Printable View
I hate to be the drama queen, but I haven't got a response yet, and I have access and am a 'fluent" in medieval Scottish and Irish military history,and Byzantine warfare. (Believe it or not, but none of the troops actualy wore purple except a few Imperial Household horsemen!) and I would like to have a hand in it all.
Thanks again.
Lol, I was actually thinking is BKB the Blind King of Bohemia too?? !! :laugh4:Quote:
Hey I got banned from TWC (for a day) for sticking up for your mod! Can't say I care though - I accidently called someone a bad word but quite frankly he deserved it!
Cheers man, as modders we understand the pressure of disgruntled people out there. :2thumbsup:
However, as I suggested, it is an adequate way of achieving something close to the events. Nobody said it was perfect, I just happen to think it better than having no Ilkhanate presence and since there were hostilities, this way will at least reflect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
Expanding really. Neither Timur nor his prodege possessed the ability to destabilise the White Horde while Urus was alive. Toqtamish began his military career quite miserably, suffering defeat on more than one occasion. When Urus died there were at least, blood claimants to the throne which is very different to the state of affairs with the Golden Horde. At that time, with Batu's line extinct and after Nogai had done much to unsettle things, Mamai had set himself up as self proclaimed ruler. He was defeated at Kulikovo, an obvious blow to morale and even while he regrouped, Toqtamish took advantage of his weak position. At least Toqtamish was Jochid by decent even if he was not the proclaimed heir, or had relied upon Timur for his position; his defeat of Mamai and subsequent uniting of both 'Hordes' would probably have been readily accepted by the masses as a means of stability and hence, a stronger position. Unfortunately he became a little too ambitiousQuote:
Yes im aware of all this and agree 100%. However what does it contest that I said? Or were you simply expanding upon what I had said?
.......Orda
Yes expanding. I understand you may believe me to be ignorant of the situation, however I was well aware of all these events. However I did not think they were important facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
The important thing I was stressing was the Toktahmesh was the agressor against Temur, and not vice versa. The details of how Toktamish rose to power would simply have lost that point. kataphraktoi was saying that since Temur fought against the Mongol Khanates that made it an internal conflict. I tried to briefly describe the stituations because I felt with the facts in hand it becomes aparent that Temur was his own conqueror, not a rebel insurgent and it is entirely improper to display him as such.
Thing is did he have much of a choice? Steppe armies usually depend on conquests. Temur experienced this and his force wasnt even a true steppe one. Many times he had to go on campaign because otherwise his warriors may change loyalties. After uniting the horde, Toktahmesh had to lead his armies somewhere. The only real options were Temur or Europe, and going further into Europe simply wasnt really worth it.Quote:
Unfortunately he became a little too ambitious
Hello all...just a small question, if CA extends faction cap to 30, as they have been implying in the past.What more faction have you been thinking to add?
Would we see Cilician Armenia?Or perhapes emerging Crusader states when territory of jerusalem has been conquered by crusading army?
Gazi ur from Mostar, I had a friend from Mostar too!!!
Lovely girl she was :2thumbsup:
As to ur question, we had a few emerging factions in mind but didn't set anything concrete.
Perhaps Cilician Armenians as a scripted rebellions if not as an emerging faction.
I don't know why you draw this conclusion, it's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
It really depends which way you want to look at it. Personally, I don't believe he acted out of 'having no other choice' or that his armies actually required more conquest. Afterall, hadn't he recently united both 'Hordes'? Added to that he had also re-enforced the Tatar Yoke. It goes back to the original south Caucasus region, disputed with the Ilkhanate, never regained and now under Timur's authority; Toqtamish was now a bit puffed up but that's just my opinionQuote:
Thing is did he have much of a choice? Steppe armies usually depend on conquests. Temur experienced this and his force wasnt even a true steppe one. Many times he had to go on campaign because otherwise his warriors may change loyalties. After uniting the horde, Toktahmesh had to lead his armies somewhere. The only real options were Temur or Europe, and going further into Europe simply wasnt really worth it.
......Orda
Anywho, kataphraktoi graciously invited me to work on the mod, for researching on the Scots, but I pointed out to him that I'm quite able to work on things as well, like the Irish, the Byzantines, and other such civilizations.
