Search results for query: *

An option for both of you is to make what you want and release your work as an OSP. That way you can make what you want, free of what mods are being worked on at the moment, while also offering something for future creators.

Hi all.
It's been a long time since I've been remotely active on the forums, or done anything related to modelling at all (Not that I was ever any good at it.) But with Bannerlord finally dropping, I've dusted off my mouse and loaded up Wings. Anyway, I've made these three blades and I'm looking for advice on how to make them actually look good. They're meant to be Gallic Iron age swords. If you want poly counts or other angles, let me know

Cheers

I must admit that when I read the first post, my initial reaction was that this was an overly ambitious project from someone with big dreams and that it would be a complete and utter failure that would only end in tears.

And then I saw who posted it.

This looks pretty freaking awesome.

Cheers. Regarding the eastern elves, there were 6 tribes of avari elves whose movements and whwreabouts are largely unknown. Many travelled westward but I believe many lived far to the east beyond the lands of rhun. With sauron gone they were now more free to migrate westward. In addition the kingdom of dorwinion is most likely an elven (and avari at that) kingdom.

Not sure what zois is on about, but what sahran and Argesh have it pretty much right. There's Mycenaean pottery, both imported and locally made in Sicily and Italy. There's also artefacts made in Greece, from raw materials obtained from Italy. But as far as I know, there's no evidence of actual Mycenaean colonies in Greece or Sicily. Interesting though, is that there is evidence, mostly iconographical and of small bronze statuettes that the warriors of Sardinia and Sicily wore horned helmets very similar to those worn by Mycenaean and the Sherden. So that might be more evidence of trade between the two areas.

Just my two cents.

Kvedulf

cleaning, cleaning, cleaning, cleaning, cleaning, cleaning

From what I can gather there is no real difference between a hoplite phalanx and any other shieldwall such as the traditional Germanic shieldwall. There would be differences in the way in which the men were ranked up etc, but the end result is the same, with the same tactical uses and abilities.

On a side note, I hate using the term "phalanx" to describe the formation used by Classical hoplites. From what I can gather, the phalanx specifically refers to the mass pike formation used by the Macedonians and their Successors. For that reason, I prefer to refer to the Classical Greek "phalanx" as a Hoplite shieldwall.

Just my 2c
Kvedulf

Writing scripts, smoking cigarettes, playing basketball

4. Left over dregs from beer cans.  Because even as a toddler, I was a classy mother****er.

When was the first time you doubted the existence of Santa? 

very nice looking

I'd seriously consider making the pikes one handed.  Unless you can work out a way to have it used while wielding a pike 2-handed. There's not really any other way to have it work in an accurate way.  Most reconstructions I've seen, in my opinion, aren't that good when it comes to depicting how the tower shields were used.  A lot of the artwork seem to lack a grip of any form, instead having it carried by the strap alone and braced against the left leg, which really doesn't look like it would work well.  Don't know if any of that helped, but just my 2c.

Again, very sexy models!

Cheers
Kvedulf

Thanks heap for the info.  Haven't looked at the new Osprey yet, but I think you're right about it being by the same author.

I'm agreeing for the most part with you about the helmets.  Most of the helms in the mod will be from the Middle period, as I'm shifting the date of the Trojan War back to 1350 BC (for gameplay reasons, no historical basis for it).  Will have to do more research into horned helmets before I make a decision on it.

The info on the Thracians is quite interesting.  Particularly the reference to the "massive Thracian sword".  Considering the Illiad was written before the appearance of the falx, it may be another one remnant of the Bronze Age within the story, like the references to various shields and helmets etc.  It may also just be poetic licence.  From the top of my head the only thing I can think of that comes close to that in Bronze Age Europe are the halberd/axe/sword weapons from Denmark.

As to horse riding, I'm fairly sure there's a reference somewhere to Ramses the Great having a contingent of either Nubian or Lydian scouts mounted on horses.  So there is definitely some scope for very light cavalry.

