Recent content by pygc1

"how to horse archer" lol

Piconi said:

OK, i hope this won`t turn into another nationalist rant (maybe it already has), everyone has access to history books and can see what it says in them about who is who and what is what for themselves, no need to try "educate" each other using forum posts, so i beg of you to stay in the pocket of the argument about the great suggestions by Terco. Let`s talk about that. ?

Click to expand...

I'm not French, but yes, let's stay on the topic.

HalfMetalJacket said:

I know they took to speaking french, I know they inhabit a region of France, I know they became very Western European and I know that they mixed in with the local Franks.

The Normans were still the result of the Franks granting the lands of Normandy to Norsemen, who settled down and mingled with the locals. I don't understand the need to be such a pedant about them not being 'completely norse'. I know that already.

Either way, I don't think you can deny that Vlandia is very blatantly based on the Normans, and that it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that Wilund the Bold and his mercenaries came from Nordland/Jumne.

Click to expand...

It is incorrect to call Normans Nordic because they were mostly French with some Nordic influence. The English speaking world love to deny French achievements in history. Why? Because unlike UK, France doesn't give a **** about USA and doesn't follow USA's orders. USA doesn't have military bases in France. So USA created this surrender joke about French only because they ****ed up once in WW2. Yet nobody talks about French military victories in history.

Why did Hitler view France as the biggest enemy to the German people? Because France single handedly destroyed HRE. And they stood toe to toe against German empire in WW1 despite only 2/3 of German population, and emerged as a victor and gave Germany unequal treaties. Why the Arab world fear France? Because France defeated Arab empire at its height at Battle of Tours, when Arabs were undefeated pretty much everywhere. France was also the primary force behind the crusades and carved up the Muslim world during colonial times. France was the strongest continental power in Europe throughout most of its history. The 100 years war was basically a civil war and dispute among French aristocrats because the ruling class of England was French.

Believe it or not, France is still the strongest nation in Europe militarily and politically right now.......especially after Brexit, France is the leader of EU, one of the big five, very capable military and nuclear arsenal, and decent economy. It has nuclear powered aircraft carrier, not even China and Russia have them btw. French is the spoken language in many parts of the world, especially in Africa.

HalfMetalJacket said:

You might want to read up on the origins of the Normans, starting with Rollo of Normandy.

Yeah, the Normans were Christianised, integrated and adopted the culture of the local Franks, but they were once Norse.

Click to expand...

Linguistic: Normans spoke a dialect of French instead of any of the Scandinavian languages.
Geography: Normandy is in northwestern France.
Culture: Normans were mostly western European culturally, so France. With some Norse influence.
Genetic: Only elite Normans had one Norse great grandparent, and the majority of Norman soldiers were just French. They were genetically >80% French.

Overall, Mexicans are more Spanish than Normans are Scandinavian.

HalfMetalJacket said:

Hmmm, you know what? I think you might be onto something. The Vlandians are meant to be inspired by the Normans, and the Normans themselves were Norse. So why not make the Vlandians Nord in origin? I must admit that I'm starting to warm up to the idea.

Still, I feel like we should adhere to Eastern cultures being eastern and stuff that's what they're going for in Calradia. The Nordic faction is in the north, the Steppe faction is east, the feudal europe faction is west. It would be a bit jarring to just break it now out of nowhere imo.

Click to expand...

Normans were French, my friend.

Chonokhan said:

lolz, the salty post is most amusing.

Click to expand...

You are the one who is salty, I merely pointed out that your original statement was wrong, Mongolians didn't conquer the world.

Chonokhan said:

I don't know if you realised this but... Chinghis Khaan Temujin (the one you call "Ghenghis Khan") was Mongolian, as was his Brilliant Generals.

Click to expand...

I do realise that..... I meant that the success of Mongols wasn't due to revolutionary tactics, they were still using the same nomadic tactics like their ancestors. The difference was that the generals were very capable and that was the main reason Mongols were able to defeat many empires at that time. Japan actually fought Mongols and repelled them on land, so Mongol failure to conquest Japan wasn't only because of tsunamis. The reason for Mongol retreat from Europe is a myth. The death of Khan is only a theory, it could be the climate, terrain, sieges etc... The jungles of Vietnam proved to be too much for Mongolian calvary, they had a lot of trouble dealing with the terrain of Southern Song as well. Which sentence from my last post made you think that I was discrediting the mongols? These are all facts.

Vermillion_Hawk said:

I have to step in and say you're completely wrong about just about everything you've said here. They did adapt to the environment - the desert is a dry heat and it's no coincidence that during and after the Crusades, long flowy surcoats and cloth coverings over armour were popular choices. These were very practical adaptations to the desert sun.

Click to expand...