I have yet to recieve a reply or confirmation, however, so I'll say of now, that I look forward to working with you guys as a historical adviser.
-Mac
Welcome Mac Clan to team.:balloon2:
Well thank you sir. But the only thing is, and I guess I'll be eased into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
But uh, I know your Rometotalrealism site, but have you guys got a Medieval Total Realism site up yet?
Well, they're not Cilician Armenians, but Armenians will be prominent in the Fatimid army (Early Egypt).Quote:
Would we see Cilician Armenia
Its not made by the same team that made RTR. They're just using the name to draw attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Clan
Ah, I had read on the forums that some members of the RTR team were moving to the MTR team. There was a big announcement about it a while back. In any case, what are the rest of the RTR doing anywho?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monarch
And btw, I accept kataphratoi's invite to resaerch/advise for Scotland in this mod.
Thank you.
Just a clarification in RTR and MTR.
The leadership in RTR is essentially the same as MTR, the people who inspired MTR (not me read my siggy) were from RTR's upper echelon. When we say RTR's team is not the same as MTR does not mean we're a different team that took the "total realism" name from RTR. We're stating that not everyone in RTR is working on MTR, only a small coterie.
Hope that clears the confusion.
Mac Clan, chek ur PM, its all formalised.
Question for Duke of Serbia, did you make any concept art for serbian faction units?
Done. Thanks alot.Quote:
Originally Posted by kataphraktoi
Yes. :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monarch
Zdravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzar_Dushan
You asked me that on twcenter. Yes, I did it and you can find in sk.co.yu/forum in Izlazi Mediewal II Total Ware thread in page ? Look around 10.:2thumbsup:
Are you here to make trouble again Port Lobo?Quote:
Yes.
Read what I wrote earlier.
Quote:
Just a clarification in RTR and MTR.
The leadership in RTR is essentially the same as MTR, the people who inspired MTR (not me read my siggy) were from RTR's upper echelon. When we say RTR's team is not the same as MTR does not mean we're a different team that took the "total realism" name from RTR. We're stating that not everyone in RTR is working on MTR, only a small coterie.
Hope that clears the confusion.
Your tone seemed caustic to me, but then again thats the problem with written communication, tone can easily be misinterpreted. My mistake for misinterpreting.Quote:
I don't know why you draw this conclusion, it's not true.
Yea, I agree his ego probally got a little bloated from his victories, however I think it was also necesary. The loyalties of the steppe cheiftans can easily be turned and the only safe remedy is succesful military conquest. Perhaps a charismatic personality could have held the loyalties together, however I don't belief Tokthamesh possesed such a trait anyways.Quote:
It really depends which way you want to look at it. Personally, I don't believe he acted out of 'having no other choice' or that his armies actually required more conquest. Afterall, hadn't he recently united both 'Hordes'? Added to that he had also re-enforced the Tatar Yoke. It goes back to the original south Caucasus region, disputed with the Ilkhanate, never regained and now under Timur's authority; Toqtamish was now a bit puffed up but that's just my opinion
Hoplitai? Hoplitai didn't even exist in the Byzantine times. :inquisitive:
sorry edyz, but as i'm sure you know, "hoplitai" really just means "heavily-armored soldiers." I'm not sure what in what capacity the Byzantines use "hoplitai," but they do, as well as "hoplitikon" and "hoploi bares" (is that the proper diclension on baros?) along with non-hopl-references like "stratiotai" etc.
http://www.nplg.gov.ge/ic/library_e/gabeskiria/
verry huge source about Georgian history and military afairs:
“The nation of Crusaders”
Georgia is known in the Christian world as the Holy Virgin’s share-land, where are preserved some of the greatest sacred objects of Christianity – the shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, and a nail presented by the Emperor of Byzantine Constantine, a very nail used during the crucifixion of the Savior.
The majority of Georgians are Orthodox Christians, although along with them, there is quite a substantial number of Muslims (most of the Acharels and Ingilos, Georgians in Turkey and Iran, part of the Meskhs), who underwent the Islamization during the last three centuries. This is clearly proven by a very transparent etymology of Ingilo (“Engilav” in Turkish signifies “a recently converted”). The local groups of ethnic confessionals among Georgians make also the Georgians of Gregorian or Catholic faith, that not very long ago they were proclaimed as “Armenians” and “French”, and only during the last period they have started to correct the results of the improper naming and the genuine regeneration of their real identity is underway.