I'm going to change my Locrians to match that description now.  As to ethnic groups singled out, I'm considering adding sailors to the roster for Pylos and maybe Ithaca.  For Pylos, it's based on the Linear B records requesting men for the ships.  I'm considering adding them to Ithaca simply because at times, Odysseus feels like a king of pirates.  It also makes sense considering it's an island kingdom.

Most of the info on the organisation I had, although I'd missed the term promachos.  I think I'll use that for lesser lords.

I'd love it if you'd PM your work on the Luwians.  I know next to nothing about them, and the more I have the better, regardless of whether you've based it on conjecture.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Thanks for that.  Definitely know about salimbeti.com

You've made quite a few good points there that I hadn't thought of.

I'm also a big fan of the Sea People segmentata.

Hadn't thought of doing the Trojans/Luwians as Sea Peoples.  I might look into that.  Like you said, it makes sense.  I think I personally would use the Peleset feathered helmet rather than the Shardana horned helmet, Sea people segmentata and probably use Hittite influences over Helladic.

I still hadn't worked out what I was going to do with the Thracians.  I was going to do later Thracians as well, but I like the idea of going with a combination of Bronze Age European and Helladic influences.

I didn't know about the reference to the Locrians that you've got there.  I was going to make them light spearmen, using small shields and linen corselets.  My logic for that was simply the fact that Ajax the Lesser wears that and I was using him as a basis for what a Locrian noble might wear.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Hmm...it's been a while.

I'd just like to let you all know that, contrary to all obvious evidence, Bronze and Blood is not dead.  It's just been in a coma for the past five months.  However there are signs of life.  Now that my thesis is back on track, I'm on top of my coursework and my personal life has gone back to being boring, I can once more slowly begin work on my mod again.

Very little progress has been made since I last posted back in March, and I'm going to have to redo all the scripting work I had done.  Fortunately I still have all the completed models and all the research I had done so far.

I also want to offer an apology to a number of members here, especially Nodscouter.  I disappeared off the boards without a word and without the advice, assistance and support of a number of members here the mod would never have progressed as far as it had before life got in the road.  So I am sorry guys.  Hopefully I can make it up to you by getting a worthwhile mod released.

Anyway, just a heads up.  Will update the first post with where the mod actually stands at the moment, what I'm intending on changing or adding from the original list of ideas I had and any requests for assistance I may have 

Cheers
Kvedulf

@kmovies: AD or anno domini is roughly translated as "in the year of our lord" and is taken as the year Jebus was born, not the year he died...or at least that's what i was taught...

Cheers
Kvedulf

your tenths of children?  you're not intending on having an entire child?

Just so y'all know, this mod is moving slower than a paraplegic sloth.  It isn't dead, but to put things into perspective, I've done half a model in the past month.  Uni work comes first, so it'll be quite some time before I can really get back into working on this.

Don't worry though, I have about a week's reprieve at the moment, so might be able to get some work done.

Thanks again for the support.

Cheers
Kvedulf

I said I was going to keep posting this until you answered me.  Now yes, I know that there are other people here who have more coherent ways to question, and who know the relevant topics better, but I really don't like being ignored when I ask a question.  So Ancalimon, answer my points.

Kvedulf said:

ancalimon said:

I don't need to prove anything.

Click to expand...

And that is why Ancalimon can never be defeated...

Mind you, you've still ignored me.  Although I don't want to repost a wall of text, I'm going to until you answer my questions and the points I've made:

Kvedulf said:

ancalimon said:

There were people in Europe but they didn't have a language. Not in the sense what we today call a language.

Click to expand...

Where is you evidence for this?

ancalimon said:

I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

Click to expand...

Where is your evidence for this?

ancalimon said:

So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.

There are two very important things:

1-)The elite group can force people to speak another language "only if they have more population"

2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"


I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

Click to expand...

