[WIP] The Barbarian Invasions - Overhaul Mod for the Grand Campaign with 8 New Starting Dates from 395ad-681ad.With new Custom Units.

[FrozenmenSS]

A.)Introduction:
The Barbarian Invasions is Overhaul Mod for the Grand Campaign for Total War: Attila that Will Bring 8 Totally new Playable Historical Factions with highly Historical Unit Rosters and their Cultures.This mod Have been in the Working since Total War:Attila Came out.The Goal of the Mod to be the Most Historicaly Accurate Mod from the periods:395ad up unitl the 700ad.The Historicaly Accurate Campaign map that should have been when TW:Attila came out.10-20 new Historical Factions on the campaign map. Spawning From the late 4th century up until the late 7th Century this Mod will try to recreate All the Changes in Europe,Africa and Asia that Historically Happened with all the Settled and unsettled Factions:
1. From the rise and fall of the Hunnic Empire;
2. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire;
3. The time of The Dark Ages in Britain that the story of king Arthur went into Legend(without compromising the Historic elements and the Focus of the mod);
4. The Formation of the Barbarian Kingdoms of the Merovingian Franks in Gaul,the Visigoths and the Suebi in Iberia,the Vandals in Northern Africa led by Genseric, the Ostrogoths who were led by Theoderic the Great in Italy and the Formation of Kingdom of the Lombards also in Italy led by Alboin;
5. The wars Between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Persian Empire in the Middle East;
6. The Red and White Huns attacking the Sassanid Persian and the Gupta Indian empires and the forming of their Kidarite and Hefthalite Empires of their own;
7. The migration of the Bulgars, Avars and Khazars from Central Asia westwerd into Europe and Forming Empires of their own;
8. The shift from a Latin to a Greek Speaking Byzantine Empire and the formation of the Thematic governing system in the empire;
9. The migration of the Slavs into Central and Southern Europe;
10. And Lastly the Rise of Islam after the death of the prophet Muhammad and the Formation of the Arab Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates that Conqured Most of the known world in that Time.


B.)The 8 new Playable Historical Factions:

1.The Gupta Indian Empire - the Guptas unified India and waged war with the Steppe Nomads that were Comming from Central Asia Like a Tidal Wave.
2. The Red Huns - also known as the Kidarites and waged war with the Sassanid and Gupta Empires for almost 200 years
3. The White Huns - also known as the Hepthalite Empire and waged war with the Sassanid and Gupta Empires for almost 200 years
4. The Avars - that were part of the Hephthalite Empire and after its downfall migrated west into the Pannonian plain on the Danube.
5. The Khazars - that were part of the Hephthalite and Turkic Empires in Cental Asia and migrated into Europe and Formed a Khaganate of their own with the Alans and other tribes.
6. The Bulgars - who migrated 100-200 years into Europe even before the arrival of the Huns(recorded by several Armenian Chronologist from Armenia) in Europe and joined the Hunnic Confederation
7. The Magyars - who were one of the first to join Hunnic Confederation just like the Bulgars and their Ugrian kin from the Volga Region settled on the edge of the known World in the Ural mountains
8. The Arab Caliphate (after 634ad)(work in progress) - that spread the Words of the prophet Muhammad by conquest from the lands on Atlantic ocean all the way to China and India - and across 3 Continents.

C.)Changes to the units So Far:
- 24 reskined vanilla units for the Hunnic units to look more Historically Accurate as Sarmatian,Scytian looking and to be used by some of the new Custom Factions.
- 146 new Custom units(half of of them are similar to the Vannila units in stats.)
- 170 in total reskined vanilla and new Custom units
- 96 new custom Unit Cards in total.
- no onager units are counted.No new onager or naval units are added.Pure land units for the armies.

D.)New Factions : Info

1.Gupta Empire:new 31 custom units + 2 Red Hunnic ones - with eastern cities and buildings.
Gameplay as the Sassanids, settled with Eastern cities and buildings.
Strong Side: range infantry units + cheap Elephants.
Weak side: weak Cavalry compared with the Sassanids and the Nomads.
Religion: (work in progress)
Faction trait:Masters of India: -50% unit upkeep

2.Avars: 15 new custom units +24 hunnic vannila reskined units.
Gameplay as the Huns,but settled with barbarian cities and buildings.
Weak side: No Naval units.
Religion: Tengri
Faction trait: Hit and Run: - 35% upkeep for 10 turns for any army that loots or sacks a settlement

3.Bulgars:41 units =39 custom+ 2 Vannila Hunnic units.
Gameplay as the Huns,but settled with Eastern cities and buildings.
Weak side: No Naval units.
Religion: Zoroastrianism
Faction trait: Multi-Religious: No negative bonuses from other Religions

4.Magyars:41 new custom units.
Gameplay as the Huns,but settled with barbarian cities and buildings.
Weak side: No Naval units.
Religion: Tengri
Faction trait: Cold Blood:Immune to snow attrition.

5.Red Huns: 12 new custom units + 4 Sassanid Vannila units - 9 Vannila Hunnic units.
Gameplay as the Huns,but settled with Eastern cities and buildings.
Weak side: No Naval units.
Religion: Zoroastrianism
Faction trait: Rulers of the Kushans: (work in progress)

6.White Huns: 13 new custom units + 3 Sassanid Vannila units - 8 Vannila Hunnic units.
Gameplay as the Huns,but settled with Eastern cities and buildings.
Weak side: No Naval units.
Religion: Zoroastrianism
Faction trait: Enemy Morale: -10 when Fighting Zoroastrian Factions

7.Khazars:13 new custom Khazar units,12 new custom units From the Magyars,9 Alanic Vannila units and 13 Vannila Hunnic units.
Gameplay as the Huns,but settled with Eastern cities and buildings.
Weak side: No Naval units.
Religion: Tengri
Faction trait: The Northern Trade Routes: + 50% from Trade tarifs.

F.)Modding team
1.Frozenmen - Campaign map changes/Balancing/Researcher/Concept.
2.Sebidee - Unit Creator.
3.Obiron - Art.