True, the Georgian nation is a blend of the followers of the Christian religion and Islam, but Georgia, as an old sanctuary of the Orthodox Christianity on Asian continent, is still definitely associated with the Christian country of great traditions of culture and statehood, as well as the stronghold of Christianity in the Caucasus.
Christianity was preached in Georgia as early as the I century A..D., by Apostles Andria the First called, Simon of Canaan, Matatia, Thoma, Barthlome and Thadeoz. Two of them – Apostle Simon of Canaan and Apostle Matatia, are buried in Georgia. According to written sources, the Georgian church was founded by St.Apostle Andria, who blessed the first Georgian Episcope in Atskuri and founded an Episcopacy Chair for him. So, we can safely say, that the Christian church and parish existed incessantly, since the I century. Then, the Georgian Church was called The Georgian Greek Orthodox Church from the ancient period – till, and including the XVIIIc., it was also called “The Georgian Apostles Church”. Therefore, it is reasonable to restore the ancient name of the church and call it officially not “The Georgian Greek Orthodox Church”, but “The Apostles Church of Georgia” (129, p.16-19, 42, 55).
As a result of the missionary activities of St.Nino (see page 115) in the IVc. in the kingdom of Kartli (Iberia), Christianity was proclaimed an official religion. The first Episcopate Chair was founded in the capital of the kingdom – Mtskheta. The head of the Church (Ecclesia) bore the title of the Chief Episcopal. According to the opinion of the majority of Georgian researches of the Georgian ecclesia, from the beginning the Georgian Church was supervised by the Patriarch – first it was of Constantinople, then – of Antioch, and it became autocephalous in the Vc. Yet, there is also another opinion, that the autocephaly was already achieved in the IV c. At any rate, one point is clear: in the 60ies of the V c., in Kartli had already existed 12 eparchies, and the chief of ecclesia for that period, had already received the title of Catholicos. In the VI c. in Kartli, there already were more than 24 eparchies, and in the VII c – more than 35. In the 20-ies of the XI c., the Georgian Patriarchy was established as the 6th in the world in order. XII c. was marked with the foundation of new Episcopal chairs. The church was endowed with juridical and taxation immunity. The eparchies, constituting Georgian Patriarchy, administratively corresponded to saeristavo-tanships with the communities they included. In the XIX c. the Russian authorities nullified the autocephaly of the Georgian Church, and the title of Catholicos-Patriarch, prohibited the sermons and service in Georgian. The church property was given to the Treasury. The Georgian church was transformed into the egzarchos of the Russian church. On March 12 (25), 1917, the Georgian priesthood restored the autocephality of the Georgian church and in September of the same year, Catholicos-Patriarch was elected.
To the top
There are 15 Greek Orthodox Churches of autocephaly: 1) Constantinople, the Head – The Chief Episcope of Constantinople and The Patriarch of the World; the Chair - in Constantinople – Istanbul, 2) Alexandria – Head – The Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria and all Africa, 3) Antioch- Head – The Patriarch of the City-Lord, Great Antioch and all East, Chair – in Damascus, 4) Jerusalem – Patriarch of the Saint City of Jerusalem and all Palestine, Chair – in Jerusalem, 5) Russia – head – Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia, Chair – in Moscow, 6) Georgia – Head – The Chief Episcope of Mtskheta-Tbilisi and the All-Georgia, Chair – in Tbilisi, 7)Serbia – Head – Patriarch of All-Serbia, Chief Episcope of Pesh and Metropolitan of Belgrad-Carlovatz, Chair – in Belgrade, 8) Rumania – Head of Patriarch of All-Rumania Metropolitan of Ungro-Vlahe and the Chief Episcope of Bucharest, Chair – in Bucharest, 9) Bulgaria – Chief-Patriarch of all Bulgaria, Chair – in Sofia, 100 Cyprus – head – Chief Episcope of New Yustinian and the Island of Cyprus, Chair – in Levcusia, 11) Elladise – Chief –Episcope of Athens and All-Helladic, Chair in Athens, 12) Albania – Chief of Metropolitan of Tirana and the Chief Episcope of All-Albania, 13) Poland – Head – Metropolitan of Warsaw and All-Poland, Chair – in Warsaw, 14) Czech-Slovakia, Head – Metropolitan of Prague and All-Checo-Slovacia, Cathedra –in Prague, 15) America – Head-Episcope of Washington, Metropolitan of All-America and Canada, Cathedra – in New York.