First up, point 1 is wrong.  Just take a look at the Romanisation of Gaul.  Or Britain.  The native Gallic or British populations were much greater than the "elite" Roman population, yet Latin replaced the Celtic languages in both places.  Or Britain after it's abandonment by Rome.  The native population of Latin speakers was much greater than the Germanic speaking Anglo-Saxons, yet it was English, not Latin that became the dominant language.

Secondly, you've contradicted yourself (again) by stating in one post that

ancalimon said:

Naturally, with such a position is impossible to agree. We know that the ethnonym can pass from one people to another, without a genetical relationship, but the language is transferred from one people to another only when the peoples are genetically related. From the Türkic runic inscriptions we have a good idea  that already in the 6th-8th centuries the Türkic language was a well developed, standardized language, it already then had no exceptions of the general rules. This language could not be passed in such a harmonious shape to other peoples, ethnically and genetically unrelated with the Türks. Therefore hardly is right L.N.Gumilev, suggesting that Türks, after the split of the first and second Kaganates, had completely disappeared, leaving only their name in inheritance to many peoples who ostensibly were not their descendants at all.

Click to expand...

However, you then go on to say that

ancalimon said:

So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.
...
2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"

Click to expand...

That is two very different concepts that you're spouting there.  So which is it that you're wanting to pursue?

If language is genetic, then it means that the native population of Europe was replaced by genetically (not culturally or ethnically) Turkic people, or that the population of Europe is genetically identical to the Turkic people.  If that's true, it raises the question: which group of "Turkic" people created this great big language?  The Turkic people from Eurasia, or the Turkic people from Europe?

And if language is passed on by the mother...what language was it that was spoken by all those wives and concubines and slave-girls taken by the all-conquering Turkic empire?  You guessed it, their native language, which was not some pseudo-Proto-Turkic.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you've already answered this in the form of:

ancalimon said:

I don't need to prove anything.

Click to expand...

Which brings me to another point:

ancalimon said:

There is no logic to Indo-European languages. No consistency at all. Nature is consistent. Anything that arises from nature is consistent. But not Indo-European. Why is that?

try - lie - I - aye - eye - high - hi - why?:  why do they end with the same sound? Which letter is that? This is "artificial". It's modified. Letters don't suit the words.

y  - ie  - I  - aye - eye - igh  - hi -  hy

Language should be like mathematics. Natural, explainable.. It should arise from needs and it should be reflection of nature.

Click to expand...

Point 1: Languages are not "natural".  They are a cultural construct.  They exist and evolve within a culture and that culture's interactions with other cultures.  Languages are not consistent.  All you have to do is take a look at any major language today and compare it to what was spoken/written only 200 years ago.  Hell, less than 20 years ago in some cases.  Languages are constantly shifting, evolving and changing to suit the needs of the culture.  They are anything but "consistent"

Point 2: Your use of the word should in your final paragraph is an indication of personal opinion.  It is your opinion, in a perfect world, of how a language "should" be.  The reality is, as stated above, very different.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Click to expand...

I'm confused.  What the flying **** do Brazilian Indians have to do with Turks?

And all those various archaeologists and historians that apparently "say Turks don't have ancestors" don't actually say that.  They aren't claiming that the Turkish people suddenly appeared from nowhere.  All the various archaeological, historic, linguistic and ethnographic evidence points to the Turkish cultures evolving/adapting from the previous cultures in their area with an influence from their neighbouring cultures.  No culture appears in a vacuum.  Turkish culture is the result of the cultures of their ancestors and their interactions with each other and the cultures around them.

That said, no one is claiming that the Turkish people don't have a rich and varied history with long traditions and a unique culture.  They do.  But so did the Roman people, the Gallic people, the various Indian peoples and every other group of people on the world.  The Turkish people should be proud of their heritage, but let everyone else be proud of their heritage as well, which is just as unique, rich and important as the Turks'.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Your right mor2.  We should probably stop feeding him.  And I'd love to, but the fact that he ignores me, or at least refuses to answer me is really infuriating.  So, until he answers, I'm just going to keep posting the same wall of text at him.  Sorry to everyone else.