If you are interested guys, and you want to help this Mod to be finished faster and be more polished contact us.
The Feadback will be the most welcomed,Because the Time period is So rich with Modding opportunities to get something done, how stuff can be done and with Historical Documented Events.


Q&A:
A)Where are the Slavs?
B)We think that there will be a Culture Pack DLC for the 3 Slavic factions that are in the game,just like we got for the Celts in Britain.If there is no such Culture Pack DLC for the Slavs we will just add them as playable and give them new Historically accurate units.

A)Why dont you ,guys Overhaul the Vannila Alans Unit Roster?
B)We think that there will be a FLC update from Creative Assembly that will fix the problem. If they dont We will do it in the Future.

Preview - Bulgarian unit roster - go to post #41
Preview - Avars unit roster - go to post #42
Re-skinning of 24 of the Hunnic vanilla units - go to post #43
Preview - White Huns unit roster - go to post #49
Preview - Red Huns unit roster - go to post #50
Preview - Gupta Empire unit roster - go to post #51
Preview - Khazars unit Roster - go to post #52
Preview - Magyars unit roster - go to post #53

Starting Dates with Maps with the starting regions


1.The Barbarian Invasions - 395ad - 4 turns per year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

2.The Barbarian Invasions - 410ad - 8 turns per year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

3.The Barbarian Invasions - 450ad - 12 turns per year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

4.The Barbarian Invasions - 475ad - 4 turns per year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

5.The Dark Ages - 533ad - 8 turns per year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

6.The Dark Ages - 572ad - 4 turns per year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

7.The Rise of Islam 634ad - 8 turns per year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

8.The Rise of Islam 681ad - 8 turns per year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Work in progress.Not everything is Final when you see it in this post...It may change in the Future

[DarkBG]

Браво справили сте се перфектно !!!
Great Job !!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

6. the Bulgars - who migrated 100-200 years into Europe even before the arrival of the Huns(recorded by several Armenian Chronologist from Armenia) in Europe and joined the Hunnic Confederation
7. The Magyars - who were one of the first to join Hunnic Confederation just like the Bulgars and their Ugrian kin from the Volga Region settled on the edge of the known World in the Ural mountains

These statements are both wrong. There's no evidence of Finno-Ugric DNA or admixture in any Hunnic or steppe burial finds from that region prior to at least the 7th century AD, which completely rules out the Magyars as ever being part of the Hun confederation.

The Bulgars weren't around yet. The people I think you're thinking of were the Dingling, a group of proto-Oghur Turkish speaking nomads that spread across Central asia in the 3rd century AD, and were subsumed by the Xiongnu to form the Huns themselves. From then would come what many call the "Oghur Bulgars" in the 6th-7th century, which are more accurately just called the Huns.

[FrozenmenSS]

These statements are both wrong. There's no evidence of Finno-Ugric DNA or admixture in any Hunnic or steppe burial finds from that region prior to at least the 7th century AD, which completely rules out the Magyars as ever being part of the Hun confederation.

The Bulgars weren't around yet. The people I think you're thinking of were the Dingling, a group of proto-Oghur Turkish speaking nomads that spread across Central asia in the 3rd century AD, and were subsumed by the Xiongnu to form the Huns themselves. From then would come what many call the "Oghur Bulgars" in the 6th-7th century, which are more accurately just called the Huns.

So this post will explain everything about the Nomadic Factions -Bulgars(historical term invented in the 19th century just like the terms Byzantine/Eastern Roman empires for the Roman Empire after 476ad),Avars,Khazars,Kidarites/Red Huns,White Huns/Hephthalite Empire/Chionites that you are talking about guys - and that will be playable in the The Barbarian Invasions - Overhaul Mod for the Grand Campaign with 8 New Starting Dates from 395ad-681ad. and why it was chosen this Design Choice when making the mod by myself For TW:Attila and How CA can use the same Formula for making the Nomadic DLC.

In the last 30 years there was a massive shift and a Big Rewriting of the History of Central Asia my most Scientists for the Period 3th-7th century.
The the Hole concept of the Nomadic State in that time period have been overhauled.in the past it was viewed as a Horde moving from place to place and never settle.Now in the 21th century the Nomadic State as a structure is viewed just the same as a normal states like the Barbarian kingdoms in the Western Europe - with administration, oligarchy, stratified society,with even better military organisation and tactics and in the technological department and more advanced than the Barbarian kingdoms in Europe.This was one of the main Reasons even the Attila's Huns managed to be so sucsessfull in Europe.

Those nomads had temples with build on the Zoroastrian Religion or some sort of nomadic Variant of the Teachings of Zoroaster.If their Nomadic religion was Tengri you dont need to build temples for your Gods - you just start praying in the middle of the steppes. Tengri as a religion is still alive Russia and central Asia and is well documented. The influence of Sassanid Persia over those land for the most of the 20th Century was neglected by the Scientists back then.Now in the last 30 years it got new life in with what is comming from the ground and what was written across the Centuries .The language of those Tribes was also Indo-European. It was so close with the Persian,proto-Slavic and the Baktrian ones back then as is The modern Polish and Russian languages today,because in the past the changes in languages were very slow and gradual.Not like in the past 1000 years most of the languages started to separate(example: french,spanish,italian from the Latin in the Western Roman Empire)

With Evidence to back it up the Turkic tribes came in Central Asia and in Europe as early in the late 6th Century.Not in the 4th century.The Huns in TW:Attila look the most idiotic way done by CA where every unit that they got is Mongolid looking ones and that wasnt the case.A cheap way from Creative Assembly to make a buck in the marketing department.There may have been some Turkic infuence but it wasnt dominant.They may have been the ruling party but the mass of the people wasnt.Example:names - kids in todays Russia are named Elizabeths .Does this makes them Brittish?or naming your kids with a greek name like Alexander? No - it was the same back then:people with Turkic names like Organa doesnt show he was a Turk.It was the fashion back then. If after 5000 years archaeologists find those people in Russia and have no other records they will say that those Alexanders and Elizabeths were greek and english people in that region,not russians.

