By what names would the factions have been known?

Certainly we know nobody referred to the Byzantine Empire as such, and this applies to most of the factions in one way or another... by what names were the entities that make up our factions be called by contemporaries?

Would England be simply called the Normans? Seems to me that if the word England had come into being at all it would have referred to the geographic region of greater Britain rather than those ruled by King William. If they are called Normans, would that make Sicily? Did people differenciate between political entities? By political entity I speak of a given feudal pyramid under a single King/Kaiser/what-have-you.

factions would be known by the title of their leader. As such, the english would be called english, as their king is the king of england...

England was called England. England did not become a part of Normandy. The Duke of Normandy assumed the position of King of England. As soon as William the Conqueror died the two positions were separated again for a while, until Henry I invaded Normandy and put out his brother's (the Duke's) eyes. Also, in geographical terms, "England" referred to the area England now occupies and nowhere else. Scotland, Wales and Ireland were most definitely not part of "England". The only areas of variation would have been the Welsh and Scottish marches.

Although England was ruled by a bunch of people we now refer to as Normans, the only people who generally called them Normans at that stage were the Normans. To the English they were "Franks" and to the French anyone who came from England was "English".

What were the Turks, Hungarians and Poles known as?

@adembroski

In truth the factions would be known by a number of names over the period depicted in the game.

If we take England as an example: Prior to Alfred the Greats efforts to unify the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms against the Vikings Angle Land consisted of seven petty kingdoms including Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Wessex. Alfred declared himself King of the English in 886 but the country was not finally united into England for at least another 100 years under Alfred grandson Eadred after a series of military campaigns both internal and against Danish incursions.

So, by the time of the Norman Invasion there was a kingdom of England under a single ruler even though it consisted of a number of seperate Earldoms losely matched to the former Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.

Its worth remembering that William was not a King, until after his successful invasion of England. Normandy was a Dukedom and thus it was natural that upon securing the English crown he adopted the higher title of King of England over that of the lesser Duke of Normandy. He also set about destroying the existing internal structure of the country by eliminating the Earldoms and parcelling the land out amongst his faithful knights and retainers. Thus, by 1087 the transformation of Angle Land into England was more or less complete and the basis of the current Shire system was in place, but it had taken over 200 years.

I suspect that every other faction in the game is going through a similar evolution and of course our own actions merely confuse the issue still farther by adding lands to the overall mix that historically never formed part of that factions domain.

If as HoreTore suggests we renamed the factions to match the family names of their leaders then the English faction would become Gunnor as I believe that was the family name of Dukes of Normandy. However, even this would only be temporarily accurate as ruling family names change over time. England for instance has been through Godwin, Norman (1066-),Blois (1135-) Plantaganet (1154-), Anjou (some land held until 1209), Lancaster (1399-), York (1461-), Tudor (1485-), Stuart (1603-), Orange (jointly 1689-1702) Hanover (1714-1901), Saxe Gotha (1901-renamed Windsor) Windsor (1901-Present)

I've noticed similar changes in the family names of my rulers during the game so it would not provide a stable naming convention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memnoch

What were the Turks, Hungarians and Poles known as?

---

Interestingly I just looked up what the Byzantine Empire was actually called and it was called by its native Greek name Ρωμανία, which translates into Rōmania, or Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων, which translates into Basileia Rōmaiōn.

This is a direct translation of the Latin name of the Roman Empire, Imperium Romanum. The name Byzantine was not used until 1557 and is based upon the original name of Constantinople (Byzantium)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memnoch

What were the Turks, Hungarians and Poles known as?

---

The turks were first the Seljuk turks, then the ottoman empire.

I think the eygpt faction was knowen as the mumluk empire at least in the jearuslem provinces or something like that...

Fatimid Caliphate, wasn't it? (Egypt, that is?)

There are many historical problems in this game.

I didnt really notice that.....

The "Russians" were really known as Kievan Rus from the mid 9th century on until the middle of the 12th century. Prior to that it was the Rus Khaganate, which began in the early ninth century at Novgorod at later pushed south to Kiev. Power could not be held together for long, however, and (I think wikipedia put it best) "during the years from 1054 to 1224 no fewer than 64 principalities had a more or less ephemeral existence, 293 princes put forward succession claims, and their disputes led to 83 civil wars."

Anyway, there is a good read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

At the start of the game, the Byzantines were known as Romania, and they called themselves Rhomaioi.

