Russia in medieval times

[VikingHorde]

Im working on a MOD, but have run into some problems on russia. How should they be in MTW. I know that the big russian kingdom was devided among the prinses. This made a lot of small pricepaletys. Who should be in MTW and who should not. Im thinking of Novgorod (having novgorod+mosow)
and kiev (kiev+the rest of the rus states). In my mod, there are allso the cumans and volgabulgars who was a big pain for the rus. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif

[The Wizard]

There are two theories about the origins of the Rus.

The first is that the people known as 'Rus' came from Viking colonists from Sweden. They came to Livonia, Finland, etc., and then went further east and founded Novgorod and Moskba. Later they went further and further south, founding cities as Kyiw and Vladimir in their wake. They even traded slaves with Arabs Later these powers organised themselves, with principalities such as Kyiw, Pereyaslavl, Novgorod and Moskba being the most prominent. Until the Mongol conquest, Kyiw was the richest and most influential of the principalities. After that, it was Vladimir for a relatively short period and after that Moskba and Novgorod.

The second theory states that the expansion of the Rus did not go from north to south, but rather the other way. Swedish vikings, according to this theory, were important merchants in the area and had great influence. They eventually took over as nobles in Kyiw, and blended in with the people that already lived there, which were Slavs. From there they expanded their rule, founding cities such as Moskba and Novgorod, etc.

The way the Rus states are depicted in MTW is quite correct when compared to gameplay mechanics: it is no different than the Turks being a single people or the Italians being a unified faction. I highly doubt that their depictions of Novgorod and Moskba is accurate, when you play them in the High era. At the time, Kyiw was a much bigger city than those small cities. But that has failed to be depicted ingame.

I hope this helps



~Wiz

[VikingHorde]

Is it a better idear to have kiev in the game (only having the province kiev) and novgorod (only having novgorod)? They were the most powerfull of the russian states. The alternative is to just let the russians be and add another faction. Don't know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[The Wizard]

Well, you might do that. To more accurately simulate the squabbles between the principalities.

I would advise Kyiw holding Kiev, Pereyaslavl and Khazar.

Novograd (or Muscovy) would then hold Novgorod and Muscovy.

Kyiw would have to be more advanced, which deteriorates with later starting dates. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif



~Wiz

[Crash]

Don't forget Alexander Nevsky - one of my favorite historical heroes. This link might help you a little.

http://www.waytorussia.net/CentralRussia/Novgorod/History.html

[VikingHorde]

After reading some pages, I think that maybe this:

Early: Novgorod has Novgorod only, Kiev has Pereyaslavl and kiev.
Kiev didn't have khazar, so i'l give it to the cumans.

High: Novgorod has Novgorod and Muscovy, Kiev has Pereyaslavl and kiev.

Late: Russians has Novgorod and Muscovy.

This might be rigth i think.

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 01 2004,19:34)]
The first is that the people known as 'Rus' came from Viking colonists from Sweden. They came to Livonia, Finland, etc., and then went further east and founded Novgorod and Moskba. Later they went further and further south, founding cities as Kyiw and Vladimir in their wake. They even traded slaves with Arabs Later these powers organised themselves, with principalities such as Kyiw, Pereyaslavl, Novgorod and Moskba being the most prominent. Until the Mongol conquest, Kyiw was the richest and most influential of the principalities. After that, it was Vladimir for a relatively short period and after that Moskba and Novgorod.


It's one of the biggest bullshit I ever hear Don't believe to those who told you that. This can be said only by people who absolutely misunderstand Russian history.


Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 01 2004,19:34)]
The second theory states that the expansion of the Rus did not go from north to south, but rather the other way. Swedish vikings, according to this theory, were important merchants in the area and had great influence. They eventually took over as nobles in Kyiw, and blended in with the people that already lived there, which were Slavs. From there they expanded their rule, founding cities such as Moskba and Novgorod, etc.


This is closer to truth. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Vikings where just mercenaries and a kind of state managers. Offsprings of one of them (Rurik) became the full rulers of country. Rurik was the invited manager in Novgorod. After his death his brother-in-arms Oleg conquered Kiev; and after his death the son of Rurik - Igor - became the ruler of Kiev, Novgorod and other conquered (by that time) lands.

Far before this conquest Slavs established their towns like Kiev ("Town of Kiy" in Russian), Novgorod ("New Town" in Russian), Smolensk, Ladoga, Izborsk and many others. That town was ruled by their own Slavic princes.

