Does the Bannerlord map make sense, when compared to that of Warband?

[Cèsar de Quart]

They are most renowned for their crossbowmen (like Genoa) they live in hilly terrain and eschew cavalry (Scots) they fought for freedom from a more knight-focused nation that is Swadia (again, like scots vs England and Italian city states vs France/HRE) They use pikes (scots) and other long polearms (Italians). They have a sort-of democratic system of rule, like many Italian states did. Also, I don't particularly see how the city names sound particularly Lithuanian either.

First, the Rhodoks don't have a democratic system at all, it's an elective monarchy. The only place in Medieval Europe where this was hot was Poland and Lithuania. Maybe Hungary at some point. Aragon in 1410. Not much else.

Crossbows, pikes and elective city governments are a thing in most of Europe (from Galicia and Catalonia in Spain to the Balkans, and from Naples to Copenhagen), they're only famous in popular culture today because of the Total Wars and Braveheart. Genoese crossbowmen were moderately renowned, but they weren't at all the only good crossbowmen around. Scottish pikemen were not particularly notorious, they were just a reaction to their homeland being short on horses and not having a strong feudal system, which encourages a warrior class of knights. And most city militias in Europe by 1250 had a modest amount of pikemen. We see it all the time in mural pictures and other Medieval illustrations, it's not a famous fact because it's not mentioned often in the sources (except when they win an important battle, like the Scots did in the 1300's, or the Swiss from the 1300's onwards).

Another reason why pike militiamen didn't become knight-killers all over Europe was because of their poor training. Not until the complact tactics of the Swiss against the Burgundians, and then the adoption of professional pikemen in the early 1500's, did they become "characteristic" of the battlefield. But military historians have shown time and time again that pikemen are definitely not a thing only of Scots and Italians.

As for the city names, I don't know what to tell you, they sound genuinely Lithuanian, and I'm not the only one to say that, but if you don't see it, well, agree to disagree.

Still, it could also be that they were drawing from all sorts of influences, since this being a fantasy world, they don't have to be consistent with real life nations.

I agree with that. My reasoning is that they began with a heavily Baltic scenario, and then they evolved from there. Probably the heavily pike-and-crossbow came later, as a way to differenciate Rhodoks from Swadians. And then they just kept evolving into something new, probably adding in elements of rebellion against the Swadians.

It's all my own speculation anyway.

 

[VoltairyanMystopia]

Well, one big element is that the new map is a larger landmass than the other one. It stretches far further south and east than the Warband map.

Yeah, the drift in cities is only explainable by something like "Praven(d)" and "Sargot(h)" were burned to the ground and rebuilt in different locations (perhaps Praven by the immediate survivors, hence the close relocation, whereas Sargoth by someone who was originally FROM Sargot, and named it after his now-destroyed hometown?)

The advent of new waterways, more complexity to the coastline, etc is obviously just a result of developers taking more care to redesign the continent than they originally did.
The southern bit having this sea that separates what would later constitute most of the Sarranid land (currently MOSTLY in the hands of the Empire) with the Aserai desert seems to be inspired by the relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the Ottomans, moreso mimicking this naval separation and minimizing the shared border. I like it far more as a concept (they simulated this in Warband with just some mountain ranges, which aren't nearly enough of a deterrent for invasion.)
For the Aserai to break into Mainland Calradia, or vice versa, now requires some serious mobilisation efforts, making the two cultures pretty autonomous from one another. Which is, honestly, far more believable to me.

So yeah, it's different, but it's probably not due to simply "not caring" about continuity and moreso about wanting to take the care to make a more living, believable landmass and relationship between distinct cultures.

Also the Rhodoks are more likely based on Italian elements of *Swiss* culture rather than Italy proper, along with Lithuanians and Scots.
They're a blend of mountain/valley people who are in cultural contrast to their immediate overlords (the Rhodok Republic having recently broken out from Swadian control in Warband).

As for why the desert grew so much, apparently this planet is suffering from Early Onset Climate Change.
Because holy hell, that desert growth is gonna wipe out that continent in like, 600 years.