Turks - Saljuq Turks
Egypt - Ayyubid Caliphate, later Fatimid Caliphate
Russia - Kievan Rus, Novgorod Cnezate(sp?)
Hungarians - Kingdom of Hungary, with the capital at Buda (Budapest is made by Buda and Pesta)
Spain - Kingdom of Castille, Kingdom of Leon, Kingdom of Toledo
Moors - Almoravid Berber Caliphate, later Almohad Caliphate
Italy(Milan and Venice) - Republic of Venice, Milan, Genoa, Florence
Sicily - Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Palermo and Naples)

Hi all, this is my first post! :flowers:

So, for not to be off topic:
I play 1.1 patch with Deus lo Vult 2.0 mod, and in that all the kingdoms are named as they called themselves in their own language. As for Hungary (Kingdom of Hungary) the name is "Magyar Királyság". AFAIK it's correct, and I'm Hungarian, so... ~:thumb:
And all the others seem correct, for Poland: Krolestwo Polskie, Turks: Selcucklular, Spanish: El Reino Leon y Castille, etc...
Maybe that method could be used, and also, the authors of that mod returned the territorial ranking system (Count of Pest, Lord of Croatia (for Zagreb) etc.), so it's quite cool. Also they included the crowns of each christian faction, and you have to return to your capital with the faction heir to be crowned and so on. But it's not my work, so check it out. I can't remember the address completely but google surely helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Egypt - Ayyubid Caliphate, later Fatimid Caliphate

---

Fatimids came before the Ayyubids, surely? Replaced by the Mamelukes in mid 13th century, IIRC.

Mongols could be either Golden Horde or Ilkhanid, depending on where they appear. Historically, they should appear in both Baghdad and Volga-Bulgaria, and not be mashed into a single horde with Batu and Hulegu both present. :dizzy2:

Oh and I forgot that in the age the game occurs, not Buda nor Pest was the capital of Hungary... Until about 1050 there was no "capital", the residence of the king :crown: was Székesfehérvár (SouthWest of Budapest), which means "white castle with throne" or something like that. Then came our first capital, Esztergom (North of Budapest) until it was moved to Visegrád (near Esztergom) about 1300. Visegrad remained capital until 1422 when King Sigismundus (later Holy Roman Emperor) moved his residence to Buda. But when he became Emperor, he moved to Vienna maybe - I have to check that. Buda started to function as capital in 1456 under Matthias I. But he also moved to Vienna when he captured it in 1480. And in 1541 Buda was captured by the Seljuk turks and it was held by them until 1686. During that period the capital was Pozsony (today Bratislava, capital of Slovakia). And Buda became capital again only in 1873 when it was merged with two other towns: Óbuda and Pest... So, technically Buda was capital in the mediecal ages only for the shortest periods...
And one more thing: the former Kingdom of Hungary gave not less than 4(!) capitals to today Europe: Budapest (Hungary, quite ovious :yes: ), Bratislava (former Pozsony, Hungarian capital for over 300 years, today Slovakian capital), Zagreb (Croatia), and Beograd (former Nándorfehérvár, where the Turkish army was defeated :duel: in 1456, and according to history :study: tolling at noon was ordered by the pope on that victory of christendom, today Serb capital).
So that for capitals and M2:TW historical accuracy :) :stupido:

This thread belongs in the monastery.

However, to add my 0.02$:
:book:
Italy was actually part of the Roman Empire (Imperium Romanum), which from about 1160 called itself the Holy Roman Empire (Sacrum Imperium Romanum). This included everything north of Rome and what today is the italian province of Marche (Ancona etc.). Nominally, Venice was part of this, but the Repubblica di Venezia was largely independent. The same doesn't go for Milan, however: It was (more or less) firmly under the boot of the german emperors, until gaining its independence during the first half of the 12th century. The Regnum Burgundiae, also called the Arelatum, was also part of the (Holy) Roman Empire. It was located in moder southeastern France, encompassing everything near the Rhône river down to Provence and Toulouse.
Sicily and southern Italy (up to Gaeta, which is about 50 kilometers from Rome) formed the Regnum Siciliae, at least from 1130/36 on, when the Pope had to accept this state of affairs, having been soundly beaten by the Normans. But in the 1190s, this realm was conquered by Heinrich VI. of Hohenstaufen and made part of the Holy Roman Empire, too. The same emperor also took Cyprus as a stepping stone toward the Holy Land, but died before he could start his crusade.