The Wizard, don't think much about Moskva (not "Moskba" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif ). It was very little town until the end of 13 century. The first known record about Moskva is dated year 1147 (of course the town is older, but that time it was just village).
Remember that the land called Khazar in MTW never was Russian until the 16 century It was always the land of Russian enemies - different nomad people.

Russia (or better to say Russian states) could have absolutely different starting positions in Early, High and Late eras in MTW.

At the end of 11 century (Early era) Russia was one state with rebelling princes in each province. And in the beginning of next century Russia disintegrated into different states. The strongest were Chernigov, Vladimir, Novgorod and Galich-Volhynia. Kiev was formal capital of "united" Russia. It was the town which every princes wished to have to became the leader of all Russia. That's why Kiev was frequently conquered by different Russian princes (often with the help of Cumans). So the rulers of Kiev were princes who conquered this town or princes who were invited by people of Kiev.

At the beg. of 13 cent. (High era in MTW) Russia was still disintegrated. The strongest states were the same.

At the beg. of 14 cent. (Late era) the situation changed. All of Russian states were vassals of Golden Horde. Soon the Grand Duchy of Lithuania began its expansion and some of Russian lands (Smolensk, Kiev, Volhynia, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl) were included into Lithuanian state. The others began to gain strength while remaining rebellious vassals of Horde. The strongest Russian states were Moskva, Tver and Novgorod.

VikingHorde http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
That's what I recommend to do:

Early. The united Russian state included Kiev (capital), Novgorod, Moscovy, Ryasan, Smolensk, Chernigov and Volhynia. All that provinces must have high rebellious level. And don't forget to change religion in Russian lands from pagan to orthodox.
Lithuania and Livonia must have pagan religion (not orthodox). Crimea must have orthodox religion (not pagan). Volgo-Bulgaria must have muslim religion (not pagan) and strong castle. Volgo-Bulgaria and Khazar must have strong troops.

High. Different Russian states. You can make some new factions or keep some provinces as strong rebels. I would make Novgorod (playable; strong, hold Novgorod), Vladimir (maybe playable; strong, hold Moscovy; rename Moscow to Vladimir), Chernigov (maybe playable; strong, hold Chernigov), Volhynia (maybe playable; strong, hold Volhynia and maybe Moldavia), Kiev (maybe playable; relatively strong, hold Kiev), Pereyaslavl (weak, hold Pereyaslavl), Smolensk (weak, hold Smolensk) and Ryasan (weak, hold Ryasan).
Change religion in Russian lands from pagan to orthodox.
Lithuania and Livonia must have pagan religion (not orthodox). Crimea must have orthodox religion (not pagan). Volgo-Bulgaria must have muslim religion (not pagan) and strong castle. Volgo-Bulgaria and Khazar must have strong troops.

Late. Independent playable Russian states are Moscovy (hold Moscovy) and Novgorod (hold Novgorod). Smolensk is belong to Lithuania (if playable faction). Volhynia could belong to Lithuania or Poland, or be rebel land between that two states. Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl and Ryasan belong to Horde.
All Russian lands must have orthodox religion. Crimea must have orthodox religion (not pagan). Crimea must belong to Horde. Volgo-Bulgaria could be muslim/pagan or just pagan and must belong to Horde.

[The Wizard]

Actually, Rus forces crushed the Khazar Khakhanate in the late 10th century and early 11th century, hence the fact that in MTW it must be represented as a Rus province. They didn't hold it for long, but they did.



~Wiz

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 02 2004,12:55)]Actually, Rus forces crushed the Khazar Khakhanate in the late 10th century and early 11th century, hence the fact that in MTW it must be represented as a Rus province. They didn't hold it for long, but they did.
No I wonder why you western people think that we hold so called Khazaria since ancient times. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif I repeat: Russia never hold Khazaria till 16 century.

In 960s Russian prince Svyatopolk defeated Khazaria (the state) but he didn't conquered it. He just get small region around Sarkel (ex-Khazarian castle on river Don). It was like modern Kaliningrad region - small Russian land far from Rus. And it lasted only for small period.

The other Russian "colony" in ex-Khazarian lands is principality of Tmutarakan. It was situated at both coasts of modern Kerch strait. This land was Russian for more time then Sarkel, until about the end of 12 century.