 

[GreatAnax]

A mix of Scots and Italians makes no sense. Italians, why? Because they use pavise shields? Scots, why? Because they have pikes and live in the hills?

Look at their place names, it's clearly Lithuanian-inspired. If Jelkala, Veluca and Yalen were called Iogola, Velocca and Ialenna, then maybe, but the sound of the placenames is so characteristically Lithuanian that they can't have been inspired ORIGINALLY (originally) by anything else.

I am guessing you're Lithuanian, but the developers are not, and Baltic history is, quite frankly, tertiary to European history.
The original map of the MB games is heavily based on Anatolia. There is a lot of mix and matching, but the Swadians are quasi-French -as the French are the archetypical Western European nation, the Rhodoks are Italian AS HELL -you can argue they're Swiss-influenced, but they were heavily based on Italian city states, the Nords are Scandinavians, the Vaegirs are Russians, the Khergits are Turks, and the Sarranids are Arabs.
The naming in the first two games is very random.
Bannerlord has the Empire as an painfully obvious stand-in for the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, the Vlandians are Franks that edge towards Normans with their invasions of Byzantine territory in the west, the Khuzaits are Turkic/Mongolian, the Aserai are again Arabs, the Battanians are Celtic, and the Sturgians are the Kievan Rus/Novgorod stand-in.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I am guessing you're Lithuanian, but the developers are not, and Baltic history is, quite frankly, tertiary to European history.

The Baltic Crusades are not tertiary in the slightest, but even if they were, why wouldn't they have inspired the game?

I'm not Lithuanian, but I can recognise toponymy patterns like any other bloke. Liechtenstein is German, but if I go back to its etymology, and change something, I can turn it into a word that looks genuinely English: Lightenstone. Anyone can see that. If you look at the names of Lithuanian cities, you'll see that the Rhodoks towns' names sound very much Lithuanian. I could be wrong, of course, but so far I don't see any reason why.

The original map of the MB games is heavily based on Anatolia.

Why? The shape? It's a generic shape. I'll admit that, if the devs are Turkish, it's possible, but the Anatolian influence doesn't go further than that, and remember that before Calradia resembled Anatolia, it was just a square of land with a sea at the top.

There is a lot of mix and matching, but the Swadians are quasi-French -as the French are the archetypical Western European nation, the Rhodoks are Italian AS HELL -you can argue they're Swiss-influenced, but they were heavily based on Italian city states, the Nords are
Scandinavians, the Vaegirs are Russians, the Khergits are Turks, and the Sarranids are Arabs.

Why is this connected to Anatolia? The Swadians are very clearly Germans, starting with their name, and they represent a generic Feudal nation (France was not the only Feudal nation, nor the most important or quintessential, it was always France and Germany), not necessarily France.

And again, why Italian city-states? Where are the city states? The Rhodoks are shown to be a feudal realm with an elective monarchy. None of this is characteristically Italian.

The naming in the first two games is very random.

It's not a perfect match, but you can see that there was a certain attempt to capture the flair of specific cutlures with their names. The Sarranid names sound Arabic and the Khergit names sound Turkic. Other names are more jarring, especially in Sargoth, Ukxhal or Praven. I think they were going for something a bit fantasy-generic, but I do think that Praven sounds vaguely German while Ukxhal is a bit English. I could be wrong.

Bannerlord has the Empire as an painfully obvious stand-in for the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, the Vlandians are Franks that edge towards Normans with their invasions of Byzantine territory in the west, the Khuzaits are Turkic/Mongolian, the Aserai are again Arabs, the Battanians are Celtic, and the Sturgians are the Kievan Rus/Novgorod stand-in.

Sure, in Bannerlord the parallelism is more obvious. Byzantines, Slav-Norses, Arabs, Mongols, Normans and Celts.

 

[GreatAnax]

The Baltic Crusades are not tertiary in the slightest, but even if they were, why wouldn't they have inspired the game?

I'm not Lithuanian, but I can recognise toponymy patterns like any other bloke. Liechtenstein is German, but if I go back to its etymology, and change something, I can turn it into a word that looks genuinely English: Lightenstone. Anyone can see that. If you look at the names of Lithuanian cities, you'll see that the Rhodoks towns' names sound very much Lithuanian. I could be wrong, of course, but so far I don't see any reason why.