So you see, the HRE could have been depicted as a much more powerful nation in the game - although I find it very much acceptable from a gameplay perspective that it wasn't.
/:book:

Scotland was called the Kingdom of Alba. In Gaelic it actually meant the whole Island of Britain, but the Scots called themselves it in order to tout their own 'superiority' over the Saxons (later Normans) and various welsh princes. The 13th Century was when Scotland began to enter common usage in Scotland itself, when Edward I was about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

.....

The name Byzantine was not used until 1557 and is based upon the original name of Constantinople (Byzantium).....

---

Slavs and bulgarians in the balkan peninsula called Byzantium "Tzarigrad" (City of Kings or smth like that) and the byzantians themselves "romey" or "vyzantiitzi" (romans and byzantians) so i guess the name depends on what angle you look at it from. And, wasnt the byzantine empire gone in 1557? as far as i know the turks conquerered Constantinople in 14-something...

Constantinople was taken in 1453 by Mehmet II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phunkbot

Slavs and bulgarians in the balkan peninsula called Byzantium "Tzarigrad" (City of Kings or smth like that) and the byzantians themselves "romey" or "vyzantiitzi" (romans and byzantians) so i guess the name depends on what angle you look at it from. And, wasnt the byzantine empire gone in 1557? as far as i know the turks conquerered Constantinople in 14-something...

---

Yes, that's what I believe is didz point... The "byzantines" were never called that by anyone other than historians centuries later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Temujin

Fatimids came before the Ayyubids, surely? Replaced by the Mamelukes in mid 13th century, IIRC.

Mongols could be either Golden Horde or Ilkhanid, depending on where they appear. Historically, they should appear in both Baghdad and Volga-Bulgaria, and not be mashed into a single horde with Batu and Hulegu both present. :dizzy2:

---

Salah-al-Din (Saladin) was from the Ayyubid Dynasty. Mamlukes came to power in 1280, rising to power after Ayn Djalut, in 1260. It's weird with Egypt, because it was a simple caliphate, the Arab caliphate, which split up into 3: Cordoba, Cairo and Baghdad.

The Ilkhanate was the Mongol power of Baghdad, AFAIK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, that's what I believe is didz point... The "byzantines" were never called that by anyone other than historians centuries later.

---

Sorry, i forgot that part, i beleive we did call the state Byzantium after what Constantinople's name used to be :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, that's what I believe is didz point... The "byzantines" were never called that by anyone other than historians centuries later.

---

I heard that this is the equivalent of calling present day Americans "Washingtonians."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirrvs

I heard that this is the equivalent of calling present day Americans "Washingtonians."

---

Not really. It would be the equivalent of calling americans whatever-the-continent-of-america-was-called-before-it-was-called-america'ns

Not exactly because the Byzantine Empire never existed until some historian invented the name in the 16th century. So, Sirrvs analogy is correct it would be like some future historian deciding to refer to the United States of America as the Washingtonia Republic.

Its a bit like the current arguement about feudalism which also never existed until it was invented by a historian.

Well it would be correct in the sense that the name is simple made up, I was thinking about the name itself... Ie, "Byzantine" is drawn from the former name of constantinople, so americans would have to be called by the former name of america....or the former name of washington dc, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Salah-al-Din (Saladin) was from the Ayyubid Dynasty. Mamlukes came to power in 1280, rising to power after Ayn Djalut, in 1260. It's weird with Egypt, because it was a simple caliphate, the Arab caliphate, which split up into 3: Cordoba, Cairo and Baghdad.

The Ilkhanate was the Mongol power of Baghdad, AFAIK.

---

The Cordova Caliphate was infact set up by a descendent of the Ummayad family, the caliphate itself only lasted a comparitively small amount of time, and by 1080, there were only 2 caliphates, the Shia Fatimid one based in Cairo and the Sunni one in Baghdad. It was in fact Saladin whom ultimately extinguished the Fatimid caliphate, with of course characteristic solemnity. Furthermore i believe someone may have suggested that the Almohads came before the Almoravids, when the opposite is in fact true, if it was me who got mixed up and I am just repeating what you said, apologies.

The Byzantines called themselves the "Roman Empire" but the western European nations called it the "Empire of the Greeks" or the "Empire of Constantinople" from what I have read.

btw why did the Moors now called the Moors not Almohad like in MTW?

That was their option. At the start of the game, it should have been the Almoravid caliphate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darth_napo

btw why did the Moors now called the Moors not Almohad like in MTW?

