Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Second Bulgarian Tsardom (Complete)

[lion8000]

About the units, as I said in one of my previous post:

hessam apart from the Bolyars, about which I highly disagree, I still think that you are doing a great job in this mod and I know that you are putting a lot of effort and time in it. Most of the units from the Bulgarian roster are looking awesome. For example the Despot's spearmen are looking so good and especially the tier 3 one's shields are just beautiful, they are probably some of the best looking shields in the entire mod. The tier 3 Bodyguards are great too. Their equipment is great, the only downfall is the wack of heraldry and it is kind of weird that the horses have armor only on their heads. The tier 2 Bodyguards are also looking great, but some of them are wearing brown and they lack heraldry as well, and maybe triangle shields would be more appropriate, but everything else is really good. And adding tier 1, 2 and 3 swordsman is a really good idea, since swords are really common to be found in Bulgaria. The Maceman are also a great unit, their equipment is really good, but some of them have outdated helmets and it doesn't make much sense that they will spend so much money in armor for the limbs and not buying a proper helmet, since the helmet is the most fundamental peace of armor. Their shields are also very outdated for such a unit. Also the maces from the Tarnovo museum would be more appropriate:



And since maces were obviously pretty popular in both First and Second Bulgarian empires (as we can see from the Preslav, Sofia and Tarnovo museums (I've posted pictures of them before)) tier 1 and 2 Maceman loud be a really nice addition to the roster. The Bulgarian guard is also a really great unit, it really looks cool. Maybe a tier 3 pike unit would be nice to. And maybe you could bring back the tier 2 Bulgarian heavy infantry, because that unit was looking really good.

Some suggestions about the coat of arms:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...ump-to-license

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...ump-to-license

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...ump-to-license

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...ump-to-license

Some rings from the Tarnovo museum (again suggestions for the heraldry):



The fraction icon is still brown, which is not right, it should be red. I don't know why they made it brown in the first place. The flags are really good, but again they should be red not brown. The flag of emperor Kaloyan had a cross and the keys of saint Peter. And the roster needs more crosses on their shields, because the Bulgarians were Christians after all. The Double-headed eagle was the dynastic emblem of the Shishman dynasty, so it can be added to the shields of the tier 2 units. And again I really respect your work.

Teutonic actually I'm inclined to trust Lala Shahin, because he even reported to the sultan that he had the intention to retreat his forces from the city, obviously he wasn't confident to storm the city and was forced to do a long siege. Actually Sofia surrendered in 1385ad. after the ruler of Sofia Ivan Asen V of Bulgaria was kidnapped during a hunt.

Knight2708 the the Bolyars were the Bulgarian knights. The current Bolyars units need to be entirely changed. And the Voivodes weren't nobles.

[Knight2708]

Knight2708 the the Bolyars were the Bulgarian knights. The current Bolyars units need to be entirely changed. And the Voivodes weren't nobles.

My mistake. Could you explain in a bit more detail please?

[Teutonic]

Lala Shahin's report could easily be broadly true, I am not disputing it. Just one must always look critically at such sources. If Ivan Asen V was in command there (a theory which I really like) it will explain why the Turks reported that there were "elite" Bulgarian troops opposing them. He would've brought with him the best available troops.

I am also curious about bolyars = knights. I totally agreed with Knight2708 from his previous post. First of all, there isn't direct equivalence anyway, this must be acknowledged. Whilst bolyars were pretty directly equivalent to Western nobles of various ranks by the 14 century, there isn't such for knights that I am aware.
The closest thing in military terms (quality of armour, training, battlefield role, numbers etc) I thought was heavy cavalry maintained by pronoia type grants- used also in Serbia (I think), ERE, Ottoman Sipahi, etc.
But I am not an expert so, someone who knows more could educate us.

[CrossTd]

I feel the need to explain some terms, bolyars comes from bolyarin and the closest translation to me is noble. Some bolyars ruled small villages and were little better than the peasants and some were wielding huge power and serving in the council to the tzar and voting on the highest decisions in the country. They could depose the ruler and raise another one in his place. There were many bolyars in the country, probably one family per village with more than few capable warriors from the family.
The voivods are basically peasants that through fighting earned their status as veterans and commanders. During the war against the ottomans there were many voivods leading small groups of people fighting guerilla warfare.