In the world church diptych, the Georgian Patriarchy invariably held the 6th place – after Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The existing hierarchical position was retained even after the Patriarch of Constantinople presented the title of Patriarch to the Head of the Russian Church at the end of the XVI c. and in the new diptych it was allotted the 5th place, with the exception of Rome.
Documentary data of the Georgian history provides the names of 140 heads of the Georgian church (among them 13 Chief Episcopes, 50 Catholicos Chief Episcopes, and 77 Catholicos Patriarchs). After the restoration of the autocephaly of the Georgian Church, its leaders were: Kirion II Sadzaglishvili (1917-1918), Leonide Okropiridze (1918-1921), Ambrosi Khelaia (1921-1927), Kristephore III Tsitskishvili (1927-1932), Kalistrate Tsintsadze (1932-1952), Melkisedek Pkhaladze (1952-1960), Eprem II Sidamonidze (1960-1972) and Davit V Devdariani (1072-1977), and since December 23, 1977, The All-Georgia Catholicos, 77th in order, Ilia II Ghudushauri-Shiolashvili (see page 116-117), whose residence is in Tbilisi.
According to the decree of the IV World Church Congress, the boundaries of the church should coincide with state borders. According to the laws of the Fathers , the limits of the jurisdiction of the Georgian Church invariably coincide with the Georgian State borders. The land of Georgia, as the Christian state is divided into 27 eparchies (see page 118-119).
So, for 2000 years, Georgia has firmly been following the road of Christianity, and to quote Giorgi Mtatsmindeli’s saying, “This is the true faith of our kin, and from the day we perceived it, we never waver to the left, or to the right, and will do it never, if God’s wish”.
To the top
As the soul-lightening Ilia said, “Lord Jesus Christ was crucified for the world, so were we – for Jesus Christ. We unbuttoned the bosom of our small Georgia, and on its breast, as on the rock we erected the temple of Christianity, using our bones for stones, and our blood – for lime. And the infernal gates were unable to run it over. We decreased in number, almost none of us left, we sacrificed our wives and children, we fought unfair wars and brought them to the justified end, we exchanged our flesh for the soul and spirit, and a handful of nation, we preserved Christianity, did not let it stifle in this small land of ours, we call our homeland and fatherland – with so much justified pride…” (116-p.12).
Indeed, the history of Georgia presents a classical example of the selfless struggle of fifteen centuries long, and we must acknowledge, a parallel to it can hardly be found in the world history. We do not find it exaggeration, the name a Russian researcher E.Markov applied to Georgians: “The nation of crusaders” and provides their general historical mission with the following appreciation: “Europe, and especially Russia, still fail to fully recognize the importance of the historical mission of Georgia with regards to European Christianity with its centuries-old suffering and incessant struggle…
…The Georgian people are the true nation of crusaders. Similar to the crusader-knight’s life, the life of this nation was divided between prayers and bloody battles with Islam. For more than thousand years the nation did not slacken its grasp of the sword, and if they lacked Christian cross embroidered on their robes, it was firmly embedded in the heart of the nation…
…Thus, Georgia appeared the first redoubt of the Christian defense against Islam. This unintentional ally of Europe, did a great historical service to it…
…The powerful Muslim force of the Orient crushed its energy and its fanaticism against the in crushable breast of small Georgia” (85, pp.182-185).
These emotional appraisals of the Russian author would have made greater impressions, had he disclosed one of the basic motives of the historical martyrdom of Georgians, which was a religious unity of Georgians with the Greeks; for that reason, the followers of Mazdeism or Manometers considered the Georgians the closest allies of the Byzantines in the Caucasus and in the entire Asia Minor, and correspondingly, applied to the Georgians far stricter forms of their religious persecution, than towards the followers of the Gregorian faith of the Christian Armenians. To illustrate the said, it is sufficient to refer to the fragment of the story of martyrdom of Rajden the First Believer (XII c.), where it is said about the Persians’ “unwavered enmity against Christians” and the presses applied to the Georgians: “…Great was the struggle then and inexhaustible was hostility against the Christians, and Greeks in particular. But towards us, Georgians, for the appreciation of Greeks and unity with them we proclaimed – they expressed their will to join them in their animosity towards the Greeks (25, p.242).