So, again Ancalimon: answer me.

Kvedulf said:

ancalimon said:

I don't need to prove anything.

Click to expand...

And that is why Ancalimon can never be defeated...

Mind you, you've still ignored me.  Although I don't want to repost a wall of text, I'm going to until you answer my questions and the points I've made:

Kvedulf said:

ancalimon said:

There were people in Europe but they didn't have a language. Not in the sense what we today call a language.

Click to expand...

Where is you evidence for this?

ancalimon said:

I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

Click to expand...

Where is your evidence for this?

ancalimon said:

So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.

There are two very important things:

1-)The elite group can force people to speak another language "only if they have more population"

2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"


I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

Click to expand...

First up, point 1 is wrong.  Just take a look at the Romanisation of Gaul.  Or Britain.  The native Gallic or British populations were much greater than the "elite" Roman population, yet Latin replaced the Celtic languages in both places.  Or Britain after it's abandonment by Rome.  The native population of Latin speakers was much greater than the Germanic speaking Anglo-Saxons, yet it was English, not Latin that became the dominant language.

Secondly, you've contradicted yourself (again) by stating in one post that

ancalimon said:

Naturally, with such a position is impossible to agree. We know that the ethnonym can pass from one people to another, without a genetical relationship, but the language is transferred from one people to another only when the peoples are genetically related. From the Türkic runic inscriptions we have a good idea  that already in the 6th-8th centuries the Türkic language was a well developed, standardized language, it already then had no exceptions of the general rules. This language could not be passed in such a harmonious shape to other peoples, ethnically and genetically unrelated with the Türks. Therefore hardly is right L.N.Gumilev, suggesting that Türks, after the split of the first and second Kaganates, had completely disappeared, leaving only their name in inheritance to many peoples who ostensibly were not their descendants at all.

Click to expand...

However, you then go on to say that

ancalimon said:

So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.
...
2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"

Click to expand...

That is two very different concepts that you're spouting there.  So which is it that you're wanting to pursue?

If language is genetic, then it means that the native population of Europe was replaced by genetically (not culturally or ethnically) Turkic people, or that the population of Europe is genetically identical to the Turkic people.  If that's true, it raises the question: which group of "Turkic" people created this great big language?  The Turkic people from Eurasia, or the Turkic people from Europe?

And if language is passed on by the mother...what language was it that was spoken by all those wives and concubines and slave-girls taken by the all-conquering Turkic empire?  You guessed it, their native language, which was not some pseudo-Proto-Turkic.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you've already answered this in the form of:

ancalimon said:

I don't need to prove anything.

Click to expand...

Which brings me to another point:

ancalimon said:

There is no logic to Indo-European languages. No consistency at all. Nature is consistent. Anything that arises from nature is consistent. But not Indo-European. Why is that?

try - lie - I - aye - eye - high - hi - why?:  why do they end with the same sound? Which letter is that? This is "artificial". It's modified. Letters don't suit the words.

y  - ie  - I  - aye - eye - igh  - hi -  hy

Language should be like mathematics. Natural, explainable.. It should arise from needs and it should be reflection of nature.

Click to expand...

Point 1: Languages are not "natural".  They are a cultural construct.  They exist and evolve within a culture and that culture's interactions with other cultures.  Languages are not consistent.  All you have to do is take a look at any major language today and compare it to what was spoken/written only 200 years ago.  Hell, less than 20 years ago in some cases.  Languages are constantly shifting, evolving and changing to suit the needs of the culture.  They are anything but "consistent"

Point 2: Your use of the word should in your final paragraph is an indication of personal opinion.  It is your opinion, in a perfect world, of how a language "should" be.  The reality is, as stated above, very different.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Click to expand...

Cheers
Kvedulf