The European Huns,The Chionites/Hephthalites/White Huns ,Kidarites/Red Huns,Bulgars,Avars,Khazars were Indo-European(not turkic bit with some minor turkic elements) nomadic tribes who formed states of their own and settled in Regions from the Pontic Steppe all the way to India.With the latest evidences from linguistics, archaeologists, anthropologists, historical documents ,expeditions in Central Asia,Southern Russia and so on the modern Historiographic Science community can say all those tribes were present from the time of 395ad when TW:Attila starts in Europe and in Central Asia without being biased by the Soviet Union's bias of the Pan-Slavism(invented by Catrine the Great in the 18th Century in the Russsian Empire back then) that the slavic culture was supiriour than the nomads.

Even there is also such Overhauling and rethinking of the History of the Proto-Slavs from the first 1000 years after the death of Jesus.Right now the Leading theory is that the Slavs were settled settled Scytians.The Same Royal Scythians from Rome 2.

Now lets go to each Faction specificaly.
1.European Huns
The 3 Leading Theories for the European Huns right now are

1)That they were a minor Turkic tribe migrated into Europe and was formed a big Confederation withh the Ugrian Tribes(by ugrian we can add the Hungarians/Magyars as its their Official History By the Hungarian State, and we have to respect them),the Bulgars(the same as the magyars),the Ostrogoths,the Sarmathians, the Alans and many other Germanic tribes. - the most supported leading theory Around the world right now.

2)That they were Pure 100% turkic and came from Mongolia. - This theory is one of the oldest and the most outdated due to sheer number evidences against it and almost nothing in its defense.

3)That they were Pure 100% Sarmatian/Bulgar or Hungarian nation. - same as 2)

2. Avars
The Avar(Pannonian Avars) early history by being Overhauled is right now at this state: They were Indo-Europeans with european faces.Theywere formed from the Uar and Honni tribes - not the Juan Juan tribes form Mongolia. The that lived between the Altai Region and Northern Baktria and were part of the main White and Red Huns in Central Asia.After the Fall of the Hephthalite Empire by the Turkic Khaganate and the Sassanids they migrated West with most of the population of the White Huns and settled in Europe.It was recorded that they Lived in cities and were settled in Baktria/Sogdiana.

3.Khazars
The Khazars early history by being Overhauled is right now at this state: They were Indo-Europeans with european faces.In Their early History they had a strong Alanic link from the Caucasus near the Casipian Sea -the tribes Tati and with the Kidarites.The Khazars link themselfs with the Royal fammily of the Kidarites.That lived between the Altai Region and Northern Baktria and were part of the main White and Red Huns in Central Asia.After the Fall of the Hephthalite Empire and Kidarite Kingdom by the Turkic Khaganate and the Sassanids,and After the fall of the Turkic Khaganate by Tan China they migrated West with most of what was left of the Indo-European speaking population of the White Huns and settled in Europe.In this exact period the Turkic element on the Khazars became Dominant because of the migrations westwards by turkic tribes because of Tan China wanting to control the Silk road.And then they joined The Khazars - and thets how the Khazars overran Gread Old Bulgaria in the 650s-670s.After that most of Central Asia started to Speak Turkic or call themselfs turks It was recorded that they Lived in cities and were settled.There are pople in Modern Afghanistan that says they came out of the Early Khazars...

4.Red and White Huns - Indo-Europeans with european faces.Dominant in central Asia. And were the strongest of the nomads in central Asia for 200 years.

5.Bulgars - this Faction is so full of info (at least 30 theories from where they came) that I have to write at least 50 000 words about it.so In short It was Documented by not 1 ,not 2 or 5 Armenian Chronologists.Example:Vardan(the Great)from Armenia that after the Fall of the Parthian Empire (198ad)in the third Century that the Bulgarians migrated From Baktria/Balhara/Pamir,Hundu-Kush,Tien Shan Mountains into the Pontic Steppes just north of the Caucasus Mountains in Sarmatia Asiatica by passing the land of the Armenians peacefully and some even settled on the shores on the lake Van in Armenia.The Armenians by being neignbours of the Bulgars and the Alans just south of the Caucasus Mountains reported that the Bulgars formed their own States,had highly developed civilisation with wall cities made of stone(same said for the Alans as well,this statement is quite unique for nations that are mensioned as nomads),some were settled in them others were migrating with their herlds. That the Bulgars were allies with the Armenians when going to war. That in the 380s ad they joined peacefully the Hunnic confederation and attacked the Crimean goths by crossing the Kerch straith and also the Armenians till the 395-8.Until the death of Attila the Bulgars were united,but after that they formed 3 groups - the Onogondurians(the Inner Bulgars)the biggest mass of the bulgars and was the most peacefull but the most developed and forming a state living near the Caucasus Mountains ,the Utigurs (the outer Bulgars)living east of the Don river, and the Kutigurs(the few bulgars) the most warlike ones who were the most proud of the legacy of the European Huns living west of the Don river. Back then being part of the Hunnic Confedeation was like being proud being part of NATO in our time.












https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Balhara

In this Mod the Bulgars will be represented by using the Baktrian Origin theory with some elements of the Crimean Origin theory with 2 units.

the Other Origin theories for the Bulgars will be left in the Shade for now.Like for example the Theory that the Bulgars were Thracians(Simmilar theory like the Modern Romanians are Dacians in Dacia.)
and so on.


Now By Mentioning the Dingling - ,dont know why,But they got nothing in common with the Indo-europeans in Central Asia and Europe.They were in Mongolia. They lived in west of the Lake Baikal(Altai mountain) and thats is a region populated till the 7th Century by Indo-Europeans - not Turkic tribes. they came in that region later.So that means they were closer to the Chionites/Hefthalites/White Huns and others - but the Bulgars - no way.3000 km were between those nations. No way how could have intermingled between themselfs.


And the DNA samples and findings are so Speculative tools right now.
Example: 1 independent DNA study shows that the Bulgarians today got 75% Thracian DNA. a Second independent DNA study - only 6%.So the DNA research needs at least 10-15 years more to be a good tool for the historians.

[FrozenmenSS]

Second Video.


