Finland 1200AD

[MihailoSRB]

what do u mean there's no map? look at page 2 for my post and there is the fricking map for some of the settlements 

No, don't get me wrong, your custom map is great for a placement of the settlements, I was reffering to some historical maps which show borders, found in history books and similar.

 

[Sotuu]

yeh thought u want something more like that 

E: with quick look at the web I found couple links to 1400-centurys maps but they were removed 

 

[Liekki]

what do u mean there's no map? look at page 2

Mmm - yeah. And I don't find using "Hämeenlinna" so bad even if its a modern name, as the people did call that land Häme, and "linna" is what (hiltop) forts and walled cities are called. In my post I suggested using name "Vanaja". "Vanaanlinna" could be right, too, I hear. But there is Vanajavesi-lake and it is known nowadays as "Vanajan muinaiskaupunki" (ancient city of Vanaja).

There's better and bigger settlements for 1200AD than Porvoo, though. And Kainuu... as you say, you planted it "as a setlement". It's as good settlement suggestion name as any, but does that location represent an actual settlement?

But if you have oral tradition, you may use some of it, at least the parts that are not entirely legendary.

So as long as your oral traditions or sagas do not clash with the official history, and do not mention something entirely over the top - it's OK, at least that's my opinion.

Reading the threads I got the idea they want to make this mod historically accurate. Of course, history is hardly an accurate science! But I find it horrible to make history of oral stories.

The world's largest collection of poems is the ancient poems of Finland (Kalevala includes a portion of these poems, composed as an epic). It includes oral (sung) poems from at least Bronze Age to past Middle Ages. Sure we could pick names! Is any of them a real person... that's guesswork.

We have here a multitude of local stories of an early bishop (Henry, Henrik), but all stories are found late born, of a person who modern historians agree never existed, but based on oral stories was considered a very historical character a decade or two back, before the issue was actually studied. If this game was made ten years ago, I could have suggested him as a historical person. (That bishop is the patron saint of the Finnish church! They even dug up a grave, declared that person as bishop Henry, and made his remanants relics. Well, so lot under a church's roof is a matter of belief).

When I read of a former ruler of a city from Wikipedia, I would expect it to be history. Instead it's information from sagas! Same is true in thousands of different web sites all over the Internet. If Finns would would make history of sagas, then the Scandinavian kingdoms were established by sons of a Finnish king, who were giants (and sure enough there's amateur pages that claim this is history). Did that happen? Not bloody likely, but for some reason Scandinavian storytellers considered it did. And that's the problem with Nordic sagas and these sung Finnish poems: they are full of invented heroic deeds and battles, ownership, people and relations, composed and spiced to boost your status or make the story interesting... comparable to modern often nationalistic websites.

Sorry the rant. It seems I have an issue there!

 

[Liekki]

P.S. And we're thankful for that, btw. The Finnish participation in our Liberation is rather well known - most people think only of Russians, of course,

Oh, small world, you're from Bulgaria! Well, you still have the Russians to thank, it wasn't my countrymen's idea to come there! Luckily, it was the only war where the Russians took our troops, as far as I recall. Unless if you count those who went to study Russian military academies.

There's a restaurant in my neighboring city, Tampere, called Plevna. There's a rather boasting description in the menu of the restaurant about the battle. Says boys from right this area that went to Bulgaria, hence the restaurant's name. Been emptying a few pints of beer there.

 

[MihailoSRB]

Reading the threads I got the idea they want to make this mod historically accurate. Of course, history is hardly an accurate science! But I find it horrible to make history of oral stories.
The world's largest collection of poems is the ancient poems of Finland (Kalevala includes a portion of these poems, composed as an epic). It includes oral (sung) poems from at least Bronze Age to past Middle Ages. Sure we could pick names! Is any of them a real person... that's guesswork.
We have here a multitude of local stories of an early bishop (Henry, Henrik), but all stories are found late born, of a person who modern historians agree never existed, but based on oral stories was considered a very historical character a decade or two back, before the issue was actually studied. If this game was made ten years ago, I could have suggested him as a historical person. (That bishop is the patron saint of the Finnish church! They even dug up a grave, declared that person as bishop Henry, and made his remanants relics. Well, so lot under a church's roof is a matter of belief).
When I read of a former ruler of a city from Wikipedia, I would expect it to be history. Instead it's information from sagas! Same is true in thousands of different web sites all over the Internet. If Finns would would make history of sagas, then the Scandinavian kingdoms were established by sons of a Finnish king, who were giants (and sure enough there's amateur pages that claim this is history). Did that happen? Not bloody likely, but for some reason Scandinavian storytellers considered it did. And that's the problem with Nordic sagas and these sung Finnish poems: they are full of invented heroic deeds and battles, ownership, people and relations, composed and spiced to boost your status or make the story interesting... comparable to modern often nationalistic websites.
Sorry the rant. It seems I have an issue there!