Why? The shape? It's a generic shape. I'll admit that, if the devs are Turkish, it's possible, but the Anatolian influence doesn't go further than that, and remember that before Calradia resembled Anatolia, it was just a square of land with a sea at the top.



Why is this connected to Anatolia? The Swadians are very clearly Germans, starting with their name, and they represent a generic Feudal nation (France was not the only Feudal nation, nor the most important or quintessential, it was always France and Germany), not necessarily France.

And again, why Italian city-states? Where are the city states? The Rhodoks are shown to be a feudal realm with an elective monarchy. None of this is characteristically Italian.



It's not a perfect match, but you can see that there was a certain attempt to capture the flair of specific cutlures with their names. The Sarranid names sound Arabic and the Khergit names sound Turkic. Other names are more jarring, especially in Sargoth, Ukxhal or Praven. I think they were going for something a bit fantasy-generic, but I do think that Praven sounds vaguely German while Ukxhal is a bit English. I could be wrong.



Sure, in Bannerlord the parallelism is more obvious. Byzantines, Slav-Norses, Arabs, Mongols, Normans and Celts.

I do not question the etymology or naming similarity. I am saying it wouldn't make sense.
In both Warband and Bannerlord you have a land that used to be under a grand and prestigious Empire on a land vaguely resembling Anatolia, that disintegrated from inside pressure and attacks on all sides. It can only be the Italian city-states because the Lithuanians never interacted with Constantinople in any serious manner, as far as I know.
The consensus is that they're Italians, it wouldn't make much sense in game if the cities were independent and antagonistic to each other like in real life. Pavise shield, crossbow, and pike are things that bring the Italians or at least the Swiss in mind, even if you the Lithuanians also had these things.
But the center of the lore is the Empire, just like the center of European history for a very long time is Constantinople -at the very least, it would be in the mid-11th century that Bannerlord is based on. You can make an argument about Anatolia not even being in Europe geographically or culturally (anymore), but as long as the Byzantines held it it would be ludicrous to consider it anything but.
How would the Lithuanians, or even the Germans -but less so- fit in with the not-Roman Empire?
(Please don't mention >H >R >E because I consider this to be a serious discussion.)

 

[Wolfsblut]

Should properly read before i push buttons.
Was in the "wish for some fidelity" corner and votet i give a ****.
Ah well, its late and i am old.

We knew the world would look differend, so the issue that i feel like a complete stranger is balanced out by the overall beauty of the map.
Maybe we get the old map back with Bannerlord 2 in 25 years.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I do not question the etymology or naming similarity. I am saying it wouldn't make sense.

It would make sense if the setting had began as a Baltic thing, but then drifted to something less specific. That the devs are Turks doesn't mean they have to make something about Turkey. I'm Spanish and for a while I was working on a (now dead) game set in the Byzantine Empire.

In both Warband and Bannerlord you have a land that used to be under a grand and prestigious Empire on a land vaguely resembling Anatolia, that disintegrated from inside pressure and attacks on all sides. It can only be the Italian city-states because the Lithuanians never interacted with Constantinople in any serious manner, as far as I know.

I think you're taking the Anatolia metaphore too far. If there was a city like Constantinople in the game, I'd give you the point, but if you want a setting that resembles Anatolia, you need Constantinople. No Constantinople, no Anatolia. Not even in Bannerlord there's a city which could be considered the indisputable capital of the Calradian Empire.

My general point is that if the Rhodoks inspiration was clearly Italy, you would see Italian-inspired names.

The consensus is that they're Italians, it wouldn't make much sense in game if the cities were independent and antagonistic to each other like in real life. Pavise shield, crossbow, and pike are things that bring the Italians or at least the Swiss in mind, even if you the Lithuanians also had these things.

Is there any mention in the game that the Rhodoks have city states or that they have some sort of democratic style of election for collegiate rule? No, there's only a couple of mentions to their king (KING) being elected by the nobles. Where did we hear that before? Poland-Lithuania.