My observations on most of the supporters of the East Iranic theory , it seems no one has mentioned the Iranic theory is actually split in two camps - Eastern/Bactrian and Western/Sarmatian), as well as the non-academic autochtonic (i.e. Thracian) theories, also makes me think that their motivations for supporting these theories mostly lie on non-objective reasons. However, - I'd say the main drive is to distance ourselves from the idea of the Bulgars being Turkic as a nation as a hole. Now, the reasons for that are several. The most obvious one is that due to the five centuries of Ottoman yoke, in Bulgaria we generally don't have a particularly positive image of the Turks, which most of us see as our "more recent archenemy" (the older, medieval and now outdated one being, of course, Byzantium). Although I'd say that the view on the Bulgarian Turks and Pomaks (Bulgarian Muslims) in particular is at least mixed at worst (not counting nationalist extremists), as I personally also have an image of the Bulgarian Turks as relatively poor (i.e. on our own level), somewhat conservative and extremely hard-working, honest people. Then again, maybe it's just me...


Anyway, back to the point - besides the general anti-Turkicness most of us have grown up in Bulgaria with, another factor for distancing ourselves from the old Turkic theory is that the latter was artificially enforced as an actual dogma in our historiography during the communist regime. And now when that regime is gone, the dam is broken and all the pent-up "liberty" and ideas are pouring out, as far away from the old postulates as possible. Before an argument for that, I would first have to explain that, at least according to the common view, including of some of our historians, the reason why our communist authorities wanted to stress so much on the supposed Turkic origin of the Bulgars was itself "racist", as someone from the modern West would say. Namely, the idea was to portray the Bulgars as relatively primitive, but highly warlike "bow-legged Mongoloid savages", who conquered, but were then quickly assimilated by the more sophisticated and superior sea of Slavic tribes, thus underlining our Slavic nature and our natural brotherhood with "Mother Russia"*. Respectively, often the same more-nationalist circles which tend to go for those non-Turkic theories, at least according to my observations, have also started to deny the Slavic nature of modern Bulgarians** or even the existence of Slavs as a whole. So I think this comes to show that an even bigger factor for this tendency is simply the liberation from and revulsion of the old communist propaganda. Of course, that's certainly not the only factor in the psychological picture of this drive, just a big one.


[*If you haven't seen it, I recommend watching our 1981 movie trilogy "Khan Asparuh", available with English subs on YouTube (apparently, currently as private videos, so you're left with the much worse short dubbed version of Warner Bros) or torrents (seeder available, even if it shows otherwise), which is both interesting and epic on one hand (50 000 real people from the Bulgarian People's Army "playing" the Byzantine army in the third movie) and is often nowadays blamed for being full of the aforementioned communist historical propaganda (though, to be fair, the Slavs, while mentioned as numerous, weren't really portrayed as all that more advanced or special)]
[**This reminds me, btw, of one extraordinarily ironic "scientific" expedition to Afghanistan from several years ago, called the "Tangra expedition" (i.e. irony №1 - Iranic-theory-expedition under the name of the supposed Bulgar version of the Turkic Sky-God Bir Tengri), and a newspaper's title about it, which went like this: "DNA proved we're not Slavs, we come from Pamir, claims Dr. Slavyan Stoilov" - it makes me chuckle even today.]




Now, as for my personal opinion on the origin of the Bulgars - as I was very recently discussing the same issue with other people in Total war center , my opinion is that we can relatively certainly trace the Bulgar thread as far back as their time and place in the 4th c. Caucasian-Pontic region. Before that, if there were any people who brought their Bulgar name from somewhere else (i.e. if that name wasn't adopted in the Caucasian region in the first place), their traces are too uncertain at this point. As far as I've been reading on this subject, definitely the absolutely messiest and most fiercely debated one in the whole Bulgarian history, I can safely say that every single person, professional historian or not, who's done some research on the matter, has his specific opinion about it, different from all the rest. Respectively, the proposed origins and homelands vary as wildly as the human imagination can allow - from them being Thracian colonists returning home from the East all the way to them being Koreans (ok, that isn't even serious, except for a few people, maybe), and everything in-between. Respectively, this is true not only among the laymen, like me, but also among the historians - some use sources A and claim they're from the Hindu Kush, others use sources B and claim they're from the Dinglins north of China, thirds go on about Oghurs and Huns, fourths about Balkharans, fifths about Tocharians, sixths about Sarmatians and so on and so forth. Too many Bulgars. It's really tiresome.


http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html


Rasho Rashev, arguably our best and most qualified archaeologist on the early Bulgar subject. Rashev actually doesn't support the East Iranic/Bactrian theory, but the West Iranic/Sarmatian one. I myself, very much agree with Rashev's opinion, which is very basically this - the Bulgars in their Caucasian period (Kubrat's Old Great Bulgaria in particular) were a tribal confederation of various tribes of different ethnic stock, most notably led by a Turkic/Hunnic aristocracy, while the majority of the other tribes were of a Sarmatian stock and possibly a few were Ugric. The arguments in favour of a Sarmatian origin of the majority of the Bulgars at this stage (and of the Danubian Bulgars later on) are indeed many, in my opinion, but I'll just mention that it was incorrect in listing Asparukh(the Father of Khan Tervel who leads the Danube Bulgaria in the Second siege of Contantinopol in 717-8) as a clearly Turkic name, when even in the times of the aforementioned communist Turkic dogma, Ivan Beshevliev (naturally a supporter of the Turkic theory http://www.kroraina.com/fadlan/besh.html ) in his 1967 study "Iranic elements in the Proto-Bulgarians" (sorry, available in Bulgarian only) clearly demonstrates that it, along with the majority of the names of the other Bulgarian rulers, are Iranic in origin, with a part of the rest being clearly Turkic, a few potentially Ugric and a part - uncertain, either Iranic or Turkic (in the same article he also argues, btw, that the Bulgar runes are "indivisible" from the Sarmatian ones).