I strongly disagree with you about oral stories.
Sure, many are false. Many are exaggerated. But in many times, a simple truth lies behind them.

There were several Finns here who complained that many of documents were burned or destroyed by Swedes, Russians or whoever.
The same thing is here, in Serbia. When the Ottoman Empire conquered this land, countless of documents were lost or burned.
I watched a TV show where some famous English actors (like Jeremy Irons) searched for their roots in the documents.
Many of them found their ancestors as far as hundreds of years before.
Here, it is nearly impossible to find any ancestors before 1850's because of the lack of documents. But the oral tradition was rich - sure people were illiterate, and were lying heavily, but that doesn't mean they were making things up entirely.
In the middle-ages, people didn't write that much here, unlike in Byzantine empire, or some Western countries, where they were keeping note who sh*ts where. 

There are many examples of historical Serbian persons that were concidered fictional, but then, only one document needed to be found and they were suddenly ''proclaimed'' fully historical, even if the people, through the oral tradition knew that already.

 

[Korinov]

Making the mod historically accurate doesn't mean not paying attention to oral traditions and stories if it's needed. It's not like all written papers tell the truth either. There're certain things from old sagas that can provide us hints about what we could implement in the mod, specially when we just can't rely on anything else. Having a basic faction built from the info taken from oral tradition (leaving exaggerations and myths aside) is better than leaving an empty hole in the map with the banner 'here be dragons' over it.

Anyway, this is how I see it now regarding Finland:

It seems we have a chronic lack of lords, but we can also improvise. I like the idea of naming some of them after the settlement they own, it doesn't sound bad actually. If there're some named bishops out there, we must use them too. We're not talking about a specially large faction (in terms of armies and settlements) so two or three bishops plus one or two made-up nobles could be enough after all. 

 

[Temuzu]

Hmm, there was a thread about this on the Finnish forum, thought I might want to check this out.

Now, couple of questions:
1. Youre not making Finland a faction of its own, are you? Because from what I remember, Finland was divided into three different main tribes during the crusades, not a single nation under one ruler.
2. Saying that Finland wasnt important in the medieval times is more or less correct, especially in the early 1200's. It merely gave the Swedes and Russians a reason to fight from time to time, and even then it was more about religion than actual monetary or material value.

Also, heres what I said on the Finnish forum, translated:

I cant quite remember, but Europe 1200 cuts Finland and Sweden in half, right? So pretty much only South-Finland would matter.  I think there shouldnt be any towns besides Turku in Finland, this was a pretty meaningless place after all. Quick googling helped little, but I would say that Porvoo, Viipuri and Nousiainen for example could be present as villages.

 

[Liekki]

With the books I have, I found a map of ancient forts. And couple of maps showing cemetaries and inhabited regions. But with the books I have, they didn't show actual villages/towns. Need to go to library to find such maps. I also need to install a scanner to my puter, as I put it aside years ago.

How can I deliver the images, as I can't post URLs?

I cant quite remember, but Europe 1200 cuts Finland and Sweden in half, right? So pretty much only South-Finland would matter. 

1. Youre not making Finland a faction of its own, are you? Because from what I remember, Finland was divided into three different main tribes during the crusades, not a single nation under one ruler.

Well, a message I wrote earlier listed them major tribes. If only the southern Finland is visible, then we maybe have to leave the Saamelaiset (Sami/Lapplanders) tribe away. Militarywise, they would be the smallest tribe, too, if areawise the largest.

There is NO PROBLEMS listing the suomalaiset (Finns Proper) and hämäläiset (Tavastians) tribes as one tribe. They had similar material culture, they spoke the same language, and the Russian Chronicles consider they were same side. The Russians name these separately, so there may have been tribe organisations, or it's just because of the location. However, it makes no big difference, they can be the same faction. They CAN be two factions, too (they had different endonymes = called themselves and their land by different name - but the ROOT of the name is same SUOMI (Finland), HÄME (Tavastland), SAAMI (Lappland) are all descendant of the same root word).

The karjalaiset tribe is a different thing altogether. You can't include them to the western Finnish tribes: 1200 AD they were each others' enemies. The Karelians were a Novogorod ally.

2. Saying that Finland wasnt important in the medieval times is more or less correct, especially in the early 1200's. It merely gave the Swedes and Russians a reason to fight from time to time, and even then it was more about religion than actual monetary or material value.