[The Wizard]

Exactly. Since Khazar is one big area in MTW, it should be held by the Rus in early to simulate these two Rus holdings.

Unless they already lost it by 1083. :P



~Wiz

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 02 2004,15:18)]Exactly. Since Khazar is one big area in MTW, it should be held by the Rus in early to simulate these two Rus holdings.

Unless they already lost it by 1083. :P
If you own two drops of sea then does the sea belongs to you?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif

[SwordsMaster]

Sorry, but i have to disgree with Dead Moroz (awful transcription from russian BTW).
The first russians leaded by Rurik (who was a viking nobleman) landed somewhere (Livonia?) before the year 1000. There have been towns and tribes of slav there before, bu those vikings brought the organization and unification of some of them into proper states.
I must stress the point that there were people there before Rurik, but his men conquered and organized them into states, with government, not as separate towns.

True, the russians never held Khazar, but they didn defeat the Khazarians either, they just stood there through the day, and when the Khazarians had nothing else to throw at them, they retired.The russians counted that as a victory but i dond know how right they are...

And now a suggestion for the MOD. Split those enormous zones like Khazar or Kiev or NOvgorod into various smaller ones,,at leas 2 for Kiev and 3 for Khazar.
The reason is that Khazar alone has more land than Spain and its located in similar climate, but spain has 7provinces and Khazar is only 1.That should improve the russian incoma a little bit.

[The Wizard]

The Khazar Khakhanate's main forces were defeated by a Rus prince or another, and its deteriorated empire, relying on mercenaries to fight for them, disintegrated.



~Wiz

[VikingHorde]

Thanks for the replies guys. I will try to make something out of all of this and do some more reading.

[BalkanTourist]