And if you're interested, in this site:
http://www.kroraina.com/index.php?a=sr&fr=ct&id=2011


you can find a few studies in English on the matter, showing several of the many theories for the origin of the Bulgars. A quick short guide - Petar Dobrev is the founder and leader of the East Iranic/Bactrian theory (although others have admittedly improved upon him, as Dobrev's arguments are mainly "linguistic", which is not really his specialty, i.e. economic history), while Gancho Cenov (alternatively, Gantscho Tzenoff, as he was known in Germany) was an early 20th century historian, founder and, thankfully, at least no longer leader of the autochtonist movement, whose claims and argumentation are exceptionally weak even by autochtonist standards (which says quite a bit; also, he whines a lot about how our more serious historians, like Zlatarski, have shunned him away).


Ethnological traits of the ancient Iranian culture in modern-day Bulgarian culture
http://samoistina.com/2/similarities.htm


Scholars Claim Bulgarians Descended from Iran
http://www.novinite.com/articles/117...nded+from+Iran


On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html


The Origins of Bulgaria: Myths and Facts
https://blazingbulgaria.wordpress.co...s_of_bulgaria/


Where did the Bulgarians came from, explains Bulgarian scientist's expedition to the lands of Bactria
http://samoistina.com/2/wheredidwecamefrom.htm


Bulgarian Expedition Travels to Iran in Search of Roots
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117192


The Origins of the Bulgars
https://www.csc.kth.se/~dilian/bulgars.pdf


Bulgarians Are Purely Indo-European, Not Turkic - Gene Study
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=131894


Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0056779


Inscriptions and Alphabet of the Proto-Bulgarians, by Peter Dobrev
http://groznijat.tripod.com/pb_lang/

Another site for more info
http://protobulgarians.com/English%2...%20version.htm

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm not talking about DNA, or nationalistic theories. I highly recommend you read the studies of men like Bona, Peter Golden, and Vovin. The last 30 years have revolutionized our understanding of Steppe Nomad history, true, but the last 20 have debunked much of what you said.

The leading theory on the Huns, based on etymology, is that they are descendants of the Xiongnu confederation that were driven into the Altai mountains in the 1st-2nd centuries AD. In the 3rd century AD, the Huna (Huns) begin expanding West out of the mountains, in a region now dominated by the Dingling, some of whom moved west to avoid Hunnic expansion (the Romans record these people: Alpilcur and Tongur, both of which are Oghur Turkish names, appear in 4th century Roman sources describing the Volga region). The Xiongnu absorb the Dingling, which creates the Huns, more or less, by intermixing with them. They then move across Central Asia in the 3rd Century, conquering the Alanic kingdoms of Kangju, Khwarezrm, Yancai, and Wusun, and the Iranic Kushan kingdom. The Huns, organized in the same manner as the Xiongnu, then split up as a major drought forces them West and South in the 360's. These Iranic nomads would dominate the Hunnic body, as shown by the Kidarites (who have predominately Iranic names and population although art and etymology show a clearly Oghur Turkic ruling body) and the Qara Huna (The Huns that would later become the Huns of Attila, who had initially a mostly Germanic body and later on, when they form the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns out of Attila's former Empire, predominately Hunnic and Alanic).

The "Genetic studies" I'm talking about are modern genetic tests of ancient burials from the period. Genetic testing of modern populations will yield nothing of value for studying the revolution of the steppes that occurred in the 3rd-7th centuries. Studies show the admixture ratio is about 30% mongoloid and 70% caucasoid, which is indicative of what I have stated above: the Huns were Oghur Turks who ruled over a predominately Iranic body, although as time went on the Turkish admixture would later increase, especially in the 6th century.

The reason the Huns conquered the Iranic nomads so easily is because they were organized, and the Sarmatians and Alans weren't nearly as well organized. There is evidence from Roman sources that the Sarmatians had elements of the Decimal Orginization and Dual Kingship/Organization like the Scythians/Saka and Xiongnu, but it wasn't nearly to the extent of the Huna.

so In short It was Documented by not 1 ,not 2 or 5 Armenian Chronologists that after the Fall of the Parthian Empire in the third Century that the Bulgarians migrated From Baktria/Balhara into the Pontic Steppes just north of the Caucasus Mountains in Sarmatia Asiatica by passing the land of the Armenians peacefully and some even settled on the shores on the lake Van in Armenia.The Armenians by being neignbours of the Bulgars and the Alans just south of the Caucasus Mountains reported that the Bulgars formed their own States,had highly developed civilisation with wall cities made of stone,some were settled in them others were migrating with their herlds. That the Bulgars were allies with the Armenians when going to war. That in the 380s ad they joined peacefully the Hunnic confederation and attacked the Grimean goths by crossing the Kerch straith.Until the death of Attila the Bulgars were united,but after that they formed 3 groups - the Onogondurians(the Inner Bulgars)the biggest mass of the bulgars and was the most peacefull but the most developed and forming a state living near the Caucasus Mountains ,the Utigurs (the outer Bulgars)living east of the Don river, and the Kutigurs(the few bulgars) the most warlike ones who were the most proud of the legacy of the European Huns living west of the Don river. Back then being part of the Hunnic Confedeation was like being proud being part of NATO in our time.

This is both right and wrong. Yes, the Bulgarians, it is believed, came from Kidarite/Hepthaltite Bactria in the 4th-6th centuries AD and were of Iranic origin (initially, before becoming a Turko-Iranic admixture). But this isn't how it happened.

1. The Kutrigur (7 Bulgars) and Utigur (30 Bulgars) were not Bulgar groups but the direct Hunnic Successor states of the Empire of Attila the Hun (Kim explains the transition very well, so does Maenchen-Helfen even though his work is dated). The Onogurs, and the Saragurs (10 Bulgars and... some other number) both migrated in the 460's, which is confirmed by Priscus, amongst other Roman and Armenian sources. They absorbed the Akatir Huns, who later overthrew the Saragur Huns who had conquered them, and both ended up being absorbed by the Utigur and Kutrigur Huns. The Onogur Huns settled along the shore of the Black Sea, while the Sabirs (the Hunnic group they were fleeing) settled along the shore of the Caspian. Both of those groups would cause trouble for Rome in Armenia in the Caucasus region throughout the 6th century, before being overrun and forming the Khazars in the late 7th century. The modern Chuvash are descended from the Sabir Huns, it is believed.