Again, pikes and crossbows, not a thing exclusive to the Italians. At all. I see why general culture would suggest that, but it's not a true parallel to history.

But the center of the lore is the Empire, just like the center of European history for a very long time is Constantinople -at the very least, it would be in the mid-11th century that Bannerlord is based on.

The center of Europe during the 1000's was certainly not Constantinople. It hadn't been since the 800's. As for the center of Warband lore, it's definitely not the Empire of Calradia. The little lore there is in WB delves very little into that.

You can make an argument about Anatolia not even being in Europe geographically or culturally (anymore), but as long as the Byzantines held it it would be ludicrous to consider it anything but.

The Romans themselves didn't consider Anatlia to be Europe. Asia Minor. Why would we contradict them?

How would the Lithuanians, or even the Germans -but less so- fit in with the not-Roman Empire?

They don't have to. In Warband, the Empire was nowhere to be seen, and as we see in Bannerlord, the core of the Empire was much farther eastward. Again, I'm not saying the Rhodoks represent Lithuania. I'm saying that I believe the original concept to be the Baltics, and then it drifted into something else, the Empire lore was added in (it's also a common fantasy trope, "oh these lands used to be in the GREAT OLD EMPIRE which is now gone, sic transit gloria mundi and all that") and the game became something more generic (not worse, of course).

If you change the factions to their Baltic stand-in, they all make sense except for the Arabs. Swadians are the Teutonic Order, Rhodoks are Lithuanians, Vaegirs are the Russians, Nords are the Scandinavians and the Khergits are the Mongols. Event heir distribution on the map mostly matches what you'd expect from a Baltic Crusade scenario.

Again... Not saying WB is 1:1 Baltic Crusade. Just saying that it feels eerily similar, and it may have been inspired by that setting. The naming certainly suggests so. And I see why the Rhodoks seem Italian, after all the Swadians seem "central European", therefore, where are the Southern Europeans? Maybe the hill-people, crossbow-and-pavise aspect of the Rhodoks came later, maybe it was just a natural gameplay element from having the heavy knight Swadians next door, and had nothing to do with Italy. I come from the Mediterranean, and at no point I ever thought the Rhodoks could resemble any Mediterranean culture, or that their land looked like a Mediterranean inspired area.

Looking at Bannerlord, it certainly doesn't seem so now.

 

[GreatAnax]

It would make sense if the setting had began as a Baltic thing, but then drifted to something less specific. That the devs are Turks doesn't mean they have to make something about Turkey. I'm Spanish and for a while I was working on a (now dead) game set in the Byzantine Empire.



I think you're taking the Anatolia metaphore too far. If there was a city like Constantinople in the game, I'd give you the point, but if you want a setting that resembles Anatolia, you need Constantinople. No Constantinople, no Anatolia. Not even in Bannerlord there's a city which could be considered the indisputable capital of the Calradian Empire.

My general point is that if the Rhodoks inspiration was clearly Italy, you would see Italian-inspired names.



Is there any mention in the game that the Rhodoks have city states or that they have some sort of democratic style of election for collegiate rule? No, there's only a couple of mentions to their king (KING) being elected by the nobles. Where did we hear that before? Poland-Lithuania.

Again, pikes and crossbows, not a thing exclusive to the Italians. At all. I see why general culture would suggest that, but it's not a true parallel to history.



The center of Europe during the 1000's was certainly not Constantinople. It hadn't been since the 800's. As for the center of Warband lore, it's definitely not the Empire of Calradia. The little lore there is in WB delves very little into that.



The Romans themselves didn't consider Anatlia to be Europe. Asia Minor. Why would we contradict them?



They don't have to. In Warband, the Empire was nowhere to be seen, and as we see in Bannerlord, the core of the Empire was much farther eastward. Again, I'm not saying the Rhodoks represent Lithuania. I'm saying that I believe the original concept to be the Baltics, and then it drifted into something else, the Empire lore was added in (it's also a common fantasy trope, "oh these lands used to be in the GREAT OLD EMPIRE which is now gone, sic transit gloria mundi and all that") and the game became something more generic (not worse, of course).