Being just promoted to senior patron, I'll take the opportunity to express my humble oppinion in this thread.
By now, my Dannish friend, you probably know how crazy I am about history http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif . I took the time to read all of thE postings in this thread and have to say that I agree the most with Dead Moroz (why do you think it is an awful transcription, maybe he tried to be ironic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif ). After all he is Russian and he should know his history best.
Here is what I know, not claming it is 100% true.
Slavs in general had one of the most democratic (and weak for that period of human history) political structure in Europe. The trend after the fall of Rome has been the transformation of societies from Slave holding states (Roman Empire) to free people with with weak decentralized feudal societies and later to strong centralized (absolute power) monarchies that reached its peak in the early and middle Middle Ages.
Some people say that the original lands of Slavs were in the present day Lithuania, Livonia and NorthEast Germany where they settled comming from Iran/India (where almost all ancient tribes came from hence Indo-European languages). That was approximately 2000 years BC. From there they spread to the East (Russian/Bielorussians(white russians)/Ukrainians), to the SouthEast (Slovenes/Croats/Serbs/Bulgarians), and to the West (Czech, Slovakians,Polish. They grew numerous and spread in that vast range of land thru time although it wasn't till during the time of The Great Migration of People when a lot of peoples, Slav or other shifted lands.
Slavs where mostly peaceful agrarian tribes who didn't move often once settling a region (except forced by a natural disaster(drought) or force(nomad tribes). They did engage in some raiding though as is the case with the SouthEastern Slavs that often raided the newly created empire of Byzantium (starting after 500 AC). First they crossed the Denube for loot and quick earning seasonly. But later started settling the whole of the Balkan peninsula reaching down to Epirus in Greece and the Thermopilae and even Crete. Once settled they lived peacefully accepting the rule of the Emperor paying tribute and guarding His lands from other invaders. They were pagan and worshiped many gods. Most importantly Perun, Lada, Volos i.e. They never had a state but lived under the rule of one - Byzantium, or the Franks, and had communities. They had a council (like a parliament) drafted generally from the elders. The council elected/appointed men for different possitions (a guy dealing with their ruler (the Emperor for example) and other tribes, a guy dealing with internal affairs). Which means they had some rudamentary form of division of powers so there wasn't one specifically strong guy. This is, if not resembling democracy, at least like a constitutional monarchy - a strong guy with limited power by the parliament/counsil.
Although very progressive, that structure was not feasable for the period of history. Strong states were created by strong men with absolute power who were able to unite, guide and direct the effort of the common people towards national identity.
The two early Slavic states where Bulgaria and Panonia (or is it Moravia?). The first one still exist with its ancient name, and the second one is present day Czech Republic. Bulgaria, created in 681 is an example how the "sea of Slavs" needed a foreign element to make a strong state. The Bulgars where also an agricultural tribe, although coming from the steppes (Great Bulgaria with capital Phanagoria was an ally to the Byzantines and before that participated in the Turkic Hun union that went further to the west, occupied Khazar/Kiev regions on the MTW map. They fell when the Khazars arrived in 630. Some formed Volga-Bulgaria, accepting Islam by 12th century)where not foreign to the nomad lifestyle as well. They had a strong government - all the power was in the Khan or the great khan Tarkhan. They also were pagan but were monoteistic (only one God - Tangra). The reason is quite siple. They had to move and create a new state at least three times during their known existance from the North of Afghanistan, then to Caucas mnts, then to Great Bulgaria. That was because the steppes where a constant entrance to different tribes coming from the East going West sweaping all in their movement. To survive the Bulgars had to have strong (dictatorial/absolute power) government. So when about 20,000 moved SouthEast to the Byzantine lands of Dacia and Moesia populated with Slavs vassals to the Emperor they, there are two or three theories here, 1. Subordinated the Slavs, creating the new state of Bulgaria with the Khan as the ruler (very popular),2. Created an union with the Slavs although being the more experienced with governing (Great Bulgaria) occupied the governing possitions, but the Slavs willingly allied to them to become independant from Byzantium (this one is growng very popular), and 3. Melted in the see of Slavs, after all they were 20,000 in a see of around 2,000,000 Slavs.
I am not that familiar with how Panonia was created and wheather it had a foreign influence (although being that close to the Frankish State, it probably did) But they didn't grow strong and fell under HRE dominance by 11th century (created in 9th I believe).
What happened to the SouthEastern Slavs with the Bulgarians, happened with the Eastern Slavs and the Rus. The Rus or Varangians (Varyagi in Russian I believe) where raider/trader (trading often slaves) vikings or norsemen from present day Sweden. From times ancient there was a trade route that existed linking Scandinavia with the great rivers of the East to Constantinople (Byzantium it was called before Constanine decided to make it a second capital, hence the name of the Eastern Roman Empire -Byzantium), the route then devided one going down to the Middle East and one bringing silk and other goods from China. That North-South route was very profitable and was of a particular interest to the Rus. So it is quite understandable that they wanted to create colonies to protect that route. Rurik was the first ruler. All of the noblemen where of Scandinavian origin amongst a see of Slavs who didn't have a strong governing before that. An interesting fact is that some Russian names have Nordic origin - Helga/Olga, Igor/Ingmar, Inga, can't remember others. Thanks to the Rurik's dynasty Kiev grew strong and a notable player. The Byzantines allied Kniaz (Prince)Sviatoslav in 968 when he came down to fight Bulgaria at the Emperors request (and his money) and sacked the Bulgarian capital of Preslav. He then grew greedy and tried to concuer Constantinople as well, when he couldn't he then came back to Bulgaria and allied with the Bulgarians fighting off a Byzantine siege of the same city he sacked earlier, Preslav. Kiev is the first Russian ( I'm using the present day name of the region, just like Turks came to represent Seljuks and Ottomans. It is like an umbrella name) state to accept christianity (from Constaninople, hence it became Orthodox, not Catholic). Kiev developed culture. The rest of the petty principalities although slavic, where not Russian (using it as the ancient term, Russian, representing a slav community influenced/governed by Rus(Norsemen). Later the Rus intermingled with the Slavs and so all principalites became "Russian" although the influence of the Rus (Norseman) is questionable. Just like in Bulgaria (the minor of the two peoples - the Bulgarians gave the name to the country populated mostly by slavs, not Bulgars), the Rus gave the name to a country mostly populated with Slavs. And as Kiev grew of importance, the rest of the Slavic principalities became Russified, since they were practically no different to the common folk populating Kiev. SO KIEV IS THE MAIN RUSSIAN LAND IN EARLY IN MTWGET THAT? Novgorod was slavic, but not Russian(Russified, influenced by the Rus). Look at their government. Even by 13th century (time of Al. Nevsky fighting off the Teutonic Order). Novgorod still had a "Veche"(counsil of all the common folk(males only, able to fight in a war)). That is so tipical for ANY slavic community ANYWHERE where the Slavs lived since 6th century.
So please stop saying Novgorod is more important. Yes Kiev declined. Briefly Vladimir was the center after one of the princes won a civil war for the throne and moved his capital to Vladimir, but that was briefly. Then by 13th century (High in MTW) Novgorod grew to rival Kiev mainly because of the trade of the Hanseanic League and because Kiev after all had one BIG advantage turned to a DISADVANTAGE. It is situated at the door step of Europe. Numerous pests came passing, including Cumans and Pechenegs, finally the Mongols/Tatars finished its dominance for good. And while the North-South trade route worked fine in early times. The fall of Constantinople to the LATIN KNIGHTS, shifted the trade to favor Novgorod and the Hanseanic League.
Another thing, please don't make the Cumans playable. They didn't even have a state for God's sake Although they were "cool", very strong nomads with nice cavalry useful to anybody who'd pay them, they never created a state. They were raiders/mercenaries. One of the many scums comming from the East. They melted in other peoples and didn't leave a major trace apart from some names and maybe couple of words in the Eastern tongues.
Also Khazar became Russian after the Mongols were overthrown by Moscow. Moscow grew strongest after 1320.It rose to claim the leadership of all the petty principalites.
Another thing I'd like to say, that if it wasn't for the Horde, nobody knows if Russia would grow to be so strong. So infact the Mongol rule helped Russia, as it made it unified and it turned it into a centralized and Asiatic(not European) state.
Do let me know if I bored you with this long post. I'll never do it again But like I said, I love history I should be a history major, but then I don't want to be poor. We all know how much teachers get paid nowadays http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif .
THANK YOU IF YOU READ THAT FAR