In the late 6th century, after the Avars (descendants of the Hepthaltites, aka the Hua) devastated the Hunnic Empire north of the Black Sea, the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns would join up with the incoming Bulgars, and form Old Bulgaria on the Volga. Then Old Bulgaria would eventually become the First Kingdom of Bulgaria under Khan Asparuch.

[Deciusalexius]

sorry for honest but the pigs will be fly on the sky when they'll be release this mod.Too much ambitious and I do not believe in the miracul.

[EmperorBatman999]

Wow, this looks good so far. I will definitely be watching this.

[FrozenmenSS]

Third Video

sorry for honest but the pigs will be fly on the sky when they'll be release this mod.Too much ambitious and I do not believe in the miracul.

Its Easier that you thouth.
After you got the Flags and the Custom units for the New factions - you have to edit mainly the starting positions.
And moving in time you only need to Add the DLC units from the Last Roman Campaign DLC for the most part.And if there is a Rise of Islam Campaign DLC with smaller than the Grand Campaign ,but more detailed map we will do the same for the Last starting dates.

I'm not talking about DNA, or nationalistic theories. I highly recommend you read the studies of men like Bona, Peter Golden, and Vovin. The last 30 years have revolutionized our understanding of Steppe Nomad history, true, but the last 20 have debunked much of what you said.

The leading theory on the Huns, based on etymology, is that they are descendants of the Xiongnu confederation that were driven into the Altai mountains in the 1st-2nd centuries AD. In the 3rd century AD, the Huna (Huns) begin expanding West out of the mountains, in a region now dominated by the Dingling, some of whom moved west to avoid Hunnic expansion (the Romans record these people: Alpilcur and Tongur, both of which are Oghur Turkish names, appear in 4th century Roman sources describing the Volga region). The Xiongnu absorb the Dingling, which creates the Huns, more or less, by intermixing with them. They then move across Central Asia in the 3rd Century, conquering the Alanic kingdoms of Kangju, Khwarezrm, Yancai, and Wusun, and the Iranic Kushan kingdom. The Huns, organized in the same manner as the Xiongnu, then split up as a major drought forces them West and South in the 360's. These Iranic nomads would dominate the Hunnic body, as shown by the Kidarites (who have predominately Iranic names and population although art and etymology show a clearly Oghur Turkic ruling body) and the Qara Huna (The Huns that would later become the Huns of Attila, who had initially a mostly Germanic body and later on, when they form the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns out of Attila's former Empire, predominately Hunnic and Alanic).

The "Genetic studies" I'm talking about are modern genetic tests of ancient burials from the period. Genetic testing of modern populations will yield nothing of value for studying the revolution of the steppes that occurred in the 3rd-7th centuries. Studies show the admixture ratio is about 30% mongoloid and 70% caucasoid, which is indicative of what I have stated above: the Huns were Oghur Turks who ruled over a predominately Iranic body, although as time went on the Turkish admixture would later increase, especially in the 6th century.

The reason the Huns conquered the Iranic nomads so easily is because they were organized, and the Sarmatians and Alans weren't nearly as well organized. There is evidence from Roman sources that the Sarmatians had elements of the Decimal Orginization and Dual Kingship/Organization like the Scythians/Saka and Xiongnu, but it wasn't nearly to the extent of the Huna.



This is both right and wrong. Yes, the Bulgarians, it is believed, came from Kidarite/Hepthaltite Bactria in the 4th-6th centuries AD and were of Iranic origin (initially, before becoming a Turko-Iranic admixture). But this isn't how it happened.

1. The Kutrigur (7 Bulgars) and Utigur (30 Bulgars) were not Bulgar groups but the direct Hunnic Successor states of the Empire of Attila the Hun (Kim explains the transition very well, so does Maenchen-Helfen even though his work is dated). The Onogurs, and the Saragurs (10 Bulgars and... some other number) both migrated in the 460's, which is confirmed by Priscus, amongst other Roman and Armenian sources. They absorbed the Akatir Huns, who later overthrew the Saragur Huns who had conquered them, and both ended up being absorbed by the Utigur and Kutrigur Huns. The Onogur Huns settled along the shore of the Black Sea, while the Sabirs (the Hunnic group they were fleeing) settled along the shore of the Caspian. Both of those groups would cause trouble for Rome in Armenia in the Caucasus region throughout the 6th century, before being overrun and forming the Khazars in the late 7th century. The modern Chuvash are descended from the Sabir Huns, it is believed.

In the late 6th century, after the Avars (descendants of the Hepthaltites, aka the Hua) devastated the Hunnic Empire north of the Black Sea, the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns would join up with the incoming Bulgars, and form Old Bulgaria on the Volga. Then Old Bulgaria would eventually become the First Kingdom of Bulgaria under Khan Asparuch.

The European Hunnic Rouster will have 15 Mongolian and 24 European looking units with the same armour.
The White Huns will have 13 Mongolian and 25 European looking units with the same armour. + 15 Iranian themed units.
The Red Huns will have 13 Mongolian and 25 European looking units with the same armour. + 17 Iranian themed units.
The Bulgars will have 39 European looking units with the same armour as the huns with maybe some minor changes.
The Khazars will be mixture between the Huns,Ugrian/Volga Fins tribes and the Alans.
The Avars will be with 15 new European looking units and the rest now reskinned hunnic units.

And so on. You get the point.There is a some Ratio between the units,close to what you said.

About the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs we will give them the Faction rouster like the European Huns,but with the reskined Faces.Same Ratio.
I know the speculation that they werent Bulgars but, they are mentioned as such. The playable Bulgarian faction will be the Onogondurian Bulgars.The Armenians called them Onoghondor Bulgars.

Another thing - there were not 1 or 2 or 3 Migrations of Bulgars from Baktria to the Pontic steppes just north of the Caucasus mountains.They were for the most part Constant in the period from the 3th up until the early 7th century.

Both of us are on the Same page as Historians. Only the details remains we need to take care off.
after all this mod wont be Rushed and neglect tribes and factions in the Western and Eastern part of the map for the Grand Campaign for TW:Attila

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Onoghondor

A misspelling of a Greek Transliteration of a Turkish word (Unoungondhour, aka Onogur. They were Huns and would alter become the Khazars, along with several other societies).

