Wait, you think of skis, when you think of Finland?
The first thing that pops on my mind is a lake, surrounded by forest, and then, from the mist, a rally car appears sliding through.
Ok, It's a bit stereotypical...
Huh? I don't really get the stereotype (Finland has some famous racing track or what?). When I think of Finland, I think of two things - the biggest part of my favourite bands (or in other words - Finnish metal) and ancient shamans skiing in the snowy woods.
Well, I always associated Finland with racing.
I don't really like to watch Formula 1 or WRC, but many good drivers were from Finland.
Mika Hakkinen, Kimi Raikkonen, Keke Rosberg, Niko Rosberg, Mikko Hirvonen, Mika Salo, Toni Gardemeister, Marcus Gronholm, Tommi Makinen...
And these are all guys from several years back, or even more + the fact that I don't watch races and don't play racing video games.
Imagine how many of them can be counted by someone who actually watches racing...
swedes crusaded after 1200AD and Finland was partly catholic at the time And also under the auspices of pope. so conquer of Finland at 1249AD was against popes will
and now ill make new post where I build Finland same way as there is topic abt bosnia.
Finland
NAME
(still bit open thing...maybe league of Finland or Union of Finland?)
AT WAR WITH
Sweden, novgorod
RELIGION
Catholic,Pagan and orthodox
LORDS, WIVES AND DAUGHTERS
--- (no knowledge..might have some next year from another historically accurate game?)
MAP
1. Åbo as town 2.Häme as village 3. Viborg as village 4. Kainuu as village 5. Porvoo as village
Also the religions would go with these numbers 1. catholic 2. catholic 3.orthodox 4.pagan 5. catholic
HERALDRY
problem is that oldest known finnish heraldry is from 1250AD and its only bishops signet
ARMY
would consist mostly professional hunters and countrymens ( archers(with both x-bows and normal bows), ppl with nordic swords, axes. Im trying to make the troop tree but some unique armors is out of my skills (might try to get something up but it will be with time)
1. Åbo as town 2.Häme as village 3. Viborg as village 4. Kainuu as village 5. Porvoo as village
Also the religions would go with these numbers 1. catholic 2. catholic 3.orthodox 4.pagan 5. catholic
Well... According to the helmet on that coat of arms, it seems that symbol is dated a lot later than the year 1200.
Bear in mind that you don't really have to put a coat of arms as a flag for Finland,
just find some symbol that was used, or was associated with Finland in those times.
Especially because heraldry hasn't grown much in 1200, at least outside the West.
For example, here is a Serbian Nemanjitch dynasty coat of arms (some say that the eagle was probably red, with white background, but that's not important).
But, that kind of coat of arms was never recorded in 1200, and has probably appeared in XIV/XV century. But the eagle, the main symbol, was first seen in 1180's, so it would be logical that the Serbian flag for this mod be something like this:
You see? Just the main symbol.
Furthermore, all of the historical flags in this mod are simplified, so they don't have other shapes, shields, crowns, etc. on them,
just the main symbols.
For example, the coat of arms of Castille:
In the mod, it is only a red flag with yellow castle, no crown, no shield shape.
So, what I wanted to say is - try to find some symbol for Finland, it doesn't have to be a full coat of arms.
Sotuu said:
ARMY
would consist mostly professional hunters and countrymens ( archers(with both x-bows and normal bows), ppl with nordic swords, axes. Im trying to make the troop tree but some unique armors is out of my skills (might try to get something up but it will be with time)
Also have in mind that there are 4 types of troops in E1200 Mod.
Professionals and Nobles (recruited from castles), Militiamen (from towns) and Rural warriors (from villages).
Note that a faction can have 4, 3, 2 or only 1 type of unit.
According to what I have heard about Finland from you posts, Finland should have only 1 type of troop tree - Rural troop tree.
As for the unique armors - they are not necessary, there are plenty Native one to choose from.
from what i have seen in this thread i fell sceptical that finland should be a faction in this mod, the hereldic coat of arms you show depicts a very late era helmet, surrounded by swedish flags. the army you suggest a rabble of trained tribesmen. i come from Cornwall, England, an area that has forever been distant from the England ruled from London, we have our own culture, had our own language, is that enough to make Cornwall an independant facton in England, simply because we fought against the English on several occasions? the answer is no, because for the most part it payed homage to the English King if they wanted to or not.in the case of finnland i would ask for actual evidence of conflict before beliving what is essentually established propaganda
alkoaine said:
Too drunk!? Now you're starting to sound like a Finn And yeah I'm a Finn Savosta Perkele, but when it comes to history, one doesn't get to make things up. If there is an empty page in history one can't fill it with anything except what is likely and corrobrated by archeology and other sources.
For Finland, history for a long time went in long pendulum swings: first the Finns were portrayed as having had a prestigious line of kings but that is generally understood to have been bull****, and it's the same for Sweden. Do you really think Erik the XIV really was the fourtheenth king named Erik in Sweden? Most likely they made that up just to appear more prestigious in the eyes of other European kingdoms. Then there was the period in Finland where mostly due to new found Christian zeal, Finns prior Christianization were portrayed as savages living in holes and caves, which of course isn't true either.
like alkoaine states writers are prone to fill their tales with a deep rooted history to justify their claims. there may have been anguish against their rulers but its no different that England holding land in Ireland in that respect, its just closer to what we can belive was historically accurate.
swedes crusaded after 1200AD and Finland was partly catholic at the time And also under the auspices of pope. so conquer of Finland at 1249AD was against popes will
suggesting independence yet unestablished, more of a bandit faction then? like the rebels from M2tw in a sence, i think it would be silly to form faction for finnland, i have nothing against them but giving them towns and castles and armies gives them an opertunity to become too powerful for a rebel faction. would it not be simplier to give their land to a swedish lord and give him a bad relationship with his fiefs and surfs?
suggesting independence yet unestablished, more of a bandit faction then? like the rebels from M2tw in a sence, i think it would be silly to form faction for finnland, i have nothing against them but giving them towns and castles and armies gives them an opertunity to become too powerful for a rebel faction. would it not be simplier to give their land to a swedish lord and give him a bad relationship with his fiefs and surfs?
what part of map didnt u get.. there is only 1 town and 4 villages. and bandits/rebels isnt option as sweden took finland 1249AD not 1200AD and they had armies of thousands of men
suggesting independence yet unestablished, more of a bandit faction then? like the rebels from M2tw in a sence, i think it would be silly to form faction for finnland, i have nothing against them but giving them towns and castles and armies gives them an opertunity to become too powerful for a rebel faction. would it not be simplier to give their land to a swedish lord and give him a bad relationship with his fiefs and surfs?
what part of map didnt u get.. there is only 1 town and 4 villages. and bandits/rebels isnt option as sweden took finland 1249AD not 1200AD and they had armies of thousands of men
But have in mind that Bosnia also wasn't fully independent in 1200,
but was a part of Hungary, at least de facto.
Still, they will be out in the next release.
Although, I must admit that the info of Banate of Bosnia, small as it is,
is still a lot bigger than the info of Finland, which eases things a lot.
suggesting independence yet unestablished, more of a bandit faction then? like the rebels from M2tw in a sence, i think it would be silly to form faction for finnland, i have nothing against them but giving them towns and castles and armies gives them an opertunity to become too powerful for a rebel faction. would it not be simplier to give their land to a swedish lord and give him a bad relationship with his fiefs and surfs?
what part of map didnt u get.. there is only 1 town and 4 villages. and bandits/rebels isnt option as sweden took finland 1249AD not 1200AD and they had armies of thousands of men
i did look at the map, when you say they had armies of thousands of men may i ask when, evidence? because i find it hard to belive they had a standing army acting between 1200ad and 1249ad when they were attacked by sweden. and the faction suggestions you have made thus far to me no offence suggests a faction unified under one king (unnamed) with the royal crest dipicting a late era helmet and swedish flags, fielding a horde of well trained surfs. it just doesn't seem to add up in my eyes. sorry
They most certainly didn't, but why is that a problem?
There are 4 types of troops in E1200, with professionals (standing army) just being one those 4.
A country, in the game or in real life, doesn't need to have professional soldiers in order to survive.
Republic of Ragusa, which will hopefully be featured in the next release, will have a Militia troop tree, for their town, and a Mercenary tree, acquired from merc camps.
So no Professional or Rural troop trees for them.
jib1 said:
fielding a horde of well trained surfs. it just doesn't seem to add up in my eyes. sorry
Another example of the lack of a standing army:
Before Serbia had any professional soldiers, the war was waged by nobles and peasants.
In the times of war, a noble would recruit the army from his fief, arm them with weapons and armor (in accordance to his wealth),
and would lead them into battle. That peasant army would mostly consist of footmen armed with melee and ranged weapons,
while the nobles were cavalry.
Mind that those warriors weren't just peasants with farming tools, as I said, their equipment was supplied by their Lord.
When the war is over, the warriors become peasants again.
Even when the pros started to grow in numbers, that ''recruited'' army was still superior in numbers.
jib1 said:
and the faction suggestions you have made thus far to me no offence suggests a faction unified under one king (unnamed) with the royal crest dipicting a late era helmet and swedish flags,
Although I always liked small factions, I must say that I agree with Jib1 on this one.
If you could at least find a ruler of tribe(s) it could be counted as a faction, but without him...
Isn't there more info in Finnish, in a book called History of Finland, or something?
suggesting independence yet unestablished, more of a bandit faction then? like the rebels from M2tw in a sence, i think it would be silly to form faction for finnland, i have nothing against them but giving them towns and castles and armies gives them an opertunity to become too powerful for a rebel faction. would it not be simplier to give their land to a swedish lord and give him a bad relationship with his fiefs and surfs?
what part of map didnt u get.. there is only 1 town and 4 villages. and bandits/rebels isnt option as sweden took finland 1249AD not 1200AD and they had armies of thousands of men
i did look at the map, when you say they had armies of thousands of men may i ask when, evidence? because i find it hard to belive they had a standing army acting between 1200ad and 1249ad when they were attacked by sweden. and the faction suggestions you have made thus far to me no offence suggests a faction unified under one king (unnamed) with the royal crest dipicting a late era helmet and swedish flags, fielding a horde of well trained surfs. it just doesn't seem to add up in my eyes. sorry
again read the damn posts...I corrected that COA thing already. I wasnt thinking of age when added that picture as its from 1557AD and who has talked anything abt standing army? I doubt that any nation of the time had standing/professional army. and why are u still involving time after 1200AD to this topic as that doenst mean a s¤#t here coz mod is for 1200AD not 1249AD
and for mihailo answer is simply no coz there wasnt yet this known finnish language and some of those few writings of history were destroyed in the burning of Turku as I've stated couple times already boy it would be easy to just translate here if there would be books from our history before swedish time. so far my sources has been the website which I have linked in this topic and some archaeologists and historians writings + general education that I have.
from my brief research it seems historians debate the time finland became part of sweden a lot, dates range from 1150 - 1249ad. its possible the date if conquest is moved forward by swedish writers to improve their standing some how making everything rather ambigious.
i personally think that one thing is obvious there wasn't a kingdom/ country of finland the was no unification. its my opinion that creating one faction for finland makes them more powerful then they were historically and making lots of factions to portay the different tribes just isn't viable.
i mentioned standing army because you stated "and they had armies of thousands of men" this to me at first reading suggested they constantly had an army ready for deployment, it was a missconception it seems.
and about the COA i do read the "damn posts" before posting and i havent yet seen any other suggested hereldary. and i speculate this is because we have no idea about king/lord/nobles who were prominant or what device they used. history is writen by the victor and unfortuantly sweden has left few belivable acounts regarding the matter.
from my brief research it seems historians debate the time finland became part of sweden a lot, dates range from 1150 - 1249ad. its possible the date if conquest is moved forward by swedish writers to improve their standing some how making everything rather ambigious.
i personally think that one thing is obvious there wasn't a kingdom/ country of finland the was no unification. its my opinion that creating one faction for finland makes them more powerful then they were historically and making lots of factions to portay the different tribes just isn't viable.
i mentioned standing army because you stated "and they had armies of thousands of men" this to me at first reading suggested they constantly had an army ready for deployment, it was a missconception it seems.
and about the COA i do read the "damn posts" before posting and i havent yet seen any other suggested hereldary. and i speculate this is because we have no idea about king/lord/nobles who were prominant or what device they used. history is writen by the victor and unfortuantly sweden has left few belivable acounts regarding the matter.
you claim your reading his posts yet you show no knowledge of it, hes posted a lot of research up on the first & 2nd pages especially, anyway, before completly saying no to the idea of Finland being added as a faction, the Finns must be added as a cultural troop tree eventually, but ideally it would be great to have a small Finnish faction because as previously stated, Sweden hadn't conquered Finland by 1200.
from my brief research it seems historians debate the time finland became part of sweden a lot, dates range from 1150 - 1249ad. its possible the date if conquest is moved forward by swedish writers to improve their standing some how making everything rather ambigious.
i personally think that one thing is obvious there wasn't a kingdom/ country of finland the was no unification. its my opinion that creating one faction for finland makes them more powerful then they were historically and making lots of factions to portay the different tribes just isn't viable.
i mentioned standing army because you stated "and they had armies of thousands of men" this to me at first reading suggested they constantly had an army ready for deployment, it was a missconception it seems.
and about the COA i do read the "damn posts" before posting and i havent yet seen any other suggested hereldary. and i speculate this is because we have no idea about king/lord/nobles who were prominant or what device they used. history is writen by the victor and unfortuantly sweden has left few belivable acounts regarding the matter.
If you disagree with Sotuu , then please show your research and evidence to argue that Finland shouldnt be added in 1200. So far Sotuu has given us some good research on the time period suggesting there should be atleast a small Finnish faction.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
And also under the auspices of pope. so conquer of Finland at 1249AD was against popes will 