[Knight2708]

I am also curious about bolyars = knights. I totally agreed with Knight2708 from his previous post. First of all, there isn't direct equivalence anyway, this must be acknowledged. Whilst bolyars were pretty directly equivalent to Western nobles of various ranks by the 14 century, there isn't such for knights that I am aware.
The closest thing in military terms (quality of armour, training, battlefield role, numbers etc) I thought was heavy cavalry maintained by pronoia type grants- used also in Serbia (I think), ERE, Ottoman Sipahi, etc.
But I am not an expert so, someone who knows more could educate us.

Those pronoia holders do indeed sound rather similar to knights. Do you know what they were called in Bulgarian?

I feel the need to explain some terms, bolyars comes from bolyarin and the closest translation to me is noble. Some bolyars ruled small villages and were little better than the peasants and some were wielding huge power and serving in the council to the tzar and voting on the highest decisions in the country. They could depose the ruler and raise another one in his place. There were many bolyars in the country, probably one family per village with more than few capable warriors from the family.
The voivods are basically peasants that through fighting earned their status as veterans and commanders. During the war against the ottomans there were many voivods leading small groups of people fighting guerilla warfare.

So basically Bolyars are nobles ranging in power from small landholders comparable to gentry to major magnates and grand seigneurs, and Voivode are officers and leaders of small warbands? Do you know whether there were different names used for the major and minor Bolyars or were they all covered by this one broad term? Also did Voivde ever fight alone or did they always lead other troops?

[CrossTd]

Knight2708 sometimes they may have humble beginning as well but accumulated enough power to be considered to that social level. Since agriculture was a major part of the country that is what makes someone bolyar, just few decades before the start period of the campaign the was a rebellion led by a brothers which were wealthy sons of a farming family. Those brothers went from there to accepted tzars so you have to consider. Every wealthy land owner could be considered in that way. Bolyars held all the titles and were instrumental, they could make or break the tzar. I don't know specific titles but won't be hard to find, pre Byzantine occupation they were mostly old Bulgarian and after it was mixed from Byzantine and Bulgarian.

When I was growing up I learned that voivodes were people not afraid to die, fighting fiercely and surviving many battles through cunning and skills. As a grow up and reading I consider them veterans put at a pedestal and they have to live up to the idea of them. In short they are battle hardened peasants considered the best warriors and people someone could depend on during battle

[lion8000]

CrossTd nothing of this is true. Peter and Asen were aristocrats and claimed that they were from the same bloodline as the old Bulgarian emperors (some historians even assume that maybe there is some truth in this). The Bolyars were the Bulgarian aristocracy and their titles were inheritable (the same way as in western Europe). The Bolyars were divided into great and minor. The great Bolyars were equal to the western major mobility like Earls, Counts and so on. They were extremely powerful including during the First Bulgarian empire, the 12th and the 13th centuries, during the 14th century they became almost independent (some great Bolyars became almost independent during the 13th century). The Bolyar council- The Sinklit was made of the most powerful Bolyars (the Bulgarian government and titles were in Byzantine model, but there were some differences) this council restricted the power of the Bulgarian emperor to some extent, sometimes the Sinklit had the power to replace the emperor.CrossTd "were little better than the peasants " this is again not true. The minor Bolyars were equal to the western minor mobility like knights, Baronets and so on. They were still land owners, with a lot of wealth and yes they hold villages and so on. The Bolyars were the richest part of the medieval Bulgarian society and they were also the military elite of Bulgaria, that's why they had access to the best equipment for the time, a good example of this is the Manasses chronicle (pictures from which I have posted on page 2). And yes the Voivodes were commoners (it is not compulsory to be peasants), which through fighting earned their status as veterans.

[Teutonic]

Those pronoia holders do indeed sound rather similar to knights. Do you know what they were called in Bulgarian?

I am afraid I don't know. It is quite possible they didn't have specific name to differentiate them from other native heavy cavalry, like the retainers of the king and other major nobles. Those recording events, including military matters, tended to be half-blind senile old monks in monasteries in the middle of nowhere... These are the kind of documents that survived the destruction of the Ottoman invasion. If someone who knew what they were doing wrote things down, these writings would've been burned down with his house and fortress.

Speaking of someone who "knew what they were doing"- John Kantakouzenos (1292-1383!!!) was very experienced in military matters and wrote extensively. He retired to become a monk in a monastery which is probably why his stuff reached us. Even this guy uses very general and archaic terminology.