Another thing - there were not 1 or 2 or 3 Migrations of Bulgars from Baktria to the Pontic steppes just north of the Caucasus mountains.They were for the most part Constant in the period from the 3th up until the early 7th century.

It's hard to say when, exactly, this could have happened. They were an Iranic population, meaning they were under the domination of the Kidarite Huns and Hepthaltite Hua. This "Turkicized" them over several centuries, and we're certain that there was some sort of mass migration in the 6th century (possibly the same time as the Avars migrated from the Aral Sea region into Europe). You're right that the steppes are very fluid, and peoples moved and changed non-stop.

[Senatorix]

Q&A:
A)Where are the Slavs?
B)We think that there will be a Culture Pack DLC for the 3 Slavic factions that are in the game,just like we got for the Celts in Britain.If there is no such Culture Pack DLC for the Slavs we will just add them as playable and give them new Historically accurate units.

When asked Slavic origin commute linguists, anthropologists and archaeologists to partially different results. Linguistically Slavonic language was allocated from the Indo-European group has around 1500 BC. From the point of view of historic and archaeological data can be any doubt about the Slavs to talk about the year 500 (which does not mean that there are more or less controversial written references and material findings from a much earlier period).

Theory homeland says that the Slavs came to its present territory of some homeland. According to archaeological findings it was located north of the Carpathian Mountains between the Oder, the Vistula and the middle Dnieper and Slavs from it expanded in the 5th century. The home of the Slavs had to be territory without beech, larch and Tisa, as in all Slavic languages, the names of these trees taken from foreign languages.

It was found that the countries with the oldest Slavic names of rivers are Podolie (today juhoukrajinské territory of the Dniester) and Volyn (between Bugom Dnepr). Niederle only stated the location of this area to the results of archaeological excavations.Slavs have left the territory for reasons of climate change in the second-third century AD. In the Soviet Union, even during the second world war largely held thesis that the original homeland of the Slavs lay between Labe and rent - Aegean Sea - Baltic Sea - perch and Volga. After intensive excavations in the 50s by Soviet archaeologists but also reduced the territory to the various defined area roughly in today's Ukraine and Poland.

The theory says that the ethnogenesis of the Slavs took place in other territories of Eastern Europe, where Slavs reside today. This has already claimed the Russian chronicler Nestor in the 12th century. Newer his opinion confirmed the significant Russian linguist Oleg Nikolayevich trumpeters (chief editor of the huge long-term project etymological dictionary of Slavic languages), according to which Slavic ethnogenesis took place about in today's Hungary and southern Slovakia. Which proves that the Slavs in Eastern Europe can be documented after the year 1000 BC., Relying on archaeological resources. Based on an analysis of Slavic mythology and language analyzes the names of Slavic gods and toponymic names considered Slavs for indigenous peoples in the Carpathian Basin, the Danube, which Slavs (Slovenia) called Slavom.

According to his divinity "Slava" ("Slova") and "alleged" arrival of the Slavs in the 5th century by official texts interpreted only as the arrival of the Eastern Slavs in Central Europe. In the annals and chronicles are categorized differently, for example, Sloveni, Sclavini, Anti, Veneti, Venedi, but it is questionable whether any of these names really refer to the Slavs.





I could still continue.

[FrozenmenSS]

When asked Slavic origin commute linguists, anthropologists and archaeologists to partially different results. Linguistically Slavonic language was allocated from the Indo-European group has around 1500 BC. From the point of view of historic and archaeological data can be any doubt about the Slavs to talk about the year 500 (which does not mean that there are more or less controversial written references and material findings from a much earlier period).

Theory homeland says that the Slavs came to its present territory of some homeland. According to archaeological findings it was located north of the Carpathian Mountains between the Oder, the Vistula and the middle Dnieper and Slavs from it expanded in the 5th century. The home of the Slavs had to be territory without beech, larch and Tisa, as in all Slavic languages, the names of these trees taken from foreign languages.

It was found that the countries with the oldest Slavic names of rivers are Podolie (today juhoukrajinské territory of the Dniester) and Volyn (between Bugom Dnepr). Niederle only stated the location of this area to the results of archaeological excavations.Slavs have left the territory for reasons of climate change in the second-third century AD. In the Soviet Union, even during the second world war largely held thesis that the original homeland of the Slavs lay between Labe and rent - Aegean Sea - Baltic Sea - perch and Volga. After intensive excavations in the 50s by Soviet archaeologists but also reduced the territory to the various defined area roughly in today's Ukraine and Poland.

The theory says that the ethnogenesis of the Slavs took place in other territories of Eastern Europe, where Slavs reside today. This has already claimed the Russian chronicler Nestor in the 12th century. Newer his opinion confirmed the significant Russian linguist Oleg Nikolayevich trumpeters (chief editor of the huge long-term project etymological dictionary of Slavic languages), according to which Slavic ethnogenesis took place about in today's Hungary and southern Slovakia. Which proves that the Slavs in Eastern Europe can be documented after the year 1000 BC., Relying on archaeological resources. Based on an analysis of Slavic mythology and language analyzes the names of Slavic gods and toponymic names considered Slavs for indigenous peoples in the Carpathian Basin, the Danube, which Slavs (Slovenia) called Slavom.

According to his divinity "Slava" ("Slova") and "alleged" arrival of the Slavs in the 5th century by official texts interpreted only as the arrival of the Eastern Slavs in Central Europe. In the annals and chronicles are categorized differently, for example, Sloveni, Sclavini, Anti, Veneti, Venedi, but it is questionable whether any of these names really refer to the Slavs.





I could still continue.

If Creative Assembly dont make the proto-slavs them playable we will. The problem will be what type of units and unit rosters they need to get.What will their exact Gameplay have to be so the slavs to be interesting?Just like the Celts in Britain? First lets make the first starting date 395ad and from there we will add new content like the slavs.They will be playable 1 way or another.We cant ignore them.
If you got interesting concept tell us.We are listening

[Dontfearme22]

Can we get some images of these new custom units? Im really curious to see how they look.

[keona]

Wow sounds very promising. Can't wait.