If you change the factions to their Baltic stand-in, they all make sense except for the Arabs. Swadians are the Teutonic Order, Rhodoks are Lithuanians, Vaegirs are the Russians, Nords are the Scandinavians and the Khergits are the Mongols. Event heir distribution on the map mostly matches what you'd expect from a Baltic Crusade scenario.

Again... Not saying WB is 1:1 Baltic Crusade. Just saying that it feels eerily similar, and it may have been inspired by that setting. The naming certainly suggests so. And I see why the Rhodoks seem Italian, after all the Swadians seem "central European", therefore, where are the Southern Europeans? Maybe the hill-people, crossbow-and-pavise aspect of the Rhodoks came later, maybe it was just a natural gameplay element from having the heavy knight Swadians next door, and had nothing to do with Italy. I come from the Mediterranean, and at no point I ever thought the Rhodoks could resemble any Mediterranean culture, or that their land looked like a Mediterranean inspired area.

Looking at Bannerlord, it certainly doesn't seem so now.

Anatolia (east land, east of Europe, as defined by the Greeks who lived across it and settled it) is very important for European history and was culturally European for longer than it was not.
I can't continue arguing with someone that claims "Constantinople wasn't the center of Europe since the 800s", lmao. I guess that's why it's called the Great City, or the City of Kings, and so on and so on in so many languages from Norway to Russia, with people losing it when they saw it and Anglos/Scandis abandoning their kings and lands en masse for a chance to sign up for the Guard up to the late-1100s. Richest city outside China with a population hovering around 400-500k, but I guess 80k Paris and its wooden houses were more important to some people
You are right about most of your criticisms regarding not having one ultra-important city and the not-Italians not being completely Italian, but most of your points are answered by "gameplay reasons".
The fact of the matter is, this is the first time I see the Rhodoks not being described as Italian, and Calradia not being described as Anatolia. The game is not a 1:1 of the real world, but in spirit those approximations are the dominant perceptions and it is the first time I see them disputed, for good reason.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Anatolia (east land, east of Europe, as defined by the Greeks who lived across it and settled it) is very important for European history and was culturally European for longer than it was not.

Europe and Asia are just denominations we have made up and solidified in the 18-19th Centuries, when Europe used to mean "better". The Byzantine Emperor never cared for those names. His lands stretched both sides and his capital lies in the theorerical border, uncaring of whether Constantinople is European or Asian. He didn't have our notion of Europe and Asia, and we would again apply systems of thought dangerously outdated to something that doesn't fit them at all.

All I was saying when I said Anatolia wasn't Europe is that, geographycally, it isn't Europe.

I can't continue arguing with someone that claims "Constantinople wasn't the center of Europe since the 800s",

I had written a long response, but ultimately this is not the place to discuss this. I'll simply say that sometimes it's difficult to know if a discussion is about concrete sources or just hearsay and Wikipedia. So, absent a discussion on specific books or sources, it's probably better if we leave it here, agree to disagree and move on.

lmao. I guess that's why it's called the Great City, or the City of Kings, and so on and so on in so many languages from Norway to Russia, with people losing it when they saw it and Anglos/Scandis abandoning their kings and lands en masse for a chance to sign up for the Guard up to the late-1100s. Richest city outside China with a population hovering around 400-500k, but I guess 80k Paris and its wooden houses were more important to some people

Political power and cultural influence are not measured by population quantity. The most influential cities in the world (in terms of economy, culture, politics) today are NOT the ones with the biggest population. Tokyo? Not unimportant, but not super relevant. Delhi? Shanghai? Mexico City? Sao Paulo? They sure are important, but my newspapers don't talk about what's going on there every week or month. They do, however, look at New York often.

Paris, Toulouse, Salerno, Rome, Palermo, Naples and Venice were certainly centers of culture and politics in the Mediterranean, and kings, counts and bishops looked at Rome more than they looked at Constantinople, which tells us which of the two was more centric to their beliefs and aspirations.

You are right about most of your criticisms regarding not having one ultra-important city and the not-Italians not being completely Italian, but most of your points are answered by "gameplay reasons".