To the honor of the Georgian people, in spite of many centuries of its religious repressions, it did not betray it ethno-confessional credo, and did not turn from the principle of “appreciation and unity with the Greeks” they shared the religion with, when once powerful Byzantine fell prey victim to the aggression of the Turks and Georgia appeared in the encirclement of the Muslim countries. But an unyielding will of the Georgians and the self-sacrificing attitude to the religion determined an exceptionally stable character of the course of its cultural and historical orientation, and an exceptional staunchness of the tradition in its self-determination as an inseparable part of the Christian civilization. Our ancestors’ strife “to be… considered the members of the culturally progressive mankind and viewed their own struggle with evil forces, that existed beyond the boundaries of this world, not only as a fight for their own national interests, but at the same time, as the struggle for the universal interests of the cultural mankind. That was the type of the task, which increased the gust and pride of our foremost ancestors in their endeavour to fulfill it” (128, p.229).
To the top
We shall not make a mistake if we say that Christian mentality played almost a decisive role in the process of consolidation of the Georgian nation. It became a supporting ideology both - in the drive for the retaining of national identity and also in their uneven bloody struggle for the centralization of the country, especially, after the fall of Byzantine Empire, when Georgia became a lone island of Christianity in the entire Asia Minor. Surrounded by religious enemies, and under the conditions of “permanent encirclement”, “Christianity became one of the foremost factors in retaining national identity. In feudal Georgia, Christianity seemed merged with the national”(97, p.88).
And indeed, in the historical and ethnographic context of Georgia, the terms of “Greek Orthodox Christian” and “Georgian”, in fact, became synonymous. This is clearly proved by a citation of Prince Vakhushti Bagrationi: “But whenever you ask a Kartvelian (i.e. an inhabitant of Kartli), or an Imeri (i.e. an inhabitant of West Georgia, in general), or a Meskhi, a Kakheli or Heri, “Who they are?” their instant answer will be: “Kartveli”. Very significant is also Ioane Batonishvili’s “Kalmasoba”, where an episode of asking an ordinary priest from Racha the following: “Priest! Are you Rachveli, or are you a Christian?” – and the prompt answer of the priest followed: “Both!” (31, p.28). Clearly, in this case, the Rachveli would have signified his origin, while a Christian, apparently, corresponded to the notion of a Georgian.
For this reason, it is absolutely logical, that “In the past, the Georgian Church had a deeply natural character. Our cathedrals and monasteries were often transformed into fortresses… The church and the homeland were firm in each other’s support and nowadays it is quite difficult to determine, which of the three had a prevalence: the state, the fatherland, or the church, to such extent were they tied to - and intermingled with one another, making a unity of blood and spirit. Georgia, as the Land and Lot of the Virgin, was in constant struggle with the Muslims. The Church supported the country, led its pious army and prayed to Lord to stay victorious. What is instructive to us – that is the national character of the Georgian church in the past, and in that aspect the role and amount of its social service to the country should not be forgotten. (130, p.304-305).
K.Gamsakhurdia states, that “Neither the Spanish fanaticism, nor the ascetics and dogmatisms of Roman Catholicism characterized our faith. We do not remember either the atrocities of the Bartholomew’s Night, or the Huguenots, or auto-da-fes. Our monks remained citizens even within the walls of their monasteries and continued their care for the society.
Remember Grigol Khandzteli and his disciples, the builders of Klarjeti (59, p.148-149).