Well, relying only on surcoat to absorb heat apparently wasn't enough adaptation. They were still covered with mail and padding, many of them were wearing bucket helms(tin cans with holes) suffering from bad ventilation.

the win loss ratio for the crusaders weren't so great, and I think the heat caused more trouble to the crusaders than the lighter muslim troops. You can put on some thick clothings(not even mail) and do some outdoor exercises at this time of the year, it will become unbearable pretty fast.

in real life bigger men have huge advantage over smaller foes because of reach and weight, and they won't be much slower

Kentucky James VII said:

The Abbasids were conquered by the Mongols because their empire had been in decline for hundreds of years and Iraq was depopulated, not because they had bad equipment. When the Mongols faced the Mamluks (who were actual enemies of the crusaders, unlike the Khwarezmians) they were defeated again and again.

Click to expand...

Mamluks generally had a tough time fighting mongols though. But if I were to rank the three armies based on their achivements:
Prime Mongols under Ghenghis Khan >>>> Crusaders under Richard the lionheart > Mamluks

Chonokhan said:

Oof... you want to nerf the Khuzaits because they conquer everything? Is this what people did in the 13th century did when Mongols conquered the world?

"Chinghis Khaan Temujin's armies are too OP, please nerf"

Click to expand...

To clarify, mongolians didn't conquer the world. They failed miserably in many places in Southeastern asia, Japan, Western Europe, India, and Northern Africa. The terrain of those places just weren't suitable for mounted archery. And to be honest, it wasn't the Mongolians who conquered many countries, but Ghengis Khan and his brilliant generals. Without them, the Mongolian tactics were little to no different from usual nomadic tactics that agricultural societies had been dealing with for centuries.

Sheepify said:

I really don't get your clear bias in this matter, and the constant need to present the crusaders and their achievements as less than they were.

Click to expand...

I'm not biased...... wearing thick armor in the desert is not a smart choice. They needed a constant supply of water to not become dehydrated. The Kurdish general Saladin exploited this weakness to win the battle of Hattin. They should have adapted to the environment that they were fighting in. Crusaders had some great victories, but if they were smarter, maybe they could've secured the holy land....

Beau Vine said:

Sidenote only:


Opposite, The almost mythically acclaimed steel of that period was (for good reasons, but contemporaries didn't have a name for (or probably concept of) martenzite) Damascen steel, a broad term for Indian Wootz steel items that Europeans knew only via Damascus products.

Click to expand...

Of course I know Damascus steel, but my limited knowledge on metallurgy tells me that Damascus steel only look pretty, and many expensive daggers nowadays are made from Damascus. They are more for art display than actual battles. I don't believe that muslim soldiers were wearing mail made from Damascus steel back then. They were expensive and perform worse than normal steel for battle.

Apocal said:

That's possible although my faded recollection is that Islamic mail armor of the 12th century was mostly demi-riveted while European mail at the upper-end was fully riveted or transitioning to that point. They also expressed a preference for textile armor over mail, not the worst decision in a hot-ass desert but if you're squaring off against guys willing to wear both mail and textile armor, then it going to make your arrows perform markedly worse than you're probably accustomed to.

That being said, I recall an account where the crusaders were too hurt and exhausted after a previous battle and so suited up for the next attack wearing only their gambesons and not mail, figuring the former was enough protection against arrows.

Click to expand...

They could also be wearing double riveted mail, which offered a bit extra protection against arrows at the cost of much more weight. Imagine how they felt wearing 50 lbs of weight under scorching sun. They were also fighting and sweating etc.. Maybe that's why the crusaders were so inefficient and lost. In the desert or any hot and arid regions, I would trade protection for mobility anyday. It's just a smarter choice.

Sheepify said:

A bit late, but while digging around for other things I found a highly reputable source that backs the claim that Crusader armor was highly impervious to their enemy's arrow fire. Comes from Saladin's own biographer, Bahā' ad-Dīn Yusuf ibn Rafi ibn Shaddād, and is a firsthand account of an engagement during the 3rd Crusade (obviously translated, but I see no reason to doubt the veracity of the translation):

This is from "The Life of Saladin," chapter 127, "What Befell Sultan Yusuf"

I also ran into several confirmations coming from the Crusader's side of things, but not the original account I was looking for. Yet

Click to expand...

Maybe it was true, I don't know. But one thing that confuses me is that the muslim forces wore mail armor as well......they learnt how to manufacture mail from Europe centuries ago.......could it be that the Crusaders armor were made from better steel? Like Valyrian steel from GOT or something?

if my character gets killed, i have to make a new one
BECAUSE MAN ONLY LIVES ONCE

There are two types of game developers that I dislike
1)the evil and greedy ones
2)the dumb ones....