The fact of the matter is, this is the first time I see the Rhodoks not being described as Italian, and Calradia not being described as Anatolia. The game is not a 1:1 of the real world, but in spirit those approximations are the dominant perceptions and it is the first time I see them disputed, for good reason.

This is the first time someone has described Calradia as Anatolia to me. First time for everything I guess.

Gameplay reasons, I agree.

 

[vahadar]

Damn i voted yes, when i wanted to say no, the options are a bit unclear
So my vote is a NO but i cant change it it seems.

 

[mikeboix]

..
4- I assume the Sarranid Desert is the result of centuries of climate change drying up the sort-of-Mediterranean sea down there.This would create a death-field of salt and hight pressure, the dryest place in the world, and change forever the climate of Calradia. Maybe that explains why...
...

Centuries, you say? Well, not really, and this is also one of the things that annoy me the most. Some of these map changes would be acceptable (nearly acceptable) if Bannerlord took place around year 800, but gosh, there are not even 200 years difference between Bannerlord and Warband actually. From 1080 to 1257.
So no, it's not "centuries". It's less than two.

I submit all of your points one by one, anyway. This should be changed before it's too late, IMO.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Another one for my team

Centuries, you say? Well, not really, and this is also one of the things that annoy me the most. Some of these map changes would be acceptable (nearly acceptable) if Bannerlord took place around year 800, but gosh, there are not even 200 years difference between Bannerlord and Warband. So no, it's not "centuries". It's less than two.

Really, isn't Warband set in the year 1257? I always assumed because of the amount of historically inclined mods set in that year. It's very arbitrary, so I imagined Warband was set in that year.

Whoa. Then it makes even less sense

 

[blackfalcon]

I would assume the time-gap explains a majority of why towns aren't in the 'correct' places, but a hundred years doesn't really make much sense in terms of places being straight up not in the right positions.

In order to reconcile it, I simply assumed that all the towns that aren't in the current "correct" places were destroyed and forced elsewhere during wartime, and castles, villages, and such were also similarly razed and moved. Doesn't really hold up to logistics and scrutiny, but it's the best guess I can take for it.

I dont think a city or town will, with any amount of time, 'move'.

 

[Turnaround]

I've been working on a new map with Faustus which will be available soon.

I love the new map, although as I like playing Aserai I hope places are more populated with bandits etc soon as they feel quite cut off.

I made this image for any time real-life faction comparisons are made

 

[mikeboix]

Another one for my team


Really, isn't Warband set in the year 1257? I always assumed because of the amount of historically inclined mods set in that year. It's very arbitrary, so I imagined Warband was set in that year.

Whoa. Then it makes even less sense

Indeed it does. Doesn't Bannerlord start at 1080? From 1080 to 1257... you see, less than 200 years.

 

[Nordmann]

I dont think a city or town will, with any amount of time, 'move'.

Indeed. They just get bigger, perhaps even merging with local villages.

 

[peenerz]

Just like how the original Mount and Blade had a completely different map than Warband but with the same exact towns and factions, I think it's safe to say that the current map is canon and the old Warband map is no longer "accurate"

 

[Yohan]

I consider bannerlord to be in a parallel universe slightly different than warband.

I know in canon it's supposed to be the same world 200 years before warband, but the map is too different for that to make sense IMO. Land geography wouldn't change that much in 2 centuries, and cities changing locations would suggest some have been razed entirely and others build from nothing in 200 years, doubtful.
Compare a map of europe 200 years ago to today : yes names change, borders too, but major cities didn't just disappear and relocate.

Ultimately it doesn't harm the gameplay, so it's just an immersion problem.
Parallel universe for me, I reject TW's "reality" and substitute my own.

 

[Diavolo]

The only reason I can think of is that the main story (the artifact you try to figure out the story of) is a magical item that can twist time and space itself. Obviously after the history in bannerlord something happens which alters everything. The mountains which were all over calradia in bannerlord clump together somehow and settle in one big mountain area in the Rhodok lands. Due to less mountains the wind blows too much for the trees and there becomes bigger grasslands. Also everyone dies, and new people move in and call some of their cities things that they heard that some cities were called in the old days.

 

[Androme1]

There's not supposed to be continuity, it's a re-imagination of the continent.