Mount & Blade: Warband - Viking Conquest DLC (Release Date: 11th December)
- Thread starter Raiden
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Inanch-Bilge
Adurnu c'mun.
Adorno said:
\,,/
Now that looks like a place I would enjoy. I can come and work for you? I can make awesome coffee and drink it all by myself
Adorno said:I suppose it can't hurt.Manu_La_Canette said:Maybe you can setup a direct webcam device in your studio so we consumers can live follow the developpment on a website?)))
With that awesome ambiance I'm sure the game won't take too long to be released
Alene, you might want somebody to taste the coffee and make sweet music with spoons as well. I'm that guy.
Adorno
The only thing i wish to read here is "come down, guys, not this year". If it is truth, do it. Just this short phrase.
It would be fair to fans to do this.
The only thing i wish to read here is "come down, guys, not this year". If it is truth, do it. Just this short phrase.
It would be fair to fans to do this.
Sobakozoid said:
You will have very soon more news
I've been watching the feed for couple of hours and you are still dancing like madAdorno said:I suppose it can't hurt.Manu_La_Canette said:Maybe you can setup a direct webcam device in your studio so we consumers can live follow the developpment on a website?
You think that's how things get done?!
so how historically accurate is this going to be? i am a dark age re-enactor, i reenact a wealthy Anglo-Saxon, and i hope to see the Anglo-Saxons in-game, the story of the Vikings can't be told without mentioning Anglo Saxon England.
as a reenactor of this period, i am very pleased to see this (i know im a bit late to the party) but i am a little concerned about the authenticity.. there are very few correct primary sources about the period, even the bayeux tapestry is incorrect on some things.
as a reenactor of this period, i am very pleased to see this (i know im a bit late to the party) but i am a little concerned about the authenticity.. there are very few correct primary sources about the period, even the bayeux tapestry is incorrect on some things.
If you are referring to armour, then no.George385 said:
The makers of the bayeux tapestry were just plain bad at accurately depicting the equipment used by warriors, and most other things in fact. I don't know how anybody can try to glean anything about the construction of that age's body armour besides its basic shape from the tapestry, anymore than one could accurately guess what a human face looked like based off of the faces in it.
People who try to say that they can know how the armour portrayed was constructed(based on the tapestry) are the truly inaccurate party.
Rallix said:
im not only referring to the armor, but events in the tapestry was the main thing i was referring to, the most significant event im thinking of is King Harold Godwinson's death. the tapestry says he was struck and killed by a Norman arrow, and thats what is taught in schools etc, but Harold was actually struck down by a Norman mounted knight, hence why Harold is in a few places on the same piece of the tapestry, and if that isnt enough to convince you, there are other written records of the battle that suggest that a Norman knight killed him, and if thats not enough, the Bayeux Tapestry was edited up until the late 18th century, and on the original tapestry there are stitch markings behind Harold's head that, and those markings are from a later date.
history is written by the victor, and that is proven in this case.
anyway, getting off topic, my point is that there are a lot of incorrect sources out there about the Dark Ages, so choose carefully for your sources. if a brytenwalda dev wants to know about a good historical source then PM me, i can point you in the direction of some sources (mainly books) that i know. and if need be a friend of mine has some extent examples of both Viking and Anglo-Saxon stuff.
theres a reason its called the ''Dark Ages'', its because very little is known about the period.
George385 said:
Wouldn't think you'd have much success reenacting it then.
We are aiming for a world that is historically believable. You will meet the actual kings and other prominent characters of the time.George385 said:
The armour, weapons and clothing should also be historically accurate. Many places/settlements are also based on archaeological findings.
We have a historian on the team guiding us on those matters. That being said it's still a game and fun gameplay comes first.
And as you say the sources in some areas can be scarce which has required some imagination based on what we know.
We look forward to feedback from players, especially in the area of historicity.
Hospes fori
Count
As far as I can tell the Bayeux Tapestry does not explicitly show Harold Godwinson being hit by an arrow. That is because his death is not precisely portrayed altogether. In the scene labelled "Harold rex interfectus est." 'King Harold was killed.' someone is shown being struck by an arrow to the head indeed, but at the same time there is another person being slain by a rider.George385 said:
The Bayeux Tapestry as it exists nowadays is not the only source for the story of the arrow in the eye (it would be the earliest, if not for what you mention about how the "arrow" is dubious in the original embroidery). Naturally, the Tapestry is recognized as Norman propaganda and has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I don't think that's enough to assert with such certainly that Harold was hacked down by a cavalryman. But if that's what happened, well, it would follow that the scene is actually depicted in the Tapestry correctly, with Harold being the second figure under the Latin text. So there'd be no historical manipulation in the Tapestry itself. Which makes it all fairly circular, if you ask me.
Well, the embroidery purports that Eadweard entrusted the kingdom to Willelme and that Harold swore an oath to support his claim, none of which is mentioned in Anglo-Saxon sources and all of which would be rather... curious, to say the least, if true. So I'd say it counts as propaganda even if they didn't go out of the way to deny that Harold had in fact been crowned, even if they didn't acknowledge him as the rightful king themselves.mcwiggum said:I beleive the Saxons who made the tapestry were abit cheeky. It's odd to call it Norman propaganda when they call Harold king.
As a note, I wouldn't expect the rather anti-Willelme Mss. D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to support the claim, but even the more neutral or pro-Willelme manuscripts completely gloss over the story.
mcwiggum said:I beleive the Saxons who made the tapestry were abit cheeky. It's odd to call it Norman propaganda when they call Harold king.
The Saxons didn't make the tapestry... They recently identified the person who made it, and he was a Norman cardinal if I can remember correctly.
Hospes fori said:As far as I can tell the Bayeux Tapestry does not explicitly show Harold Godwinson being hit by an arrow. That is because his death is not precisely portrayed altogether. In the scene labelled "Harold rex interfectus est." 'King Harold was killed.' someone is shown being struck by an arrow to the head indeed, but at the same time there is another person being slain by a rider.George385 said:
The person lying on the ground and the person shown to be hit in the eye with an arrow is the same person, King Harold.
Hospes fori
Count
What makes you believe that?George385 said:
Similar threads