[lion8000]

Teutonic an example: In order to commemorate the battle of Klokotnitsa, the Bulgarian emperor Ivan Asen II had an inscription carved in one of the marble columns of the Church "Holy Forty Martyrs" in the capital of the Bulgarian empire Great Tarnovo. Among all existing documents the text of this inscription is the most accurate evidence of the outcome and the aftermath of the battle:

"In the Year of the World 6738 (1230), third indiction. John Asen in God Christ true Tsar and sovereign of the Bulgarians, son of the old Tsar Asen, raised from the foundations and decorated with art this holy church in the name of the Holy 40 Martyrs, with the help of whom in the twelfth year of my reign when this temple was being decorated. I made war in Byzantium and defeated the Greek army and captured their Tsar, Kyr Teodore Komnenos, together with all his bolyars. And I occupied all of his land from Odrin (Adrianople) to Drach (Dyrrhachium), Greek and also Albanian and Serbian; and the towns around Constantinople and this very town were ruled by the Frizes (Latins), but they also subjugated to my empire; because they had no other Tsar but me and thanks to me they spent their days, because God ordered this, because without Him neither a deed, nor a word is done. Glory to Him forever, amen."

[CrossTd]

Lion8000 I really don't wanna engage in this historical argument. Lots of imposters claimed great things and I really doubt the Asen dynasty were from old bloodline traced to Dulo or Ukil dynasty. Even Simeon the Great wasn't from those royal bloodlines. Stop romanticising the bolyars since most of them were little better than village chiefs. The powerful enough that could elect and depose tzars were no more than 10. There wasn't a long and stable period in the country for that very reason, ambitious men could land at the top

[lion8000]

CrossTd I'm not romanticizing. I said that some historians assume, that maybe there is some truth and that's because the good organization of the uprising and that nobody questioned their authority (and again you said that "Every wealthy land owner could be considered in that way" , that is absolutely not true). Pope Innocent III acknowledged that Peter and Asen were descendants of the old Bulgarian emperors, during a territorial argument between emperor Kaloyan and the Hungarian king Emeric (who had captured the roman ambassadors, which were supposed to crown Kaloyan). The claims of Peter and Asen claims were about emperors Peter and Samuel not Dulo and so on. But I'm not really convinced in their claims.

"Stop romanticising the bolyars since most of them were little better than village chiefs. The powerful enough that could elect and depose tzars were no more than 10. There wasn't a long and stable period in the country for that very reason, ambitious men could land at the top" again not true and the members of the Sinklit were more than 10. "most of them were little better than village chiefs" I already disproved that statement. And unlike you I'm using historical sources and actual history books.

[FrozenmenSS]

If you ask me the modding team what we got right now is I think we already had 3 or 4 updates already for some factions like the Second Bulgarian Tsardom and the Holy Roman Empire? its a bit of an overkill before releasing the campaign mode.My finnal advice the mod team to go for other factions(playable and unplayable) that got no units at all still like the Alans,Irish,Scotts,Volga Bulgarians,Flanders,Arabian and ethiopian ones and so on. And even worse there are also rebel/emergent factions that dont have also unit rosters. What Im saying is updating older already created unit rosters constantly puts the progress for a Campaign map unit rosters slower and slower. Not to mention Finix may need to create again new UI cards for the new units that takes tons for time.

For me All the units in the new Bulgarian unit roster is great and should not be updated anymore for saving time on the case ''you got the wrong sandals or the buttons on the chest''.It will never end.

[Filips Augustus]

And even worse there are also rebel/emergent factions that dont have also unit rosters.

Just wanted to say that rebel/emergent factions won't get rosters of their own, but at most a recolouring of the current units.

[Teutonic]

Teutonic an example: In order to commemorate the battle of Klokotnitsa, the Bulgarian emperor Ivan Asen II had an inscription carved in one of the marble columns of the Church "Holy Forty Martyrs" in the capital of the Bulgarian empire Great Tarnovo. Among all existing documents the text of this inscription is the most accurate evidence of the outcome and the aftermath of the battle:

"In the Year of the World 6738 (1230), third indiction. John Asen in God Christ true Tsar and sovereign of the Bulgarians, son of the old Tsar Asen, raised from the foundations and decorated with art this holy church in the name of the Holy 40 Martyrs, with the help of whom in the twelfth year of my reign when this temple was being decorated. I made war in Byzantium and defeated the Greek army and captured their Tsar, Kyr Teodore Komnenos, together with all his bolyars. And I occupied all of his land from Odrin (Adrianople) to Drach (Dyrrhachium), Greek and also Albanian and Serbian; and the towns around Constantinople and this very town were ruled by the Frizes (Latins), but they also subjugated to my empire; because they had no other Tsar but me and thanks to me they spent their days, because God ordered this, because without Him neither a deed, nor a word is done. Glory to Him forever, amen."