[VikingHorde]

How do your medieval early, high an late campain look like? I mean, if you were making a MOD.

[BalkanTourist]

Well, I am not an expert on the whole map. I can tell you what the Eastern/South Eastern part should look like.
Early
Only difference with the vanilla map would be make Kiev playable with fairly decent troops and a Keep. Also the should be at least 85% Orthodox, since they were christened not too long ago and there might be still some hardcore pagans left. Give Kiev Pereslavl. The rest should be all weak rebels also Orthodox with some exceptions. Novgorod should be a strong rebel state. Volga-Bulgaria should be a strong Muslim rebel (I guess you can make VB and N playeble, but it would be impossible for them to do well, I don't know who would play them). Khazar should be pagan and also strong. Difference in all the rebel states is first, as I mentioned religion. Then only VB and Khazar should have strong cav units, the rest just decent, maybe a boyar unit in each with Novgorod having 2 or 3 at start. Also if Novgorod playble give them a port at least at begining, maybe even a shipwright and one vessel. Oh, also you could give Moldavia to Kiev as well.
Take Georgia away form the Byz, make it also orthodox rebels. All of the rebel states should be highly rebelius once you conquer them, except for Novgorod and Moscow. Take Syria away from Turks, give it to Egypt, make Antioch an Orthodox rebel state.
High
You could definetely make Novgorod playable here. Give Livonia to the Teutonic Order. Make VB and Khazar somewhat strong and give Kiev just Kiev. Make Bulgaria playable (Bulgaria, Serbia and Wallachia) Give Constantinople to the Latins(may be the Burgundians) along with the cruzader states in Tripoli, Antioch and Palestine. No Byz empire. One kingdom in Greece called Epirus. Another in Trebizond, and a third in Nicaea. Make them all Orthodox and somewhat strong but the Latins in Constantinople stronger. Also make Bulgarians very strong as they did rule most of the Balkans in first half of 13th century.
Late
Make Novgorod strong but Moscaw stronger they should be still seperate but eventually Moscaw should rule them all. Give VB to the Horde (still Muslim). Give Khazar, Kiev, Ryazan,Pereslavl to the Horde. Moldova should be rebel. Lithuania should be there. Give Livonia to Novgorod. Smolensk should be rebels but weak. Bulgaria should be there (Bulgaria, Wallachia) Serbia should be there (Serbia, possibly Croatia) Byz is back again (Greece, the Islands, Constantinople, and Nicaea. Rest of Asia Minor to the Seljuks(Turks).
Hope I am not missing anything. That's just a brief layout. I could go in details to what units should they have and such if you ask me to.
Hope this helped ya, and can't wait to see your creation. Let me know if I could help with anything else.