To the top
The militant character of Georgian Christianity is revealed by the factor, that the issue of the country’s “to be, or not to be” was always immediately taken up by the representatives of the clergy, famed for rare purity of its ethics and flawless patriotism, who took part in battles with the same enthusiasm that the old Georgian rules obliged the mundane citizens liable for call-up to show. The fact is that at the most disastrous stage of the Georgian history, the representatives of our clergy began to fight personally in the forward position, and some of them even provided their compatriots exhausted with their incessant warfare – compatriots, with encouraging examples of courage and fabulous feats. It is known, that the kingdom of Kakheti was divided into 4 banner-tans, and three of them were led by episcopes (of Bodbe, Nekresi and Rustavi), while the fourth was under the supervision of a person allotted by the king (mostly, the princes). And a sub-chapter of Vakhushti’s “Descriptions” particularly underlines the participation of the clergy in military campaigns (“Of Joining the Army by the Episcopes”): “But joining the army by episcopes, likewise the chase and hunt of beasts and taking the part in fights, became a habit: but when the Mohammedans learned the fact of King Davit’s (Davit X, king of Kartli in the XVI c. – G.G.) unyielding struggle and shrewdness, and the weakness and ineffectiveness of the country’s episcopes, the episcopes said: “Do not allow weakness and ineffectiveness win you over and do not step back from your faith, religion and ways of yours, and we will become your leaders” and behaved accordingly [like it happened with Mroveli Avalishvili, who was told - after he had heard confessions in the Marabda battle: “If you are going to unsheathe your sward for fighting, order some other confessor to hear us, but if not – we would rather you did it”. To which he answered: “The war is today for the religion and Word of Christ, and not only for my sake; so, mind: I will be foremost in grasping my sword and spilling my blood!”. As for another reason: since the army was formed on the basis of drafting and the episcopes had the nobles amid serfs and imputed peasants for the cases of warfare, therefore they were obliged to assist their sovereigns and masters in the campaigns and this is the way it is from ancient times to present” (23, p.37-38)
Thus, we have the grounds to call the historical Christianity of Georgia, “militant Christianity”, or “dynamic Christianity”. This very type of Christianity, with its true spirit and pathos is clearly expressed in a phrase from an old Georgian chronicle: “…Now consider the kindness and the strength of faith, the people of Sakartvelo, the esteemed and the selected ones, and the extent of pride and endeavour they proved against the infidels in their strife to evade the debasement of their country, because fighting with them, seemed a great hunt and chase of beasts and the enjoyment on the plains of Karaya” (22, p.458).
This specificity of Georgian Christianity “introduced some changes in Christian dogmatisms, too. For Christianity in Georgia, extraordinary religious fanaticism was as alien as the development of religious sects, religious wars and inquisition” (97, p.88); practically, the country remained safe from the problems of controversy between the social leaders and the clerics, and local population remained free from the hard press of European clergy which played its role in keeping the Georgian mind appreciative and it likewise concerned its very respectful attitude, too, towards the object of the Christian cult. As A.Tsereteli expressed it, “The Georgians, in general, have always had the respect to and even fear of the temples, to the point that they would not dare to take away treasures – not only from the church, but even from its yard, within its walls. In many places, already ruinous, and in the remnants of the forgotten temples, still existed untouched old objects and offerings… Thieves, robbers or assassins would spend the night in those holy ruins but would never take anything from the place, so hard it is to break something that people’s feelings have transformed into the laws of the mind…” (111, p.36).
To the top
Painful experience of religious persecution solidified in the Georgians magnanimity and the spirit of tolerance, the attitude of religious benevolence towards national minorities living in the country. As notes I.Chavchavadze, “A Georgian, crucified for his religion, knows how to respect the religion of others. Therefore, no one can find an example in our history of Georgians wishing to suppress or persecute others’ faith. Armenians, Jews, even Muslims, living among us, can never rebuke us for anything. And the ones, persecuted for their faith in other countries – here, in our country find the haven of peace and freedom of consciousness” (115, p.13). Iv.Javakhishvili, when discussing the matter of old Georgia, and in particular, “the Golden Age” of its political power, considers the proof of the “exceptional culture” in “the matter of peaceful and kind attitude which reigned among the sons of various nations and religions, the religious hatred had no power and grounds in the state, on the contrary – the diversity of religions and faiths did not interfere with various general cultural activities… Then, in the state of Georgia (the period of Queen Tamar’s reign – G.G.), a peaceful collaboration of three types of the clergy was possible: the Georgian Greek Orthodox and the Armenian Gregorian priests, and Muslim Cadis and Sheikhs gave examples of the peaceful cooperation. This is the most amazing and strongest proof of the culture of the society, an admiring example of international cooperation of that period! (123, p.306-307).