I assume this refers to my comments on the lack of secular (written by people other than churchmen) sources? I didn't mean there are zero such from Medieval Bulgaria. There is also the one at Urvich by Sevast Ognyan. I am sure you know it.

But in both Asen's and Ognyan's carvings there is nothing to further our knowledge on military matters in general, let alone names of specific troops- which was the point I was referring to (the name of pronoia type funded heavy cavalry).
I was thinking of stuff like the writings of Kantakouzenous or the Chronicle of the Morea. I am not aware of examples of this kind existing for 13-15 century Bulgaria.

FrozenmenSS, coming back to early made factions and improving them is a natural process in mods like this one. It happens all the time. As new assets become available, skills improve, and better research the newer factions being added are objectively better than the older ones. So the modders will take the time and effort to bring them to the same level. Often the factions made first will be major ones too, which makes it even more necessary to improve- e.g. HRE, England, France...
Of course you have a point. There must be a limit and people should be careful of "feature creep". It will never end indeed.

[finix]

We will not change the rooster for now, except adding middle-class swordsmen, some cumans and tatars. Like it or not - that's it. Frozenmen assumed correctly other rosters that were not getting enough attention is already being worked
This is the third update of the roster, and I thank Hesam for dedicating time to accomplish it. I am pleased and I think we have received much more than what we could get
I also believe that, because of the lack of clear evidence and generally the limited information available to us, all claims of untruth seem frivolous

[FrozenmenSS]

Just wanted to say that rebel/emergent factions won't get rosters of their own, but at most a recolouring of the current units.

You Forgot the Recoloring of the UI unit cards.

Teutonic, I know that, I was talking in a general way,not specific.I was saying updating unit roster updates prior the Campaign mode is out.After the public got it - the mod team can put as many as they want unit updates on Faction A or B. Personaly Max 3 Updates per faction/culture is enouch and a good middle groundif you ask me. Best of Luck

[Teutonic]

Teutonic, I know that, I was talking in a general way,not specific.I was saying updating unit roster updates prior the Campaign mode is out.After the public got it - the mod team can put as many as they want unit updates on Faction A or B. Personaly Max 3 Updates per faction/culture is enouch and a good middle groundif you ask me. Best of Luck

I was being general too. It depends what you mean by "update". Big reworkings/additions like Jerusalem, HRE, England, Bullgaria, ERE (Byz), France, etc. or just adding a couple of units. For big ones just one should be enough, not 3.

I am rather torn between wanting some factions expanded and improved and new ones which haven't been done yet (for me these are the Celts- Welsh, Scots, and Irish). It's entirely up to the modders and I am grateful of their work, which is getting better all the time.

A lot has been written on this thread and I am guilty of much of it so I'll just bottom line it:

Hessam did brilliant work. I have not asked for any changes except maybe changing 1-2 units' names, and using the assets of the Bolyars for other late era units. That's it. These are just ideas and suggestions, I don't think it is disaster if things remain as they are. It's still great.

[Filips Augustus]

You Forgot the Recoloring of the UI unit cards.

Why would the UI cards need to be recoloured? The only time you will see them is if you check the rebel army on its units in the campaign map, and that has no effect on the gameplay. You won't actually see the cards in the battle. If the team wants to recolour them, then I'm sure it will be on the lowest place of the priority list.

[lion8000]

finix the Bulgarian Levi Spearman and Bulgarian Hooked Pikemen need to be changed, because there are very clear evidences, from the 13th and 14th century, of how did the Bulgarian commoners looked like- the frescoes from the Boyana church (1259ad.), the pictures from Bulgarian chronicles of actual Bulgarian peasants, builders, smiths and Bulgarian peasants paying their taxes to a minor Bolyar:



From those evidences we can see that the Bulgarians didn't wear those cliche furry hats, which don't even look good.They were wearing colorful clothes and so on.
About the tier 1,2 and 3 Bolyars units, the Manasses chronicle is a clear evidence (which can not be ignored) of how the tier 1,2 and 3 Bolyars units should look like. And you haven't shown any sources or arguments in their defense

[finix]

I will not get into meaningless disputes anymore