[keona]

If Creative Assembly dont make the proto-slavs them playable we will. The problem will be what type of units and unit rosters they need to get.What will their exact Gameplay have to be so the slavs to be interesting?Just like the Celts in Britain? First lets make the first starting date 395ad and from there we will add new content like the slavs.They will be playable 1 way or another.We cant ignore them.
If you got interesting concept tell us.We are listening

Here what I found on: http://www.ancientmilitary.com/ancient-slavs.htm

Slavs:

The Slavs expansion of the 5th – 7th centuries reached from the Rhine, to Southern Greece and the Russian steppes. Although experts disagree about how it happened, they all agree that within the short span of 150 years and amazingly uniform culture took over half of Europe. They formed an egalitarian society with Slavic as a common language. Besides agriculture they practiced bee keeping, crafts, trade, metal working, and carpentry, herding and hunting. The independent nature of the Slavic tribes contrast with the dependence of the marauding steppe horsemen on settled populations. Ironically, groups like the Huns who created so much destruction in the empires of their day needed those same empires for supplies and gold to pay their hordes. These nomadic groups only made camps and when they dispersed they left nothing lasting behind, unlike the Slavs who permanently settled and absorbed the local populations.


Slav Warriors
These ancient warriors are described as being unusually tall and strong, Slavic warriors typically used a wide range of weapons. A single warrior may carry a shield, spear, ax, sling and bow. They were known for their Spartan life style and ancient writers recorded that they were often quick to attack. They used bows and three bladed arrows similar to those used by the steppe nomads. Early armies consisted of only a few hundred men who could move quickly into enemy territory and quickly retreat. The ancient historian Procopius tells us in Wars VII.14, 25, that the Slavs "fight on foot, advancing on the enemy, in their hands they carry small shields and spears, but they never wear body armor".” As the Slavs expanded they began using combined arms tactics, with archers, cavalry and infantry working in unison. Their armies used speed to their advantage and often employed ambushes, flanking assaults and guerilla tactics. They learned how to take fortified cities using siege weapons from the Byzantines and learned cavalry tactics from the steppe nomads. In the North they learned to use Viking style long ships, and even raided Scandinavia giving them a taste of their own medicine. The Slavs may have exchanged their knowledge of bridge building with the Scandinavians in exchange for knowledge of ship construction.

Also there are some pictures in the attachments of how early Slavs might have looked like.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

None for Rome 2? I wish Rome 2 had scearnio mods like this

[FrozenmenSS]

None for Rome 2? I wish Rome 2 had scearnio mods like this

For Rome 2 its easier to do.But in Rome 2 The Romans + the Parthian would steamroll everything.Maybe the year of the 4 Emperours. Maybe watch for something like this mod or the Ancient Empires mod for Attila.They can do it with Attila.

For Rome 2 we didnt saw something like this because of the Constant patching of the game ,and after each patch you had to update your mods.And this tupe of mods are Big... There are 2 more DLC-s comming for Attila So my guess is Slavs Culture pack and the Rise of Islam Campaign DLC with a focused map in the Middle East. I dont See sarmatian Culture pack comming.Porably 1 FLC update for the Alans and thats it.

1 more Starting Date this Mod Can do is The Rise of Constantine porting mod from Rome 2 to Attila. But this overall will take huge Time to make it happen. It can be done, but can take a lot of time.

[Mortarion]

Was just about to ask what about the Slavs? But then i read your note about them and it calmed me down
Looks very interesting

[Dontfearme22]

Here what I found on: http://www.ancientmilitary.com/ancient-slavs.htm

Slavs:

The Slavs expansion of the 5th – 7th centuries reached from the Rhine, to Southern Greece and the Russian steppes. Although experts disagree about how it happened, they all agree that within the short span of 150 years and amazingly uniform culture took over half of Europe. They formed an egalitarian society with Slavic as a common language. Besides agriculture they practiced bee keeping, crafts, trade, metal working, and carpentry, herding and hunting. The independent nature of the Slavic tribes contrast with the dependence of the marauding steppe horsemen on settled populations. Ironically, groups like the Huns who created so much destruction in the empires of their day needed those same empires for supplies and gold to pay their hordes. These nomadic groups only made camps and when they dispersed they left nothing lasting behind, unlike the Slavs who permanently settled and absorbed the local populations.


Slav Warriors
These ancient warriors are described as being unusually tall and strong, Slavic warriors typically used a wide range of weapons. A single warrior may carry a shield, spear, ax, sling and bow. They were known for their Spartan life style and ancient writers recorded that they were often quick to attack. They used bows and three bladed arrows similar to those used by the steppe nomads. Early armies consisted of only a few hundred men who could move quickly into enemy territory and quickly retreat. The ancient historian Procopius tells us in Wars VII.14, 25, that the Slavs "fight on foot, advancing on the enemy, in their hands they carry small shields and spears, but they never wear body armor".” As the Slavs expanded they began using combined arms tactics, with archers, cavalry and infantry working in unison. Their armies used speed to their advantage and often employed ambushes, flanking assaults and guerilla tactics. They learned how to take fortified cities using siege weapons from the Byzantines and learned cavalry tactics from the steppe nomads. In the North they learned to use Viking style long ships, and even raided Scandinavia giving them a taste of their own medicine. The Slavs may have exchanged their knowledge of bridge building with the Scandinavians in exchange for knowledge of ship construction.

Also there are some pictures in the attachments of how early Slavs might have looked like.

A word of warning, image #2 looks like Mid-Early Bronze Age Srubna or Lusatian culture. Might be a tad too early for you.

[EmperorBatman999]

A word of warning, image #2 looks like Mid-Early Bronze Age Srubna or Lusatian culture. Might be a tad too early for you.

It should also be worth noting that some of these pictures (numbers 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10) look more like they came from after the Norse-Slav contact and formation of the Rus culture, which is centuries after the timeframe of Attila. They seem to be Varangians or Vikings rather than traditional Slavic warriors.

I can understand the difficulty in finding good sources for early Slavs though, but just be careful to try and find sources that date prior to Rurik's foundation of Homgardr and the birth of the Rus in the 9th century.