K.Gamsakhurdia demonstrates a rightful attitude, stating, “The racial theory and practice are completely alien to the Georgian nation. Those, who have studied the Georgian history, would easily notice that even at the period of Davit and Tamar, their great state spread from Nikopsia to Daruband, struggled and created not only through the support of the Georgians by origin, but also with the help and support of those non-Georgian nations, who considered themselves to be closely related to the Georgian culture. The cleverest kings of Georgia had always tried to get the non-Georgian population of the Caucasus interested in the task of defending the Georgian state” (57, p.341).
G.Asatiani believes, that “We live in a small sector of the planet, where since ancient times, antagonistic ethnic and political entities – states, tribes, and religions, fought and devoured each other as scorpions. Here always ruled the law of the plunderers. The strong was bound to eliminate the weak, the big was to devour the little, and the latter had to crawl like reptiles in search of dark passages - or choose the fate of dust under the feet of the strong – in order to somehow guarantee the survival of their own poor selves. And, in spite of that, the Georgian people managed to retain (at every stage of their history) their rare tolerance towards all nations and all types. Any small district in Tbilisi can represent a symbol of that. Where else, on such a small territory, for a number of centuries had stood so close to one another, like a unified architectural ensemble, the Orthodox, Gregorian and Catholic churches, a mosque and a synagogue? (45, pp.73-74).
No doubt, the proof of the Georgians’ tolerant nature and the exceptional broadness and nobility of their ethnic character, should be considered the unique sayings, like: “I will stand by you, the Tartar, if you call yourself my brother”, or – “If a Lack or a Tartar starts quarrelling with your brother, still judge fairly” (37, p.232, 239).
Luckily, the Georgians, exhausted by the wars for their religion and the maintenance of their national individuality, have never tried to introduce any basic corrections in the order of their mentality and revise their traditions of tolerance, because their nature is rich with unique quality of loving the fellow-men, tempered during the number of centuries, which – together with unshakeble Christian morale – “received a lively sunny form in the Georgian transcription” (46, p.347).
And the same opinion is expressed by K.Gamsakhurdia, “Although the religion of Christianity was the invention of totally unrelated and foreign race, but in this case, too, the peculiarity of the creative force of the Georgian nation and its strength were also expressed here. Not a single nation perceived this religion the way we did; for us Christianity was a position… We have the right to say that not a single European Christian nation has ever tried to and succeeded in lighting the religion through the optics of poetry, like we have managed to” (59, p.148).
True, nowadays more than a million of Georgians are the followers of Muslim religion, but a big part of them still maintains the Georgian national identity, which became their heirloom from the epoch of the Georgians’ political, cultural and ideological unity. And the best proof of that is a rare firmness of Acharuli ethnic consciousness, putting an end to 300 year-old Turkish supervision, that a folk poet Hussein Kanjaradze smartly said in his verse, “My religion of Tartars, my origin – of Georgian”.
In short, the religious and ethic characteristics of Georgians proves the idea of Akaki Tsereteli, that:
“As long as the Georgians
maintain their religion
ethics will not vanish
and no one can destroy them”
about Georgian military history, please read :
http://www.nplg.gov.ge/ic/library_e/gabeskiria/15.htm
...Georgia is already included in the list of factions...
yes, I know... my sources help the moderators to develope the Georgian faction.
I have a life, and so cannot join your team. But I do know quite a bit about Byzantine, so if you need research post it and I'll see if I can help. Also I would like to say that I really think you should recreate the city of Constantinople as well as reasonably possible. ( Have the great palace, true walls, the Hippodrome, etc.). There is an interesting site that has 3-D renders of a lot of Byzantine buildings from 1200. I researched some of them (the Hagia Sophia most heavily) and as far as I can see they are pretty accurate (and where things are unknown, they make good assumptions.) While it is not fully accurate, I think it is definately worth having a look at.
www.Byzantium1200.com
Hey, 31 factions is official, so now the Timurids can be their own faction:2cents:
Later today I will post in new thread Official faction list and Q&A about them:2thumbsup:
I'm willing to help out in a part time capacity as needed, not much computing skills though but I could do some research if required.