---

Easy answer...since im an Iberian.:2thumbsup:

Moors is the name given by the christian spanish kingdoms to the islamic occupiers of Spain. In portuguese "Moors" can be translated into "Mouros" and it is a word that is still used by the northen portuguese population to nickname southern portuguesemen.

By calling "Almoravids" to the now M2TW Moors, CA would have to a) follow the historical accuracy way and plant an event of an almohad invasion (kinda like the mongol one) b) follow an historical inaccurate path and the almohads would never appear.

Thus the option made by CA did indeed follow the historical accuracy option. But it failed in many other areas in this matter. Unit weaponry and equipment, region and settlements names/locations and ... lets be resonable...Portuguese in Pamplona? :whip: Give me a break...

Of course I dont want dynastic disputes to be implemented in a Total War game. Thats for Crusader Kings.

This is a map for a mod for M2:TW, Broken Crescent. It is not definitive but gives a general idea of some of the Eastern factions present from 1300-1400. The map is not yet complete, neither are the names. Large image size.

https://img358.imageshack.us/img358/...ionskm7.th.jpg

well all i know is that the Byzantines called themselfs Roman and so did everyone else even though they spoke greek,and everthy thing ran like the old WRE.

Basileia Rōmaiōn or Basileia tōn Rōmaiōn.

Everyone in the east knew them as the Romans too.
The Turks called it Rum, I believe.

yeah they did.

Correct. Also the Turks who settled in Anatolia called themselves "The Sultanate of Rum".

Did someone say Kataphraktoi ? Really ? Eat your heart out...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Cool or what ?
https://img385.imageshack.us/img385/9130/shaderszu0.jpg

Can someone please tell me if the spoil tags are working ? Because they are not on my screen.

yeah there working fine and that Kataphraktoi looked really cool

Thanks for letting me know about the spoliers, something's wrong with my browser. You can find the rest of those Byzantium skins here, when they are released. They look really great.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Byzantine Infantry
https://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vara1ur7.jpg

The other Turks also knew those settled in Anatolia as the Roman Turks, ironic.

:idea2: :juggle2: :laugh4:

It would be ncie to make a list of all the actions that existed during this period in the whole area.

Are these skins your doing for a mod or something

Those skins will probably go into the Broken Crescent mod (image heavy link!) I posted the map above from that mod.

It has a lot of the factions that existed during this period.

However that guy who is currently doing Byzantium skins only, is redoing all the factions one at a time. So he will release the skins independently as well. I'm going to install those for sure, whichever way they come. Check the screens in that link, you might like em as well.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Like all good warriors Kataphraktoi need competition.
Meet the Abbasid Faris.
https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1864/bc2eh1.jpg

Note the saddle detail on these Arabian mares.

wow! they look great when will this mod be out.

Not sure, probably June. Check at their forum (link above).

Wow, these are all simply beautiful Sinan. I'm looking forward to the final result already!

Just a Couple of Things...

1. Didz

By the time of the Norman invasion of England, The Kingdom of England, the name, kingdom et cetera... was well established.
In fact for over 100 years.
At Alfreds' Declaration, That he was the King of the Anglo-Saxons, or more correctly the West Saxons.
he was Recongnised as the Titilar head of the Lands of England by the pope, pope Leo IV in 836AD if memory serves me.
This was because he was Sent to Rome at the age of Five Years.
Not bad for the 5th son of the King, born in Wantage, then Berkshire, now oxfordshire.

The Losely matched earldoms? Wessux was the Godwin Family, the Future King, His Brother was the Earl of Northumbia, and his cousin was the Earl of Mercia.
They were far from loose. They were under the direct control of the king of England.
Hence is why Godwins' Father, actually had the Earldom of Wessux removed and his land confiscated by the King, only to be returned after he promised to behave.
That was roughly about 1049AD. Don't quote me on the Date.

Shires.
The shires of england existed before the norman invasion.
How do we know? beause the Daneslaw is mentioned in specific part the areas of shires they controlled over 100 years before the norman invasion.
The Shire system is actually credited to Alfred the Great, From establishing Burgh's, or Boroughs. Further Information about this can be found in Alfreds Burghal hidage manuscript from 893AD.
In battles Alfred fought against the Danes he Qoute "relied greatly upon the Three great earlderman of mercia, wiltshire, and somerset.


Infact, William the bastard, later William the 1st of England, planned the norman invasion based on the Kent and Sussex areas. They Actually said they thought going though winchester in hampshire as being to far from supplies and reinforcements in Normandy.
Another fact, bedfordshire, where you come from, was mentioned as a shire about 1019AD. It orginally comes from "Bedas ford", which means a river crossing, and was an important transit route. And not far from the Capitals of the Mercian's and West Saxons.

William also had the Beauty of Alfred the Greats Great Codex of Roman law, to which Alfred wrote based on the law of the Codex Civlis of The Roman Empire.........THE Eastern Roman Empire.
This is called the Deemings, or the book of doom, oh? look where William got the Doomsday book from?
This Code of Alfred, was used and quoted by his successors, and therefore, grew into a customary body of law, which was used by the Shire councils, and the hundred courts.
WOW, shires 893AD.


I would go on, but i would bore most of you.


Just a note, the Family names of the Kings of England.

Blois, planeteganet, Anjou, Lancaster and York, and the Tudors. Are all one family.
The Planetgenat....Which in the Royal line died out with the Death of Henry the VIII; Called Tudor.
The family however Does still exist... The Second marriage of John of Gaunt, otherwise known as John of Lancaster....a very famous man, who declined the throne so many times it's unreal.

Son of the King, Brother of a king, Uncle of the King and granduncle of a king, Father of Kings.
This man is the true meaning of noble.

His 2nd marraige, to Kathrine Swynford, was barred from assuming any position of royalty, and barred from male line assending the throne of England. which is still in effect to this day.
They are the Seymour family, The Dukes of of Somerset.
John of gaunt is considered to have more living relatives to this day, than any other important figure in history.

John, 1st Duke of Lancaster......His legitimate heir was Henry Bolingbroke, eldest son 1st Marraige.

Who deposed his cousin and regined as Henry the IV of England, after his fathers death in 1399AD.

John of Gaunts Elder Brother was Edward of Woodstock, "The Black Prince".


Oh man I can go on.

The Byzantine Empire. <==== Never Ever existed, no group or people in history in there own time were ever called this.

Never in it's existance, by themselves, or any other recorded history in their time, Where they were refurred to as such.
The east Roman Empire, After the death of the Western part, Became, The Roman Empire. To which both used themselves respectively, as The Roman Empire.
When the Western Empire fell, all government and the like fell upon the Eastern Empire, hence they ruled from Spain to Persia.
The only recored time in the history of their existance, when they were refered to as anything different than the above, was when the pope's envoy called the Emporer, the Emporer of the Greeks.
For which he almost lost his head. Needless to say, he got a 4 week lecture on the history of the Empire by the brother of the Emporer. <--i'm not kidding.
That Emporer was Alexis I Comenue <sp>.


I do not know the correct date, but sometime in the 16th c. A frenchman trying to legitimatise the Crowning of Charles the Great of France as the Roman Emporer.
Called the East Roman Empire the Byzantines, in other words, the same thing we all do to put someone or something down in favour of our own personal feels, was done way back then. What a time honoured tradition.

And of course after a while people claiming something, keep repeating it, the Russians did it, to claim the Roman Hertiage, the French many times, the germans Always, and the Italians today still try.

Today, many people continue the name byzantine, and in historical terms it actually referrs to a period of roman history, the later, last stages after the Death of herculis, or Justin. Depends on where in the world you come from.
Up until the fall of the imperial Captial in 1453 AD.

So the term/name Byzantine is actually a Derogotory nmae for the Roman Empire.

Anyway enough from, i am going to read some old texts :beam:


fenir :whip: oh yeah i'm bad again.

First of all, as you have probably gathered I am not an expert on early English history, though the period does interest me as I am quite keen to discover exactly why I’m English, as part of my understanding of my family history.

So, your comments are useful, though I think you have slightly misinterpreted some of the points I was making in my first post. Bearing in mind that most of these points were simply plagiarised from Wiki anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

By the time of the Norman invasion of England, The Kingdom of England, the name, kingdom et cetera... was well established.
In fact for over 100 years. At Alfreds' Declaration, That he was the King of the Anglo-Saxons, or more correctly the West Saxons. He was recognised as the Titular head of the Lands of England by the pope, pope Leo IV in 836AD if memory serves me.

---

Apart from the fact that the reference I was using mentions 886 AD rather than 836 AD a fifty year difference for some reason. The point made in the article I read was that whilst Alfred had declared himself the King of the English, he never actually became King of England. England remained a collection of Earldoms and at least some of what we currently know of as England was under the Danish rule of Gunthrum. As late as 897 this included large parts of Northumbria and East Anglia. So, I think the difference we are debating is between nominality and actuality. The understanding I gained from the text I read was that England the nation state and Kingdom did not exist ‘except as a nominal declaration of intent’ until after Alfred’s death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

Shires.
The shires of England existed before the Norman invasion.

---

Yes…sorry once again I didn’t explain myself very well.

Of course the shire system existed prior to the Norman Invasion. In fact I believe it was tied into the Anglo-Saxon system of justice, hence the term ‘Shire-Reeve’ or Sheriff as a person responsible for the administration of justice within a Shire.

The point I was making was that prior to the Norman invasion the shire was an subsiduary division of an Earldom and what William did was strip away this overarching layer of control effectively reducing England to a collection of Shires. Which is effectively the current basis of political and government administration that exists in England today.

There are still nominal references to the earlier Earldom’s as in East Anglia, Mercia, etc. and they frequently get resurrected as names for Primary Care Trusts and the like which combine resources from more than one shire, but effectively that level of national division was removed by William, leaving us with a country divided into Shires most of which were over lorded by Williams loyal knights and retainers. The former Anglo-Saxon nobility being dispossessed including possibly my ancestor. (one can only dream)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

Another fact, Bedfordshire, where you come from, was mentioned as a shire about 1019AD. It originally comes from "Bedas ford", which means a river crossing, and was an important transit route.

---

Yes, in fact I think it remained so until the construction of the A1 and the Great North Eastern Railway.

I was reading the history of Bedford Castle (which used to guard this crossing) in Bedford museum a few months back and it appears Faulkes de Beouf the self-appointed lord of that castle caused so much trouble for the King that in the end he had the castle torn down to prevent it being used as a base of future dissent and mischief. Which is why Beford is one of the few Shire Town that don't have any vestage of a Castle.

I’d like to find out more about my mate Faulkes as he comes across as a thoroughly nasty piece of work. A sort of archetypal ‘Sherrif of Nottingham’ with added bells and whistles. One report I read claimed that he used to organise peasant hunts between Bedford and Milton, in which his guests were invited to kill, maim or rape anyone they fancied.

He then proceeded to hang the Kings messenger when he came to investigate the complaint made against him, and ran off leaving his brother to face the Kings Army that finally turned up to besiege the castle. So, his brother ended up getting executed for his crimes.

Nice bloke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

I would go on, but I would bore most of you.

---

Your not boring me, but we may be boring the rest of the community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

The family however does still exist.

---

Yeah! I watched that documentary where they tracked down the true King of England to a sheep ranch in Australia (or something).

He didn’t seem particularly interested in claiming the English throne but his daughters were definitely keen on the idea of being Princesses.

Completely off-topic…but I also discovered the memorial of a guy who must be the real life inspiration for Richard Sharpe of the 95th Rifles just up the road in the church at Eynesbury. He seems to have fought and been wounded in just about every battle of the Peninsular War. I want to find out more about him too.

Hello Didz,

To start please don't miss understand me, I am not having a go at you or anything, it's just my tounge in cheek, having a drink, to lazy to get the documents.
So just going from memory most of it.

Dates are all rough, please don't quote me on them.


1st, don't worry about a small date difference, it's not a history exam :laugh4: as above.

But, both Alfred declared himself, and the pope declared also, him to be The King of England.
You have to remember, England was not the geographical part we know of today and alfred was more titular head than real.
Back then it included parts not actually in Alfred's control.
And, it was added to with parts they took back over the time of Alfred, his son, and alfreds Grandson, who was technically the first true king of All England. And to which his daughter married William I of Normandy.
Side note: Both Scotland and Wales, were considered England back in this time. And Scotlands name was Caledonia. (shock horror to the Political groups). But thats another story.

‘Shire-Reeve’ or Sheriff as a person responsible for the administration of justice within a Shire.
This person was oringally appointed to adminisiter or help, admin Alfred's code, the Deemings, within the shires, yes, quite correct.

The point I was making was that prior to the Norman invasion the shire was an subsiduary division of an Earldom and what William did was strip away this overarching layer of control effectively reducing England to a collection of Shires. Which is effectively the current basis of political and government administration that exists in England today.

Kinda of, it's not as clear cut as some think. Yes the Shire made up units of division within the provincal borders.
William I, did have to cut away much of the old to begin a new. But, needed an excuse.
But the titles for the provincal Earls, Wussex, Mercia, Anglia, Northumbria et cetera still remained, but with the King.
Hence, Edward today is the Count of Wessux. (there is a story behind how it became Count and not Earl too). look to Wiliam moyne I think for that.
Whereas, the Northumbria titles did countine. With the Percy Family.
Later Dukes of Northumbria.( technically, Northumbria covers all the York and Lancaster areas). roughly.
However, as you know the 6 Provinces of England, Wessux, Sussex, Anglia, Mercia, Wales (shock horror to political types), and Northumbria.
Only three where ever used after William I came to the throne.
However, the shire earl's already existed in Alfred's time. Called their Full Name, Earlderman. <sp>. Two of these, Wiltshire and Somerset where powerful supporters of Alfreds' regin.

The main reason for Williams confiscation of land and titles, was the revolt in 1067-8 (?), which allowed him to take whatever in the name of bad people naughty, naughty, it was in this period the Godwin family of Wessux was dispossed of their land and titles.

Part of the shire system william liked I suspect only, was that not any one person would end up with a massive territory like had happened in france.
Whereby, they had the means and ability to upsurp the King and his authorita.
This was something William wanted to avoid, and largely he did, by parcel peicing the land to lords.
On a side note, over the next 80 years most of the noble houses that had lost titles, and land, actually had some land, and titles restored.
But even then, in the 1600's there where still only 65 noble families in England, so either way, we are not discussing massive numbers here.

Faulkes, interesting person. These types didn't actually live long or exist in many numbers, but when you do find one, they are usually a nasty individual.


Please Didz,
Yeah! I watched that documentary where they tracked down the true King of England to a sheep ranch in Australia (or something).
If you ever mention this, or quote television again, me and you, are not going to be friends.
Never believe what TV tells you, it's entertainment. :shame:
They had their theory, and they pursued it, with wanton disregard, and, absolutely no evidence.
And left an entire history in the gutter. hmmm typical gutter jurno's?

It's like the people that claimed the royal family was desended from William Wallace because the movie made out he had naughty with the princess, that was 5 or 6 years old at the time of this in real life.
And made out, one of the best early kings was a hated man, Longshanks was a good King.
TV tells me, so must be true!

:no: Television is the greatest evil this world has ever thought up. Because it continues and creates, Lies, and tries to justify them.

Oh well their I go again, boring more poeple.

Nice chatting Didz,


fenir

PS: Richard Sharpe, started in the Sussex Regiment.

35th Royal Sussex Regiment of Foot

Was posted to the Rifles after becomng a NCO. A series written by Bernard shaw I think?

fenir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

But, both Alfred declared himself, and the pope declared also, him to be The King of England.
You have to remember, England was not the geographical part we know of today and alfred was more titular head than real.

Back then it included parts not actually in Alfred's control.

---

I think that’s my point, he and the Pope might have declared he was King of the English but in fact England as it is now did not even exist as a single nation until some time after Alfred’s death.

As I say it’s the difference between ‘nominal’ and ‘actual’. England as it is today came later, but before the Norman conquest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

Never believe what TV tells you, it's entertainment. :shame:
They had their theory, and they pursued it, with wanton disregard, and, absolutely no evidence. And left an entire history in the gutter. hmmm typical gutter jurno's?

---

Well in my opinion all history is propaganda and therefore should be treated with suspicion. It’s usually written by the victors and intended to sell books or make the historian famous.

But in this case they did provide evidence and made a pretty good case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

Television is the greatest evil this world has ever thought up. Because it continues and creates, Lies, and tries to justify them.

---

I agree with you as a general observation but I think one has to differentiate between serious historical research being portrayed on television and historical drama which claims to be historically accurate and then claims that King Arthur was a Roman Knight, Guinevere wore blue body paint and invented the bikini, that William Wallace was Scottish or that the US Marine Corps rescued the British Guards at Hougoumont.

One of the area's I'm really interested in is battlefield archaeology which is only now started to reveal what really happened on some of our more famous battlefields (or more importantly what didn't happen, despite what the history books say)

BTW: I’m just watching the DVD history of the Battle of Iwo Jima which I believe to be reasonably accurate inevitably rather one sided.

About King Arthur...he wasnt after all a Roman knight?:sweatdrop:

What was he then? Brito-Roman?

I don't think anyone covered this, but what I can add to the thread is that the Aztecs would have been known as the Mexicas.
:mexico:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

I agree with you as a general observation but I think one has to differentiate between serious historical research being portrayed on television and historical drama which claims to be historically accurate and then claims that King Arthur was a Roman Knight, Guinevere wore blue body paint and invented the bikini, that William Wallace was Scottish or that the US Marine Corps rescued the British Guards at Hougoumont.

---

You saying William Wallace wasn't Scottish? News to me. He may not have worn Woad, slept with a very foxy princess for a 6 year old and a couple of other little details but I'm pretty sure he was Scottish...

( take it you mean Australian)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

You saying William Wallace wasn't Scottish?

---

It depends on the basis upon which one determines nationality. Nobody, is absolutely certain where Wallace was born, though most agree that it was somewhere within Scotland. possibly Elderslie. So, if one bases nationality upon birth place he is Scottish, unfortunately that rule would make the Duke of Wellington, Irish, as he was born in Ireland.

To overcome that most historians base nationality upon the ancestory of the family, Wellington's family were English but owned estates in Ireland and so that makes Wellington, English even though he was born in Ireland (Phew!). The problem is that Wallaces family were Welsh by descent (although there seems to be doubt as to who his father actually was), but the surname 'Wallace' means 'Welsh' (or Welsh foriegner). The tale that his father was murdered by the Lambies is entirely fiction.

The story of Wallace seems to plaqued by uncertainties and deliberate falshoods, like the story that he served in the Scots Guards of France despite the fact that they were not formed until after his death. But the statement that he was Scottish is one of choice, as nobody really knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard The Tiger Heart

About King Arthur...he wasnt after all a Roman knight?:sweatdrop:

---

My best bet is that he never existed at all.

I'm reasonably certain that the Roman Army of occupation never fielded a unit of Knights, auxilary or otherwise. In fact, I don't think the concept of knighthood and chivilary even existed in the Roman Army, let alone the idea of fielding cavalry in full mail and barding.

They did however, invite subject nations to relocate to Britian in order to dilute the hostility of the Celtic tribes and help keep them in check. (That seems to be how my ancestors arrived here). There is evidence of various Germanic cheiftains being relocated to Britain, either as officers in the Roman army or as leaders of their own tribes. But in terms of the indigenous celtic tribes of Britain these aliens would have been the enemy not the defenders of Britain as portrayed in the film.

My personal belief is that the legends of King Arthur are based upon the struggles which arose between these economic migrants (mostly Angles and Saxons) and the original Celtic tribes after the Romans left Britain. But whether there was a single man who inspired those legends is not clear.

What annoyed me most about the 'crappy' film was that it pompously announced that it was going to tell the true story of King Arthur and then blatantly produced a load of historically inaccurate 'bollocks'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

What annoyed me most about the 'crappy' film was that it pompously announced that it was going to tell the true story of King Arthur and them produced a load of historically inaccurate 'bollocks'.

---

Hear hear.

I believe it suggested he was one of the Sarmatian mercenaries abandoned by rome in briton. That's true, they were.

At least tehy weren't running around in gothic full plate a la excalibur (although a fantastic film...)

But I couldn't agree more. Say it's fantasy and I'll gladly pay my 5 quid.

Tell me it's accurate, the true story then take one possibly true premise and completely make up the rest is just lying to me. Not happy.

It's liek claiming 300 is the true story of Sparta vs persia. Including the fact that Sparta was, apparently, a democracy with a senate capable of overruling the king! Who needed the Athenians and Aristotle when we had Sparta eh? And ruled by Sean Connery's son no less....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moah

At least tehy weren't running around in gothic full plate a la excalibur (although a fantastic film...)

---

Too a certain extent I would have preferred it if they were. I mean there's nothing wrong with a good old fantasy romp through the legend of King Arthur with 'damsels in distress' and magic and dragons and the like.

What got me was the way the film tried to con you into accepting that the Roman army employed armoured knights. At the start of the film Arthur and his mates are equipped pretty much like standard Roman cavalry but as the film progresses they seem to magically acquire more and more armour so that by the time of the big climax they look more or less like medieval Knights complete with couched lances and the works.

My 15 year old son noticed the DVD on my shelf and asked to watch it as he was interested in the true story. But by the end of the film he was in stitches at the shear stupidity of the content. He immeditately labelled it as the dumbest film he has ever watched.

A knights tale is more historically accurate, including the dance sequences, and Monty Python's Holy Grial is closer to the truth even with the coconut shell horses.:clown: