt flows a bit while you walk?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2009, 09:36:25 PM by Aethelred »

Aethelred

  • Sergeant Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2009, 11:11:11 PM »
Low status Gaelic Scots will be wearing léines and brats (I might make some tartan style brats, I'm not sure) and mostly no shoes. The higher ranking ones will wear simple conical bascinets and aketons as they're depicted on tombstones from the late 14th century onwards. It's not certain they would look the same at the start of the 14th century, but I like the look and the technology was already there. I like the idea that they're using the kind of bascinets worn underneath a great helm by better equipped knights, but as their primary head armour. Some will have mail armour as well, there was probably enough who could afford it.

Lowland Scots and townsmen will look virtually the same as the English. The primary armours of the infantry will be the aketon and kettle helm. Experienced infantry will have some mail as well, some of them would pick it up as battle loot even if they couldn't afford it normally. That will go for the Gaelic Scots too. Lowland nobles will have more or less the same gear as their English equivalents. As I said before you can see modern equipment on lowland Scottish seals etc. from the 13th-14th century so it suggests they were following the trends, which means great helms for the lords at least.

It's not all worked out, and I doubt it'd be possible to get two different kinds of peasant and townsman for the same faction. I could make them separate factions, but I don't think there was a clear divide between highlanders and lowlanders in a political sense relating to the wars with England and between the Bruce and Comyn factions of Scottish nobles (my mod's probably going to be set after 1305). It'd make sense to have two Scottish factions (Bruce and Comyn), but to have one all highland and one all lowland would be wrong. It's just one of many problems to be overcome, and I'm still in the early stages.

PsykoOps

  • Master Knight
  • *
    • YouTube - PsykoOps
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • M&BWBWF&S
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2009, 01:04:54 PM »
I love this mod and would like to see more fixing. I have all the patches from the main download page and I still get the 'unable to find item' error when entering inventory screen after battle. This actually happens quite often and is killing the gameplay :(
With truth comes terror.

The Red Baron

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Permanently Banned
  • A clue - no.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Nord
Re: Historical Innacuracies / Bug reports
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2009, 08:35:36 PM »
No one seems to be able to enter Cork and all the caravans get stuck there.  Help?
I have an acronym

****! TDM is trying to seduce TRB! This is an act of war!
I hope you realise that I do not wish you well.