[VikingHorde]

OK, I will take this config into thoght. It get a lot of idea's from peoble http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[SwordsMaster]

well, czar ivan, awfully long post i have to say, very illuminating but awfully long http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Still youre kinda supporting my theory in some way.
Anyway, maybe some cossack states should be included...just a suggestion or you can add them as mercs...
NO CUMANS.there were no state as Ivan said,and not even a community important enough as to be rebels...

Still think that you should split those enormously large provinces...Novgorod or Moskovia are bigger than Spain, and kiev should be separated int 2 or 3 too.

To make Moskovia stronger give them more income but less starting buildings than Novgorod to depict its later development.

And yes, i still think it is a bad idea to transcribe things from other languages.Not to translate, but to transcribe.

Messy post isnt it?

[VikingHorde]

I don't know how to split the provinces, so I have to let them be. About the cumans (They are allso called Pechenegs) did not have a state like other factions, but did have a big role vs. kiev. They had some part of the reson why kiev lost its importnance and often made havoc on the russians. They allso controled the lands north of the black sea.
In my game, the cumans have the role of making raides on the nabors and to give invaders more resistans than rebels. They don't stop the horde at all, so it dosn't ruin gameplay. Im making all faction playable (have no effect on game anyway), so players have the choice. I will make them merc to, so you can hire them.
It takes a lot to play them, not having good footsoldiers (they are a little like the monguls), very fun. The monguls will be playable.
Is this OK?

[BalkanTourist]

Quote[/b] (VikingHorde @ April 08 2004,12:47)]I don't know how to split the provinces, so I have to let them be. About the cumans (They are allso called Pechenegs) did not have a state like other factions, but did have a big role vs. kiev. They had some part of the reson why kiev lost its importnance and often made havoc on the russians. They allso controled the lands north of the black sea.
In my game, the cumans have the role of making raides on the nabors and to give invaders more resistans than rebels. They don't stop the horde at all, so it dosn't ruin gameplay. Im making all faction playable (have no effect on game anyway), so players have the choice. I will make them merc to, so you can hire them.
It takes a lot to play them, not having good footsoldiers (they are a little like the monguls), very fun. The monguls will be playable.
Is this OK?
That's cool. Give the Cumans Crimea and Moldavia maybe. Make them raiders. Also Cumans ARE NOT Pechenegs. Those are two different turkic tribes.

[BalkanTourist]

But you read the whole thing Master, didn't you? Tell me that it wasn't enternaining and you didn't learn anything new?

[Mouzafphaerre]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ April 08 2004,15:52)]NO CUMANS.there were no state as Ivan said,and not even a community important enough as to be rebels...
-
...but someone from the outer space came and wrote Codex Cumanicus on behalf of them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
_

[VikingHorde]

Quote[/b] (Czar Ivan Asen II @ April 12 2004,05:35)]But you read the whole thing Master, didn't you? Tell me that it wasn't enternaining and you didn't learn anything new?
It was good reading IMO and I learned a few new things. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Czar Ivan Asen II @ April 12 2004,04:35)]But you read the whole thing Master, didn't you? Tell me that it wasn't enternaining and you didn't learn anything new?
Interesting, but perhaps you should 'articulate' better, by ordering your write-ups better so that they don't read as one big fat chunk of (quite interesting) reading.



~Wiz

[Dead Moroz]

I scanned and translated some maps from Russian manual of history. That's the first one, the others are coming soon.


http://www.ruslan-com.ru/zotov/map-1.jpg

[VikingHorde]

OK, my mod is out. Hope you guys like it. Some will probely say that the russians are wrong, but I have done my best.

The Mod can be downloaded here:

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....t=16715 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=27;t=16715)

Enjoy

[meravelha]

Medieval Russian Resources:

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/CATEGORIES/easteuropewarfare.htm

Should keep you busy for a while http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[The Wizard]

Seems to me that all the unorganised peoples around the Rus paid them tribute... strange.



~Wiz

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 29 2004,14:59)]Seems to me that all the unorganised peoples around the Rus paid them tribute... strange.
Not strange. Weak tribes always have to pay tribute to their big strong neighbours.
When eastern Slavic tribes were not united state (Rus) yet they had to pay tribute to Khazaria.

[The Wizard]

Wait, wait. I mistook the names in blue for the names in blue, the latter meaning they paid tribute, the former meaning neighboring tribes.

My bad. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz