what about the map?
it would be like rtr?
Did we have a part of africa(Niger,soudan,ethipia)
Did we have the arabia part?(oman ,eden...socotra)?
what about the map?
it would be like rtr?
Did we have a part of africa(Niger,soudan,ethipia)
Did we have the arabia part?(oman ,eden...socotra)?
tito, you must read those threads more carefuly and not ask questions on everything
sorry!
but can i say that i am not agree with this map?
i would like to know if it is possible to discuss about it or if it is like the faction -no discussion available.
for my part ,I would prefer all arabia ,afganistan ,all scandinavia and subsahara city like tobocto and if it is possible the nubia,wich was an orthodox country would can be use against egypte and could be a good allied for crusader....
Problem is, that there is only 31 slots for factions and they r full -> with more important factions. And they will not change it ( until release of 1.0 version )
Yes of course
But;can we have strong rebel instead of faction.
for example strong nubian rebelor nomad rebel in the sub sahara area will be a good challange for moor or egypte
moreover it will open a new front with this faction (sud border issue!)
Yes of course
But;can we have strong rebel instead of faction.
for example strong nubian rebelor nomad rebel in the sub sahara area will be a good challange for moor or egypte
moreover it will open a new front with this faction (sud border issue!)
Am I missing something? "Strong" rebels won't challenge anyone.
dont worry, its just Tito ;-D
Why don't you add Iceland in the top left of your map ? Danes colonized it.
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!
how relevant was iceland to medieval warfare?
very much. basicly, iceland was the center of the known world in medieval times.Originally Posted by arfrisco
You are taking the piss, aren't you?Originally Posted by nekrotyrael
Why is the balkan peninsula so screwed again... and why is there a seaside kingdom of Serbia and no kingdom of Croatia?
As far as I'm aware (and my memory is a little hazy), the Serbian faction in the early period represents the Kingdom of Rashka, which would grow into the larger Serbia later in the game. I think that frankly, when push came to shove, MTR felt that they could only really afford to use one faciton slot for that area of the map and decided that Serbia was more important in the long run than Croatia.
Croatia recognised the Hungarian king as King of Croatia in 1102 and stayed in that personalunion until th 16th century. Serbia, on the other hand, gave rise to four independent kingdoms till the 14th century that would eventually become the Serbian Empire in 1346.
That, of course lead in turn to the downfall of the Serbian people when they were conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1371. But in the time scale of M2TW, Serbia's much more a mover and shaker than Croatia.
Last edited by derfinsterling; 02-26-2007 at 16:20.
Cities in western balkans like zara,ragusa etc where under a semi indipantante state under the banner of the Roman(Byzantine)Emperor since the last balkan wars of Basileios II Bulgaroctonus.Their local rulers had the title of Dux(dux of serbia,dux of croatia etc).In 1071 Serbian reagions revolted but croatia still had the same goverment status for atleast 50 years.Croatia was under the protection of the Hungarian rulers even the time of the Crusade attack against Zarra in 1202.Originally Posted by derfinsterling
[/B]No they didn't. Norwegians did, mostly, and the colonization period ended before the start of this game (it ended in 930). It remained independent until the thirteenth century, when it came under Norwegian rule. Only with the Kalmar Union did Iceland fall under the Danish crown.Originally Posted by Octavianus
And, anyway, Iceland as a country wasn't terribly important during the Middle Ages. There was a small civil war here, just before it became part of the kingdom of Norway, but I don't think any king raised a whole unit here to fight in a war on the continent. Some wool and fish was exported, but that's about it, as far as I know.
Anyway, what should the settlement in Iceland be called? There were no villages, towns or cities here at this time, only farms.
Of course, that being said, I would personally love to be able to play an Icelandic faction and go on to conquer at least Norway and Denmark
Last edited by OssomTossom; 02-27-2007 at 19:52.
Why does the map have to go so far east? In my opinion it only needs to go far enough east to include the south eastern edge of the Caspian sea. That would also free up enough province slots for more detail in Europe and you could lose Transoxiana and free up another faction slot. It just seems to me that the extra 10 faction slots are going to be wasted with this un neccesarily expanded map and the factions will be spread very thin. Diplomacy is now moddable as opposed to RTW which was basically a lost cause no matter what mod was applied, so you could afford to have factions in close proximity now, because they can actually talk to each other. I know that the Seljuks have to be represented adequately but my suggestion would do them justice I think.
Well Baldwin those as a point, but please don't remove too much. The Turks were a powerfull faction, so we must be carefull not to "underpower" them, after all, they do have to fight the Bysantine Empire.
The Turks were powerful, but they didn't keep control over those vast areas of Asia. As a nomadic nation they just left them for the ones they took from Rhomania.
I need scissors! 61!!
I never said they did, in fact that's one of the reasons for me to agree to the idea of removing those provinces:
1. For realism;
2. To give room for other more important, Like the Algarves and many others.
I think there should be at least one more province/city in France, which was the most populated kingdom of Europe during the Middle Ages: 15 to 20 millions "Frenchman" compared to only 4 in England and Spain for example.
France indeed had a much greater population than other nearby states during the period being modeled, but I think the population of the area is only a secondary factor in determining the number of provinces is represented. Spain and England had drastically lower populations than France, but were able to raise and maintain armies of comparable fighting capacity, and their treasuries weren't exactly tiny by comparison, either.Originally Posted by Bayard
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
--Leon Trotsky
Twenty milions????When crusaders of the 1st crusade saw Constantinople they admited that the 10 biggest cities of western europe could fit in the city's ground.In the plague period 60% of europe's population died...they were almost 10 milions!!How france had 20 milions of it's own?European cities were just villages compered to huge east urban centers like Thesalonica,Anthioch,Edessa,Bagdad,Alexandria and many more...The only exeption were the islamic cities of south spain Cordoba,Granada etc.Originally Posted by Bayard
Anthonius, I just noticed you are Greek as well! Hehe patrioti!
Arent you a bit biased in your last post?
France lacked large cities in the medieval period because it's population was overwhelmingly rural. The French economic and political system favored decentralization, and it also favored castle towns over cities.Originally Posted by AnthoniusII
So what you're suggesting is that the total population of Europe in 1347 was only 17 million? That is staggeringly low and I have to ask where you've got it from. Reliable estimates of total European population in the 1340s are right around 70 million!In the plague period 60% of europe's population died...they were almost 10 milions!!
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html
The commonly accepted figure for the French population in 1340 is about 20 millions.How france had 20 milions of it's own?
Again, the societies of western Europe were extremely rural during the middle ages. One major cause is the feudal socio-economic system, which kept on the land peasants who might otherwise have moved to cities in search of better prospects. The gist is that in Western European countries the cities made up an insignificant portion of the population.European cities were just villages compered to huge east urban centers like Thesalonica,Anthioch,Edessa,Bagdad,Alexandria and many more...The only exeption were the islamic cities of south spain Cordoba,Granada etc.
To be fair, the European population in 1340 (when France had 20 millions) definitely represents the peak of the medieval period.
Last edited by Pablo Sanchez; 07-02-2007 at 19:22.
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
--Leon Trotsky
My dear felow sadournas is there any Thesallonike else than in Greece?Anyway what i have wrote is the memories of a crusader when he saw Constantinople.For the european population the info i use was in "history chanel" movie about the plague and the afects it had to the known world.That's it,i had no bad intantions to anyone i'm just trying to be correct.I am not perfect...who is anyway?
It is really true! European medieval cities were huge and vast! the "small villages" of London, Rome, Paris and Venice had 100,000 people each! They also had very few publiic buildings such as cathedrals, university, lots of guilds, huge markets, taverns, inns, schools, hospitals, courts. They also had a poor mangemant, with laws, civil codes, punishments for certain crimes, rights and duties list for every citizen. These is a truely poor managemant system! and off coruse that europe had 10 nillion people after the plague and that a century before it had 60 million people, and it is totally possible that that since than, 650 years past and europe's population greaw in 6530%, it is surely possible, isn't it?Originally Posted by AnthoniusII
You are correct about italian cities,london,paris even for some ex roman cities and forts...Constantinople in 1000ad had 600000 population and it was only one of the huge urban centers throuch out the east...European cities could NOT habidant over 100000 (if you are wright) because they had not what they need to...clean water mainly and health fasilities swers for examble.Exept the italian and the ex roman cities no other european one had such comforts maybe because in the catholicism was blasfime for people to clean them selfs...See the famous renaisance pallaces,they had no toilets...If the royal members were like this imagine the peasantry...When spanish took over Granada they destoyed most of those health fassilities...That was the main deferance between eastmen and westmen...Arabs translate all ancient sripts and continued the roman way of city structhures..,When the crusaders ocupayed Jerusalem massacered almost all the population cristian and muslim and desroyed all it's fasillities because they could NOT oparate them."HISTORY OG BALTWIN"Originally Posted by King Orko
Bookmarks