It's less correct. If a nation doesn't have written records, it does not mean it's insignificant! Were Germanic tribes insignificant north side of Rome? The Scythians? The Mongols? "Barbarian" tribes could have sophisticated warfare system and organized structures, without written languages.

The hämäläiset tribe made war expeditions to the Novgorodian lands and against their allies, repeatedly. During 300 years warfare, the Novgorodians made several war expeditions, but still were unable to subdue or pacify the Finns.

Novgorod was undoubtedly the strongest force of the region at the time. They repeatedly crushed Swedish war expeditions, and even joint Finnish-Nordic armies like that 1240AD I previously mentioned. (Sweden wasn't even united until 1250 AD).

Finland and Karelia were the very battle ground of this war, where Novgorod was against the Finns and the Nordic bishops. Swedes and Finns joining their force against Novgorod, evened the game. Without Finns, Novgorod would have been able to focus elsewhere.

Also, the karjalaiset tribe are considered to be one possiblity that burned and looted the Swedish capital of Sigtuna. All the Swedish capitals were burned and looted by foreign attackers, most cases unknown. Novgorod or its allies would be the ones to suspect.

If you think Finns were an unarmed band, you don't know what you are talking about! The finds of Crusade Age weaponry is more numerous in Finland than in Sweden! Admittedly, this has to do with grave goods continuing longer in Finland than in Sweden, but Finland never was a poor area what comes to weapon finds, ever since the Roman Iron Age! Quite the contrary!

I think there shouldnt be any towns besides Turku in Finland, this was a pretty meaningless place after all.

As I'm not a player (yet) I cannot say how many villages you can put there. But I would suggest at least those 3 I mentioned earlier, the central settlements of the tribes. There were clearly 3 different regions, central places 1200 AD.

Porvoo, Viipuri and Nousiainen

Porvoo wasn't a big settlement 1200. Käkisalmi (Korela) was more important by far than Viipuri 1200. There was a wooden fortification in Viipuri, but Käkisalmi seems to have been the biggest settlement in Karelia (and was the 2nd biggest city in Novgorod, I hear). Nousianen is rather close to Turku...

Guys, seek "Suomen muinaiskaupungit" from Finnish Wikipedia. It gives suggestions of theorized names and locations of ancient cities. The article says that these weren't exactly "city-like". Well, call them villages or settlements. They don't need to be cities.

Rikala could be one good suggestion, and Sauvala, too. Varsinais-Suomi was very rich what comes to archaeological finds. IF we need to get more of these villages than Vanaja(n linna), Turku/Aurajoki/Vanhalinna and Karjala/Käkisalmi. Also they suggest Kurkela as a name to Nousiainen. I'm anot familiar of these theories of names, but these are usually suggested by historians.. based on place names or oral traditions.

I strongly disagree with you about oral stories.
Sure, many are false. Many are exaggerated. But in many times, a simple truth lies behind them.

Right. They aren't reliable. Especially sagas are the worst kind: they are heroic boasting tales created for the very reason. These were written down by court scribes and local tolkiens, hundred(s) of years later. And what's worse, they often expand the stories even further back, to creation of kingdoms and mythical starts of families. Nordic sagas and skaldi poems and Finnish sung poems  are good to study the world image of the time it was written down, the myths and religions people had, when they were written.

 

[Sotuu]

what we see here is that russian arrogance again 

and for that saga thing abt scandinavian kings it could be partly correct coz humans did come to europe through north from Asia and as Liekki mentioned (?) Finland has had humans since ice age coz there has been lots of resources to live with.

and Liekki's question abt kainuu I didnt look that case very accurate but there surely was sami ppl in the north and they did have atleast 1 settlement big enough to count

E: now that I checked abt the map I think I tried to locate it as Kajaani but my circle went bit too east

 

[Liekki]

as Liekki mentioned (?) Finland has had humans since ice age coz there has been lots of resources to live with.

I only said Aurajoki river valley was inhabited since Mesolithic Stone Age, but you are right, and right about resources as well. Hunting was a very good livelyhood! Seal crease and furs were especially good trade items: could buy you wine from Southern Europe.

I read an interesting article about Corded Ware culture ceramics from a Finnish archaeolgy periodical Muinaistutkija. The ceramic vases have SHARP bottoms, so it had been wondered how could you keep them erect, what's the point`They turned the vases upside down, their mouth against the ground and bottom up. Filling the vases with birch bark they could make birch tar. The article writer thinks it possible thats what they used the vases for.

and Liekki's question abt kainuu I didnt look that case very accurate but there surely was sami ppl in the north and they did have atleast 1 settlement big enough to count

Alright. Well I would love to see Kainuu as well! I don't know if Kainuu is a Sami identity/organization/nation, but 1200AD it can well be. It is hypotized that Kainuu originally located much southern in Finland, and the northern Kainuu is just its remnant.

I think the Bay of Bottnia area, either side of the bay, would be the best place for Kainuu 1200 AD. That's where many maps write the name. BUT if there is only Southern Finland... then 1200 AD Kainuu can't make it. Unfortunately!

Maybe Finnish tribe faction could have Sami troops? Archers? Ski-troops? Fast and light to retreat and attack.

 

[Temuzu]

what we see here is that russian arrogance again 

Im Finnish.

 

[Sotuu]

hmph...then why all the crap like comrade and that picture 

 

[Liekki]

Im Finnish.

Nevertheless, you're purposedly trolling. Sotuu makes a good point about your avatar (with the Soviet flag). Are you trolling and anti-Finnish because of Soviet sympathy and revenge-mentality, Comrade Temuzu? Make your points, if you have them.

Calling Finns insignificant is out of line. Did the pope deny the eastern trade from the whole Northern Europe because of an insignificant tribe(s)? Did not the Nordic bishops and the popes' correspondence during the whole era tell about worrying the preassure against Finland? Did not the popes take Finland under their personal protection and forbid violence against Finns?

Do you think it was insignificant that Novgorod for 300 years, throughout its existence, made war expeditions to Finland? Do you not think that the war expeditions Novogorodians and Finns did against each others helped the Swedes, and helped the Danes and Germans in the Baltic Peninsula? Is it insignificant that the battles were fought in Finland and Karelia? Do you not see Novgorod expanding north and westward through Finland?

 

[Untitled.]

You guys do know a huge chunk of the Finnish population is very socialistic, right? Not to mention the state itself... Whether or not Temuzu has communist sympathies I really don't see any reason for him not to use a certain name and avatar. Are you really serious about labeling him as a troll just because of that? Oh, how ignorant of you.

Also, cut the nationalistic crap. I'm all for historical sources and patriotism but some of this stuff goes a bit too far to my liking.

 

[Temuzu]

Word.

Im Finnish.

Nevertheless, you're purposedly trolling. Sotuu makes a good point about your avatar (with the Soviet flag). Are you trolling and anti-Finnish because of Soviet sympathy and revenge-mentality, Comrade Temuzu?

Nope.

There is NO PROBLEMS listing the suomalaiset (Finns Proper) and hämäläiset (Tavastians) tribes as one tribe. They had similar material culture, they spoke the same language, and the Russian Chronicles consider they were same side. The Russians name these separately, so there may have been tribe organisations, or it's just because of the location. However, it makes no big difference, they can be the same faction. They CAN be two factions, too (they had different endonymes = called themselves and their land by different name - but the ROOT of the name is same SUOMI (Finland), HÄME (Tavastland), SAAMI (Lappland) are all descendant of the same root word).

Alright. So, tell me, why dont we have one big Italian nation? They had different names, sure, but their culture and language, just like the Finnish tribes. Hell, while we're at it, lets unite the Spanish factions! And whats up with that South-France state, lets give that to France, theyre so similar, nobody will notice!

Also, what would that root word be? Im interested how someone managed to twist something into Suomi, Häme and Saami.

If a nation doesn't have written records, it does not mean it's insignificant! Were Germanic tribes insignificant north side of Rome? The Scythians? The Mongols? "Barbarian" tribes could have sophisticated warfare system and organized structures, without written languages.

Youre putting words in my mouth. I dont recall talking about anything related to written records.

The hämäläiset tribe made war expeditions to the Novgorodian lands and against their allies, repeatedly. During 300 years warfare, the Novgorodians made several war expeditions, but still were unable to subdue or pacify the Finns.

Unable, or unwilling? Occupying a huge forest with thousands of lakes and angry peasants lurking everywhere isnt exactly ideal, especially considering there were much more valuable lands elsewhere.

Finland and Karelia were the very battle ground of this war, where Novgorod was against the Finns and the Nordic bishops. Swedes and Finns joining their force against Novgorod, evened the game. Without Finns, Novgorod would have been able to focus elsewhere.

Which war is this we are talking about again? A name would be pretty neat.

If you think Finns were an unarmed band, you don't know what you are talking about! The finds of Crusade Age weaponry is more numerous in Finland than in Sweden! Admittedly, this has to do with grave goods continuing longer in Finland than in Sweden, but Finland never was a poor area what comes to weapon finds, ever since the Roman Iron Age! Quite the contrary!

I dont remember saying that. Could you quote the part in my post where I said that Finns were an unarmed band? Much appreciated.

Calling Finns insignificant is out of line. Did the pope deny the eastern trade from the whole Northern Europe because of an insignificant tribe(s)?

Yup. Religion works in funny ways. Novgorod happened to be full of Orthodox people, the rare Finnish Christians gave a nice reason to make the life of the heretics a little less easy.

 

[Liekki]

Whether or not Temuzu has communist sympathies I really don't see any reason for him not to use a certain name and avatar. Are you really serious about labeling him as a troll just because of that?

I woudn't judge hmi for the cgosen nickname or the abatar. But if he comes with revenge-mentality, that's another thing.

Also, cut the nationalistic crap. I'm all for historical sources and patriotism but some of this stuff goes a bit too far to my liking.

As soon as you point out the nationalistic crap.

 

[Untitled.]

I don't see anything resembling revenge mentality in Temuzu's posts at all. You're most likely making it up based on his nickname. In fact, he was already accused of 'Russian arrogance' because of his avatar and nickname.

As for the nationalist crap I would advice you to check Sotuu's hilarious conspiracy theories et al.

 

[Liekki]

Alright. So, tell me, why dont we have one big Italian nation?
..lets unite the Spanish factions!

There's MANY peoples where this isn't the case. That's hardly anything uncommon. There are Germans living outside of Germany. Kurds are a big nation living in many countries. What's your point?

Who is here uniting all the factions? What were the Finnish factions? If you read my posts, I'm not the one uniting them, or saying they weren't united. I'm saying we don't know that exactly, and both are possible.

Unable, or unwilling?

Unable. The Novgorodians also fought at times with the Karelians, and finally conquered them, obviously when the karelians participated Novgorodian internal disputes. The Hanseatic traders complined to the Novgorodians that they are being taxed by the Karelians, but Novgorodians could not promise them safe passage.

As you see from the Pähkinäsaari-peace made with the Swedes, the Novgorodians wanted and gained a whole lot of area, including northern Finland! Sweden gained only the southernmost part of Finland. Do you think they gained these areas, because the Swedes did not want them? Why was the border drawn that way then? Wouldn't Sweden have gained Northern Finland and Karelia if Novgorod didn't want it?

You forget that those forests include furry beasts and they can be burned to cultivate grain, and the rivers and lakes can be fished. All import material! All something you can tax. That huge amount of forest and lakes made a good fur trade business to Hansetic traders.

Which war is this we are talking about again? A name would be pretty neat.

It's called in English both Finnish-Novgorodian Wars and where Swedes took part, the Swedish-Novgoroddian Wars, in Finnish Suomalais-novgorodilaissodat, and in the Finnish Wikipedia Wikipedia it seems to be directed to a page "Novgorodin ja jäämien sodat." I doubt it has a one commonly used name, but it's the wars told by the Novgorodian chronicles.

Yup. Religion works in funny ways. Novgorod happened to be full of Orthodox people, the rare Finnish Christians gave a nice reason to make the life of the heretics a little less easy.

I certainly agree that this was very much policy of the bishops and the popes! They saw Novgorod as their enemy.

quote the part in my post where I said that Finns were an unarmed band?

I didn't say you did! I said "if you think".

You certainly seemed to bring forth this "useless place" idea, which is a direct direct translation what you said about Finland in 1200AD in the Finnish forums, and "this was a pretty meaningless place after all" in this forum. My reply of written records and "unarmed band" was a reply to the "meaningless."

 

[FrisianDude]

Allow me to post the following interjection; evidence please, y'all. A bicker match doesn't help the poor fellows making this mod, who would they believe? Frankly, this sort of bickering would just make me, personally, more likely to abandon Finland in total rather than trying for historical accuracy. Luckily I am not the person making this mod. Bolding and colouring text is not the same as substantiating claims.

 

[Sotuu]

abt "conspiracy theories" we'll see when WW3 comes 

but back to the point...I wouldn't call Finland useless place coz there were lots of iron in the lakes and nature provided ppl with food and other resources. so how can some1 even think that as "useless place". and If novgorodians/russians thought this place would be useless then why did they fought against us all the way to 1940-century.

I don't understand why ppl are so much against the facts that Finland existed long before middle age though it might not been with the exact name of Finland

and for frisiandude if u dont bother to read whole topic the I would suggest that u dont even post here...what we are TRYING to do here is collect enough research so korinov could use it